This sounds like an intriguing system. It sounds like it sacrifices extra actions like swift actions and some of the iterative attacks for combat speed and fluidity. My personal response if I were in a group that used this would be to adjust class abilities and feats that rely on swift attacks to the new system, but then I never really liked the explosion of swift actions to begin with. They always kind of felt like a bandaid trying to cover a gaping wound; they helped, but they didn't really solve the underlying problems of the base system. It will be interesting to see if this system gets any more support or formal development or if it remains an experimental system.
A nice report...
This has been my experience too. Positioning is now the caster game, and controlling the battlefield has become more and more important. I like this, because it means a caster can't "kite" anymore: a martial will always be one action faster and still get an attack. This means protecting the wizard is much more important for their party members, and the wizard itself has to recognize threats and deal with them more efficiently or set up barriers that are going to keep things at bay. It's been a great balancer. Black tentacles is much less abusive now that everyone gets three attempts to get out of its grapples, and if they succeed the characters/creatures still have two actions to respond.
What your inquisitor player said is similar to how my players feel. They think it's fair that their class needs a round of setup to be on par with full martials, and they've talked about how often their flexibility comes outside of combat, while a full-BAB martial's flexibility comes in combat. The three tiers are:
-Full BAB Martial: most flexibility in combat. Can do its thing with any action, gets three of them in most cases
-Partial Caster, or 3/4 BAB: flexibility in and out of combat. Has to set up a little to compete with full martials, and can't adjust as quickly (but still quick enough)
-Full Caster: Least action flexibility in combat, which makes up for raw power and ability to trivialize non-combat encounters.
Some exceptions, here and there, but I'm trying to find them and adjust for them in my own set of house rules. I like balance, and round three is coming tonight and tomorrow night. Totes exciting.
|
From what I gather on the spell strike issue people are keen to use as the major point of contention you go for swifting a spell and making 4 attacks at 20th to making 2 attacks in a round because spell strike is now 2 actions of your 3 total.
I can understand the outrage (and that is what it is) as the Magus makes less attacks but their attacks scale on an entirely different level than lets say the fighter. A fighter could VS for 2 actions and that is what it should be then make a 2nd attack at -5. The Magus makes all his attacks at whatever his highest BaB is because spell strike doesn't say further attacks suffer normal penalties.
An attack action still triggers the subsequent penalties. The Magus actually avoids this because Spell Combat (I think: one of the two) uses a weapon but isn't tagged as an attack.
|
|
I said that in the final line, so the fighter has still a higher change to miss and do NO damage where the Magus has a higher change to hit and a higher change to do more damage but with fewer hits.
Seems like a fair trade, I have yet to play test so I cannot speak from experience just what I have read and understand. Also I just want to say that everyone will interrupt things differently so not a single person will agree on everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slow day at work today, so I was able to run some mock battles! Please note that these are not full blown playtests, I ran a series of small encounters using the rules set provided without applying any house rules. I used a single character and a hypothetical party providing moderate assistance (some buffs, setting up flanks etc.). The characters used were either ones I'm currently playing or have played (warlord, slayer, investigator) or characters belonging to other people (brawler, warpriest) playing in some of my campaigns. None of the characters were designed with this system in mind. Based on all that, take my preliminary results with a grain of salt. :)
Mock battles
2nd level reach Warlord using an elven branched spear: This one was a mixed bag. Most low level maneuvers are standard actions and balanced around other martial characters only being able to make one attack at this level, so moving and making a maneuver was a little underwhelming compared to just making two attacks. Conversely doing a maneuver at my full attack bonus and throwing in an extra attack at -5 seemed like a decent way to go when I did not need to move. The boosts available at this level (Encouraging Roar etc.) generally do not measure up to making an extra attack at -5 at a level where the dice still rule the table, making them much less attractive. Counters are a big thing for maneuver users, and having them eat my attack of opportunity was particularly unfortunate for a reach user. In short, the warlord has some issues. However the warlord is 3rd party material, and can't really be expected to translate gracefully to a new system.
7th level mantis assassin TWF slayer: This one was a pleasant surprise. The new mobility options make TWF fantastic compared to the old system, and really helps capture the idea that TWF users are mobile and agile rather than shackled to the ball and chain that is the five foot step. My concerns about Studied Target didn't play out as bad as I feared it would be because Slayers can also apply Studied Target via sneak attacks. Since moving to a flanking position is no longer an extremely poor idea for a TWF user, that meant that as long as I was willing to risk taking a flanking maneuver I could still gain Studied Target without having it interfere with my action economy. While this character was not built to take advantage of feinting, that seems another good method of obtaining sneak attack and by extension Studied Target. Conversely a slayer that does not have easy access to sneak attacks, like an archer, will most likely still struggle a bit. I really enjoyed the feel of this character!
9th level pummeling style Steel Breaker brawler using a katar: Again the increased mobility is nice, but this character was designed around Pummeling Style and so was less limited by the old system's hostility to movement. Exploit Weakness was extremely lackluster, and went from being something that was used whenever there wasn't another need for a swift action to something that would only ever be used against enemies with very high DR. Maneuver Flexibility as a simple action was also clunky, and at times I felt I was punishing myself for trying to make my class features work. This character did not feel good after the change.
12th level greatsword-wielding Warpriest: The warpriest greatly benefits from being able to go all out on his various buffs if he so chooses. Being able to throw on two fervor buffs AND activate quicken blessing to summon in a battle buddy, all in the first round of combat, is very good indeed. Conversely I found that I was less interested in using fervor as the combat progressed, since I'd be giving up attacks in order to cast spells. There's been a shift of focus and role for the warpriest. He used to be a gradually growing avalanche of buffs and full attacks, now he's more of a flash caster - he wants to get as much up and running ASAP instead of waiting and adapting to see how the fight progresses. The class has definitely changed. I want to say it's prrrobably for the better, but I'm not quite sure. I'd like to see more playtesting here.
18th level archer investigator: This one was painful. In part that was because Archery never had any mobility issues in the old system so the new system doesn't give you any particular advantages, in part because the new system means he's actually making fewer attacks than he used to (from 5 to 4,) and in part it's because I have to apply Studied Combat every. single. round. The interaction between Studied Combat and Studied Strike basically feels broken in this system. This makes me sad, since the investigator really crept up on me. Originally I played one to figure out what the heck the class is all about, and I firmly believe that once it gets going it's one of the most fun classes to play in Pathfinder.
Other observations
The tyrannosaurus is scary as all hell now. I put the brawler up against one expecting a fair fight, turns out three attacks at +20/+15/+10 for 4d6+22 and a free grab check on each hit is terrifying. I'm guessing this will extend to most monsters that rely on one big natural attack, such as the rhinoceros.
On the other hand, the slayer had a great time taking down an 8-headed hydra. Creatures with lots of natural attacks are still very immobile, meaning that skirmishing actually works pretty well against them. For the slayer, moving through the hydra's reach (eating an AoO), making two attacks with TWF and then moving back out of reach (eating another AoO) was a much better option than to stay in melee range and trading full attacks with the creature. By forcing the hydra to move each round, the slayer went from facing eight attacks at +10 to four attacks at +10/+10/+10/+5, including the AoOs. I'm really happy to see this kind of fight develop. The hydra was desperate to either pounce*-charge the slayer or pin him down in order to make a full attack, and the slayer was frantically using battlefield terrain (the fight took place in a dank stalagmite-littered cave filled with knee-high swamp water) to avoid giving the hydra a clear charge lane. Great fight!
Overall impression
After doing this for a couple of hours my overall impression is that the system is more balanced than I originally thought it to be, and a hell of a lot of fun to play! You need to make a lot of "on-the-spot" calls since there are many things the rules don't cover in any detail. There are numerous swift actions that would benefit greatly from being altered to free actions, or implementing an additional action specifically for these options. I'd be careful about taking CR ratings at face value, since some monsters are a bit less dangerous than before (the hydra) and some are a lot more dangerous than they were previously.
*Since I couldn't find any rules covering Pounce specifically, I ruled that Pounce allows you to take all of your natural attacks with a simple action, but only after using two actions to charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After doing this for a couple of hours my overall impression is that the system is more balanced than I originally thought it to be, and a hell of a lot of fun to play! You need to make a lot of "on-the-spot" calls since there are many things the rules don't cover in any detail. There are numerous swift actions that would benefit greatly from being altered to free actions, or implementing an additional action specifically for these options. I'd be careful about taking CR ratings at face value, since some monsters are a bit less dangerous than before (the hydra) and some are a lot more dangerous than they were previously.
This was a really great analysis, also good to hear that some concerns are better in practice.
Slow day at work today, so I was able to run some mock battles! Please note that these are not full blown playtests, I ran a series of small encounters using the rules set provided without applying any house rules. I used a single character and a hypothetical party providing moderate assistance (some buffs, setting up flanks etc.). The characters used were either ones I'm currently playing or have played (warlord, slayer, investigator) or characters belonging to other people (brawler, warpriest) playing in some of my campaigns. None of the characters were designed with this system in mind. Based on all that, take my preliminary results with a grain of salt. :)
Mock battles
2nd level reach Warlord using an elven branched spear: This one was a mixed bag. Most low level maneuvers are standard actions and balanced around other martial characters only being able to make one attack at this level, so moving and making a maneuver was a little underwhelming compared to just making two attacks. Conversely doing a maneuver at my full attack bonus and throwing in an extra attack at -5 seemed like a decent way to go when I did not need to move. The boosts available at this level (Encouraging Roar etc.) generally do not measure up to making an extra attack at -5 at a level where the dice still rule the table, making them much less attractive. Counters are a big thing for maneuver users, and having them eat my attack of opportunity was particularly unfortunate for a reach user. In short, the warlord has some issues. However the warlord is 3rd party material, and can't really be expected to translate gracefully to a new system.7th level mantis assassin TWF slayer: This one was a pleasant surprise. The new mobility options make TWF fantastic compared to the old system, and really helps capture the idea that TWF users are mobile and agile rather than shackled to the ball and chain that is the five foot step. My concerns about Studied Target...
Awesome. I'm not familiar with Warlord, so I really can't comment on it. My results with TWF are similar; it's actually a viable option now, and that alone makes the system much more appealing to me, and probably to a lot of players.
Brawler, Investigator, and Swashbuckler required the most houseruling from me, if only because they tend to be so painfully reliant on the old system's action economy. I've been pushing hard to make it so that a class works how it's intended, not how it literally translates. Cool to see a Warpriest test. I think that's an interesting niche for the class; they're a bit more of a nova class now. I'm sure Fervor also offers a lot of versatility now that wasn't there before, with the warpriest able to buff himself over the course of the fight with whatever defensive or offensive option is needed.
I think it'll be a little bit of a shock that archery loses part of its appeal in Pathfinder with this system. That's ok with me, because archery is very, very strong as it is. Mobility isn't an issue, but an archer's full-attacks made him head and shoulders better than a melee martial simply because he could stand still. That's not the case anymore, and there's a definite paradigm shift. Archery will probably start feeling like a halfway point between caster and melee martial.
As for monsters, I haven't quite gotten to them yet, but I think a good way to treat them is, in some cases, to give monsters more actions per round. Hydras and mariliths are unique creatures that probably aren't faced frequently; these can afford to have more actions to "do their thing." Either that, or give them a special action that only they can take, where it's one action for multiple attacks or something. Monsters will be the weirdest part of the houseruling, but since only the DM sees them, I think adding more actions isn't a bad way to go. They are monsters, after all, and don't have to play by the exact same rules as PCs.
So it doesn't get buried I had a caster (wilder) complain about how (at low level mind you) casters feel useless (damage wise) in the new system and that she felt the character wasn't fun to play because others could do too much now.
I don't know how to address this. I feel that casters don't do much at 1st and 2nd anyways so I don't see it as too much of a big deal but I feel it's going to taint any further results.
It doesn't relate to action economy as much, but I've taken to incorporating 5e's damaging cantrips. They're minor (spark for instance does 1d6) but as touch attacks they can be a consistent source of damage for low level casters. Higher level characters will mostly ignore these, especially beyond 3rd where spells start to come into their own. I haven't had a rogue try to abuse these yet, but I'm not concerned about that; it's an investment that'll usually end up being less powerful than a firearm or arrows that stack more bonuses. I also like the idea of the arcane trickster, and facilitating that isn't a bad thing in my book. I guess this way an Unchained Rogue could almost act like a 3.5 warlock in some respects...
Anywhoodles, yeah. Your Wilder is probably just experiencing what low-level casters all experience. It isn't a problem with the action economy system. Once she gets to cast the equivalent of black tentacles and haste and dimension door and teleport she'll understand why she can't do those things at level 2.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that normally martial only do one attack before the 6th level, while in the new system they do at least 2, even three if not moving. Even at -5 a full martial is gonna hit at least half the times.
This was a really great analysis, also good to hear that some concerns are better in practice.
Awesome.
Thanks!
Brawler, Investigator, and Swashbuckler required the most houseruling from me, if only because they tend to be so painfully reliant on the old system's action economy. I've been pushing hard to make it so that a class works how it's intended, not how it literally translates. Cool to see a Warpriest test. I think that's an interesting niche for the class; they're a bit more of a nova class now. I'm sure Fervor also offers a lot of versatility now that wasn't there before, with the warpriest able to buff himself over the course of the fight with whatever defensive or offensive option is needed.
Agreed, I'll definitely implement some house rules to make the investigator and brawler feel less awkward and clunky. I haven't tried the swashbuckler yet but I wouldn't be surprised if I need to tweak some stuff there as well.
I think it'll be a little bit of a shock that archery loses part of its appeal in Pathfinder with this system. That's ok with me, because archery is very, very strong as it is. Mobility isn't an issue, but an archer's full-attacks made him head and shoulders better than a melee martial simply because he could stand still. That's not the case anymore, and there's a definite paradigm shift. Archery will probably start feeling like a halfway point between caster and melee martial.
I think the reason why I found archery painful was mostly because Studied Combat ate one of my attacks every single round, other than that archery effectively unchanged for a medium BAB class at that level. A level 16+ a full BAB class would miss out on one attack at -15, but I think that's a minor price to pay for gaining two extra attacks from level 1. Archery's gotten an indirect nerf in that its biggest advantage over melee (can always make full attacks) is severely cut down, but it's still a great option. Like you I think archery is still perfectly competitive with melee combat, but the melee guys have closed the gap a lot.
As for monsters, I haven't quite gotten to them yet, but I think a good way to treat them is, in some cases, to give monsters more actions per round. Hydras and mariliths are unique creatures that probably aren't faced frequently; these can afford to have more actions to "do their thing." Either that, or give them a special action that only they can take, where it's one action for multiple attacks or something. Monsters will be the weirdest part of the houseruling, but since only the DM sees them, I think adding more actions isn't a bad way to go. They are monsters, after all, and don't have to play by the exact same rules as PCs.
True, though I personally like the idea that the hydra needs to use pounce or stand still to make all its attacks. It makes it feel big and cumbersome, which is how I always envisioned hydras after playing the Hercules PC game when I was 12(?). The weird "moving combat" encounter I played with the slayer with was very different from anything I've ever played in 3.x, which I thought was awesome! It's exactly the kind of gameplay I wanted this system to deliver. :)
So it doesn't get buried I had a caster (wilder) complain about how (at low level mind you) casters feel useless (damage wise) in the new system and that she felt the character wasn't fun to play because others could do too much now. Some other large monsters that rely on full attacks and don't have pounce (such as dragons) could probably benefit from a house rule to make them less awkward though.
I don't know how to address this. I feel that casters don't do much at 1st and 2nd anyways so I don't see it as too much of a big deal but I feel it's going to taint any further results.
I think Dekalinder has the right of it, it's the same problem I ran into with the warlord - level 1 damage spells (and for the warlord, maneuvers) are balanced around being competitive with a martial who makes one attack each round, not 3-4. I looked over a level 1 bloodrager and didn't notice anything in particular that would make him especially amazing at level 1 with the new system, though the bloodline can of course be a factor. With that said, I'm not immediately concerned that a spellcaster feels less powerful on level 1, and since martials don't really get more attacks than what they start out with at level 1 the rest of the game should catch up with them eventually. It would be really interesting to run the same group through some encounters at level 5, 10 and 15: See if the wilder player feels more useful in combat, and if so try to figure out roughly where the tipping point is. While I haven't played a wilder, I find that most casters are viable from level 1 (in the default system) but really come into their own somewhere between level 5-8.
I think that "attacking" shuld count as a standard action and thus taking 2 act until you attain the 6 BAB point, after witch it upgrades to a single act. This way you keep that magical moment of "getting 6 BAB" that is also big for the full BAB vs 3/4 BAB balance standpoint.
I think that "attacking" shuld count as a standard action and thus taking 2 act until you attain the 6 BAB point, after witch it upgrades to a single act. This way you keep that magical moment of "getting 6 BAB" that is also big for the full BAB vs 3/4 BAB balance standpoint.
Very much disagreed. That eliminates the point of the system.
Edit: Let me expound a little, actually. The system does a good job of closing the gap between casters and martials at all levels. The 'magic' of attacking more than once per turn being based on level is a sacred cow. A swing of a greataxe is not the equivalent of a burning hands or a create pit, nor can a fighter swing so hard he turns invisible at level 3. The entire point of full martial characters is that they attack. That is all they do.
Sure, at lower levels this might be more pronounced when dice rule the game, but as they advance martials will more and more have to compete with barriers that they can't overcome through force, or enemies that ignore their attacks. Spell resistance becomes common much, much later than damage reduction. By allowing martial characters to move>attack>attack or attack>attack>attack, the action economy lets them set up more interesting turns or arrange themselves more tactically. Combat is also much more fluid.
By reducing them to an attack that takes two actions you would further hamper 3/4 attack classes or "buff classes" as they've sort of been starting to be called. Now these classes have to wait until eighth level before they are able to buff>move>attack. At the same time a wizard is casting black tentacles, acid pit, dimension door, etc. etc. etc. and moving at the same time. Their actions can effectively shortcut action economy, and that's ok; they're spells, and necessarily limited. That's what casters bring to the table. They break the economy open with just two actions, but they have to set up for it and don't get to do the cool attack blitzes that attacking classes or buffing classes do.
Why is that ok? Because again; a fighter or barbarian just attacks. If they aren't the best at attacking, then there's no reason to have them. They can't do what a wizard can do, and a wizard shouldn't be able to do what they can do. That's why parties are typically made up of multiple classes.
That's my issue she wants to change and doesn't want to "slog" through till 5 or 6. I also feel at 6 that she'll be doing just as much as the marshal's while having other spell options but I do agree with her about not wanting to play something that isn't fun.
My rogue player also brought up that he felt the 5 step was not a good option anymore, and that he felt that other had even less incentive to flank with him. I don't share these opinions.
That's my issue she wants to change and doesn't want to "slog" through till 5 or 6. I also feel at 6 that she'll be doing just as much as the marshal's while having other spell options but I do agree with her about not wanting to play something that isn't fun.
My rogue player also brought up that he felt the 5 step was not a good option anymore, and that he felt that other had even less incentive to flank with him. I don't share these opinions.
I know I'm pretty active on these (again, sitting at a computer, surrounded by books...), but yeah. I can't speak for the Wilder, but maybe work with her on it. Some players aren't cut out to be casters; you wait for a few levels and kind of sit back doing a few cool things, until you hit 5th and you start winning the game. It sounds like she would be better off with a gish or a more active character.
5 foot step is fine. It's tactical movement. The point of the step action is to either move away from danger or outmaneuver; it's not meant to win, but that single square can mean the difference between life and death. You can now effectively flank with two actions and get off an attack (or two, with TWF) that does sneak attack. Flanking is much better now because of this, and rogues benefit from this action economy in a big way.
Very much disagreed. That eliminates the point of the system.Edit: Let me expound a little, actually. The system does a good job of closing the gap between casters and martials at all levels. The 'magic' of attacking more than once per turn being based on level is a sacred cow. A swing of a greataxe is not the equivalent of a burning hands or a create pit, nor can a fighter swing so hard he turns invisible at level 3. The entire point of full martial characters is that they attack. That is all they do.
Sure, at lower levels this might be more pronounced when dice rule the game, but as they advance martials will more and more have to compete with barriers that they can't overcome through force, or enemies that ignore their attacks. Spell resistance becomes common much, much later than damage reduction. By allowing martial characters to move>attack>attack or attack>attack>attack, the action economy lets them set up more interesting turns or arrange themselves more tactically. Combat is also much more fluid.
By reducing them to an attack that takes two actions you would further hamper 3/4 attack classes or "buff classes" as they've sort of been starting to be called. Now these classes have to wait until eighth level before they are able to buff>move>attack. At the same time a wizard is casting black tentacles, acid pit, dimension door, etc. etc. etc. and moving at the same time. Their actions can effectively shortcut action economy, and that's ok; they're spells, and necessarily limited. That's what casters bring to the table. They break the economy open with just two actions, but they have to set up for it and don't get to do the cool...
I couldn't have said this any better.
My rogue player also brought up that he felt the 5 step was not a good option anymore, and that he felt that other had even less incentive to flank with him. I don't share these opinions.
I think that's cancelled out by the enemy losing attacks by taking a 5-foot step to avoid being flanked. I'd also point out that the rogue can tumble 15 feet instead of taking that 5-foot step, and gain an entirely different position.
I ran into this with the archer as well, but personally I think cutting down on the five-foot-shuffle is a feature of the system rather than a bug. I'm perfectly happy with letting five-foot steps take up an action.
I find natural that you do not agree with me Puna. I'm working on the assumption that the game is fairly balanced in the standard action economy, while you are working on the unfortunally usual paradigm "buff the full attack class, screw the other, spell breaks the game anyway".
First level barbarian are a nightmare as they are, being able to OTK half the GS 2 bestiary, they definetly don't need a second attack. And in any case, a balance system where half the table sits fiddling her thumbs for 5 levels while the rest mop up is not what I want in my games. 3/4 BAB class having the second attack at level 8 has worked 'till now, I don't see why it should be a problem going forward, assuming you give them back the swift action buffs.
In any case, I'm open to other option.
I find natural that you do not agree with me Puna. I'm working on the assumption that the game is fairly balanced in the standard action economy, while you are working on the unfortunally usual paradigm "buff the full attack class, screw the other, spell breaks the game anyway".
"Unfortunately usual" means that, as something that is frequently brought up, it may indeed be a legitimate concern with the normal action paradigm. If we go your route, why are we looking at a new action economy in the first place? You seem perfectly happy with the old one, and that's fine. That's where you like your game. But if we take the revision, make attacks two actions until level six, that's not what the system is designed for. If we also restrict 3/4 attack classes to one attack until level 8, but give them swift actions that is, again, the old action economy, not a revision.
It is not. The main point of this revisioned system, at least in my eyes, is to break the dichotomy between move and full round action, witch the system egregiusly does, but unfortunatly bringing half of the existing balace under the bus. I'm trying to keep the former and addressing the second. I guess you are clearly happy with the second half of it, so i'm happy for you. I'm still going to post my ideas for those that reads this topic.
BTW, I may be one of a kind but my games have never being ruined by spellcasters. I've instead always had to battle with Paladins, archer fighters, and instant enemy rangers to avoid them OTK the APL+3 Boss. And i've both played and mastered up until LV 23 more than once.
BTW, I may be one of a kind but my games have never being ruined by spellcasters. I've instead always had to battle with Paladins, archer fighters, and instant enemy rangers to avoid them OTK the APL+3 Boss. And i've both played and mastered up until LV 23 more than once.
Properly built casters always have to have DM fiat to limit them. I've played many casters that could dominate entire mods with zero impact on who else was there regardless of the optimization of the rest of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I may be one of a kind but my games have never being ruined by spellcasters. I've instead always had to battle with Paladins, archer fighters, and instant enemy rangers to avoid them OTK the APL+3 Boss. And i've both played and mastered up until LV 23 more than once.
That sounds like the warriors knowing how to optimise and the spell-casters not willing or able to do so.
Properly built casters always have to have DM fiat to limit them. I've played many casters that could dominate entire mods with zero impact on who else was there regardless of the optimization of the rest of the party.
I wouldn't say "properly built". "Optimised" certainly, but a "properly built" character fits in with the rest of the party and the campaign, without either being the load or the win button.
I wouldn't say "properly built". "Optimised" certainly, but a "properly built" character fits in with the rest of the party and the campaign, without either being the load or the win button.
Agreed, properly optimized would be a better way to say it. My main point is casters play there own game and must chose to lower themselves in order for others to feel included.
As someone who uses to play a lot of organized play, rather viciously I might add, it didn't matter who was at the table and I always played up tiers because I knew that the GM could do nothing to stop me. I've since given up that play style but without tons of house rules and even with then you won't stop a dedicated caster in the old system.
Actually the caster was the better optimizer there. It's just that we ban straight out stupid stuff like Dazing spells, Simulacrum, and Blood Money shenanigans. DM at high levels means keeping your players on their toes, making them use spells simply to get where they want ecc. I don't want this thread to devolve but let's just said that i find myself more confortable with depleting spellcasters arsenal than dealing with martial OTK style of play on high levels. I've killed more PC with properly build barbarians then wizards. /OT
I'm still waiting to hear if you think that 4 arrows/2 greatsword swing per turn is balanced at level 1-5.
Actually the caster was the better optimizer there. It's just that we ban straight out stupid stuff like Dazing spells, Simulacrum, and Blood Money shenanigans. DM at high levels means keeping your players on their toes, making them use spells simply to get where they want ecc. I don't want this thread to devolve but let's just said that i find myself more confortable with depleting spellcasters arsenal than dealing with martial OTK style of play on high levels. I've killed more PC with properly build barbarians then wizards. /OT
I'm still waiting to hear if you think that 4 arrows/2 greatsword swing per turn is balanced at level 1-5.
DM fiat isn't a good reason to say that the game as written is fine. If you have to ban chunks of a major section of the game to not have problem then of course you don't have them.
No I think that martials are in a good place as is under the new system. What I will agree is that low level casting might need adjustments but I'm yet to think of how universally.
Comparing the partial casters to an archery ranger or pounce barbarian might actually yield a more accurate result.
I don't think you've ever seen an archery fighter... no one picks fighter because it has 2+int and don't do anything other than kill things, not because they suck in combat.
auto confirming crits, with +10 to-hit and damage, for no reason other than it being a longbow your using?
I kind of made this progression system for when/if i plan to use this
2 acts->1 act->can be used once, as part of another act->0 acts
most non-class related standard actions are 1 act for me.
anything that get's quicker in the old system goes down a step.
things that start as a swift in general take 1 act, things that improve to swift generally go from 1 act -> used as part of another action.
so feint starts as 1 act for me, then when it upgraded to movement it get's faster so for me it turns into used as part of another action. if it get's increased to swift at some point it becomes a free action(with limits that GMs should do for most free actions), usually opposed checks can only be done once if you fail and cannot be repeated until you move into the next act.
Actually the caster was the better optimizer there. It's just that we ban straight out stupid stuff like Dazing spells, Simulacrum, and Blood Money shenanigans. DM at high levels means keeping your players on their toes, making them use spells simply to get where they want ecc. I don't want this thread to devolve but let's just said that i find myself more confortable with depleting spellcasters arsenal than dealing with martial OTK style of play on high levels. I've killed more PC with properly build barbarians then wizards. /OT
I'm still waiting to hear if you think that 4 arrows/2 greatsword swing per turn is balanced at level 1-5.
DM fiat isn't a good reason to say that the game as written is fine. If you have to ban chunks of a major section of the game to not have problem then of course you don't have them.
No I think that martials are in a good place as is under the new system. What I will agree is that low level casting might need adjustments but I'm yet to think of how universally.
Martials are exciting and dynamic in the new system, which was something you would have a hard time saying about "Full-Attack: THE CLASS!!" before. Casters are about at the same place that they were before, and outside of the higher level game plan of move>quickened spell>spell, the only thing that's "nerfed" about them is that martial characters get to do cool things.
Why is it ok for casters to do all the sweet, awesome things in the old system, while martials get to be relegated to clean up duty? Why is it not ok for martials to have cool things now? What says that casters have to always have a leg up at every stage of the game? What rule is there that says that we can't have a system that favors martial characters a bit more, and make them good at the only thing they do?
I agree that low-level casting needs to be looked at, and personally I'm attempting to rectify it by making Domain/Bloodline/School abilities single actions instead of 2 actions, along with making them usable any number of times per day. But if you think that currently casters are weaker than martial characters, or that martial characters overshadow casters at high levels, there is an entire messageboard full of people who will disagree.
I agree that low-level casting needs to be looked at, and personally I'm attempting to rectify it by making Domain/Bloodline/School abilities single...
I think that what you want is a new game, not a new action system.
That statement above is pretty much the whole point of the book.
It basically goes against pathfinder's original founding principle- a desire for backwards comparability and a wish to continue using the large body of previous books.
Still...going against your own body of work with only a half loaded book is...risky.
It isn't its own system, and it does quite fit well with the existing system. You might have gotten more mileage out of it if you had a more well rounded set of unchained classes (you might have set up a nice fighter/rogue/wizard (summoner)/cleric thing for a nice bare bones campaign if there was a divine class...unless summoner somehow got healing tacked on for their trouble)
I think Unchained is basically Pathfinder's version of the Book of Nine Swords.
It's a laboratory project to check and test rules for Pathfinder 2.0. Which will come, someday. I don't know if it's next year or next decade, but games get new editions, that's like death and taxes
I agree that low-level casting needs to be looked at, and personally I'm attempting to rectify it by making Domain/Bloodline/School abilities single...I think that what you want is a new game, not a new action system.
Again, entirely disagreed. The action system is working phenomenally for me. It is incomplete, though, so measures have to be taken to resolve corner cases that aren't accounted for.
Martials are exciting and dynamic in the new system, which was something you would have a hard time saying about "Full-Attack: THE CLASS!!" before. Casters are about at the same place that they were before, and outside of the higher level game plan of move>quickened spell>spell, the only thing that's "nerfed" about them is that martial characters get to do cool things.
Why is it ok for casters to do all the sweet, awesome things in the old system, while martials get to be relegated to clean up duty? Why is it not ok for martials to have cool things now? What says that casters have to always have a leg up at every stage of the game? What rule is there that says that we can't have a system that favors martial characters a bit more, and make them good at the only thing they do?
I agree that low-level casting needs to be looked at, and personally I'm attempting to rectify it by making Domain/Bloodline/School abilities single...
I agree with this I love the new system myself, I'm also interested in seeing how those adjustments work.
I wasn't defending casters btw, I'm all for an equalization.
The new action economy sounds like fun from the reports here. I am still kind of confused by it in some areas. For once do i see this right, that in this action economy even a BAB 0 character can make a 3 attack (0/-5/-10) if they spend their whole turn the way a BAB 11+ could as a full attack in the normal action economy?
Also how do things like the "Magus flurry" work (you know, combining spellstrike with spell combat to make two weapon attacks at full BAB -2), or just spell-combat in general.
The new action economy sounds like fun from the reports here. I am still kind of confused by it in some areas. For once do i see this right, that in this action economy even a BAB 0 character can make a 3 attack (0/-5/-10) if they spend their whole turn the way a BAB 11+ could as a full attack in the normal action economy?
Yes all characters get to do this.
Also how do things like the "Magus flurry" work (you know, combining spellstrike with spell combat to make two weapon attacks at full BAB -2)
No this doesn't work the same as before, now both are 2 acts to use.
The new action economy sounds like fun from the reports here. I am still kind of confused by it in some areas. For once do i see this right, that in this action economy even a BAB 0 character can make a 3 attack (0/-5/-10) if they spend their whole turn the way a BAB 11+ could as a full attack in the normal action economy?
Pretty much. The idea that iteratives come with levels is a slaughtered sacred cow with this system. This means that characters can be more mobile at all levels of play. At lower levels, more attacks at a -5 and a -10 won't hit as often as they will at level 11, for instance, so even at lower levels it doesn't do quite as much as you might imagine at first glance (this coming from experience).
No this doesn't work the same as before, now both are 2 acts to use.
Also how do things like the "Magus flurry" work (you know, combining spellstrike with spell combat to make two weapon attacks at full BAB -2)
actually Spell combat is 1 action, spellstrike is 2. Also the -2 to hit only applies to the attack made with Spell Combat. The attack made with Spellstrike has no penalty at all
actually Spell combat is 1 action, spellstrike is 2. Also the -2 to hit only applies to the attack made with Spell Combat. The attack made with Spellstrike has no penalty at all
You're right, I was wrong spell combat is only 1 act.
The new action economy sounds like fun from the reports here. I am still kind of confused by it in some areas. For once do i see this right, that in this action economy even a BAB 0 character can make a 3 attack (0/-5/-10) if they spend their whole turn the way a BAB 11+ could as a full attack in the normal action economy?Pretty much. The idea that iteratives come with levels is a slaughtered sacred cow with this system. This means that characters can be more mobile at all levels of play. At lower levels, more attacks at a -5 and a -10 won't hit as often as they will at level 11, for instance, so even at lower levels it doesn't do quite as much as you might imagine at first glance (this coming from experience).
That i can agree with even without having tested it, Attack bonus and AC are much more on par at early levels (you usually hit on a natural roll of something around 10) and then the bonus runs ahead of AC over the levels, making the attacks at -5 or more actually viable.
You're right, I was wrong spell combat is only 1 act.
actually Spell combat is 1 action, spellstrike is 2. Also the -2 to hit only applies to the attack made with Spell Combat. The attack made with Spellstrike has no penalty at all
So the magus actually suffers from this. While in either action economy it would be your only actions on the turn, in the traditional one he could still least combine it with iteratives.
So the magus actually suffers from this. While in either action economy it would be your only actions on the turn, in the traditional one he could still least combine it with iteratives.You're right, I was wrong spell combat is only 1 act.
actually Spell combat is 1 action, spellstrike is 2. Also the -2 to hit only applies to the attack made with Spell Combat. The attack made with Spellstrike has no penalty at all
but compaired to other casters in this system he is doing more. The Magus is getting 2 spells and 2 attacks at minimal penalties with no extra effort on his part, while any other spell caster is getting at most 2 spells one of which needs Quickening in some way.
In a single round He is getting what would be the equivalent of 5 or 6 Acts for any other class.
So the magus actually suffers from this. While in either action economy it would be your only actions on the turn, in the traditional one he could still least combine it with iteratives.You're right, I was wrong spell combat is only 1 act.
actually Spell combat is 1 action, spellstrike is 2. Also the -2 to hit only applies to the attack made with Spell Combat. The attack made with Spellstrike has no penalty at all
but compaired to other casters in this system he is doing more. The Magus is getting 2 spells and 2 attacks at minimal penalties with no extra effort on his part, while any other spell caster is getting at most 2 spells one of which needs Quickening in some way.
In a single round He is getting what would be the equivalent of 5 or 6 Acts for any other class.
Yeah, I've actually decided to leave Spellstrike and Spell Combat as they are precisely because a full-round magus can pull that off. Magi just have a different flow, but effectiveness isn't an issue. That said, I'm also making things like the Arcane Pool buff and Sacred Weapon free actions. Those are things that I believe unnecessarily tax the classes that use them, and in most cases the limited rounds and inability to stack them just means that the class has a fun boost in that regard. This is usually to make up for making other abilities into single actions that can potentially be more powerful.
Puna can give us a table or list of your changes?
In another thread they are say you can cast 3 spells every 2 rounds as you roll your leftover actions into the next round.
I feel like I've already said all these things about the magus...
|
Under the new AE all classes are affected. To use it players and GMs need to reevaluate the way they see all classes. I am a firm believer the new AE reduces the disparity between caster and non- Casters in the best way possible. It largely leaves the former alone, having minimal effect on their play style save reducing some mobility options. The later gain mobility and variety of actions. For too long we have all heard how fighters, and perhaps several other full BAB classes are underwhelming. Now a system has appeared that closes that gap without radically overhauling the rules system. Certainly some classes appeear reduced in effectiveness, but many of those were unbalanced to begin with, in my opinion that is. After a few sessions I felt the system was balanced better, it just requires people to rethink the old paradigm of tiers of classes. Under the old AE some classes were higher tier than others, under the new one some classes are better off. My favourite classes include inquisitor, witch, fighter, swashbuckler, war priest, which all fair quite well and feel balanced against each other.
technically a 1st level could squeeze 4 attacks at level 1 with two weapon fighting. 2 then 1 and 1.
For a short article in a book I think the system proposes a simple yet thought provoking idea that changes how the biggest aspect of the game, combat, works. This is why I love the unchained book, it promotes rethinking core concepts. The other two systems I think are similarly inspiring are the automatic bonus progression and the poison and diseases. Some I'm less enamoured with.
So the magus actually suffers from this. While in either action economy it would be your only actions on the turn, in the traditional one he could still least combine it with iteratives.In terms of raw power it's debatable, since you're letting a Magus cast two spells and attack twice in a single round from level two.
I've certainly been a vehement claimant that the Magus suffers from the new action economy as a class, but raw power isn't really the reason.
That said, I think basically everybody who's using the new system has said that they'll houserule Spellstrike back to the original version.
You cannot combine spell combat and spellstrike in the new system, as it would break the rule of no more than one non-quickened spell per round. The list at the end of spellstrike is somewhat redundant.
From the PRD::A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Spell Combat has a specific list of what other actions cannot be taken in the same round.
Cast a two act spell is on that list, but Spellstrike is not.