What if martial combat had more save or die / suck effects?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


A while ago I was messing around with a fighter big bad that focused on massive damage using called shots. The villain was a success in terms of being scary, mainly because he consistently threatened debilitating blows with called shots, although wouldn't be terribly useful if it were a PC. but it got me thinking. Normally if you get stabbed with a sword, you're dead or at least bleading enough for this to be a serious threat. With a lot of investment you can get some save or suck effects with weapon attacks but what if that was the norm? What if one good enough stab can very readily kill you. I understand that HP isn't just your points of flesh but it seems interesting that debilitating blows and called shots are the main way to get this kind of thing off and take a lot of resources to do, especially since at some point you're dealing enough damage to cut boulders so a good hit from a high level fighter could cut you in half so it seems awkward that you cant insta-maim or insta-kill from a good shot.

But I can imagine people not wanting that. Since that would mean enemies could do it too which would make martial on martial fights look like the game Bushido Blade. For those that didn't play that series, it was a fighting game where one hit kills were very possible because once you're hit in the torso or head you're dead, which can be very frustrating in an RPG and pretty much guarantees a game of rocket launcher tag.

Liberty's Edge

You've answered your own question. Save or dies almost guarantee short character lifespans. Character death should be possible, maybe even with a higher probability than at present; however, save or die effects make it highly probable.


Archers. Archers everywhere.


This is a good idea for use against lesser creatures / NPCs, not against actual threats or party members. Numenera actually had stuff like that for Glaives, some high level abilities where you killed a low CR creature immediately if you landed the hit. Now apply that to things like Power Attack or Deadly Aim and let them kill the target if they are a number of hit dice below your BAB equal to or greater than the penalty from the attack roll. So, for example, a level 12 fighter can Power Attack and auto-kill any critter of 8 HD or less if he hits. If it's between 9 and 11 HD, the critter instead just takes the extra damage and some kind of debilitating condition that can be lessened with a Fort save based on your BAB.

Of course, it's ALSO the case that this effect of insta-killing one or more weak opponents could be achieved through the GM using underlings to flesh out the enemy's forces. Low hit point/low defense monsters work well at presenting a substantial enemy force that a sufficiently powerful PC can just mow through several at a time due to badassery.


For 1 main reason (among others). There are only have your 1 PC and countless enemies.
Say it only happened on a 20, or something. Your PC attacks and kills 20 enemies and during that time Instakills 1 of them (with a very good chance to have instakilled him anyways).
Now 30 mooks are fighting you over the course of a dungeon, 50% of them do no damage, 40% do some damage, 5% do serious damage and 5% instakill you.
That last 5% means you are just dead, its only a matter of time.

The two scenarios have very different results and we have a problem.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

We should have fewer SoL effects on the game. Not more. It doesn't matter they are martial.or magical in nature.


Thing is that people like their characters, and the way pathfinder is set up, both players and npcs(including monsters) function under the same rules.

Thus, if fighters get to hit people with Ref DC 10+½*lvl+Str once per round, that means that enemy fighters will be forcing the pcs to save vs death every round. They're going to lose that throw at some point, even if they're tricked out rogues, which most of them probably aren't.

This either means that Reincarnations will become hella common all of a sudden, or there'll be an (even bigger) attrition rate for characters.

Not saying that's neccesarily a bad thing, but the way pathfinder is set up, it wants a 10th level character to be a veteran of a hundred battles - that's not likely to happen if getting into a fight with an enemy fighter carries even a 25% chance of death.

You'd need to rework the XP system and general game progression entirely, or come to terms with the fact that pcs are overwhelmingly more likely to not engage in combat, and thus level a lot slower than normal.


Spells have SoD/SoS all the time. But you can get good saves, spell resistance, and lots of items and other spells to protect you quite well from those effects. Some of this happens naturally as you level up, so that at any level, you have SOME chance, usually a pretty good chance, to avoid the spell SoD/SoS effects.

Weapons don't have that problem. As you level up, it gets easier and easier to hit your enemies, and they hit YOU easier and easier too. You also don't (normally) get saving throws against weapons. And you don't run out of weapon swings, so you can use them all day (casters run out of their best spells fairly quickly). Also, you can make multiple attacks per round!

So, adding SoD/SoS effect to weapons would be the equivalent of:
1. letting casters cast their best spells all day without running out
2. removing Saving Throws from all those spells so they just work
3. let the casters cast several of these spells every round

Would you do that for spellcasters? Unlimited SoD/SoS spells that almost always hit and have no saves and can be used several times each round?

No, I don't think you would.

So make sure you don't do it for fighters, either.

That said, it might work if you made the fighters (all melee characters and monsters) pay for the ability. Some example ideas:

Make it a full round action to make just one attack (no iterative attacks and no Claw/Claw/Bite full-attacks with SoS/SoD - you get one attack, your best attack, but no more. And you might consider not allowing it until they have more than one attack normally (e.g. not until they have a BAB of 6 or higher).

Let the target make a save to resist the SoD/SoS part - they still take damage but get a reasonable save, equivalent to saving against same CR spells, to resist the effect.

Consider a pool of points, much like a Ki pool or a Panache pool, and the martial guy has to spend a point each time he tries to do this (some better effects like stun or blind might require more than one point).

If you don't like point pools (I don't) then at least consider imposing a penalty on the attack roll. The more effective the SoD/SoS effect, the bigger the penalty. That way low-level characters don't run around stunning and blinding their enemies on every swing (they miss too much) but high-level characters just might get away with it a lot.

Balanced like that, it might be lots of fun. Less than that level of balance and you may find it OP.


Honestly, something that wouldn't screw the game up more than it already is would be to grant the fighter-types 'spells'. They have slots and save DCs just like normal spells.

Example:

Focused Shots
School Archery; Level Fighter 1, Ranger 1, Rogue 1, Slayer 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components ranged weapon
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none
You close your eyes, and visualize the target with your inner eye, before launching a volley of projectiles.
The projectiles strike the targets unerringly, dealing 1d4+1 points of weapon damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you roll damage.

Cheap Shot
School Dirty Fighting; Level Brawler 0, Fighter 0, Ranger 0, Slayer 0, Rogue 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range Melee
Target one creature of 4 HD or less
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Fort negates
You knock the target about the head with a fist or the pommel of your weapon. This spell dazes a creature of 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions. Creatures of 5 or more HD are not affected. A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it. After a creature has been dazed by this spell, it is immune to the effects of this spell for 1 minute.


I think more ways to apply conditions would be ok, but true SoL make the game impredictable and sometimes anticlimatic. You would need different mechanics besides save or suck


The Dragon wrote:
Honestly, something that wouldn't screw the game up more than it already is would be to grant the fighter-types 'spells'. They have slots and save DCs just like normal spells.

Awesome idea.

I think that was tried before. The Tome of Battle (Book of Nine Swords) comes to mind.

It worked, pretty much, but changed the game very drastically. It might be the perfect solution, more or less.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Path of War has things along these lines, but balanced and fun.


Dave Justus wrote:
Path of War has things along these lines, but balanced and fun.

How much better is Path of War than Book of Nine Swords as far as the actual maneuvers, boosts, and stances are concerned?


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Path of War has things along these lines, but balanced and fun.
How much better is Path of War than Book of Nine Swords as far as the actual maneuvers, boosts, and stances are concerned?

Hmm. Good question.

Some of the things get a little over the top - the Broken Blade maneuvers in particular lets you stack up damage a little higher than I think is wise to allow, frankly.

That said, most of them are very interesting. Veiled Moon in particular lets you expand what a martial can do regarding movement, in a very nice direction.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Sovereign Court

Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)


Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Or at least adding some hit-point-equivalent for making saves.

(Hit points are Ablative Plot Armor vs insta-death weapon attacks, why do spells get to ignore that plot-armor?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)

Instead of 2 rounds to caster, maybe 2+ rounds to work.

Flesh to Stone could maybe slow you in the first round, stagger in the second, petrify in the third. It allows the parte to look for an altrrnstive, like trying dispel Magic, or use a Stone salve or whatever


I'll second everyone else's viewpoints here: Save or Suck effects being given to martials not only gives Martials more power, but also Casters too (especially Summon-specialized ones), since these same Martials could very well spec the same way (and therefore replicate the results).

But backing off of the whole Caster/Martial disparity issue (there's a million other threads for that), the problem with Save or Suck/Die is that it's an All or Nothing option. You either do the entire combat in a single action, or you do nothing, waste your action, and probably end up receiving the same Save or Suck/Die effect, and fail it. This sort of thing practically already occurs at 1st level gameplay; you get hit once with a Two-Handed Weapon, and you're gonna go into the negatives. Get a Critical Hit on you, and you're gonna go into the negatives. Get a Color Spray to the face, and you're gonna go into the negatives at some point in that round, or the round after.

I mean, that's just off the top of my head as to what will happen to PCs.

Granted, I think Martial combat can stand to have more excitement to it,, as well as always allow both PCs, NPCs, and creatures to properly fight back, but I think there should be a more stable means to apply it instead of "Oh, you have +12 to Damage at level 1? I'm dead, next game prease."

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

One of my favorite SoD/SoL fixes I've seen is from 13th Age, where the casters still have tons of effects like this that can only apply to monsters of a certain HP or lower.

This makes damage not feel stupid to apply, and prevents a first action slap-down of a boss fight, but still lets you unleash a scary spell.

Sovereign Court

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)

Instead of 2 rounds to caster, maybe 2+ rounds to work.

Flesh to Stone could maybe slow you in the first round, stagger in the second, petrify in the third. It allows the parte to look for an altrrnstive, like trying dispel Magic, or use a Stone salve or whatever

Indeed - such things were one of the parts of 4e which I liked a lot. You also got a new save each round to stop the effect where it was.

Though I do still think that most of the more powerful spells should all take a full round action to cast. Not only would it let martials hit them to disrupt - but it'd make counter-spelling viable as you could spellcraft check during your turn and then - if you have the spell on your list - counter it before they finish casting.


When designing Save or Lose abilities like hold person, one needs to consider how changes might increase or decrease the lethality of the ability. For example, it has been argued by others that the changes from the 3.0 hold person to the 3.5 hold person actually made the spell more lethal in normal play:

Quote:
The impact of the changes between 3.5 and 3.0 Hold Person is very simple to understand indeed. The 3e version takes you out of the fight on a failed save. That means that you sit out the next few rounds and if the rest of the party is captured or killed then so are you. And if your party wins, then your character becomes un-paralyzed in a few rounds. The 3.5 version could end every round, which means that the enemy is incentivized to coup de grace you immediately, which they do and then you have to make a new character. It makes the spell less good in that one of your allies has to spend an action to hammer it in, but while it has no real effect on team monster it makes the spell much more lethal to player characters. Less functional, more game distrupting.

Of course, the change was made to prevent a player sitting out for multiple turns without anything to do, but the change had the unintended consequence of incentivizing monsters/enemies to go for the coup-de-grace more often because the effect could end much sooner.

This of course applies to SoL/SoD spells for casters as well and it is why I prefer to use ablative defenses against SoL/SoD effects for both casters and martials.

From Kirthfinder

Quote:

Strength: A character whose Strength is reduced to 1 is entangled. A character with a Strength of 0 is helpless, prone, and cannot stand up. [...]

Dexterity: [...]A character with a Dexterity of 1 is slowed; a character with a Dexterity of 0 is paralyzed.

Constitution: A character with a Constitution of 1 is infirm and can do nothing but rest; a character with a constitution of 0 is dead.
[...][U]ndead and constructs have no Constitution scores. Undead use their Charisma modifier for hit points and Fortitude saves in place of their Con modifier, as in the core rules. Constructs use their Strength modifier similarly; this supersedes the arbitrary size-based bonus hp listed in the Core Rules. This amendment [...] allows constructs to be difficult to destroy without increasing their BAB; a strong but clumsy golem running amok is an iconic image not modeled well by providing constructs with a full BAB progression.

Intelligence: A character with an Intelligence of 1 is feebleminded, with the mental acuity of a reptile. A character with an Intelligence of 0 is a mindless automaton. [...]

Wisdom: [...]A character with a Wisdom of 1 is confused. A character with a Wisdom of 0 is completely insane, has no external sensory input, and is unaware that the outside world exists.

Charisma: [...]A character with a Charisma of 1 has insufficient ego to exert executive autonomy; he or she acts as if charmed by everyone he or she interacts with. A character with a Charisma of 0 is dominated, likewise.


Wait, in Kirthfiner if you lower a Undead's Cha to 0 is it re-dead?


Starbuck_II wrote:
Wait, in Kirthfiner if you lower a Undead's Cha to 0 is it re-dead?

It seems to work the same way as the core rules, since reducing a Con to 0 in those rules kills the character and undead use their Cha in place of Con. So, based on my understanding of how the rules interact, yes.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)

This would take us back to 1st edition casting, where EVERYBODY on the battlefield had a chance to take their shot at the caster because EVERY spell started this round and finished next round - you couldn't start and finish your spell in a single round. At least, I don't remember doing that, but it's been a long, long time since I cracked those books.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Dragon wrote:

Honestly, something that wouldn't screw the game up more than it already is would be to grant the fighter-types 'spells'. They have slots and save DCs just like normal spells.

Example:

Focused Shots
School Archery; Level Fighter 1, Ranger 1, Rogue 1, Slayer 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components ranged weapon
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none
You close your eyes, and visualize the target with your inner eye, before launching a volley of projectiles.
The projectiles strike the targets unerringly, dealing 1d4+1 points of weapon damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you roll damage.

Cheap Shot
School Dirty Fighting; Level Brawler 0, Fighter 0, Ranger 0, Slayer 0, Rogue 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range Melee
Target one creature of 4 HD or less
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Fort negates
You knock the target about the head with a fist or the pommel of your weapon. This spell dazes a creature of 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions. Creatures of 5 or more HD are not affected. A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it. After a creature has been dazed by this spell, it is immune to the effects of this spell for 1 minute.

Your "fighter spells" lack SR while they are identical to existing spells. That alone make them way better than regular spells that generally are subject to SR.

Then there is the "little" factor of what you are giving away to get them.
You are boosting formerly mundane combatants without trading anything back? Fighters aren't perfectly balanced with wizards but they do plenty of damage, now you are trying to get them wizard abilities with less drawbacks and still keeping the same damage output.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Then you must give something back to them.

Sure, it sucks being removed from a game by a Save or Die/Save or Lose spell, but it the casters don't have those and the damage they dish out is generally insufficient to allow them to overcome an enemy, what function is left to them?
Party buffer and healer? Wasn't that the reason clerics were generally despised in AD&D 1 and 2?
Out of combat problem solver? Isn't one of the main problems with spellcaters their ability to resolve a lot of non combat situations with their spells?
You want them to do that even more as their spells don't have combat utility and so they will never memorize/learn them?

What kind of threat is a enemy spellcaster without that kind of spells?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)

Why don't you ask for a pinata directly? waht fun you get for beating a defenseless target?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)
This would take us back to 1st edition casting, where EVERYBODY on the battlefield had a chance to take their shot at the caster because EVERY spell started this round and finished next round - you couldn't start and finish your spell in a single round. At least, I don't remember doing that, but it's been a long, long time since I cracked those books.

No, you declared what you would cast at the start of the round, then you were casting it until your initiative came, then it was resolved.

Any damage between the start of the turn and the moment in which the spell was resolved would cancel it.

If I recall correctly initiative was 1d10, +casting time/weapon speed. The higher numbers were worse. Spells generally had a long casting time, so the guy with the longsword was often capable to move and attack before the spell was resolved. Saves were easier too. On the other hand hit point were way less and damaging spells dis the same number of HP they do today. 70 hp for a 10th level fighter were a good number, so getting hit for 35 hp (17 if saved) of damage by a fireball was relevant. Today? The fighter has 100 hp and can withstand several fireballs.


Several things changed from 2.0 to 3.0 while others were kept because of sacred cowness. In general, martials got hurt and casters benefited. Although the 10d6 firebsll is no longer a threat, now you can have intensified empowered maximizrd fireballs with a draconic sorcerer dip for 150+ damage, uninterrpted, with a scaling DC, csted from a neverending pool of lvl 3 spells, that you can study in 1 hour. Compare it with the every limited number of non metsmsgic spells with static save that you had to spend HOURS memorizing.

To compensate the fighter also lost the ability to move and full attack, and the exclusiveness over high lvl stats (18/00 str and high hp with con) ;)


Diego Rossi wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Then you must give something back to them.

Sure, it sucks being removed from a game by a Save or Die/Save or Lose spell, but it the casters don't have those and the damage they dish out is generally insufficient to allow them to overcome an enemy, what function is left to them?
Party buffer and healer? Wasn't that the reason clerics were generally despised in AD&D 1 and 2?
Out of combat problem solver? Isn't one of the main problems with spellcaters their ability to resolve a lot of non combat situations with their spells?
You want them to do that even more as their spells don't have combat utility and so they will never memorize/learn them?

What kind of threat is a enemy spellcaster without that kind of spells?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)
Why don't you ask for a pinata directly? waht fun you get for beating a defenseless target?

They still have area control. They still have general utility. They still have general debuffs which are not SoL. So taking away Sol does not completely neuter casters, hell it is more like a 5% reduction in effectiveness than the 50% you make it out to be.


Diego Rossi wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Either that or make the spells that do them take 2+ rounds to cast - so there's plenty of time to hit them and rack up damage for high concentration checks. (basically a major drawback to attempting them)
This would take us back to 1st edition casting, where EVERYBODY on the battlefield had a chance to take their shot at the caster because EVERY spell started this round and finished next round - you couldn't start and finish your spell in a single round. At least, I don't remember doing that, but it's been a long, long time since I cracked those books.

No, you declared what you would cast at the start of the round, then you were casting it until your initiative came, then it was resolved.

Any damage between the start of the turn and the moment in which the spell was resolved would cancel it.

If I recall correctly initiative was 1d10, +casting time/weapon speed. The higher numbers were worse. Spells generally had a long casting time, so the guy with the longsword was often capable to move and attack before the spell was resolved. Saves were easier too. On the other hand hit point were way less and damaging spells dis the same number of HP they do today. 70 hp for a 10th level fighter were a good number, so getting hit for 35 hp (17 if saved) of damage by a fireball was relevant. Today? The fighter has 100 hp and can withstand several fireballs.

Spells generally had a casting time equal to their level. There were exceptions, like the Power Word spells.

A longsword had a speed of 5, a shortsword a 4, a greatsword a 10, and a dagger a 2.
So, Sleep or Magic Missile would usually go off even before a dagger, and almost always before the fighter could swing a longsword.


Zhayne wrote:
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.

Agreed. Lower the ceiling somewhat on the more extreme examples of what spells can do, but raise the floor a bit so even a passed saving throw applies some degree of damage, a brief debuff, or otherwise beneficial circumstances for the caster's allies. AoE spells should get only one of these, at max, on a target that passes the saving throw. These ARE daily resources a caster is blowing through, it's only fair that they get something out of it if the enemy rolls amazing on their saving throws.


There are already many save or suck effects available to martials. The problem is that they don't work due to having crap DCs. Like Monk's stunning fist (which is the high end of effective mind you).

Paizo started learning they could give martials nice things when they made Rogue Unchained, which isn't necessarily sos but a step in the right direction.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The problem of your suggestions is that all move toward making casters pure support characters, so useless without fighter support even against low level opponents and extremely boring to play for most people.

The error in the 3.X series of games where the metamagic rods and some metamagic feat as them, combined, make S0S/SoD spells almost irresistible.
At the same time, I we trust in the forum, plenty of combat character overspecialize neglecting any defense or access to combat abilities in favor of extra damage.
To me this "we can't do nothing again casters" is born by those two things, not from the the spell themselves (sure, there are a few insane spells, but throwing every SoS/SoD spell away because a few shouldn't have been printed is an error),


CommandoDude wrote:

There are already many save or suck effects available to martials. The problem is that they don't work due to having crap DCs. Like Monk's stunning fist (which is the high end of effective mind you).

Paizo started learning they could give martials nice things when they made Rogue Unchained, which isn't necessarily sos but a step in the right direction.

The DC on Stunning Fist wouldn't be that bad if we could at least declare the use AFTER we roll the d20. Stunning Fist is a lot like a level-based pool of spell-like abilities that are available to a monk, so it makes sense that a saving throw is required. Having to also land a regular melee attack and deal damage AND make this all against a creature that isn't immune to critical hits (which might mean the fortification mythic/simple monster creation ability can negate a SF attempt) is just overkill.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

There are already many save or suck effects available to martials. The problem is that they don't work due to having crap DCs. Like Monk's stunning fist (which is the high end of effective mind you).

Paizo started learning they could give martials nice things when they made Rogue Unchained, which isn't necessarily sos but a step in the right direction.

The DC on Stunning Fist wouldn't be that bad if we could at least declare the use AFTER we roll the d20. Stunning Fist is a lot like a level-based pool of spell-like abilities that are available to a monk, so it makes sense that a saving throw is required. Having to also land a regular melee attack and deal damage AND make this all against a creature that isn't immune to critical hits (which might mean the fortification mythic/simple monster creation ability can negate a SF attempt) is just overkill.

well if you got stamina, that helps.


Getting new things similar to Dazing Assault would certainly help. Maybe a bleed that is actually useful? More condition inducing martial abilities? Oh and please ease up on the martial prerequisites paizo.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What if martial combat had more save or die / suck effects? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.