| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So discussion of extant classes and options is no longer allowed then? Since we can't discuss the contributions of any specific employee.
Does that extend to freelancers?
You can certainly read it that way, but I'm pretty sure it's less restrictive than that.
"I'm glad we changed direction since the Anime bloodline since it really missed the mark and had me worried."
"I'm glad Jimmy McDev's gone because his work on the Anime bloodline was bad and so is he."
The first is fine, I'm sure. Somebody could take it personally but it's clearly not meant that way. It could even be put in a meaner way and still be ok.
The second isn't and it's got a little bit of clearance past the line. It makes it personal and we're better than that as a community.
Edit: Changed the opening to be less confrontational.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We were complimenting SKR actually.... We were discussing how SKR really listened to our feedback and turned the ACG classes he worked on into really cool things.
Also I find it funny that every time I post SKR's interview with Louis J Porter it gets deleted. It's like they don't want anyone on the Paizo boards seeing that interview.
Insain Dragoon, could you pm me that link? I wanted to watch it when you posted it, but didn't have time and now it's gone...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I find it funny that every time I post SKR's interview with Louis J Porter it gets deleted. It's like they don't want anyone on the Paizo boards seeing that interview.
<Here is the link to the interview>. Saved it from your previous post. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm interested. Thanks for sharing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The errata for the Elixir of Sex Shift was interesting, as it eliminated the possibility of a horrific scenario that I envisioned with the original version. It would have been all too tempting for the noble parents of a daughter who would have preferred to have had a son to use this item to "fix" the problem. Now that won't work because the elixir changes your sex to what the drinker wants it to be -- and a newborn infant presumably lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts needed to make this item work.
Now it would work only in rare cases when the child is older. If said daughter ever says, "I wish I were a boy", I could see the parents gleefully saying "So do we. Just drink this and you will be one!" Of course, by that point there would be the issue that this child has presumably already been known to be a girl for several years, so that option would be more likely to be accepted in a non-noble family where there are no inheritance issues to complicate the matter.
|
I'm pretty sure the Elixir of Sex Shift was designed to be the feel good item of the year (as evidenced by the not working on pregnant characters), and when they saw that it could be used oppressively they had to change the description so that it couldn't be used against a characters desires. Also that some people, or characters don't fit into binary roles and should have made the change slightly more open. Personally I think it's a good change, but it is funny looking at all the changes they made to accommodate everyone who wanted to use an item like it. Personally, I like/find it funny that it allows a straight cis male character to grow boobs, just cause he like looking at boobs.
So discussion of extant classes and options is no longer allowed then? Since we can't discuss the contributions of any specific employee.
Does that extend to freelancers?
Oof. Dat razor sharp wit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The save reroll you get by dismissing the effect was changed so it only works versus fear saves.So talking about how to change Divine Protection into something usable made me think about Battle Cry. I didn't remember seeing anything about it in the errata, nor have I heard it mentioned, so I went back and double checked. G#+##~n it, Battle Cry was murdered too. That actually makes me angry.What was the Battle Cry nerf?I have two responses to that:
- Oh no. I play a character that has both Divine Protection and Battle Cry, and this double-whammy super-nerfs my character. If the GM imposes this errata and won't give me a free re-training or something, my character is severely diminished.
- Oh good. Good only because if they only nerfed Divine Protection, my fellow players would flag me as a whiner for not getting awesome saves. But when I tell them that they are also going to lose their free re-rolls from Battle Cry, there is going to be havoc at the table. This will spark huge empathy for my character, make it a team issue, and force everyone to lobby for a sensible resolution.
My version of "sensible resolution" is probably going to be to lobby for us to use a superior revision that one of YOU guys have posted here. So please, keep the potential revisions of Battle Cry and Divine Protection coming!
Honestly, the best thing to do would have been to keep it as it was and simply make it so that Oracles could not take it, but Clerics, Warpriests, etc . . . could. Oracle is the only class that breaks it, while every other divine class is much, much more MAD and/or doesnt work much off of Cha. The one exception, Paladin, only gets another +1, which probably isnt worth a Feat to them, and it does not help that most divine classes are also the most Feat starved classes, too.
Whats also so amazing about this fix is that it is so simple. No rewriting needed, just remove the Oracle option. You actually save space.
|
Now it would work only in rare cases when the child is older. If said daughter ever says, "I wish I were a boy", I could see the parents gleefully saying "So do we. Just drink this and you will be one!" Of course, by that point there would be the issue that this child has presumably already been known to be a girl for several years, so that option would be more likely to be accepted in a non-noble family where there are no inheritance issues to complicate the matter.
Well, only if you told anyone outside the family that the child was a girl. You could raise the child as a boy. (Weirder things have happened.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the best thing to do would have been to keep it as it was and simply make it so that Oracles could not take it, but Clerics, Warpriests, etc . . . could. Oracle is the only class that breaks it, while every other divine class is much, much more MAD and/or doesnt work much off of Cha. The one exception, Paladin, only gets another +1, which probably isnt worth a Feat to them, and it does not help that most divine classes are also the most Feat starved classes, too.
What's also so amazing about this fix is that it is so simple. No rewriting needed, just remove the Oracle option. You actually save space.
Additionally, as there are some that think the +1-+3 that the Feat would offer more realistically outside the Oracle is too much (vs Iron Will for example), it could easily be capped a bit. Maybe it only allows up to +1 per 5 HD, but max of your Cha bonus. It's possible that a Cleric, Warpriest, Inquisitor, etc. . . might focus more on Cha, but it's not common, and much more a corner case. In my experience, they are spread too thin and the characters tend to either die or get early retired by 3rd level, or simply sit back and not really need t deal with many Saves anyway.
So a 10th level Warpriest with a 20 Cha would only get a +2 until level 15, where it became a +3, max.
This would still leave the possibility for the Feat to function as it was clearly intended so allow a Cleric, Warpriest, or Inquisitor to better function as the "paladin of any Alignment", and be useful, but not at all a must have option.
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains,
or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains,
or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. The maximum bonus this Feat offers is also dependent on the total HD of all class levels that qualify for the Feat, allowing only +1 per 5 such HD, even if their Cha bonus is normally higher, (Max +4 at 20th level). If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of coures, removing the ability for oracles to take old Divine protection a)gives it back to them with a dip, and b) leaves the feat to be broken open as soon as another Cha based divine caster crops up. Even something like a Cha based Inquisitor/Druid/Warpriest/Hunter archetype would break the feat again. Having landmines in the ruleset like that is just stupid.
If the function of the feat is changed to make it reasonable for even ultra-Cha-focused characters to take...why are we restricting this to a handful of divine classes? Non-casters could use this more than channeling clerics.
|
|
In the second version, they could dip, but only the classes they dipped with to get it would count, and that's only if they dipped at least 5 levels to get it, for a whole +1. Only class leves from classes that grant 5 Ranks in Know Religion, 2nd level Divine spells, and offered a Blessing or Domain count. So no amount of Oracle levels would, even if the technically could qualify with just one level of Cleric, Warpriest, Paladin, Druid, or Inquisitor.
If you wanna houserule just drop all prerequisites and make it Cha to will save and you can fix two mediocre talents (Divine Protection and Steadfast Personality) in a single go. And since you are there, also change Battle Cry to also apply to all will saves.
This gives Cha users a nice niche against will saves compared to Int and roughly on par with Wis casters. And maybe this way you can have a martial with high Cha and dumped wis without having to regret it.
So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.
|
Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
...Why?!
THE RULESGOD WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Why?!Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.
If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.
|
...Why?!Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
Because dex-to-damage TWF is OP. And you can always make them a rogue - though it'd be awhile before you'd get dex-to-damage with both. (Yes. Yes it is OP. Only reason it isn't OP for Urogues is that the rest of the class is meh. I've already seen several high level builds which do take a 3-4 rogue dip. It says something about an ability when someone is willing to dip 3 levels almost entirely for said ability.)
Of note - you can use a buckler in your off-hand (technically off-arm - hand free). This is likely due to the 3.0 rules people not knowing anything about bucklers and realizing that they were held in hand - and us getting rules descended from them.
But - there ya' go. You can still wield a buckler with Slashing Grace.
|
|
...Why?!Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.
If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.
Or because they wanted to give Rogue a unique feature that no one else can get. Giving other classes full rogue dex to damage for a feat is a little like giving Inspire Courage as a feat. Yeah, you could probably do it without being too unbalanced. (for example only giving the first level, not scaling.) But you would be giving away one of the unique things that makes bards bards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or because they wanted to give Rogue a unique feature that no one else can get. Giving other classes full rogue dex to damage for a feat is a little like giving Inspire Courage as a feat. Yeah, you could probably do it without being too unbalanced. (for example only giving the first level, not scaling.) But you would be giving away one of the unique things that makes bards bards....Why?!Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.
If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.
If another class relies entirely on a single feature to make it interesting, then it's a bad class that doesn't deserve niche protection. Paizo has often (everything in the ACG) shown a willingness to give out class features from Class X to a new class in order to try and do something different with them.
That's of course besides the fact that the Unchained Rogue didn't need help because the Core rogue just isn't very good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or because they wanted to give Rogue a unique feature that no one else can get. Giving other classes full rogue dex to damage for a feat is a little like giving Inspire Courage as a feat. Yeah, you could probably do it without being too unbalanced. (for example only giving the first level, not scaling.) But you would be giving away one of the unique things that makes bards bards....Why?!Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?
Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(
They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.
If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.
I recall the brawler coming out with this nifty new feature that allowed it to pick feats temporarily. Totally unique. Know how long unique lasted? Until I hit the archetype section.
Paizo has been happy to pass out features to other classes. Dex to damage was around before the Urogue. If they did it to keep the Urogue a special snowflake, it's sad, wrong and completely out of character for them. It would explain the 'buff-nerf' of the scarred witch though.
I think they wanted Swashbuckler to have some sort of unique trick that no one else had, but incorrectly chose Patty/riposte over Precise Strike.
Why on earth would you ever use precise strike for level to damage when you can use parry/riposte for weapon and dex and level to damage? I suppose if you're fighting a caster, but thats about it.
I think it might have more to do with the fact that Strengh based characters seem kind of pointless when it's so easy to get Dex to damage.
The way I see it, there are two main ways to play a melee character, high Str, which gives you more damage/attack, or High Dex w/ TWF, which gives you a bit more maneuverability and more attacks, but less damage.
Funnily enough, I seem to recall this exact sentiment being very common on these boards when people first learned of slashing grace. Everyone was worried Dex to damage was going to be OP. Now we're complaining when Paizo nerfs it accordingly.
That's just my two cp though, I don't speak from a position of much experience outside a few years of home games.
I think it might have more to do with the fact that Strengh based characters seem kind of pointless when it's so easy to get Dex to damage.
The way I see it, there are two main ways to play a melee character, high Str, which gives you more damage/attack, or High Dex w/ TWF, which gives you a bit more maneuverability and more attacks, but less damage.
Funnily enough, I seem to recall this exact sentiment being very common on these boards when people first learned of slashing grace. Everyone was worried Dex to damage was going to be OP. Now we're complaining when Paizo nerfs it accordingly.
That's just my two cp though, I don't speak from a position of much experience outside a few years of home games.
Strengh based characters seem kind of pointless? It works out of the box and STR 1.5 for two handed. Dex takes feats, feats and more feats. For those feats, it doesn't seem like it's too much to ask that it work without tying your arm behind your back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious, would the Dex to Damage fans be okay with a Feat that allowed Str for Init, AC, and Refl?
It would probably need to be separate for a couple of them. Dex to damage usually needs a dex to hit feat, too. In general I'd be okay with it, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might have more to do with the fact that Strengh based characters seem kind of pointless when it's so easy to get Dex to damage.
The way I see it, there are two main ways to play a melee character, high Str, which gives you more damage/attack, or High Dex w/ TWF, which gives you a bit more maneuverability and more attacks, but less damage.
Funnily enough, I seem to recall this exact sentiment being very common on these boards when people first learned of slashing grace. Everyone was worried Dex to damage was going to be OP. Now we're complaining when Paizo nerfs it accordingly.
That's just my two cp though, I don't speak from a position of much experience outside a few years of home games.
Dex to damage is a build or feat sponge. The option there is to have really good feat chains that make not taking it to really make it a trade off. Vital strike or dex to damage isn't going to tempt anyone.
Agreed. The end result is still PFS saying "we don't like this" and the devs changing it.I feel it's not so much as PFS making them change this time and more of a developers want it to be a legal option for it and decided to change stuff.That is a distinction without a difference.
Well, if PFS is saying that its saying that with a whole lot of playtesting. If you and your DM like the old version nothing is stopping you from keeping it, but its not all that unlikely that your DM and a lot of other DMs were either getting their bad guys stymied by it or raised the power level of the encounters to deal with it, possibly stomping the rest of the table who didn't have it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Yes it does. Pathfinder, like D&D favors aggressiveness over defense. Dex is already an incredibly powerful stat, governing your AC, Reflex, the biggest chunk of skills, and the almighty Initiative.
Some people just refuse to see it, but adding in both Attack and Damage on top of that is, and I say this from actual experience, stupidly strong. It's just another case of making things SAD that ruins the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious, would the Dex to Damage fans be okay with a Feat that allowed Str for Init, AC, and Refl?
No because strength is stronger than Dex for melee.
Its easier to boost str
Size increases add tertiary benefits
Str to AC results in bull like 30 str Hiants with 5 dex suddenly gaining 20AC.
At most I would agree that Str to Reflex and Initiative would be ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Size increases lower your dex, give a size penalty to attack, and make you less effective.
A dex to damage character would lose power by getting size increases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex based characters always end up doing significantly less damage than Str based characters. Oftentimes only for an increase in initiative and a small bonus to AC. Also a reflex bonus, whoop de doo.
Additionally the 2 feat tax is pretty crippling early game.
Yes. Yes it does. Pathfinder, like D&D favors aggressiveness over defense. Dex is already an incredibly powerful stat, governing your AC, Reflex, the biggest chunk of skills, and the almighty Initiative.
Some people just refuse to see it, but adding in both Attack and Damage on top of that is, and I say this from actual experience, stupidly strong. It's just another case of making things SAD that ruins the game.
i'm going to say nay, at best it's +7 damage to attack, if it ends up being extremely strong, it's not coming from the dex to damage but more than likely the TWFing.
|
|
Not sure I'm understanding your reasoning there, but you did forget to mention the higher AC across the board, the extra (or at least cheaper) mobility, the huge boost to Init, better Reflex, and much, much better Skills they ALSO get for free for being SAD.
I mean, if none of those are that important, then it should be perfectly fine to have a Feat that lets you use Str instead of Dex for them. Right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Str to AC is stronger than Dex to damage because Str adds a lot more damage.
In essence you're looking at it like this:
-Dex to damage adds up to higher touch AC, Initiative, and damage = 1x Dex and Power Attack (or Piranha Strike) as compared to a normal Str based character.
-Str to AC and Initiative adds up to equal touch AC and Init as the Dex to damage guy....but Damage = 1.5x Str and Power Attack.
It's simply better.
Dex to damage TWFing as-is is at best slightly better than Str based TWFing (ala Ranger and Sayer), but with an extra 2 Feat tax, so it evens out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I'm understanding your reasoning there, but you did forget to mention the higher AC across the board, the extra (or at least cheaper) mobility, the huge boost to Init, better Reflex, and much, much better Skills they ALSO get for free for being SAD.
Str correlates to heavier armor, not sure about the mobilitiy other than being able to run around in light armor, I don't actually see init being low as a problem, they come to me, i full attack them(init is important on casters and ranged characters...), reflex is the worst save, and the skills under dex are all situational and don't require use, climb and swim on the other hand... if you need to use those skills, you NEED to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhat higher AC. Unless you assume the Str character has like 10 dex, doesn't get decent armor.
How much does initiative matter on most melee characters? You want to win initiative so you can eat the first full attack?
Reflex isn't worthless, but it's not a big draw.
Skills I will give you.
In return, significantly less damage. Significantly less useful buffs. Significantly less ways to boost atk/dmg.
|
|
If we assume that only one gets Power Attack. If both, then Str x 1.5 vs Dex x 1 isn't really that much of a difference.
DEX BUILD
Human fighter 5
NG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 22, touch 18, flat-footed 15 (+4 armor, +1 deflection, +6 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 44 (5d10+10)
Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +1 (+1 vs. fear); +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulson
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 flaming scimitar +12 (1d6+14/18-20 plus 1d6 fire)
Special Attacks weapon training (heavy blades +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 22, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +5; CMB +5; CMD 25
Feats Dervish Dance, Dodge, Power Attack, Step Up, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (scimitar), Weapon Specialization (scimitar)
Traits ambush training, birthmark
Skills Climb +8, Handle Animal +5, Intimidate +5, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +4, Knowledge (engineering) +4, Perform (dance) +2, Survival +5, Swim +7
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Combat Gear potion of cat's grace, potion of cure light wounds (8), potion of enlarge person, potion of rage; Other Gear +2 leather armor, +1 flaming scimitar, belt of incredible dexterity +2, ring of protection +1, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, hemp rope (50 ft.), mess kit, pot, soap, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 16 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Ambush Training +1 to weapon damage in surprise rounds.
Birthmark +2 save vs. charm & compulsion
Dervish Dance Use Dex modifier instead of Str modifier with scimitar
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Step Up When a foe makes a 5 ft step away from you, you can move 5 ft to follow them.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
========================================================================
STR BUILD
Human fighter 5
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 23, touch 12, flat-footed 22 (+11 armor, +1 deflection, +1 Dex)
hp 49 (5d10+15)
Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +1 (+1 vs. fear); +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulson
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee +1 flaming longsword +12 (1d8+19/19-20 plus 1d6 fire)
Special Attacks weapon training (heavy blades +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +5; CMB +9; CMD 23
Feats Cleave, Cleaving Finish[UC], Furious Focus[APG], Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Traits armor expert, birthmark
Skills Acrobatics -2 (-6 to jump), Climb +9, Handle Animal +5, Intimidate +5, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +4, Knowledge (engineering) +4, Ride +3, Survival +5, Swim +8
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Other Gear +2 full plate, +1 flaming longsword, belt of giant strength +2, ring of protection +1, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, hemp rope (50 ft.), mess kit, pot, soap, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 26 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Armor Expert -1 Armor check penalty.
Birthmark +2 save vs. charm & compulsion
Cleave If you hit a foe, attack an adjacent target at the same attack bonus but take -2 AC.
Cleaving Finish Make additional attack if opponent is knocked out
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
========================================================================
Init +7
AC 22, touch 18, flat-footed 15 (+4 armor, +1 deflection, +6 Dex, +1 dodge)
Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +1 (+1 vs. fear); +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulson
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 flaming scimitar +12 (1d6+14/18-20 plus 1d6 fire)
vs
Init +5
AC 23, touch 12, flat-footed 22 (+11 armor, +1 deflection, +1 Dex)
Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +1 (+1 vs. fear); +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulson
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft. in armor
Melee +1 flaming longsword +12 (1d8+19/19-20 plus 1d6 fire)
It's not Str x1.5 + Dex x1. If both have Power Attack it's Str x1.5 + PA x1.5 vs Dex x1 and PA x1.
|
|
Hum, that's so odd. It looks like, all other things being equal it's only a 5 point difference. I mean, vs all the other stuff the Dex build gets. Again, just about all other things being equal. Well, the Dex Build did eat a Feat (Weapon Finesse), but also walked away with 10 extra potions, 10ft more speed, an actual decent Tough AC.
Probably would have gone Combat Reflexes over Step Up, which can be nasty with that Enlarge Person. Or if they also took Imp Initiative, that +7 goes to a +11 and just gets even higher.
you got cleave on your strength build... those are wasted feats, otherwise the str build would be ahead in number of feats while looking about the same.
he is also using a longsword and no shield... (otherwise he should have a greatsword unless there's some reason he needs to attack and have a free hand in the same round...)
|
|
Suggestions? I literally made these two to be close in general builds in like 5 minutes. Originally I had Shield Focus and a Heavy Shield on the Str Build to be silimar to Dodge, but it really didn't show the Str Build in a positive light, though it would be more accurate as I had to go with Dervish Dance over actual Dex to Damage here (without a lot of programming I didn't find worth it to prove a point).
Something worth bearing in mind, these two are NOT fighting each other, (and again, it probably wouldn't favor the Str Build unless we used the only dice roller), but rather general effectiveness in play. DPR isn't everything, after all.