Related to the original topic, I always felt it was unwritten rule that monsters kindly charge the Fighter anyway so he does not really need to move at all.
I mean, monster probably beat the Fighter in init anyway and in typical fight scenario, it is the big melee guy who breaks the door down into the combat zone.
Generally speaking, if monsters are dumb enough to give the fighter the full-attack, it's probably something like a tiger which means it's nuking you with pounce doom.
Then there's the hordes of things sporting SLAs and stuff.
Whether Fighter can survive being charged is not important to me. Aggressive, confident and violent enemies come to you no matter what, and the bestiaries are full of them. Minotaurs, daemons, etc any that are satisfied with killing the first thing that comes to their vision.
Especially since the generic dungeon crawl lot of times involve stumbling into fights by opening the next door.
...
Whether Fighter can survive being charged is not important to me. Aggressive, confident and violent enemies come to you no matter what, and the bestiaries are full of them. Minotaurs, daemons, etc any that are satisfied with killing the first thing that comes to their vision.
Especially since the generic dungeon crawl lot of times involve stumbling into fights by opening the next door.
We can't use the majority of the bestiary because only creatures who charge at the fighter and line up for a good paddlin' are appropriate encounters.
This is yet another example of Fighters making the game worse by simply existing.
We can't use the majority of the bestiary because only creatures who charge at the fighter and line up for a good paddlin' are appropriate encounters.This is yet another example of Fighters making the game worse by simply existing.
What exactly are you expecting?
Pathfinder is a product of conserving an old system.The good and the bad.
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
You start to wonder if there are any spells that would allow the caster to move melee players into range on his turn .....
There are, they come online before the barbarians pounce, and allows far more freedom in positioning than simply charging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because putting your spellcaster in peril is a good way to get your martial to function?
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
You start to wonder if there are any spells that would allow the caster to move melee players into range on his turn .....
There are, they come online before the barbarians pounce, and allows far more freedom in positioning than simply charging.
** spoiler omitted **
So a martial is not only so worthless that he can't contribute to the fight himself, he is also so worthless that he needs a caster to sit on his back and provide him with mobility-enchancing dimension door when it is needed, getting into melee himself(wizards are known for their durability in melee after all), possibly dying and certainly not being as effective at casting as he could be?
This way martial would be not just useless, he would be a net negative for the party.
No the martial is soooo good that him getting a full attack for one round is worth an entire turn and a spell from a spell caster
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should differentiate between 'martials' and 'fighters', as the latter is a very specific class. Not being able to move and full attack is a problem for all martial classes, not just fighters.
For fighters specifically, the easiest thing to work with is Armor Training, since it already includes a movement component.
Giving a fighter +5' movement per Armor Training would take care of some of his movement rate problems, and he'd eventually be faster then a barbarian.
Expanding his 5' step to that speed bonus (meaning 10' at AT 2, 15' at AT 3) would be a logical add on, and again rewards a higher level fighter instead of making a dip.
The issue of martials getting more attacks or damage on a standard action is problematic because then you have to give the same thing to monsters, and pounce becomes much less strong. It really can turn the game into a rocket tag of who gets to move first.
5e addresses the problem by making multiple attacks a class feature (like it used to be) instead of an automatic thing with BAB...something I would prefer they go back to. I have NO problems with clerics never getting a second swing without using magic or TWF. Multiple attacks is a martial thing, as clearly as spellcasting is a caster thing.
However, if you do this, you have to reduce the numbers of attacks down. 4 iterative attacks amounts to about 250% dmg...which is the equivalent of 5/2 attacks, just like a 1e high level spec fighter. Granting another full BAB attack is 200% dmg...a big boost, and nearly as good as 4 iteratives by itself, while 3 attacks is 300%...clearly better! The 3/2 and 5/2 system was a bit wonky, but it was BALANCED that way.
A separate way of looking at the issue is to look at a full attack as a BONUS opportunity, and single attacks as the 'norm', just like spellcasting. Instead of more attacks, grant a bonus TH, AC, Dmg or Saves when taking the melee full attack action...you are giving up movement in order to focus on some other aspect of combat. This moderates the line between standard action and full attack considerably...right now, the scale is tilted so far to full attack it isn't funny.
A second way is to award Vital Strike to martials, and advance it by levels. This increases their mobile damage and draws the gap with a full attack closer. TOZ recommends this be done with fixed dmg dice, and I'll tend to agree...it effectively becomes 'skirmish combat damage', like the Scout archetype gets.
You could then do something like "A fighter adds his weapon spec and weapon training to each level of his vital strike damage", a cavaliar adds his challenge dmg to each level, a Barb adds his Rage bonus to Str to each level" and so on and so forth. Thus you get an ever scaling bonus to dmg that a non-martial class cannot hope to equal.
lastly, you should probably put your foot down and nerf missile combat to some extent. Most games don't allow missile combat to outdamage melee combat...you can swing a sword much faster then you can shoot a bow. Missile combat has the rather unfair advantage of being, well, at range, and keeping you completely safe, while being able to unload full attacks frequently, and not being inferior in damage to melee weapons at all. The risk you take with melee weapons by being in combat range is that you can deal out more damage to the enemy. So, missile weapons should have a maximum number of iteratives that you can execute with them, to rein them in and offset their safety advantages.
I'd probably go with max 2 attacks for bows, 1 for xbows, and if you want more, spend feats for rapid shot and Manyshot. This also mirrored 1 and 2e, and exchanging dmg for the safety of ranged combat is a decent tradeoff.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably go with max 2 attacks for bows, 1 for xbows, and if you want more, spend feats for rapid shot and Manyshot. This also mirrored 1 and 2e, and exchanging dmg for the safety of ranged combat is a decent tradeoff.
==Aelryinth
You mean the 1&2E where bows gave +1 attack/round just because? The one where bonus damage in melee was at a premium, and only reliably gotten by having an absurdly high Strength score and the pimpest of magical bonuses?
That 1st and 2nd edition?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
Because putting your spellcaster in peril is a good way to get your martial to function?
I mentioned this in an unrelated thread last week: for thematic reasons my earth school wizard has the highest AC in the party. She's not afraid of standing on the front lines.
RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
I would, personally, rather have this be solved by increased cast times. Basically reward casters for getting the jump on their target (as now) but if you're in a protracted melee you'll be sure you want a martial with you....or run.
Another interesting thing may be increasing the spells that require concentration to maintain. That is, a caster needs to concentrate on dominating a target, or using hold person each round (maybe as a move action so as to not take them completely out of the match as well if the target keeps getting to save). I think D&D 5 does something like this, but I've not played it.
Also where's Kobold Cleaver to add this to his list...
RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
Fighters do have that ability at high level.
Stunning Critical is the best example, but requires 17th level.
Lower level critical feats can still effectively end a fight: Blinding Critical and Staggering Critical both come to mind. Staggering Critical being more effective vs. melee and Blinding Critical depriving casters of the ability to target spells.
|
I would, personally, rather have this be solved by increased cast times. Basically reward casters for getting the jump on their target (as now) but if you're in a protracted melee you'll be sure you want a martial with you....or run.
It would have the added benefit of making counter-spell viable, as you would have time to identify a spell being cast and then counter-spell during your turn if you have that spell prepared. It'd actually be advantageous action economy.
It would have the added benefit of making counter-spell viable, as you would have time to identify a spell being cast and then counter-spell during your turn if you have that spell prepared. It'd actually be advantageous action economy.
However even then I don't know if it'd compete with "shoot them and force a concentration check." But, it would have the advantage of not doing damage, say if you're in a scenario where a mage is trying to wreak havoc on some event but you don't want to engage him directly for some reason (a King's aid gone mad or under control for example). Maybe counterspell as a move action? You don't need to do anything specific really to stop a spell, just mess with its incantation enough that it isn't successful.
RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
Fighters do have that ability at high level.
Stunning Critical is the best example, but requires 17th level.
Lower level critical feats can still effectively end a fight: Blinding Critical and Staggering Critical both come to mind. Staggering Critical being more effective vs. melee and Blinding Critical depriving casters of the ability to target spells.
Critical hits are not something you control. You can maximize your chance of threatening & confirming, but they will always be a nice bonus that happens incidentally due to sheer luck. After all of that the target gets to make a saving throw. Sure, an enemy isn't guaranteed to pass his saving throw against spells either, but there you have complete control over when the effect is applied, and to which target, and you can try again if he saves the first time.
|
|
It would have the added benefit of making counter-spell viable, as you would have time to identify a spell being cast and then counter-spell during your turn if you have that spell prepared. It'd actually be advantageous action economy.However even then I don't know if it'd compete with "shoot them and force a concentration check." But, it would have the advantage of not doing damage, say if you're in a scenario where a mage is trying to wreak havoc on some event but you don't want to engage him directly for some reason (a King's aid gone mad or under control for example). Maybe counterspell as a move action? You don't need to do anything specific really to stop a spell, just mess with its incantation enough that it isn't successful.
It wouldn't make the Dispel Magic version effective most of the time - but if you had the spell prepared it'd be 100% sure of countering it vs the chance of you missing and/or them passing their concentration check.
I'd probably go with max 2 attacks for bows, 1 for xbows, and if you want more, spend feats for rapid shot and Manyshot. This also mirrored 1 and 2e, and exchanging dmg for the safety of ranged combat is a decent tradeoff.
==Aelryinth
You mean the 1&2E where bows gave +1 attack/round just because? The one where bonus damage in melee was at a premium, and only reliably gotten by having an absurdly high Strength score and the pimpest of magical bonuses?
That 1st and 2nd edition?
Bows didn't give +1 attack. They gave 2 attacks, fixed. There's a difference.
And I didn't say do that. I said restrict the number of maximum attacks. So, you get at most 2 attacks with a bow at BAB 6+. Then you have to take feats. That leaves the most attacks and mega damage from melee combat.
Bonus damage in melee was a relative comparison non-issue. You mention that, but you didn't mention the monsters had much, much lower hit points, and weapons did more damage (Long swords d8/d12 vs size L, 2h swords 1-10/3-18)..and, of course, monsters had much lower AC's and were easier to hit. Furthermore, magic items substituted for stats, instead of adding onto them, and stats had much lower upper limits, which severely limited rocket tag abuse.
I've put up the example before, but just figure a Hill Giant. AC 4, HP avg 38.
An average 7th level fighter with a 2h sword +2, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and double weapon spec is dealing 3-18+11 dmg, or avg 22.5 pts/swing. THACO 13, +8, vs AC 4, means he hits on a 2 or better. he will kill that Hill Giant in 2 swings, meaning every round he drops one.
A Huge Ancient Red Dragon with 88 HP and AC -1, gets hit on a 6 or better, and statistically dies in 4 or 5 swings (2-3 rounds, soloed!). If that fighter has a sword of dragonslaying, it dies in 2 swings to the 9-54 +13 dmg attack.
Meanwhile, just wearing plate mail and shield with a 16 dex, the Fighter at AC 0 is going to avoid the attacks of the Red Dragon at THACO 9 40% of the time. No magic at all.
The giant at THACO 11 misses half the time, and probably won't do any damage before it dies.
And monsters didn't get Str bonuses.
So, it was a different game, and not getting a zillion bonuses to damage was perfectly balanced within that game, since monsters didn't have Con bonuses and much lower AC.
---The broken thing about the bow/xbow in 1e was the doubling of point blank shot damage, more then anything. if you really wanted to break the system, you had high str and specced in darts!
==Aelryinth
Critical hits are not something you control. You can maximize your chance of threatening & confirming, but they will always be a nice bonus that happens incidentally due to sheer luck. After all of that the target gets to make a saving throw. Sure, an enemy isn't guaranteed to pass his saving throw against spells either, but there you have complete control over when the effect is applied, and to which target, and you can try again if he saves the first time.RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
Fighters do have that ability at high level.
Stunning Critical is the best example, but requires 17th level.
Lower level critical feats can still effectively end a fight: Blinding Critical and Staggering Critical both come to mind. Staggering Critical being more effective vs. melee and Blinding Critical depriving casters of the ability to target spells.
You asked for fighters to have a chance.
I gave you 30% on a standard action. Now you argue anything less than 100% does not count. Say what you mean: you want to shut down opponents at will, with a standard action and zero resource expenditure.
Critical hits are not something you control. You can maximize your chance of threatening & confirming, but they will always be a nice bonus that happens incidentally due to sheer luck. After all of that the target gets to make a saving throw. Sure, an enemy isn't guaranteed to pass his saving throw against spells either, but there you have complete control over when the effect is applied, and to which target, and you can try again if he saves the first time.
You asked for fighters to have a chance.
I gave you 30% on a standard action. Now you argue anything less than 100% does not count. Say what you mean: you want to shut down opponents at will, with a standard action and zero resource expenditure.
It's not about probability; it's about predictability.
My fighter can choose to trip, to grapple, or to simply hit, which allows me to use an appropriate tactic for a situation. My wizard can similarly choose which spell to cast.
.... but my fighter can't choose whether or not to roll a critical.
Critical hits are not something you control. You can maximize your chance of threatening & confirming, but they will always be a nice bonus that happens incidentally due to sheer luck. After all of that the target gets to make a saving throw. Sure, an enemy isn't guaranteed to pass his saving throw against spells either, but there you have complete control over when the effect is applied, and to which target, and you can try again if he saves the first time.RE: Rocket-tag
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
Fighters do have that ability at high level.
Stunning Critical is the best example, but requires 17th level.
Lower level critical feats can still effectively end a fight: Blinding Critical and Staggering Critical both come to mind. Staggering Critical being more effective vs. melee and Blinding Critical depriving casters of the ability to target spells.
You asked for fighters to have a chance.
I gave you 30% on a standard action. Now you argue anything less than 100% does not count. Say what you mean: you want to shut down opponents at will, with a standard action and zero resource expenditure.
First, no one's asking for 100% success rate. Second, I'm all for keeping the majority 9f status effects in the hands of spellcasters. Third, the fighter/martial still has to hit to be effective (just as people have to fail saves from spells) so just because you get more attacks on a standard action doesn't mean you'll be successful 100% and might drop to 50% or even 0%. And finally, all were asking for is Agency. Pretty much the sole reason Path of War exists.
Edit: and please, resource management for spellcasters pretty much stops being a thing about 7th level to 10th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, you CAN choose to Daze on command.
Dazing Assault. They get a save, but dazing is even better then staggered.
The -5 to hit hurts, but basically means don't power attack on that swing.
==Aelryinth
First, no one's asking for 100% success rate. Second, I'm all for keeping the majority 9f status effects in the hands of spellcasters. Third, the fighter/martial still has to hit to be effective (just as people have to fail saves from spells) so just because you get more attacks on a standard action doesn't mean you'll be successful 100% and might drop to 50% or even 0%. And finally, all were asking for is Agency. Pretty much the sole reason Path of War exists.
Edit: and please, resource management for spellcasters pretty much stops being a thing about 7th level to 10th level
1. What is your target success rate before you accept martials can shut down an opponent? Give me a number.
2. Initiating the critical is a 15+, that should be connecting with ACs in the mid 50s to low 60s. A red great wyrm (CR22) has a mere 39 AC. Add another +4 on your confirmation roll, above and beyond your normal to-hit bonus. If a high level fighter is failing to confirm on anything higher than a natural 1 with a standard action attack there is a serious issue. Either he's screwed his own to-hit rolls or the DM is playing serious games with NPC ACs. We'll ignore Weapon Mastery since that only comes online at 20th level.
3. Agency is building a fighter that has the options and a player that knows how to use them. A little teamwork also helps - that same fighters odds of delivering a critical can go over 80% on a full attack, and ignores spell resistance. Since you can change targets after your first opponent is stunned & blinded, you can potentially shut down more than one opponent in a single round.
3. A critical focused fighter should be imposing two conditions on a successful critical, stunned & blinded ideally. Staggered and blinded at lower level.
The point that is being made is that an ability that is statistically likely over three rounds or so is not as useful as one that is on demand but limited in number. This is the fundamental conceit of the d20 system.
You asked for fighters to have a chance.I gave you 30% on a standard action. Now you argue anything less than 100% does not count. Say what you mean: you want to shut down opponents at will, with a standard action and zero resource expenditure.
I didn't ask for it, but whatever. By "chance" it's safe to assume most people are talking about "a significant chance". And it's not a significant chance:
30% chance to threaten crit is not the same as 30% chance to crit, but let's grant for argument's sake that the critical threat always hits (an unsafe assumption on late iteratives) and that it always confirms. 30% chance to make the enemy roll Fortitude against DC = 10 + BAB, and the median Fort save in the bestiary is about CR+3. The effect has a 30% chance to stick to a target whose CR = Your Level, for a total of just 9% chance overall per attack. And that is under auto-hit, auto-confirm conditions. At least Stunning critical still causes Stagger on a successful save.
This is all besides the point that critical hits are, as I said, not something you can control. As such, a Fighter might pile Stun and Blind on a mook who died from the damage anyways. And against an important enemy he might very well never land a crit. Even if he landed a few, that doesn't necessarily translate to a good chance to apply the effect. Dazing Assault, on the other hand, is just what that guy was asking for. It's a shame you didn't actually mention it, because then you might have had the beginning of a point.
"Anything less than 100% does not count" is not even close to what I argued. I have to wonder why you're so eager to put words in my mouth that you made a post in which every single sentence was wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bows didn't give +1 attack. They gave 2 attacks, fixed. There's a difference.I'd probably go with max 2 attacks for bows, 1 for xbows, and if you want more, spend feats for rapid shot and Manyshot. This also mirrored 1 and 2e, and exchanging dmg for the safety of ranged combat is a decent tradeoff.
==Aelryinth
You mean the 1&2E where bows gave +1 attack/round just because? The one where bonus damage in melee was at a premium, and only reliably gotten by having an absurdly high Strength score and the pimpest of magical bonuses?
That 1st and 2nd edition?
Yeah, but to put that into perspective for the folks at home, you had to be a 13th+ level martial that was specialized in a melee weapon to exceed the number of attacks you got each round just using a bow, and then you only exceeded them by 1/2 an attack (meaning you got an extra attack every other round).
You had to be 7th+ level and specialized to match bows at 2/round with a melee weapon. So you started out better than everyone and never really loose anything.
All bows, according to the handbook, can be made to gain the benefits of the wielder's strength modifier to damage. It also notes that the price for a bow for a character with greater than 18 strength (18/01+) is two to five times more expensive than a normal bow. The important part here is the upper limit (five times). Which means that even if you've got goofy good strength, the most it will cost you per the rules is five times the cost of a normal bow (which makes it significantly cheaper than the nearest composite equivalent in d20).
A number of melee weapons either did no greater damage to larger creatures (such as battleaxes and scimitars which deal 1d8 regardless), or even dealt less damage (like broadswords and kopesh), while a few weapons deal a bit more (bastard swords deal +2 average damage vs large foes), and a fewer still utterly explode vs large foes (greatsword goes from 1d10 to 3d6).
There's a reason that the kobolds in Baldur's Gate were notorious for murdering everyone when that game came out. Because all those little bastards are using bows when you encounter them. Before ol' Kagan and Minsc have gotten off a single swing, there's already been a dozen shots fired at some poor sod with around 6-10 HP.
Bonus damage in melee was a relative comparison non-issue. You mention that, but you didn't mention the monsters had much, much lower hit points, and weapons did more damage (Long swords d8/d12 vs size L, 2h swords 1-10/3-18)..and, of course, monsters had much lower AC's and were easier to hit. Furthermore, magic items substituted for stats, instead of adding onto them, and stats had much lower upper limits, which severely limited rocket tag abuse.
That works for bows too though. You begin at 2/round and that rivals melee weapons forever. Bows have a lower damage die by comparison to some melee weapons (1d6 vs everything) but you still get the benefits of things like specialization (which add bonus damage) and your Strength modifier (if you happen to pick up some gauntlets or you gave the GM a blowjob).
I've put up the example before, but just figure a Hill Giant. AC 4, HP avg 38.
An average 7th level fighter with a 2h sword +2, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and double weapon spec is dealing 3-18+11 dmg, or avg 22.5 pts/swing. THACO 13, +8, vs AC 4, means he hits on a 2 or better. he will kill that Hill Giant in 2 swings, meaning every round he drops one.
Well, you've got a weapon that's pretty crap against everything other than killing bigass monsters like ogres (it's nothing to write home about otherwise since if you're dealing with normal sized foes, you no longer have a shield and only deal +1 average damage over a longsword), but let's see...
At the same level, all strength bonuses are equal because at the upper cost of 500 gp you can apply all the Strength bonus from your gauntlets to your bow too, so that part is a wash. In the player's handbook, weapon specialization is both an optional rule not assumed standard (but **** it, fighters aren't worthwhile without it so everyone should use it) and gives +1 to hit and +2 to damage. That's all. Maybe in some random splatbook in the sea of 2E splatbooks (which killed it much like splatbooks in 3.5 killed it) there were more options to specialize buuuttt....
The difference between using the bow and a greatsword is an average of 7 damage. The two weapons are 1d6+8 (bow) and 3d6+8 (greatsword), which is an average of 18.5 for the giant-slaying weapon (because let's be real, that's what the greatsword excels at) which requires you to be a little above average to kill them in 2 hits, but they would die on average if your weapon was +2 as in your example (whether or not you have a +2 weapon goes back to dice gods and/or DM fellatio). The bow deals 11.5 damage vs the same. Against a non-large foe, the damage difference is remarkable less (11.5 vs 13.5) and with the bow you have more opportunity advantage (as you don't have to be able to effectively reach them, which means things like pits, icy ground, or fire don't easily block your way).
Let's not even get started talking about things like throwing knives and darts (other missile weapons that make melee weapons look like a joke with their 3-6 attacks per round, strength to damage, specialization to damage, etc).
All I'm saying is, being melee wasn't that great in that game either since it took you surviving until 7th level and being a warrior class to even begin to rival bows and you didn't actually pull ahead of bows in general combat until 13th+ level.
"Anything less than 100% does not count" is not even close to what I argued. I have to wonder why you're so eager to put words in my mouth that you made a post in which every single sentence was wrong.
Give a percentage chance that you accept as viable.
No more moving the goals. You asked for a chance, I provided a chance, you refuse to accept it. Give me a specific number you are looking for.
Stuff!
Yeah, Str bows were cheaper then in PF. That didn't mean they were cheap, and finding one was nigh impossible, and finding someone who could make one was often as bad!
Too, you still couldn't use one in melee...and melee is where the monsters wanted to be. And only longbows could have Str bonuses. Shortbows, even composite, were nopers...which basically meant only fighter-types could use them, anyways.
Also, bows were limited to human str mods (i.e. best one you could get was 18/00 Str). So, if you had a Girdle of Giant str, you were still doing more in melee dmg (or thrown war hammers...)
Also, Dex governed To Hit rolls for bows. Now we're talking multi-ability dependency. Sure, if you're the only fighter in the group, maybe they'll give you the gauntlets while you can use your bow. More likely, it goes to the swordsman. As an archer, you can't use a shield, so you're easier to shoot and hit in return, also. And then when the melee guy reaches you...ouch!
? Not sure on your Bastard swords? Bastards swords in 1e were 2-8/2-16 (or one hand as longswords). That's a +4 dmg range, and nearly as good as a 2h sword. You were comparing to longswords, maybe? As for no shield... remember, enemies tended to have MUCH lower TH rolls then in PF. No shield against most humans was fine, and all you needed was plate mail +1 to have full movement. As you noted, in 1E, every little dmg bonus counted, and that bonus against size L was part of why you used long, bastard and greatswords (or greataxes).
But yes, longsword + shield was the Uber fighting style. Or rather, bastard sword, Maybe + shield. Ultimate weapons. Just like in PF, there was obviously better weapons to use and not to use. Lances and pikes did excellent dmg as well. Some were better, some were worse.
And don't forget flight and sheaf arrows. d4 long range and d8 shorter range!
lastly, don't forget the loot tables were geared to finding magic melee weapons, especially swords. Bows were fairly rare drops. And magic bows hardly EVER came with Str mods attached to them. So you ended up with the choice between a non-magical Strength bow and a magical bow. No easy making both together in earlier editions!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suprised Ashiel hasn't chimed in on Stunning Assault and Dazing Assault. He's found them amongst the most powerful feats you can take at higher levels, especially with condition infliction, as I remember his earlier threads.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suprised Ashiel hasn't chimed in on Stunning Assault and Dazing Assault. He's found them amongst the most powerful feats you can take at higher levels, especially with condition infliction, as I remember his earlier threads.
==Aelryinth
I apparently missed that they were being discussed. (o_o)
And yes, they are definitely amongst the most powerful feats in the game, IMHO. A well built martial is pretty much assured to force one or more saves each round and since the DC is 10 + BAB, it's always level-relevant (DC 30 at 20 BAB is identical to a special ability with a +10 stat modifier) and their effects are often game-ending for the victim unless they have support (once you fail that save, you'll probably just keep getting pounded on and re-stunned/dazed).
In core, virtually nothing is immune to be dazed. In some of the latter bestiaries there are some things but in basic Pathfinder, I can't think of a single creature that has immunity to being dazed (because dazing assault is non-magical, non-mind affecting) outside of constructs and undead (and they only get a pass because it's a Fort-save that doesn't specify it affects objects).
Since it functions like Power Attack and is just a modifier to extra attacks, it can be very powerful as a deterrent or lockdown tactic, since if your to-hit is great, eating the -5 for a round means all your attacks, including AoOs and such have the kicker. Which means if you're a masochist and want to pick up Whirlwind Attack (usually a very lackluster feat) you can at least say that every foe you strike has a decently high chance to get disabled.
On an antipaladin, they're beyond nasty (because if an antipaladin gets into melee range with you and has dazing assault, you're likely saving at -4 due to Intimidate/Aura). It's also nasty because the Antipaladin can more or less ignore the to-hit penalty because the feat doesn't discriminate on attacks, so using touch-attacks is a perfectly valid way to lead the assault (no pun intended).
These are probably among the strongest, if not the strongest, feats that have been made available to martial characters in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and it also makes Cleave/Great Cleave not quite as horrible as well since. Especially as an opener (move + cleave, two enemies save vs losing their round), which actually gives you an opening gambit that can lead into a full-attack combo on the next round while denying your foe actions, and even if it fails, you'll likely cause so much "threat" that you succeed at either scaring the piss out of the thing you're attacking (making it want to flee really hard, potentially provoking more dazing AoOs) or you'll generate so much aggro that the rest of the party is the last thing on that baddies mind.
Search for "Caster/Martial Disparity" (or just "C/MD") on these forums and you'll find A LOT of threads covering what you're about to repeat. You'll probably find a ton of people and walls of text, answering all your question and giving you much more suggestions than a number of % or the like.
"Anything less than 100% does not count" is not even close to what I argued. I have to wonder why you're so eager to put words in my mouth that you made a post in which every single sentence was wrong.Give a percentage chance that you accept as viable.
No more moving the goals. You asked for a chance, I provided a chance, you refuse to accept it. Give me a specific number you are looking for.
Give a number where you concede the point or your just arguing for arguments sake without regard for actual game rules or gameplay.
The thread is already providing your answer: high level fighters can lock down opponents with a standard action. Reliably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legitimate commentary about bows and stuff
Can we come to an agreement that it wasn't a certainty that melee was going to dominate archers in terms of damage output, since much of it seems reliant upon getting phat lewts out of random drops?
My point was that bows wrecked faces in 1E and 2E, and while it's possible to reach points where melee outshines it, it certainly isn't for most of the game (you can't even match the 2/round until 7th level at the earliest and that's if you're a warrior class), and it seems a little questionable that we discuss the merits of the weapon vs the "perfect weapon for the job at hand" during comparisons (since the only reason to have a greatsword is to deal absurd damage to big monsters).
They may have been "limited" in the number of attacks they could make but that limit was "basically as many attacks as you'll ever make" and they weren't exactly hurting for damage either (they're actually more likely to murder faces at lower levels than melee weapons).
I'm not even saying your point that limiting ranged weaponry is necessarily a bad one, I just don't think that citing 1-2E as an example of their awesome balance is particularly accurate. I feel it hurts your point more than it makes it. :o
Also, Dex governed To Hit rolls for bows. Now we're talking multi-ability dependency. Sure, if you're the only fighter in the group, maybe they'll give you the gauntlets while you can use your bow. More likely, it goes to the swordsman. As an archer, you can't use a shield, so you're easier to shoot and hit in return, also. And then when the melee guy reaches you...ouch!
Is it weird that I always gave the strength gloves/belts to my weaker party members in Baldur's Gate? Viconia is a drow cleric with a 9 Str, amazing Dex, great stats elsewhere. I tossed some gauntlets of ogre compensation onto her and she became an instant beast (suddenly able to equip the heaviest armors, shields, and wield beefy doomsday weapons).
I usually gave them to whomever got the biggest benefit out of them, which admittedly was never an archer character because in those PC games, there were no true strength bows (except for the "Strong Arm" which was a high damage magic bow that required a 19 Str), whereas in 2E you could just buy one for 2-5x gp value, max 500 gp (they aren't even special, it's just a thing mentioned matter o' factly about bows in the equipment section).
The thread is already providing your answer: high level fighters can lock down opponents with a standard action. Reliably.I question how a 30% chance of success is "reliably."
The thread provided your answer with the Dazing Assault and Stunning Assault feats, not the critical ones. The Assault feats don't require a crit, they always work (barring a challenging DC Fort save) on a hit.
Yeah, but that line of conversation was about critical feats.
I'd say an attack roll additional effect is reliable whether it hits (works) on a natural 8 or higher (65%).
Same for ST effects, natural 7 or lower to fail would be acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the x-Assault feats are the saving grace. They still don't do anything to make warriors not suck when not using full-attacks, but it just makes any attack thrown by the warrior potentially a game-changer against the victim.
In 1v1 combat, the warrior can very reliably stun-lock something into oblivion with no chance to counter or escape with anything short of some sort of contingency or clone or something, because once you've been dazed/stunned, you're not going anywhere, so the martial just beats on you a lot more.
Still, it gets nastiest when the martial CAN full attack, because the lethality of the tactic basically relies on the fact that each hit forces a save, so if you're making 2-5 hits against a foe and each one is pushing a difficult save, you're probably going to land one. And once they can't fight back, you're odds of winning skyrocket.
More bow stuff!
Well, again, loot was huge in 1e.
YOu had the choice of a str bow or a magic bow. It's a big choice to make.
The melee wielder got str AND magic. And a bigger weapon.
The attack thing is a point, but in terms of damage it really only matters if you were a melee character. No other classes could use longbows, and so build for str. Without that big extra dmg bonus, there was no contest.
lastly, if you had the dex, dual wielding doubled your number of melee attacks. So, if you had the dex for it, you could wreck LOTS of face.
Summary of argument: Archery had a lower cap for awesomeness then melee weapons did. They were good at low levels for the two attacks, but became support tools until later levels.
At least,until they came up with archery adding attacks. Yeah. Archer specs got an additional arrow when attacks went up. So, 4 arrows at 13 for Spec archers. Pew pew. Good thing they went for magic bows instead of str bows, I guess?
They did away with THAT particular rule in 2e...and then brought it back with the elven archer kit. Because elves just had to be so much better then any other class.
==Aelryinth
oi oi. We didn't call it a solution!
Keep in mind that trip checks are pretty good at low levels, too, and about as successful as cantrips and level 1 spells, which generally have less then 50% success chance to work if they have saves.
And those level 1 spells pretty much never catch up to the damage a melee's weapon can do, if we're going to compare that side of fighting, so...odd example. Also, the fighter can daze/stun at a level appropriate save DC literally ALL DAY...the caster is restricted, and would have to use his higher spell levels to equal the success chance of the fighter...and doesn't do a boatload of damage at the same time, either.
So...there's good and bad. Combat manuvers and Dirty Tricks are basically low level stuns and dazes.
Not saying they are equal. The caster's ability to do so at range is certainly great. But, the option does exist. ANd really, if you could dazing assault from level 1, wow, wouldn't that change the early game.
==Aelryinth
Just got an idea: What if Weapon Specialization was made more like 1st/2nd Edition Weapon Specialization by allowing you to count your Weapon Focus and Weapon Training bonus for the same weapon(s) into your Base Attack Bonus, thereby advancing your number of attacks? Alternatively (and maybe more useful), instead of that, have the Weapon Focus and Weapon Training reduce the penalties on Iteratives (until they get to the same as your primary attack).
Look at the math.
If you have Weapon Focus do BOTH improve iteratives and grant a bonus to hit, you've doubled the power of the feat.
What you've just recommended is a massive increase in damage output. At level 12, all iteratives would be at full BAB and your 3 attacks would, on average, do more damage then the 4 attacks you'd get at BAB 16. Getting off 4 attacks at full BAB...that's like something a Come and GEt Me Barbarian would get. Do you KNOW how much damage output that is? It's insane.
Damage output is not the problem. The volume of damage output melees can do is actually fairly balanced for the current game, they don't really need 'more' of it.
What they need is mobility, i.e. the ability to deal that damage as routinely as archers and casters can do. That's all.
Well, there's other problems, but that's the gist of this thread.
==Aelryinth
Search for "Caster/Martial Disparity" (or just "C/MD") on these forums and you'll find A LOT of threads covering what you're about to repeat. You'll probably find a ton of people and walls of text, answering all your question and giving you much more suggestions than a number of % or the like.
"Anything less than 100% does not count" is not even close to what I argued. I have to wonder why you're so eager to put words in my mouth that you made a post in which every single sentence was wrong.Give a percentage chance that you accept as viable.
No more moving the goals. You asked for a chance, I provided a chance, you refuse to accept it. Give me a specific number you are looking for.
Give a number where you concede the point or your just arguing for arguments sake without regard for actual game rules or gameplay.
The thread is already providing your answer: high level fighters can lock down opponents with a standard action. Reliably.
I question how a 30% chance of success is "reliably."
...Scratch that, it's not even 30%, because
1.) The 30% chance threat only applies to certain specific weapons, which not every player will have
2.) Even if you spec to the nines, it is not a guarantee you will confirm a critical threat without a class feature that specifically says you auto-confirm
3.) That 30% chance is to FORCE A SAVE rather than cause the effect, which means you have to threaten a critical, confirm a critical, AND have the enemy roll low on their save. (A lot of endgame monsters have really good fort saves; against a max-level fighter, who does automatically confirm to get that hurdle out of the way, the CR-appropriate Pit Fiend he's fighting will successfully save against any of the fighter's critical feats if it rolls higher than a 5. An ancient red dragon will save if it rolls higher than a 7, the Balor literally can't fail the save unless it fumbles...)
You can't say...
Give a number and stop backpeddling.
Coming from GM point of view who runs fighters as bad guys, I rarely if ever have fighters full attack. I have the move lots, it keeps them alive longer and they do more damage to the party. Now that's NPC fighters who don't do as much damage so they really can not trade full attacks with the party melee specialists. That just means a dead bad guy fighter in round.
Playing fighter though I find I full attack a lot more as I have the resources to survive better than an NPC fighter with NPC stats and wealth. As well I have a party backing me up. So healing and my AC will be higher too. So full attack and less mobility works better even though I can move full speed in Full Plate.