| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope...Not a chance
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...bro
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full-Attack Action is one of the biggest systemic problems almost every weapon-based character has to deal with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Fighters can be mobile at high levels. You just gotta be a weaboo fightan furry for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, interesting if you posit that ANY/ALL characters should get iteratives on Full Attack,
even if that means they subtract from the dice roll for the 2nd attack...
But bigger picture, issue is why Casters don't suffer this, apart from <5% of spells which are 1 round/Full Round with Metamagic.
For Casters, Move Action movement is basically gravy. Clerics can even Quick Channel to utilize that for offense/healing,
on top of Swift Action casting which is much more broadly prevalent than Swift Action options for martials.
(for one, there is no generic means of using Swift Action to make "low level" attack)
Which might make sense if Standard Action spellcasting was weaker than Full Action martial attacks... But...
This is a 3.xism which Paizo refused to touch... 3rd Edition being "Caster Edition".
I mean, compare to 2nd Edition action/initiative economy which was very differently balanced.
But 3.x decided that playing a Caster should be easy, you shouldn't need to actually play smart, wise, etc.
I agree that martial classes should be more mobile than they currently are, but I don't know how to mechanical resolve the issue without pumping martial character's damage too high.
Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do. Full attacks are usually enough to kill a single enemy. Combats only last as long as they do (and in my experience that's usually 4 rounds at most) because melee characters need move to their targets and will do substantially less damage that round.
There needs to be some sort of change to mitigate the reduction in effectiveness that martial characters experience when moving.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few options nowadays:
* Vital Strike (as already mentioned) and Cleave
* Mobile fighter archetype allows combining of a full-attack with a move action, at level 11
* Two-weapon warrior archetype can attack once with both weapons as a standard action, at level 9
* Circling Mongoose allows you to move around your foe, potentially getting into position for next round's full-attack
* Combine a melee weapon with a ranged weapon, with feats like Opening Volley & Sword and Pistol
* Use a throwable melee weapon - daggers with Quick Draw come to my mind
Yes, they all come at a high price. But in my opinion fighters are not supposed to be totally focused on damage anyway. If you invest half (or just a third) of your resources into defense, this -30% damage (I will assume this value as true for this posting) is half as bad.
Finally, armor training does improve mobility soon - if you don't trade it away.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic answer? Poor game design.
It's not Paizo's fault, since it's basic to 3.0 and 3.5 and they were shackled to backwards compatibility, but it's a point of terrible game design nonetheless.
Debatably, it's one poor design decision among many good ones (if you like the game, like I do), but I can't think of anyone who doesn't think that the incompatibility of moving and full attacking is one of the system's problems.
I've actually added some additional mobility options for all non-spellcasters in my games (except Barbarians, who don't need one). There's a reason for this.
If you have a decent Wisdom score, you could pick up three levels of Horizon Walker, get the Dimension Door SLA with Terrain Dominance (Astral Plane) and get the Dimensional Agility feat line. However, barring retraining shenanigans, Dimensional Dervish wouldn't come until level 13 (as they are not Combat Feats).
There are plenty of ways to deal with this
-Cornugon Smash+Hurtful- first lets you intimidate as a free action on a hit, second gives you a free hit on an intimidated opponent. Nice foundation for a debuff build with the right equipment. Still a loss of damage at higher levels, but enough that you still feel useful, and you are debuffing on saves (wizard will love you). Combos well with most options other than coordinated charge (due to swift/immediate action use).
-Reach+lunge- cause full attacking anything in a 45' wide circle is a rather nice consolation prize. Full attack at the range where fullplated halflings might struggle to even reach with a move action. If you have a feat that allows you to 5' step in difficult terrain, you can actually have an easier time than pounce in certain situations. Available at level 6.
-coordinated charge- teamwork feat that allows you to immediate action charge when an ally with this feat charges. Since you are moving outside of your turn, and you end up next to the guy you want to kill... it is a pseudo pounce. This gets interesting since fighters have several decent options to give others teamwork feats. Ignoring the various tactician things, you could go with an eldritch guadian (since coordinated charge is a combat feat, so your bunny can lead the charge on the dragon) or advanced weapon training to just pretend everyone else ahs the teamwork feats (great if you have a party member with pounce). Available at level 10.
-Pummeling style. Fighters are not the best at unarmed builds, but pummeling style does work to reduce the problems of unarmed builds- it gives cluster shot to unarmed strikes that lets you destroy DR, and it obviously lets you full attack on a charge, relieving the full attack reliance. Takes more elvels to accomplish than monk or brawler, but getting pounce at level 12 is pretty normal.
-outslug style- style that combines penalty free lunge with an extra 5' on your 5' step. So in the end, you cna full attack the same area as reach+lunge at the 45' wide circle. Uses close weapons, but that is not as much of a problem since advanced weapon training gives warpriest scaling dice on weapon. So grab a cestus and hit with 1d10s. Might want to balance str and dex for a TWF build (not that hard on a 20 point buy). Can come on at level 9 or so for fighter, so fine fake pounce replacement.
-I am not entirely up to date on the specific combos of abilities, but thrown weapons are viable now since there is something that gets the weapon to come back without delay. A nice TWF dagger builds that switch hits with its primary weapon only seems great.
All of these are fine options that can allow you to attack things more than 10' away, and they are often tied to perfectly fine styles that fighters often love. So I see few problems here for fighter. Heck, fighters have a bit easier time than some melee classes, since they can waste feats on styles and feat chains and they have a couple nice options here and there.
Allowing move + full attack turns the game even more into rocket tag, and in my personal preference the game would suffer for it. True, archers can get a lot of full attacks off, and so I think Pathfinder erred in boosting archery with feats like Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots (not to mention gunslingers). Would have been better for ranged full attacks to typically do less damage than melee full attacks.
As much as I'd like to improve fighters, I do agree with that. Rocket tag is annoying and difficult to deal with (judging how well a situation is going before too late) from my eyes.
Of course part of the issue is also that melee combatants give up their damage to move, and as you noted, archers don't. Add on to that ranged weapons in melee range isn't a drawback at the cost of a feat (or 5ft step if your opponent doesn't have reach) and it seems archery is simply a stronger fighting style. Of course, as also pointed out in here, casters generally don't lose anything for moving either, and eating 1 hit as an attack of opportunity will always be more favorable than eating 3-5 from a full attack, but that's what mirror image is for.
Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do.
You mean like a 10th level Barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem?
Given Barbarians are the kings of melee damage, having them be capable of picking up pounce by 10th level via rage powers alone could be considered a tad unfair, given that Fighters get nothing of the sort.
I most certainly do NOT think that the incompatibility of moving and full attacking is one of the system's problems. It's a feature, not a bug IMO.
As I've said before, limiting full attacks to a 5' step was intended to let fighters protect the squishies. If the troll is engaged with a fighter, it can do a full attack, or it can disengage, move, take an AOO, and get only a single attack against the wizard. So those engaged in melee get some "stickiness" because an enemy gives up a fair amount of damage potential to move (in addition to taking the AOO).
Arguably, yes. It depends heavily on the creature and party makeup.
I also tend to find that single big creatures (e.g. dragons) fair extremely poorly, especially if players capitalize on the action economy to force the bigbad to move in order to attack, even at the cost of the fighter's full-attack sequence. On the flip side, when people do go for their full attacks, combat becomes rather static and often quite dull.
Off the top of my head, if you wanted to try and balance out combat styles and permit a full-attack sequence as a standard action, my first suggestion would be to ban Deadly Aim, Power Attack and anything like it, as well as ditching the bonus damage on Lances and Spirited Charge. It makes the attacks more accurate, but lower in individual damage, spreading the martial's DPR over a number of hits, instead of 1-2 big smashes. It also allows TWF to compete against archery or a two-handed weapon.
It might not be perfect (again, this is off the top of my head), but it would push the numbers in the right direction.
Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do.You mean like a 10th level Barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem?
Yeah I made that character once. I wont play it again because it's too good compared to other martial characters.
|
|
Yeah I made that character once. I wont play it again because it's too good compared to other martial characters.Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do.You mean like a 10th level Barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem?
Eh. Only the melee ones. Archers do even better sorta by default.
Still probably ought to be standard for there to be some way to do this. I still hold out hope for a generally available Feat option kicking in at 12th level. Vigilante has an option at that level, as do unarmed builds that aren't Monk or Brawler (who get it at 8th...but are using a less than optimal fighting style sorta by definition).
So it's not like Paizo isn't willing to add these. It's just that, kinda like dex-to-damage, the ways to do it are often overly specific for my tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I made that character once. I wont play it again because it's too good compared to other martial characters.Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do.You mean like a 10th level Barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem?
In the FAQ they clarified that while you can Pounce while mounted, the bonus damage from a Lance and Spirited Charge is only supposed to apply to the first attack. Of course, if you're using the printed books, they say no such thing.
Still, even with the FAQ nerf the hasted (no other buffs) halfling barbarian 11 (assuming 20pt buy, WBL, reckless abandon etc) riding a dinos... dog would by 10th level be merrily doing a 140ft charge for the following;
- +25 (3d6+72, 19-20x3)
+25 (1d6+24, 19-20x3)
+20 (1d6+24, 19-20x3)
+15 (1d6+24, 19-20x3)
With a CR14 thing (APL+3) having an average AC of 29, that's an average charge damage of around 131 charge damage (accounting for hit chance and crits) with the FAQ, or 255 damage without it. And that's a halfling - a human would be punching significantly higher due to size and 4 points more strength.
As a comparison, a halfling (order of the sword) cavalier with spirited charge is looking at a single attack (with challenge) of around +24 (3d6+120, 19-20x3), with an average damage against our CR14 thing of 94.
Archery comes in a distant third place. A hasted human fighter archer (to get weapon training) looking at:
- +20 (1d8+16, 19-20x3, plus 1d8+16)
+20 (1d8+16, 19-20x3)
+15 (1d8+16, 19-20x3)
+10 (1d8+16, 19-20x3)
Vs same CR14 thing, that's an average of around 51, accounting for hit chance, crit chance etc.
Conversely, a human fighter charging with a greatsword gets a single attack of around +23 (2d6+25, 17-20x2) for an average damage of 28. Possibly a little more if playing with archetypes, but not by much.
And then, there's the poor sod who went TWF.
Unfortunately, given the combat styles and frequent necessity for movement, not all fighting styles are born equal.
You should always show where your numbers are coming from. Also, a 2h fighter will almost always grab the feat where they ignore the power attack penalty on the first swing (forgot the name).
If we assume a +3 weapon, haste +1, charging +2, 24 str for +7, WT+2, GWF, Duelist gloves, and f/ll, that fighter is actually doing +30 and will auto-hit that AC of 29 every time for +3 Wpn, +4 WT, +10 Str, +2 Spec, PA for -0 (-3)/+9 = 2-12 +28 = 35 avg dmg, possibly modified by size if Enlarged, and/or by Vital Strike.
His full attack sequence will be:
+28/+ 24/+19/+14, for hit rates of 95/80/55/30 = 260% of 35 dmg, or around 88 dmg, barring crits.
The human archer, assuming a 22 Dex and 18 Str, using Deadly Aim, will be d8 +4 Str, +3 bow, +4 WT, +2 Spec, +6 DA for +19 dmg, and hit rates of +11 BAB, +6 Dex, +3 Wpn, +4 WT, +1 Haste, and +2 GWF for +27 base, -3 for DA, = +24/+24/+19/+14 for d8 + 19 (avg 23.5) and 80/80/55/30 = 245% = 60 dmg, barring crits. If he can get his bow Lead Weaponed and his strength higher instead of Dex, his damage goes up very quickly (and it will take another hop at level 12 with +2 DA and WT+1).
Note that simply dropping the AC of the enemy to 26 (avg for level) explodes the damage upwards.
Greatsword fighter's full attack is now 305% of 35 damage, and over 100 points.
Archer's damage is also 305% of 23 dmg, and around 70.
At level 12, WT goes up by 1, Power Attack dmg kicks, in, and both fighters can take Greater Weapon Spec. The additional +1 TH/+5 (+6) dmg is another damage leap.
So choosing what level to do your damage test at can make a very large difference in DoT.
But the biggest, of course, is that the melee fighter does not get to move and full attack, even on a charge.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Seen a by the numbers optimized falcata two weapon fighter that could do 400 hit points of damage per round... never get a full attack because the druids raptor and summoner's pet had pounce.
I move 20 feet and.. attack once.
I mover 120 feet... claw claw bite talon talon talon!
The intent was to reduce the amount of time it took for a high level fighters turn to go by. The effect was to nerf their damage pretty hard unless they went with archery. The more your party optimizes and kills things, the harder nerfed you are because you keep needing to move to new targets.
Fighters are more mobile than other melee martials.
At 7th level they get their full movement rate while wearing heavy armor. Paladins need to cast a spell to manage that, and that's not an option for Rangers at all.
What other people seem to forget is that fighters travel in Parties. And that party will usually include someone who can haste them, or they'll acquire magic on themselves or their weapons which will bestow haste.
Proper magic equipment on a fighter is a force multiplier.
The problem is with considering the Full Attack as the Fighter's "normal" damage and a single attack with the benefit of mobility as "less" damage. Turn the paradigm around, and it becomes a single attack as "normal" damage and the benefit of staying still (or at least withing 5' step range) is that you get "extra" hits and, statistically, more damage. The only thing I'd really consider is that big slow weapons should have a harder time against small quick weapons. If you're trying to swing a Greatsword or a Greataxe at someone wielding a Dagger, they should be able to get off an AoO against you to account for your swing being slower than theirs.
Absolutely not. That is not how weapons work. A two handed sword is NOT slow because you do not swing it like an extra heavy baseball bat: that long handle gives it a lot of leverage and you'd routinely grab it even higher up the blade. Someone with a dagger against a greatsword is SOL: realistically they'd be considered unarmed from their far inferior reach of the system took things like that into account.
Fighters are more mobile than other melee martials.
At 7th level they get their full movement rate while wearing heavy armor. Paladins need to cast a spell to manage that, and that's not an option for Rangers at all.
Just cast long strider and make yourself 10 (well, 5) feet faster.
What other people seem to forget is that fighters travel in Parties. And that party will usually include someone who can haste them, or they'll acquire magic on themselves or their weapons which will bestow haste.
Proper magic equipment on a fighter is a force multiplier.
But the point is haste doesn't do that if the fighter has to move. Sure, the melee fighter can move 60 feet... and still attack once with some minor bonuses, but the archer gets those bonuses and an extra attack, and pounce critters get... well. here, hold this umbrella *splat*
The only thing I'd really consider is that big slow weapons should have a harder time against small quick weapons. If you're trying to swing a Greatsword or a Greataxe at someone wielding a Dagger, they should be able to get off an AoO against you to account for your swing being slower than theirs.
A greatsword being "slow" is one of the myths that fantasy games like to propagate, but is largely historically inaccurate. Greatswords are wielded in two hands with a long hilt that grants incredible control and speed - much more so than a long blade held in one hand. More, they give something even more important: Reach. A person with a dagger needs to get very close to strike, whereas a greatsword can slice them up while they are still far away.
If anything, it should be the other way around, and the longer reach weapon wielder should get the AO against the dagger user... but frankly, that just makes things messy and complicated.
You should always show where your numbers are coming from. Also, a 2h fighter will almost always grab the feat where they ignore the power attack penalty on the first swing (forgot the name).
We've got guests over playing with the toddler, so I'm not really in a position to spend too long here at the forums, sadly. Mostly I was highlighting the discrepancy between the fighting styles in a "ballpark" style. But point taken.
If we assume a +3 weapon, haste +1, charging +2, 24 str for +7, WT+2, GWF, Duelist gloves, and f/ll, that fighter is actually doing +30 and will auto-hit that AC of 29 every time for +3 Wpn, +4 WT, +10 Str, +2 Spec, PA for -0 (-3)/+9 = 2-12 +28 = 35 avg dmg, possibly modified by size if Enlarged, and/or by Vital Strike.
I wasn't going anywhere near that degree of optimization. Generally I just threw in a +2 weapon, +4 Stat belt and no buffs except haste
But the biggest, of course, is that the melee fighter does not get to move and full attack, even on a charge.
And my point was about mobility. Yes, full-attack with a greatsword is good, but the point was that the effectiveness of archery and pounce is that you can get the full attack in a lot more than those who lack such abilities. And anything that boosts the fighter's greatsword full attack usually explodes the raging mounted pounce barbarian as much or more.
Hence; I think it would be interesting playing a game where movement and full attacks were permitted across the board. I would just want the damage-per-hit to be reduced accordingly, hence my earlier suggestion regarding Power Attack, Deadly Aim, lances and Spirited Charge (as the main culprits behind silly numbers).
|
If you want pounce, just have someone in your party use a Wand of Monstrous Physique II to turn you into a tikbalang for 7 minutes. Sure, it's expensive, but by around the level you'd get pounce as a barbarian or alchemist it starts to become reasonably affordable. And that method comes with a host of other benefits - increased size, reach, strength, speed, senses, and natural armor. Plus the ability to make all of your normal weapon attacks with three additional natural weapons thrown in. All in all, I'd call it a worthy investment.Yeah I made that character once. I wont play it again because it's too good compared to other martial characters.Imagine melee characters get to full attack every turn no matter what they do.You mean like a 10th level Barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem?
Monstrous Physique is a personal spell, and thus you can not wand it for someone else. You would need to have UMD or the spell on your spell list to make this work.
Would it be horribly broken if higher level martials could make two attacks as a standard action instead of just one? I'm just spitballing here. I've not played a martial character at a high level before.
Hmm, I tried Unchained's action economy in my game and found it to be somewhat disruptive. It allows the combination of multiple attacks with movement by default, no feat etc. needed. At level 6, martials get an even bigger power bump than usually, especially when they move and do two Great Cleaves per round. Since there is no longer a penalty for closing to the enemy, our paladin just rushs in, and the alternative (stay, wait and protect) is no longer attractive. It makes battles more dull, in a way.
Same applies for the big bad monsters, of course. They can move in and swing most / all of their natural attacks at the party, giving players less chance to react and adapt.
So at the next campaign I will be back to normal action economy, despite its unnecessary complexity (5-foot step, I am looking at you) and weird restrictions. Martials don't need a boost, it's casters who can use some confinement (preferably self-imposed by the player).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know how these arguments work. You are NOT allowed to consider buffs or items in any way. The fighter must be naked with a masterwork weapon of his choice or it doesn't count. Any benefits from a buff belong totally to the caster, the force being multiplied is irrelevant only the one multiplying counts whatsoever ...Fighters are more mobile than other melee martials.
At 7th level they get their full movement rate while wearing heavy armor. Paladins need to cast a spell to manage that, and that's not an option for Rangers at all.
What other people seem to forget is that fighters travel in Parties. And that party will usually include someone who can haste them, or they'll acquire magic on themselves or their weapons which will bestow haste.
Proper magic equipment on a fighter is a force multiplier.
Given that the topic was mobility - specifically the ability to move and deal damage - haste doesn't actually help Joe Fighter, but only those who are either ranged (and thus don't need to move) or capable of multiple attacks while moving (e.g. Pounce).
This also applies to all the buffs that add to attack and damage.
For example: Applying +3 Inspire Courage, haste, greater heroism and prayer to a raging mounted pounce barbarian or any archer will give them dramatically more effective DPR than they will a fighter with a greatsword, as the fighter will be more likely to need to sacrifice attacks to move, whereas the other two do not.
The proverbial cat is already out of the bag.
The question is not "Would it be balanced for martials to be able to reliably full attack" so much as "Would it be balanced for all martials to reliably full-attack" as some already can. (And that's not mentioning the Magus Spell Combat + bladed dash or anyone casting monstrous physique to gain pounce, or eidolons/etc).
Personally: Maybe it's just my background in 2nd edition, but I think 3.0 went way, way too far when they started boosting melee/weapon damage, both for players and monsters.
In 2nd edition damaging spells were popular as they did (comparatively) enormous damage - a wizard throwing fireball was calling down artillery to demolish foes. In 3.0 the spell damage remained similar, but melee damage completely eclipsed it and monster HP were raised to suit. The result is that damaging spells are actually scorned by a huge number of players I've gamed with as being a waste of resources compared to the Save-or-Suck and utility spells favoured by batman wizards.
So do I think everything full-attacking all the time is too much damage? Well. Yes. But frankly that's because I think everything does too much physical damage, and generally house rule extra hitpoints on both PCs and monsters when I GM to make it bit less of a rocket-tag game.
But as mentioned: Third edition damage is already a thing, and so are full-attack charges and archers with Deadly Aim. In light of which, do I think it fair that only some martials get to full attack most of the time, whereas others (e.g. rogues) do not? No, I don't think it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is not "Would it be balanced for martials to be able to reliably full attack" so much as "Would it be balanced for all martials to reliably full-attack" as some already can. (And that's not mentioning the Magus Spell Combat + bladed dash or anyone casting monstrous physique to gain pounce, or eidolons/etc).
This is the real issue. Right now, mobile full attacking is just a matter of having enough system mastery to know the right tools. Really, it's not so much about changing the game balance as it is making things more accessible/transparent.
You know how these arguments work. You are NOT allowed to consider buffs or items in any way. The fighter must be naked with a masterwork weapon of his choice or it doesn't count. Any benefits from a buff belong totally to the caster, the force being multiplied is irrelevant only the one multiplying counts whatsoever ...
You're "allowed" to consider them but they don't help the problem. Unless you have telekenetic charge or are rolling your fighter around in an aqueous orb they can move further, but any distance greater than 5 feeet is the same problem
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).
I.....actually really like this idea. Kudos!
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).
how about staggering them so they come in at like +8 + 13 and +18? At least for the +6 iterative so that is are some levels where you don't have the ability to make a full attack at reach essentially.
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).how about staggering them so they come in at like +8 + 13 and +18? At least for the +6 iterative so that is are some levels where you don't have the ability to make a full attack at reach essentially.
It's not really "at reach" because reach characters will have essentially "even bigger" reach. It does reduce the effectiveness of reach builds over non-reach builds, but I don't really see that as a problem. It mostly just means reach characters don't have the same level of impunity that they used to with "attack at 10ft" and 5ft away after a full attack to avoid the same retaliation. It's a good thing in my mind.
That being said, if you're already house ruling anyways...you can house rule however you like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 1 fighter can walk 30 feet or charge 60 feet or run 120 feet every single round and do full damage.
A level 6 fighter loses a little bit of potential damage, but can still pull it off because iteratives are inaccurate.
A level 11 fighter is losing more than half their potential damage.
A level 20 fighter is going to end up doing maybe 30% of their total damage while moving.
This seems kind of backwards. Shouldn't a newbie who's just finished their training be less competent at darting around a battlefield relatively than the ultimate master of martial combat?
False premise.
At 1st-level, a fighter can move 30 feet and do some damage.
At 6th-level, a fighter can move 30 feet and do some damage.
At 11th-level, a fighter can move 30 feet and do some damage.
At 16th-level, a fighter can move 30 feet and do some damage.
Nothing gets worse. But here's a different option a fighter has...
At 1st-level, a fighter can fight as hard as he can, doing some damage.
At 6th-level, a fighter can fight as hard as he can, doing more damage.
At 11th-level, a fighter can fight as hard as he can, doing even more damage.
At 16th-level, a fighter can fight as hard as he can, doing even more damage than that.
Basically, if the fighter spends his time fighting, he gets significantly better. If he spends his time not fighting, he only gets slightly better.
Fighters are more mobile than other melee martials.
At 7th level they get their full movement rate while wearing heavy armor. Paladins need to cast a spell to manage that, and that's not an option for Rangers at all.
What other people seem to forget is that fighters travel in Parties. And that party will usually include someone who can haste them, or they'll acquire magic on themselves or their weapons which will bestow haste.
Proper magic equipment on a fighter is a force multiplier.
A fighter may be a force multiplier but it's value isn't very big compared to other classes that already have neat toys, those are the real force multipliers. Spending buffs on a paladin or barb or pouncing druid is far more effect than buffing the fighter.
|
|
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).
I give Fighters (and Brawlers and Swashbucklers) 10 foot steps as a Class Feature at around 8th (Brawlers get it at 7th). It works pretty well to help them out, though it isn't as good as Pounce.
Same applies for the big bad monsters, of course. They can move in and swing most / all of their natural attacks at the party, giving players less chance to react and adapt.
It is still just two attacks at most.
Unchained attack economy is more robust than most hacks people come up.
Yeah, interesting if you posit that ANY/ALL characters should get iteratives on Full Attack,
even if that means they subtract from the dice roll for the 2nd attack...But bigger picture, issue is why Casters don't suffer this, apart from <5% of spells which are 1 round/Full Round with Metamagic.
For Casters, Move Action movement is basically gravy. Clerics can even Quick Channel to utilize that for offense/healing,
on top of Swift Action casting which is much more broadly prevalent than Swift Action options for martials.
(for one, there is no generic means of using Swift Action to make "low level" attack)
Which might make sense if Standard Action spellcasting was weaker than Full Action martial attacks... But...This is a 3.xism which Paizo refused to touch... 3rd Edition being "Caster Edition".
I mean, compare to 2nd Edition action/initiative economy which was very differently balanced.
But 3.x decided that playing a Caster should be easy, you shouldn't need to actually play smart, wise, etc.
Time for Meta-Combat Feats anyone?
More seriously, issues like this is kinda why I like Path of War. Want more out of your martial than full attack (or buff, THEN full attack)? There is your answer.
The whole standard/full attack issue is a legacy of a simpler time, when one solid standard attack wasn't all that far behind one solid attack plus some very quickly diminishing iterative attacks. Being able to just run around with easy Haste all the time has thrown the balance way off - not unlike how it's seriously altered the balance of two-weapon combat.
A combo move like Felling Smash is still pretty good, but in a hasteless world it's far, far, *far* better.
I never digged Path of War mostly due to the fact that it has lot of bloat in the number of options.
Fewer, more broad combat moves would be more welcome addition. Combined with unchained action economy, you could have few powers each class that all take certain mount of acts to do.
On the other hand, if I called them Daily Powers, a lot of nasty connotations would explicitly surface I bet...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More seriously, issues like this is kinda why I like Path of War. Want more out of your martial than full attack (or buff, THEN full attack)? There is your answer.
Yep. I really couldn't see myself playing Pathfinder without the Path of War supplement like I really can't see myself playing v3.5 without access to the Tome of Battle. I like my non-casters to have nice things.