he could have done more damage with a bow without expending feat taxes.Crossbows. 'Nuff said.The 8th level fighter in my party with Crossbow Mastery and Bracers of Falcon's Aim would disagree. Two crits and a hit on a mummy in Legacy of Fire did over 100 points of damage before the mummy got a turn. Which we retconned out because as he rolled the last damage die, I realized that he 5'stepped before firing to within 30' of the mummy which put him in the fear aura, but if he'd made his save I would have let it happen.
Totally agree, and we talked about it. He was interested, and curious, in making and effective crossbow fighter. I don't have his math, but he said that it was better than a crossbow specialist Ranger. I don't know if he looked at bolt ace. I just took his word for it. And I'm not saying that he made the best ranged character. I'm just saying that crossbows are not so underpowered.
The new Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler archetype is really cool, but it does this really odd thing:
You get finesse with scimitar if you don't use a shield, and then gives you free dex to damage... at level four. No level 1 characters can afford to wait 3 levels for this, so you're either awful at killing things for the first part of the campaign, or you're taking slashing grace anyways to retrain away at level four (if the DM allows it).
It's not super underpowered, but it's just... so... awkward.
I sort of feel like the Dervish Dance feat is just too OP. Dex already applies to like a million things, and if its on damage too, why would you ever have strength?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of feel like the Dervish Dance feat is just too OP. Dex already applies to like a million things, and if its on damage too, why would you ever have strength?The new Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler archetype is really cool, but it does this really odd thing:
You get finesse with scimitar if you don't use a shield, and then gives you free dex to damage... at level four. No level 1 characters can afford to wait 3 levels for this, so you're either awful at killing things for the first part of the campaign, or you're taking slashing grace anyways to retrain away at level four (if the DM allows it).
It's not super underpowered, but it's just... so... awkward.
To be able to carry your equipment, climb, and swim. To be able to have better feats than the ones that are essentially wasted for dex to damage. To be able to make combat maneuvers without yet another wasted feat. To not be one-shot killed/disabled by a shadow or a mage with ray of enfeeblement.
Dex to damage does make it easier to be a SAD character, but there are negatives to it, and it's cost is significant.
I sort of feel like the Dervish Dance feat is just too OP. Dex already applies to like a million things, and if its on damage too, why would you ever have strength?
I agree with you about Dervish Dance, that only requires a feat and 2 skill points. Slashing Grace is so hosed up from what it was supposed to be, that it's actually not too bad. Most weapons can't benefit from both DEX to damage and to hit unless you're a Swashbuckler. DEX to hit and damage is very feat intensive and, unless I've missed something, you can't get DEX and a half to damage if you use two hands. That bonus stacks with Power Attack so, most of the time, STR will out damage DEX.
I don't actually mind throwing weapons. Don't really bother with making them magical though, quickdraw works quite well at lower levels if you can spare the feat. A composite bow will of course do more damage but it isn't exactly easy to conceal.
As for something I truly hate, Wholeness of Body, costly in terms of ki points, doesn't do all that much and even if you have ki to waste you can only use it once per turn. Even just making it a casting of cure light wounds using monk level as caster level would make it insanely more attractive.
Bracer's of falcon's aim is seriously underpriced for what it does, and that was a big part of the anecdotal crit damage.This is false imo. Bracers of archery are just overpriced for their tiny effect.
He was talking about Bracer's of Falcon's Aim, not Bracers of Archery.
Inspired Blade Archetype. Lose the ability to get panache back when you down an enemy for your INT bonus to panache, which is usually 1 at lower levels, which never really works out. If you didn't have the archetype you'd have 1 less but you'd get it back twice as many ways. It does add a slight benefit at level 20, your rapier will crit on a 14 instead of a 15...whoopty doo
Inspired Blade also gets an extra damage, don't forget, on top of the bonus feat. I think in terms of DPR it's one of the best (if not the best) Swash build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we just agree that the Ragechemist is too much risk for too little reward?
I recall someone comparing Bracers of Falcon's Aim to what the cost would be with custom magic item creation and there being a big discrepancy. That being said, custom magic items rules state you should compare to similarly priced items first.
How is it possible that we've reached 25 posts and nobody has mentioned the Universalist wizard? Literally the only time I've seen someone play a Uniwiz was one time when an experienced player was bored and wanted to try a challenge.
Except that Universalist Wizard is the way to go if you are going to become an Arclord of Nex.
To add to my previous post well after the edit timer expired:
Arclord of Nex PRD page (d20pfsrd.com calls it Mage of the Third Eye for legal reasons)
Arclord of Nex Guide (Williamoak), recently added to the Zenith Games Guide to the Guides
You CAN get into Arclord of Nex as a Specialist (but not Thassilonian/Sin Magic Specialist) Wizard, but it definitely is not optimal, due to the way that some of the Prestige Class Features work off Hand of the Apprentice and only work inefficiently off Specialist Arcane School 1st Level Spell-Like Abilities.
What character options are underwhelming or underpowered?- Classes gaining 2 Skill ranks per level
- spells that do the same but you must use have it in diferent levels (summon monster I - IX, Cure Wounds, form of the X [why don´t just let them scalate at higher levels])
Before I accept the different spells for different levels as too weak we should create equality between option for martials that only work for one weapon (weapon focus, weapon specialization, slashing grace etc.) with options for casters that work for broad groups of spells (spell focus, element focus, some metamagic feats) or for all spells ( the other metamagic feats, spell penetration).
Especially spell focus vs weapon focus is an insult.And most casting classes that use the cure spells know all of those that appear on their list as standard (clerics, non evil oracles, druids, hunters). Plus alchemists, investigators and witches have no limit to spells known.
And once you use them summon monster is hardly underwhelming. So either you go for it, then you take feats to buff them and gladly take the spells or it's not your thing and you don't take the spells then why do you deserve the versatility? Having one spell for summon I - IX would be too good.
First World Summoner.
First world summoner, like universalist wizard is only weak when compared to the other options of that class. But as the base summoner (and most other archetypes) are horribly broken the first world summoner is still way above most classes. And being way above the average is not underwhelming.
Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm not considering a bunch of things:
•Most classes do not have enough skill points. On a related note, most classes have skill lists that they should be ashamed of.
•Most feats are bad.
•Most spells are bad (yes, *some* spells are so good they break the game, but most of them don't.)
•HP is bad. (It's functional enough for all-out-combat, but anything else and it stops making sense.)
•The utter lack of a social mechanic system is bad.
•The utter reliance on magic items is bad.
That's all that's coming to mind right now, since most of the above is responsible for why certain classes/archetypes are bad. But it's by no means an exhaustive list. :)
Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm not considering a bunch of things:
•Most classes do not have enough skill points. On a related note, most classes have skill lists that they should be ashamed of.
•Most feats are bad.
•Most spells are bad (yes, *some* spells are so good they break the game, but most of them don't.)
•HP is bad. (It's functional enough for all-out-combat, but anything else and it stops making sense.)
•The utter lack of a social mechanic system is bad.
•The utter reliance on magic items is bad.That's all that's coming to mind right now, since most of the above is responsible for why certain classes/archetypes are bad. But it's by no means an exhaustive list. :)
Isn't this thread about things that are flavorful but underwhelming?Doesn'*t read as if you think hp are flavorful.
HP, as it stands right now, is not flavorful at all. I agree.
But it's one of those areas that could have been flavorful if they put more creative thought into it when designing. But that one's not really on Paizo, it's on the original creators.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if the feat qualifies as under-powered or underwhelming, but I'll take any chance I can get to complain about it. Combat Expertise. Seriously, screw this feat. It's probably my least favorite feat in the entire game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because we can't simply let Fighters trip or disarm people. No no, that would make too much sense.
They need a literal PhD in Asskicking before they can do that.
I think what makes the crossbow weaker than it really should be is that a weapon does not have any sort of accuracy rating. In real life, even though a crossbow bolt won't really do more 'damage' than a long bow, the fact that in many cases, it is easier to hit a target with a crossbow makes them more potent a weapon. This effect is not reproducible in pathfinder's rules.
I sort of wish there was an +4 'over-proficiency' bonus to hit for martially proficient characters wielding simple weapons. This change in itself might be enough to make the crossbow much more viable as a primary weapon. This would be a stealth boost for the sling at the same time.
Inspired Blade also gets an extra damage, don't forget, on top of the bonus feat. I think in terms of DPR it's one of the best (if not the best) Swash build.
I did forget about that, it's an extra 1 damage, but for what you lose I really think it's a horrible choice. I played a PFS game, where I was regular Swashbuckler another guy was Inspired Blade, it was low level I was 2nd he was 3rd, but I walked out of there with full panache he ran out before the final battle was over, which means he lost his precision damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what makes the crossbow weaker than it really should be is that a weapon does not have any sort of accuracy rating. In real life, even though a crossbow bolt won't really do more 'damage' than a long bow, the fact that in many cases, it is easier to hit a target with a crossbow makes them more potent a weapon. This effect is not reproducible in pathfinder's rules.
I sort of wish there was an +4 'over-proficiency' bonus to hit for martially proficient characters wielding simple weapons. This change in itself might be enough to make the crossbow much more viable as a primary weapon. This would be a stealth boost for the sling at the same time.
Want to see the crossbow used?
Switch all of them to being strength rated, and the amount of time needed to cock them based on relative strength of the crossbow vs the person cocking it. Apply strength modifier to the damage.
The light crossbow then becomes the Str at which you can reload it as a free action and the heavy becomes the best you are willing to winch. A Str 20 crossbow may take multiple rounds to wind, but if you do it before combat it makes a great alpha-strike.
Doubtful. Unless the one hit does an enormous amount of damage (we're talking double digit numbers of d8s being thrown around, plus modifiers), attacking once every 5 rounds is never going to be worth it.
1d8+5 is no sort of "Alpha strike".
You may as well just grab a bow. You'll be doing the same damage, at the same to-hit, without all the winching involved, and attacking 1+times per round instead of 1/5 rounds.
Expending more resources to do basically the same thing but worse is the very definition of underpowered.My issue with crossbow is not that they do less damage than a bow, it is just that crossbow offers basically nothing to compensate it.
It depends where you're holding the bar for "underpowered," I guess, and I agree that a bow would do more damage under optimal conditions. But spending more resources to do something doesn't make it underpowered, in my opinion, it just makes it slightly less than overpowered. The crossbowman is the top DPR in the party (which includes a shield-bash ranger, a dawnflower dervish, a rogue, and a conjuror), and is keeping well ahead of the ability of the monsters's survivability in the AP I'm running. I'm really not seeing the build as underpowered, regardless of whether he had to spend feats/cash for it or not.
I suppose if you really want to get down to it, everything's underpowered if you don't spend resources on it.
As long as you don't mind spending 5 levels of Bolt Ace crossbows are great. Actually, if you want to be good at Crossbows just play a straight Bolt Ace. Doesn't get much else to be excited about, but they're fraking amazing at crossbows.
With Bracers of Falcon's Aim and Crossbow Training (at level 5) you have a weapon that is 19-20x4. Plus dex damage. You take a bit longer to reach your stride than an archer, but honestly your damage will probably beat out the dedicated archer's because of your higher critical multplier and the fact that you're SAD (at least for your attacks). The only real difference at the end that I can think of is that you can't use Manyshot on crossbows.
|
|
As long as you don't mind spending 5 levels of Bolt Ace crossbows are great. Actually, if you want to be good at Crossbows just play a straight Bolt Ace. Doesn't get much else to be excited about, but they're fraking amazing at crossbows.
With Bracers of Falcon's Aim and Crossbow Training (at level 5) you have a weapon that is 19-20x4. Plus dex damage. You take a bit longer to reach your stride than an archer, but honestly your damage will probably beat out the dedicated archer's because of your higher critical multplier and the fact that you're SAD (at least for your attacks). The only real difference at the end that I can think of is that you can't use Manyshot on crossbows.
The ability to target touch AC makes up for the loss of manyshot. You get fewer attacks, but they are more accurate.
But If you want more attacks, you can use TWF with crossbows to make up the difference, or use a double crossbow, or multiclass with sohei.
I don't get why this is ever better than just using a longbow.I'd like to see that build. It is extremely difficult to add damage to a crossbow, and next to impossible as a full attack.Crossbows. 'Nuff said.The 8th level fighter in my party with Crossbow Mastery and Bracers of Falcon's Aim would disagree. Two crits and a hit on a mummy in Legacy of Fire did over 100 points of damage before the mummy got a turn. Which we retconned out because as he rolled the last damage die, I realized that he 5'stepped before firing to within 30' of the mummy which put him in the fear aura, but if he'd made his save I would have let it happen.That's what the feat's for. link
He meets the prereqs. Personally I think it's ludicrous that someone could reload one of these as a free action. What does that look like when he does it?
Anyway, add weapon spec (+2), weapon training(+1), +2 crossbow, Deadly Aim (+4). He had another +1 I'm forgetting. Maybe he got +2 for weapon training. I just remember he was doing d10+10 with a x3 multiplier. Two crits out of three shots in a round and he did 7d10+70.
Who said it was better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote for slings. Historically a very dangerous weapon; in PFRPG, pretty worthless. You have to burn a bunch of feats to be as good as a plain vanilla archer. Even halflings have trouble making this a good option, and for everyone else... bleh.Slings. I have played a fighter dedicated exclusively to slings, so far to level 10. It is quite challenging and I have managed to avoid being dead weight, but I am regularly out-classed by other martials.
Spot on!
Reloading a sling should be no more difficult than reloading a bow, and far easier than reloading a crossbow. Even a slingstaff should be quicker to reload than a crossbow. And don't get me started on muzzle-loading firearms, that should take multiple full-round actions to reload, or *maybe* a single full-round action for a true expert. I mean, just watch "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson, I mean, that Benjamin Martin guy is *fast*, but he's still not gonna get off multiple iteratives in a single 6-second round, whereas I could easily see a sling doing it.But I digress. There are many "underpowered" options if you consider that the baseline is the winners of the DPR olympics. But stop and think for a moment: are we playing a competitive set-piece combat game, or are we playing an interactive role-playing game? You don't need to be a top DPR-dealer to be a viable character.
I see people complaining all the time how this or that character isn't "viable" because their pet feat doesn't exist - most recently the DEX-based crowd grousing that DEX-to-damage isn't a standard "thing" in PF. So you do a wee bit less damage than if your character was fully optimized, so you can't key every single one of your key calculations to a single through-the-roof stat (20+ DEX counting for hit *and* damage in addition to all the other side benefits. I mean really. Such a character is still "viable" and even a woefully underoptimized or underpowered option (like rogues and most fighters) are still "viable".
Stats are the same way. Back in the day (late 70s), we rolled 3d6 straight up, in order, no do-overs. You had the option of switching a few numnbers around, but it was always on a 2-to-1 (or worse) basis. The number of comments I see on these boards that seem to be complaining about the trade-offs you need for this or that 15 or 20-point buy, it's just staggering. Staggering.
Sure, I'm a grognard, through and through. Old-school. But really, all character classes and options in PF are "viable", even if they are seriously sub-optimal. Isn't it more fun playing a character with a few weaknesses to balance out his strong suits? You can tell what I think.
YMMV.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A balanced party with no one particular character hogging the limelight because their character is too powerful, or someone not having any limelight because their character is too weak, will always lead to a more enjoyable game in my experience. It is unfortunate that to achieve that you must sacrifice a great degree of build diversity.
At no point have I or anyone I know ever said "I really enjoy the terrible balance issues in this game, they make it much more fun" without heavy use of sarcasm.
|
Stats are the same way. Back in the day (late 70s), we rolled 3d6 straight up, in order, no do-overs. You had the option of switching a few numnbers around, but it was always on a 2-to-1 (or worse) basis. The number of comments I see on these boards that seem to be complaining about the trade-offs you need for this or that 15 or 20-point buy, it's just staggering. Staggering.
Sure, I'm a grognard, through and through. Old-school.
At no point have I or anyone I know ever said "I really enjoy the terrible balance issues in this game, they make it much more fun" without heavy use of sarcasm.
Wheldrake (and others) look back on some of the terrible balance issues of early editions with great affection.
Lots of people defend the variation in power between classes
I'm not sure I agree that folks like me "look back on some of the terrible balance issues of early editions with great affection."
But I would definitely agree that the whole notion of "balance" being important in a cooperative role-playing game is bonkers. Issues like one player hogging the limelight or making his party members irrelevant have their roots as much in personality and roleplaying as in pure DPR potential.
This said, I am among the first to decry truly "broken" options like summoners and witches with at-will cackling-extended slumber hexes. So I guess I can't claim to be completely impervious to balance issues.
The question of "what character options are underwhelming or underpowered" seems to be based on a faulty paradigm, that's all. As if every character needs to be a contender in the DPR olympics in order to simply be "viable".. Which is pure rubbish.
Want to see the crossbow used?
Switch all of them to being strength rated, and the amount of time needed to cock them based on relative strength of the crossbow vs the person cocking it. Apply strength modifier to the damage.
The light crossbow then becomes the Str at which you can reload it as a free action and the heavy becomes the best you are willing to winch. A Str 20 crossbow may take multiple rounds to wind, but if you do it before combat it makes a great alpha-strike.
I had the same type of thought once. I realized the same things that were said below your post that it still wouldn't make them used. What I would suggest is that you give the crossbow a STR modifier not based on the STR of the user and call it done, maybe up to a max of +4. They're still worse than bows due to loading times, but low STR characters would favor them because they could still get a plus to damage.
I gave up on that too though. My new idea would be to just make crossbow shots touch attacks. There is no real consistent way to add damage to a crossbow shot without taking the wonky mess that is Bolt Ace, but gives it an edge. Something I want to play test if I ever get around to it.