I think you're onto something here, but there are a ton of different things that use swift actions - hard to get a good idea of what would and wouldn't be covered. Off the top of my head I think style feats, studied combat*, studied target, smite evil, instant enemy, bane and judgement* would all work with that house rule. Martial Flexibility is iffy, since there are times when you want to pick up a feat preemptively.
I'm really looking forward to play testing this system, but I'm still leaning towards making the first swift action in a round not take an action. It seems like the easiest way to fix the problem.
** spoiler omitted **
Like thejeff said, being allowed to make an attack doesn't mean you have to take it, so Studied Combat, Martial Flexibility and other defensive/utility bonuses still work just fine.
I considered quickened spells to not be included because they aren't a class feature, they're a metamagicked spell.
That said, the problem with preserving the swift action is that it makes the system changes a lot less dramatic. It basically simply splits the standard action into two move actions and tells you that attacks are now worth one move action each, and that quicken spells are a move action now. That's just a lot less impactful than before.
I'm perfectly fine with swift actions becoming 1 act actions. Same with 5ft step. A long time ago there was discussion about whether or not to house rule that you could sacrifice your move action to make another swift action. I heard good arguments for why swift was a pretty powerful action compared to a move action. Some things definitely lose out while other things are buffed. The list of buffed things are more than likely the things that need help the most. Old strategies are less viable and others become more viable. I think that goes with a change in the system and there's no way to really achieve what the new action economy does without sacrifice. Alternatively it's easy to port Swift actions back into being non-act actions, and same with 5 ft step, but either way you have to plan and build depending on how the action economy in your games are going to work. For me the only thing I'd alter is Spellstrike. It is a non-action that turns into a 2-act action when it functions as it did before when you don't call it out.
from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:
-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action as normal.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.
helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.
thoughts?
also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action.
.
edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?
from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:
-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.
thoughts?
also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action..
edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?
I would say something against spells being 1 act. It seems the paradigm is that anything that is a Standard or attack action turns into a 2 act action while anything that can be an attack or replace an attack is a 1 act action.
I think the more 'fair' house rule would probably be to have swift actions eat your reaction.
While the ruling pattern would make Vital Strike a 2 act action I would find it more fair to make it function like TWF where each feat handles a different iteration of attack actions. It functionally becomes a two handed weapon version of TWF under this system only slightly worse in exchange for the extra damage. Add in a generic dex to damage feat and they're about even.
from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:
-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.
thoughts?
also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action..
edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?
I would say something against spells being 1 act. It seems the paradigm is that anything that is a Standard or attack action turns into a 2 act action while anything that can be an attack or replace an attack is a 1 act action.
I think the more 'fair' house rule would probably be to have swift actions eat your reaction.
While the ruling pattern would make Vital Strike a 2 act action I would find it more fair to make it function like TWF where each feat handles a different iteration of attack actions. It functionally becomes a two handed weapon version of TWF under this system only slightly worse in exchange for the extra damage. Add in a generic dex to damage feat and they're about even.
using the reaction does make it a bit less of a no-brainer, yeah. also make combat reflexes for AoOs a bit mor attractive, since you could use your regular reaction for a swift action, and still AoO things outside of your turn.
anyway: casting a spell (2 actions) and then a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn seems fine to me, since wizards can already do that--they're only really losing out on their mobility, which is fine.
then again with my ruling one could feasibly cast a swift-action-base spell (reaction), cast a regular spell (2 actions), and cast a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn. hmm.
limiting it to divine-only would help keep the paladin/inquisitor and their spellcasting working properly, but seems too biased.
.
Why would you ever not use Vital Strike in this system? An extra damage die for no penalty except the feat cost. Goes a long way towards keeping 2HF on top.
Of course, the reverse is also true, why would you ever use Vital STrike if it took 2 actions? I guess if you were very likely to miss at -10? Bonus to damage on your first attack, then a normal one at -5? Probably not worth the feat tax most of the time.
actually a thought occurs to me--why not have it cost 2 actions, but let people buffer it with their reaction?
so you could fit two 2-action vital strikes (2 actions, 1 action+reaction) in a single turn if you didn't move.
could give people who dont usually have swift action class abilities to take advantage of my rule's 'reaction trade' thing something to use it with.
applying it to other feats similarly might help that as well.
The swift action is a bad mechanic because of how limited a resource it is and the implications it places on game design.
Anyone who looked at the final version of the warpriest and the magus understands this, there are too many things you need to do with it than you have time for, and the main reason to do such a thing is so that you can take the full round action. But you don't want to take that full round action unless you can manage to get both of those abilities that you can only take one of.
By shoehorning abilities into this mechanic, for the sole purpose of not taking away a martial classes full round, they limit how much the class can actually do with their class abilities. As a warpriest I have to decide between buffing my armor/weapon OR casting a very important buff spell (Divine Power most likely). This is because I am limited to only one swift action per turn. In a system that does away with that (this one) I can do both, and still get two swings in the same turn, four swings with Two Weapon Fighting.
Re-introducing the swift action with the caveats of not letting spellcasters benefit from it, or by allowing you to still downgrade your actions and take more swift actions just creates an unbalanced system where classes who have nothing to use their swift action on are punished for not playing a better class.
I still don't get why that third attack is so game breaking.
I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.
I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.
I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.
I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.
i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.
so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).
overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better
edit: er, better right now, instead of waiting for four more books and as much money for paizo to finally patch the system, if they even do so at all--after all, wordcasting was pretty freaking neato, and it's never gonna see the light of day again.
The swift action is a bad mechanic because of how limited a resource it is and the implications it places on game design.
Anyone who looked at the final version of the warpriest and the magus understands this, there are too many things you need to do with it than you have time for, and the main reason to do such a thing is so that you can take the full round action. But you don't want to take that full round action unless you can manage to get both of those abilities that you can only take one of.
By shoehorning abilities into this mechanic, for the sole purpose of not taking away a martial classes full round, they limit how much the class can actually do with their class abilities. As a warpriest I have to decide between buffing my armor/weapon OR casting a very important buff spell (Divine Power most likely). This is because I am limited to only one swift action per turn. In a system that does away with that (this one) I can do both, and still get two swings in the same turn, four swings with Two Weapon Fighting.
How are you getting both (at 1 act each, I believe) and two swings, also at one act each?
Aren't you facing the same basic limit? Either 2 both buffs and attack once or just do one and full attack (or attack twice in the new paradigm). Of course, if you're TWF, each attack is two swings, which it wouldn't have been the old way.
Because Divine Power gives you an extra act ala Haste attack.
I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.
I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.
i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.
so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).
overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better.
I'm going to start playing with it and see where things need adjudication from actual play, though. In theory some things might be terrible, but in actual play it might be alright. I'm hoping it's more alright than not.
I'm going to start playing with it and see where things need adjudication from actual play, though. In theory some things might be terrible, but in actual play it might be alright. I'm hoping it's more alright than not.I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.
I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.
i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.
so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).
overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better.
i'd say keep folks posted (maybe with a thread or something later) for that, since a lot of my worries could just be making a mountain out of a molehill, as i tend to do.
i'd love to see some playtest logs for the new stuff once the pdf drops for most people.
I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.
Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.
Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.
I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.
Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.
Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.
I agree with everything here.
I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.
I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.
Considering that Swift actions normally eat your immediate action I think its a fair house rule to allow swift actions that eat reactions. Not much is different and if you allow it to be an exception instead of a general rule you can make up to four swifts in a round. Sure you could potentially cast three spells in a round but I've always found novaing to be the worst tactic in an unfamiliar environment so its not that good of an idea. Plus doing so will eat up three +3 spell level slots so at the best you're casting three 6th level spells in one round during the end game where one 9th level spell would probably serve you much better, especially when you're competing against the triple Vital Strike warriors dealing insane damage.
Speaking of Vital Strike, I do think that TWF+dex to damage would be on par with triple Vital Strikes if we make it mirror TWF as it progresses. But let me run some artificial numbers. Say you're working with dex to damage and TWF along with Vital Strikes and THW, both at 20 dex and 20 str at say lvl 20 Full BAB with nothing else tacked on. Greatswords and Kukris.
Dex+TWF= +23/23/+18/+18/+13/+13 (1d4+5, 18-20)
VS+THW= +25/+20/+15 (4d6+7, 19-20)
With the assumption they all hit and average it out we're looking at:
TWF= 45 damage.
THW= 63 damage.
Seems about right with TWF getting less damage and accuracy for double+ the chances to crit and stacking on any kind of static bonus. With Piranha Strike and Power Attack it goes to 57 and 81. Too lazy to math beyond that point though but it looks like they could be reasonably equivalent. I could be wrong though. The TWF is two to three feats behind though.
I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.
Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.
Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.
I agree with everything here.
I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.
I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.
er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)
er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.
Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.
Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.
I agree with everything here.
I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.
I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.
Yes I was. Looking back at things like the Hexblade from Complete Warrior, and then at later classes you really see how the invention of the swift action happened. I'm not a fan, but I understand that some actions seem like they could be less of an act.
I think, not unlike the existing system for stamina, there ought to be new feats and redone feats to reflect the changes in this system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.
Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.
Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.
I agree with everything here.
I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.
I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.
Yes I was. Looking back at things like the Hexblade from Complete Warrior, and then at later classes you really see how the invention of the swift action happened. I'm not a fan, but I understand that some actions seem like they could be less of an act.
I think, not unlike the existing system for stamina, there ought to be new feats and redone feats to reflect the changes in this system.
i'd love to see a pamphlet or pdf just going over how feats and other abilities now interact with stamina/action economy overhaul.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get why that third attack is so game breaking.Because the swift action is balanced on the caveat that the action does not interfere with your other actions. Would some abilities still be usable? Maybe, but you'd have to look through each ability separately and rejudge every ability to determine this. Tactician is much weaker, Studied Combat is very weak until later levels, Brawler's Martial Flexibility is significantly worse because Swift Action Feat generation is weaker, and many Swift Action spells no longer have any point (Every Alchemist who wishes they could use Burst of Speed knows what I'm talking about). And, granted, if you're at early levels, a -10 attack isn't that effective, but you really aren't being creative enough if you can't come up with other uses for the extra action (Changing Move to double Move, for example, is potentially very useful).
Your example, with the Warpriest and the Magus, has a crucial misunderstanding in my opinion. There are two aspects to Swift Actions in the original system:
1) Swift Actions do not interfere with other actions.
2) You only get one Swift Action per turn.The problem you attribute is entirely a product of the second problem, which was a necessary patch to combat action economy creep. None of these problems are inherent to the first aspect, that Swift Actions are free and the abilities are balanced with the assumption that you don't spend significant time finagling with buffs in the first round, except for the fact that the first aspect semi-necessitates the second. We see this with gish patterns, where many gishes jump through millions of hoops to ensure that they spend minimum time in combat actually buffing and that the only in-combat buffs they run are extremely powerful, comparatively.
If you patch the new system with "the first swift action is free", then this problem goes away, because if you want, you can make sacrifices to get all your Swift Action buffs ready, but the classes that...
But how is that fair to the other classes who don't get a free extra act based solely on the idea that you just want to be able to do more things?
It's not a good fix because it shows blatant bias towards those classes.And studied target and martial flexibility are plain and simply buffed because the only take a single act at earlier levels and don't interfere with the rest of your round.
The only thing you lose is the third attack in a scenario where you would be taking a full round, but that isn't a bad thing as far as game balance goes.
How about the fact that a magus can boost his attack to match or exceed that of a fighter's simply because he has a special ability to do so, and he gets it for free every round (the swift action). Now the magus has to choose to forgo an attack to do it where a fighter does not.
It is much more balanced than people realize.
A paladin who casts Litany of Righteousness and gets two attacks in gets the equivalent of 4x damage, or 4 attacks. That's worth a single attack slot.
The point is giving more actions to classes so they can continue to have unfair advantages is the exact kind of scenario that this system was invented for.
Previous terrible options get better and older extremely powerful options get slightly nerfed leading to a more balanced game.
Also why is the cavalier hurt for actions again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?
because specifically some classes get it easier than others. though i would consider it a part of the fighters's class features since they have free combat feats and need dex to use armor class features.
I'm thinking of using the system as a base but doubling the number of acts you have. attacking is 2 acts, movement is 2, random standard actions are 3, spells are 4, and swift actions are 1(with some limit on this). maybe under this each next swift actions cost improves by 1, such that you can use all your acts for 3 swift actions or just 1 for a single.
maybe a feat that needs combat reflexes to tone swift action's cost down by 1
I feel he intent of this system is to mostly be the same but allow people to do crazy things like use 3 movement actions and what not.
because specifically some classes get it easier than others. though i would consider it a part of the fighters's class features since they have free combat feats and need dex to use armor class features.wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?
A point which I acknowledge.
But then again, I very rarely see people complaining about buffs to the fighter.The fact of the matter is that monks and brawlers just plain get those extra attacks as part of their class progression. Core rangers who aren't using archery (and therefore the ones that we would be discussing) also have it for free. Slayers by extension also have it, as part of what their class package gives them.
To me, that isn't a feat because its not something you chose to take as part of your specific build, because its something you end up having whether you want it or not.
I guess we could bring up other ranger combat styles, but they end up being mounted combat and BFS style which are generally considered weak options for the ranger anyway. The other choices are more ranged option and sword and board which is just a different iteration of TWF which leads back to the original point.
Fighters can take it as an option, and now it's a good option. The fighter now gets the most attacks, unless we look at a barbarian picking up claw attacks (which I'm pretty sure still both function at full BAB even though they require separate actions.)
because specifically some classes get it easier than others. though i would consider it a part of the fighters's class features since they have free combat feats and need dex to use armor class features.wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?
A point which I acknowledge.
But then again, I very rarely see people complaining about buffs to the fighter.The fact of the matter is that monks and brawlers just plain get those extra attacks as part of their class progression. Core rangers who aren't using archery (and therefore the ones that we would be discussing) also have it for free. Slayers by extension also have it, as part of what their class package gives them.
To me, that isn't a feat because its not something you chose to take as part of your specific build, because its something you end up having whether you want it or not.
I guess we could bring up other ranger combat styles, but they end up being mounted combat and BFS style which are generally considered weak options for the ranger anyway. The other choices are more ranged option and sword and board which is just a different iteration of TWF which leads back to the original point.
Fighters can take it as an option, and now it's a good option. The fighter now gets the most attacks, unless we look at a barbarian picking up claw attacks (which I'm pretty sure still both function at full BAB even though they require separate actions.)
I'm of the opinion fighters are semi-OP in battle against non-specific or mixed enemies. constant large DPR, and the feats mean that it's hard to place how or what a fighter will actually do.
however, THEY'RE BORING and can;t do anything but KILL KILL KILL!
because specifically some classes get it easier than others. though i would consider it a part of the fighters's class features since they have free combat feats and need dex to use armor class features.wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?
A point which I acknowledge.
But then again, I very rarely see people complaining about buffs to the fighter.The fact of the matter is that monks and brawlers just plain get those extra attacks as part of their class progression. Core rangers who aren't using archery (and therefore the ones that we would be discussing) also have it for free. Slayers by extension also have it, as part of what their class package gives them.
To me, that isn't a feat because its not something you chose to take as part of your specific build, because its something you end up having whether you want it or not.
I guess we could bring up other ranger combat styles, but they end up being mounted combat and BFS style which are generally considered weak options for the ranger anyway. The other choices are more ranged option and sword and board which is just a different iteration of TWF which leads back to the original point.
Fighters can take it as an option, and now it's a good option. The fighter now gets the most attacks, unless we look at a barbarian picking up claw attacks (which I'm pretty sure still both function at full BAB even though they require separate actions.)
I'm of the opinion fighters are semi-OP in battle against non-specific or mixed enemies. constant large DPR, and the feats mean that it's hard to place how or what a fighter will actually do.
however, THEY'RE BORING and can;t do anything but KILL KILL KILL!
The game is asymmetrical, and some people actually like that about the class.
Especially in more combat focused games where your skills really don't affect much.
Not that I don't understand, I have a thread going currently about my own personal fix to the fighter with regards to balancing it with the rest of the classes.
4+int to SPs goes a long way.
make vital strike add a single die instead of doubling, and it's pretty okay and non-expliotable outside some edge cases involving crazy druids.
Okay, now I'm utterly confused by your position.
Based on this post, you're of the opinion that classes should generally be using their class abilities. Cool! You and I agree. Classes should do the thing that they are built to do.
And yet you seem to be a large fan of this system, where the Cavalier fights best dismounted, the Magus literally cannot* ever use all of his abilities together** (Spellstrike + Spell Combat alone is three acts, after all), a great many classes are disincentivized from using their core class feature (Kudaku covered that one very well with the Investigator and Studied Combat), etc, etc.
How do you resolve these two viewpoints?
I have no idea how the cavalier is any different from before. Charge used to be a full round action, now it's two acts. He can either move, or use a move or swift equivalent action and still make his charge. How is that any different from before?
The magus has to pick between Spell Combat (for buffs) and Spellstrike (for damage) as doing both together means casting two spells. In the case of Spell Combat, the magus casts his spell and makes an attack, has one more action to either move or do what used to be his swift action, and has one act leftover to make a second attack. With Spellstrike, he spends two acts, seemingly one to cast the equivalent of a quickened spell to do damage, and the other to deliver it with a melee attack. He has the one action left over to do his buffs or whatever. Typically a magus will be doing one or the other, not both. [btw I don't like the new spellstrike either and I probably won't use it in my home games, but that's how the system as written is going to work.] Haste has been confirmed to grant an additional action, but only to make an attack, meaning magi using a buff spell can still get 3 attacks off, or two attacks, one of which is most likely going to be a nova burst damage. [yes it is dumb that frostbite doesn't work anymore, I agree, but that doesn't mean that it isn't balanced with other classes doing massive amounts of damage, see my paladin Litany of Righteousness example upthread.]
*Might be possible with Haste, but I've yet to see somebody quote the rules for Haste so I'm not going to assume anything on that one.
Fair enough, but then we shouldn't even have this discussion without knowing what all potential is out there.
**Technically true of the old Magus, but Spell Recall is frankly better used as a pre- or post-battle recharge. Further, a Magus is really more likely to ditch Spell Recall than not; while baseline Magus is strong, so are three separate archetypes that nix the ability. That pretty much dials them down to using an arcana in their swift action slot, as class features go (also Arcane Strike, which is kind of terrible unless you're also taking Riving Strike and enemy AC consistently sucks, and Quickened Spells, which the Magus really does not need and isn't an option until very high levels anyway). Of the arcanas... almost certainly an accuracy booster, so that's just picking flavor. Hasted Assault is a thing, but not usually a good thing (solo, it's great, otherwise, be a team player and cast Haste), and Arcane Edge is a thing, but the Magus has access to an identical ability with an identical cost that's a free action (Bleeding Wound), so it's hard to feel any sympathy for that one.
Arcane Strike was bad design from the start, and often isn't even used by magi now. Arcane Accuracy and Accurate Strike are the ones people are using instead, which is fine. But a medium BAB class shouldn't be making the same number of attacks as a full BAB class with higher bonuses to hit and damage. That's not balanced game design. Giving the swift action back only takes away the one thing that non magical martial classes had going for them in this system, the fact that they get more attacks. You are basically saying that all the other classes should get 4 actions, but the barbarian and the fighter shouldn't because they don't have magic.
Abilities that give such high boosts to attack and damage like smite and sneak attack oughta cost the same amount of time as an attack. It balances the classes. I'm sure someone has already done math on a paladin getting in two attacks vs a fighter getting in three. I'm sure they are more than comparable in the end.There's also a handful of immediate actions, but those are obnoxiously powerful (Parry/Riposte, Reflection) so the costs are pretty much in line with where they should be.
The swashbuckler actually benefits from this system, since the reaction no longer uses up your swift action on the next turn, you can choose to use parry/riposte and still double your precise strike damage on the next turn. They just only get two attacks now if they do that, or three under Haste.
Realistically, the only class with swift action paralysis is the Warpriest. The Swashbuckler has immediate action paralysis, which... I want to see if Combat Reflexes is translated the obvious way or some other way before I comment on that one. Most Swift-Action-Centric classes are using the same swift action repeatedly, so they only need one use, but they need that one use very badly.
But they still have it, and magi very much have more than one thing they do with their swift actions. It is now entirely possible to do both Arcane Accuracy, Arcane Strike, and get in two attacks benefiting from both. What is the cost of this? Well since you are a caster based class, you no longer get to make as many attacks as a full BAB class who is designed to do that much damage anyway.
Lances do 3x damage for one attack roll, the same as always, the equivalent of three attacks, and that is somehow the same as a full round for anyone else.
The real question about cavaliers is how does this feat work?
make vital strike add a single die instead of doubling, and it's pretty okay and non-expliotable outside some edge cases involving crazy druids.
I was writing how I hought VS should be, talking about several hits - realised VS is about ONE hit a round.
No idea how to balance. If you just double weapon die once a round its crap, if you tripple (3,4,5 iterations) it could work but nothing to do with this new system. (and perhaps makes some builds broken with large dmg die).
Take home message: Vital Strike is about ONE large hit per round.
New system means we all got free Bestial Leaper rage power for free for VS.
|
I would like some idea of how spring attack, ride-by-attack, fly-by-attack etc work in the new system. If they are complex 3 action abilities as suggested then they amount to nothing sine I can now do these anyway with a move, attack, move.
My idea: perhaps such feats allow you to combine a move and single attack into 2 actions. So you could move-attack-move (2 actions) then have 1 action left. This essentially means the feat reduces actions requirements by one?
|
|
make vital strike add a single die instead of doubling, and it's pretty okay and non-expliotable outside some edge cases involving crazy druids.I was writing how I hought VS should be, talking about several hits - realised VS is about ONE hit a round.
No idea how to balance. If you just double weapon die once a round its crap, if you tripple (3,4,5 iterations) it could work but nothing to do with this new system. (and perhaps makes some builds broken with large dmg die).
Take home message: Vital Strike is about ONE large hit per round.
New system means we all got free Bestial Leaper rage power for free for VS.
Rule you can only use VS once per round. I like the system but need to do some thinking about feats and how they'll work under it. As for the nerf. I can't help but think if this was the original default system and unchained suggested a new one in which you only had a move, standard and swift we'd be arguing the same issues - some classes benefit, some don't. It does have some cool benefits, I like the fact that my immediate action no longer uses up my swift in the next round.
I also think it addresses some of the caster to martial discrepancies inherent in the system. Suddenly we have options to level the playing field and everyone is unhappy. I'll try it out for a while at least, like someone playing for the. First time I'll just need to examine classes under this system, rather than the traditional. Perhaps I'll play a fighter?
I also think some of the nerf is overrated. Take the apparent loss of attacks for the smiling paladin. You lose 1 attack to smite, but smite still gives you +level on damage. 3 attacks at BAB, -5 k -10, vs smite, BAB, -5 with +lvl damage on both.
Quick other question- would it make that much difference if haste simply added an action, giving you four for the round?
I would like some idea of how spring attack, ride-by-attack, fly-by-attack etc work in the new system. If they are complex 3 action abilities as suggested then they amount to nothing sine I can now do these anyway with a move, attack, move.
My idea: perhaps such feats allow you to combine a move and single attack into 2 actions. So you could move-attack-move (2 actions) then have 1 action left. This essentially means the feat reduces actions requirements by one?
A more elegant solution would be that such feats give you an extra act, but only to move after you use another act to move and another act to attack, only up to your full speed for the round.
As for Haste, I do believe it would be too strong if the act ws just free, because it would give spellcasters the means to cast twice in a turn without quickening happening. Saying it can be worth either an extra swift action, move action, or attack may work so long as the caveat removes additional spellcasting, but then that is a major buff to Haste, which is already one of the best spells in the game.
It also commits the sin of making the classes that use swift actions more important than the classes that don't, as far as game design goes.
|
|
I see where your coming form M_M, and tend to agree. That was my reaction as well. I always thought spells were limited by the system to one spell per round, plus 1 quickened spell? Is the limit only on the quickened spell?
I'm not 100% sure of the issue in your last point. Of course I've been at work all day so I may not be at my sharpest.
My main issue is exactly the point you make in regard to its value. Haste is sadly one of the best spells in the game and I think this would simply make it even more invaluable. Looks like extra action useable for a move or attack is the best option.
I have no issue with artificial limits on things, vital strike only once per sound etc, so I can see spring attack working if its a once per round action. So for instance:
Spring attack: Once per round, following an action in which you choose to attack, you may immediately move up to you speed following that attack.
This can leave rounds like this though:
attack > use spring attack to move 30' > attack at -5 > attack -10.
attack > use spring attack to move 30' > move 30' > move 30'.
attack > use spring attack to move 30' > cast a spell
attack > use spring attack to move 30' > vital strike at -5 > move 30'.
Vital strike (an attack action) > use spring attack to move 30' > attack at -5 > attack -10.
swift buff > Vital strike (an attack action) > use spring attack to move 30' > swift spell.
You get some interesting options, could make such feats a good choice. Then again perhaps I'm missing something.
The relevant rule was posted earlier in the thread:
Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "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."
This suggests that with four actions per round, you'd still have your normal limit of one spell plus one quickened spell.
|
The relevant rule was posted earlier in the thread:
Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "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."
This suggests that with four actions per round, you'd still have your normal limit of one spell plus one quickened spell.
Does that mean that a Magus under the new system can't use Spellcombat and Spellstrike in the same round?
Does that mean that a Magus under the new system can't use Spellcombat and Spellstrike in the same round?The relevant rule was posted earlier in the thread:
Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "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."
This suggests that with four actions per round, you'd still have your normal limit of one spell plus one quickened spell.
spell combat packages the spell as part of the larger full-round action, and i thought spellstrike's action was (spellcast) + (free action attack to deliver it)
Does that mean that a Magus under the new system can't use Spellcombat and Spellstrike in the same round?The relevant rule was posted earlier in the thread:
Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "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."
This suggests that with four actions per round, you'd still have your normal limit of one spell plus one quickened spell.
In the new Spell Combat description it specifically calls out what you can and can't do. Spell strike is allowed to my understanding.