| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a feat that gives a +1 damage bonus per consecutive hit for archers, though I'm forgetting the name off the top of my head.
That said, it's not actually terribly effective because a single miss resets, and it resets every round.
And as you're proposing to do such a thing in melee, while moving about with stealth it's really not going to work. You'll end up doing only a single attack each round, which just sin't going to be effective.
This sounds like you're describing the feat
Thousand Cuts or Hammer the Gap
However, neither effect carries over to the next round. They're both based on striking an enemy multiple times in the same round.
What it seems like you're looking for is Spring Attack and possibly a wounding weapon.
The "fast, mobile combatant with a good defense that slowly wears out opponents with lots of quick, individually weak attacks" doesn't translate very well to most systems, unfortunately.
I like the idea of making Dodge and Mobility one feat, making Spring Attack easier to get to. I also never saw the harm in letting it be used on a charge.
That plus a wounding weapon, clever use of terrain, maybe Nimble Moves and/or Wind Stance...you'd be pretty tough to pin down in most situations.
That's what rangers and rogues should feel like. Quick, mobile, slippery. But because they have abilities that boost the damage of every attack, most people end up planting their feet and spending full attacks with two weapons whenever possible. Certainly not what I envision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That plus a wounding weapon, clever use of terrain, maybe Nimble Moves and/or Wind Stance...you'd be pretty tough to pin down in most situations.
That's what rangers and rogues should feel like. Quick, mobile, slippery. But because they have abilities that boost the damage of every attack, most people end up planting their feet and spending full attacks with two weapons whenever possible. Certainly not what I envision.
The problem with that technique is that while you're doing it, your party is suffering - you're contributing very little to the combat (per round), and thus your party is basically short one man. Same problem as those "I'm not geared towards combat" type characters ('skillmonkeys', badly done 'healbots', etc.) - the game is expecting you do to contribute a certain amount to combat each round, if you aren't, the CR system can get screwed up.
Guerilla tactics only work when the whole group is doing it. So unless your entire group plays similar characters, and you're all fine with combats lasting multiple hours in real life, it just doesn't work. It's not something Pathfinder-exclusive, even - in most games with a HP system, "get in, do some damage, get out" type characters just don't funktion properly in group fights/group play (and often not even in solo play). If they can take down enemies quickly, they're overpowered, and if not, they're neigh useless.
I see what you're saying and I agree for the most part, but I think there's something to be said for dealing less damage and requiring less healing.
The biggest problem, from what I've seen, is that most people can't run a game, let alone an encounter that involves combat. Too many combats take place on a more or less empty field, with both sides aware of each other, etc. Combats like that feel like Final Fantasy random battles; generic and uninspired.
Finding some bandits in the woods seems like a reasonable task for some lower level PC's. But finding the highwaymen's camp after weeks of tracking, food running low, in the middle of the night in the rain in the woods, your standard "run in and fight them until they die" strategy is doomed to failure.
Really, I think the Angry DM said it best. Consider what a typical party would do in a given encounter. What's their Plan A? Foil it. Force them on to Plan B. Basically every time. It'll keep things exciting and challenging and make for a much better encounter and a much better game.
I see what you're saying and I agree for the most part, but I think there's something to be said for dealing less damage and requiring less healing.
Sure, but the type of character the OP describes doesn't do that at all - it does the opposite. Because such a character only protects themself, not the other party members, so the enemies simply attack those instead, no damage prevented. Meanwhile, longer combat means enemies do more damage to these unprotected party members.
Too many combats take place on a more or less empty field, with both sides aware of each other, etc. Combats like that feel like Final Fantasy random battles; generic and uninspired.
I agree with this, and as a GM I try to mix it up. But the more stuff like terrain you add, the worse abilities like Spring Attack get, as those require being able to freely move. You also have to watch out for the inter-party balance, to not further outclass weak classes like Rogue or Swachbuckler that can't do much against the likes of unreachable enemies.
I agree with this, and as a GM I try to mix it up. But the more stuff like terrain you add, the worse abilities like Spring Attack get, as those require being able to freely move. You also have to watch out for the inter-party balance, to not further outclass weak classes like Rogue or Swachbuckler that can't do much against the likes of unreachable enemies.
If a character feels weaker in my games than another, I define the issue and remove it.
Hesitating to add in real, reasonable elements to the game for fear of "nerfing" someone's character is not something I'd like to do. If your character rocks at X but sucks when Y, that was your decision, and I'll make it clear that any opposition worth their salt will recognize your weakness and exploit it.I ran a game with a character similar to what the OP described as wanting. A lightning-fast hunter and tracker, specializing in hit-and-run combat.
He never could match the raw power of the veteran soldier or the endurance of the wandering pilgrim, but he was able to contribute meaningfully as well as go on ahead and soften up dangerous foes in the wilderness before the main forces got there.
Hello,
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember at some point seeing some rule/feat/trait/whatever that buffs a character making small cuts.
What I'm thinking of is a character dashing in and out of combat (perhaps even stealthed) and it just makes a tiny slice every single time.
This slowly wears down the opponent.
Now I remember something along the lines of a slight stacking increase on damage until you miss an attack.
Think along the lines of: +1 damage per previous round you hit the target of your attack. This resets when you miss.No clue if it truly exists... but if anyone knows anything, please do tell me :)
Cheers,
Sorrol
Someone a while ago posted a bleed focused build that was based on the lamashtu fighting style and a bunch of other feats + bleeding critical. I honestly dont remember where that was though
edit: Found it
If your character rocks at X but sucks when Y, that was your decision
The problem is that it's not always an actual decision (beyond selecting a class and maybe combat style). Some classes are just way too weak (often due to crippling over-specialization, e.g. Swashbuckler), as are some playstyles that seem like they should be competitive.
I ran a game with a character similar to what the OP described as wanting. A lightning-fast hunter and tracker, specializing in hit-and-run combat.
He never could match the raw power of the veteran soldier or the endurance of the wandering pilgrim, but he was able to contribute meaningfully as well as go on ahead and soften up dangerous foes in the wilderness before the main forces got there.
What was that about "I'll make it clear that any opposition worth their salt will recognize your weakness and exploit it."? Because it would take a single enemy with blindsight/lifesense, or some snaring trap that might get overlooked, to outright kill the hunter. And that's not even touching the issue of the rest of the players being sidelined while the GM handles the hunter's multi-round combat.
The problem is that it's not always an actual decision (beyond selecting a class and maybe combat style). Some classes are just way too weak (often due to crippling over-specialization, e.g. Swashbuckler), as are some playstyles that seem like they should be competitive...
What was that about "I'll make it clear that any opposition worth their salt will recognize your weakness and exploit it."? Because it would take a single enemy with blindsight/lifesense, or some snaring trap that might get overlooked, to outright kill the hunter. And that's not even touching the issue of the rest of the players being sidelined while the GM handles the hunter's multi-round combat.
When one of my players chooses a mechanically inferior option, I just change it until it no longer feels inferior.
As to your second point, I'm not sure I understand the specifics, but I believe I get the jist: yes, I did make it clear to him. He had to make a hasty and bloody retreat a couple times, and his reckless behavior did get him killed.
And the other players were "sidelined" for less than fifteen minutes each time he went a-scouting. I know enough to keep the pace clipping along, and to keep the risk factor dialed up enough that he wasn't too eager to engage in combat for more than a round or two. And I certainly have enough storytelling ability to hold the other player's attention for a handful of minutes that didn't directly involve them.
The more I think about the math behind the argument that hit-and-run tactics are inherently inferior, the less I like them.
the group I'm currently running with has logged just under 30 hours of gameplay so far, and I can count on one hand the number of times that they were all able to rush into combat together against a single foe. Multiple waves of opponents. Changing priorities. Distance and terrain. The argument against spring attack and similar tactics is mathematically sound in a vacuum, But there are just too many variables. combat that is that simple and straightforward is definitely the exception rather than the rule in my games.
The problem is that it's not always an actual decision (beyond selecting a class and maybe combat style). Some classes are just way too weak (often due to crippling over-specialization, e.g. Swashbuckler), as are some playstyles that seem like they should be competitive...
What was that about "I'll make it clear that any opposition worth their salt will recognize your weakness and exploit it."? Because it would take a single enemy with blindsight/lifesense, or some snaring trap that might get overlooked, to outright kill the hunter. And that's not even touching the issue of the rest of the players being sidelined while the GM handles the hunter's multi-round combat.
When one of my players chooses a mechanically inferior option, I just change it until it no longer feels inferior.
As to your second point, I'm not sure I understand the specifics, but I believe I get the jist: yes, I did make it clear to him. He had to make a hasty and bloody retreat a couple times, and his reckless behavior did get him killed.
And the other players were "sidelined" for less than fifteen minutes each time he went a-scouting. I know enough to keep the pace clipping along, and to keep the risk factor dialed up enough that he wasn't too eager to engage in combat for more than a round or two. And I certainly have enough storytelling ability to hold the other player's attention for a handful of minutes that didn't directly involve them.The more I think about the math behind the argument that hit-and-run tactics are inherently inferior, the less I like them.
the group I'm currently running with has logged just under 30 hours of gameplay so far, and I can count on one hand the number of times that they were all able to rush into combat together against a single foe. Multiple waves of opponents. Changing priorities. Distance and terrain. The argument against spring attack and similar tactics is mathematically sound in a vacuum, But there are just too many variables....
There's absolutely a dpr gap in mobile fighting and single hit fighting, but i think its really just a slight rework of vital strike away from fixing it.
If you're playing at mid-to-high levels, the Mobile Fighter archetype might be a worthwhile choice for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so ~15 minutes of the other players not doing anything each time, for one or two rounds (so probably very little effect), and it did get him killed. I'm not sure if you did it on purpose (you did say you mostly agreed with me upthread), but you're rather bolstering my argument here.
Multiple waves of opponents. Changing priorities. Distance and terrain.
Not one of these things favor hit-and-run tactics, especially not for a "one character out of a group" case. The opposite is actually true (again) - against multiple waves of opponents, you want to kill them quickly lest you become too heavily outnumbered, changing priorities likewise mean you want to kill someone quickly for some reason, and distance/difficult terrain can outright prevent stuff like Spring Attack very easily. Being surrounded, or surprised, can also severely hinder the playstyle, as can poor visibility.
When one of my players chooses a mechanically inferior option, I just change it until it no longer feels inferior.
Sure, if you're interested in rewriting half the game, I guess you can do so.
If you're playing at mid-to-high levels, the Mobile Fighter archetype might be a worthwhile choice for this.
If anything, I'd go with Warrior Poet Samurai.
Ok, so ~15 minutes of the other players not doing anything each time, for one or two rounds (so probably very little effect), and it did get him killed. I'm not sure if you did it on purpose (you did say you mostly agreed with me upthread), but you're rather bolstering my argument here.
You're cherry-picking, here. I was referringto multiple instances.
First, the other players are capable of enjoying a scene that does not involve them. They've all read books, watched movies, etc. If I end up with a player that's so self-absorbed that they can't tolerate being in one scene out of ten, I either talk to them or suggest that they find a new table.Second, it was a pretty standard situation; one character sneaks ahead of the main party to get a lay of the land. The find a camp of ogres in the woods. They set a quick snare trap. Run through the camp, taking a slice at one of the ogres. Initiative. The ogres blunder after the scout, but they're more than an ogre's double move throughdifficult terrain, so they can't close. The scout runs past again, tagging another one. The ogres are not especially intelligent, so they just turn around and chase. The third round is when they suspect their strategy may not be working, so they throw spears. One gets lucky and injures the scout, who books it hard to the west before making his way south again to the party. He can tell them about the enemy ahead, has injured them and led them off in the wrong direction.
The fact that he died isn't saying much. Everyone died in that game. Some more than twice. The ranger died because he was off on his own and ran into a basilisk.
Multiple waves of opponents. Changing priorities. Distance and terrain.Not one of these things favor hit-and-run tactics, especially not for a "one character out of a group" case. The opposite is actually true (again) - against multiple waves of opponents, you want to kill them quickly lest you become too heavily outnumbered, changing priorities likewise mean you want to kill someone quickly for some reason, and distance/difficult terrain can outright prevent stuff like Spring Attack very easily. Being surrounded, or surprised, can also severely hinder the playstyle, as can poor visibility.
My point was that battle is not a "side A runs at side B" situation.
Multiple waves- there is an opponent. Your group sets up their main line and begins to fight. But then, uh-oh! Here comes a second enemy on your flank. You could just let the caster-types fend for themselves, or you could try to break your line in two. A mobile character that could head off the flanking force and draw them away might be useful.Changing priorities- there are some...I don't know. Zombies and a necromancer. Obviously you want to get to the necromancer as quickly as you can. But then one of your guys goes down, and you need him to get through this, but your healer is being grappled by aforementioned zombies, so you need to pull them off of him, etc. Hardly a "charge in and start swinging. Stop when they're dead" situation.
Distance and terrain- if a mobile combatant is faster than you, distance becomes a serious problem. If they have a way to circumvent things like difficult terrain, distance is effectively doubled.
When I said I mostly agree, I meant that it is a mathematically sound argument. But there are literally an infinite number of variables.
When one of my players chooses a mechanically inferior option, I just change it until it no longer feels inferior.Sure, if you're interested in rewriting half the game, I guess you can do so.
It's not so much as that. I don't play with the vast majority of supplements. Characters at my table are more akin to "human fighter" than "fiendish half-gold dragon blood elf barbarian-oracle-pirate king-walker of the third way". But beyond that, YES. Yes, I will rewrite half the game, if that's what it takes. Because...what's the alternative? Going "this IDEA is cool, but the availabile rules for it suck, so...guess I'll just do something thatthat's less cool but is mechanically sound."
Honestly though, this has gone off the rails. The fact is that no, this sort of thing is not viable as the original rules stand.
But so is the case for many things. And we're encouraged to change anything and everything. So talk to whoever's running the game you want this character in.
Multiple waves- there is an opponent. Your group sets up their main line and begins to fight. But then, uh-oh! Here comes a second enemy on your flank. You could just let the caster-types fend for themselves, or you could try to break your line in two. A mobile character that could head off the flanking force and draw them away might be useful.
Character who kill the first enemies quickly would be more useful - that's pretty sure to work, whereas not every enemy lets themself be lured away.
Not that I think a traditional sturdy frontline/fragile backline division is really a (good) thing in Pathfinder.Changing priorities- there are some...I don't know. Zombies and a necromancer. Obviously you want to get to the necromancer as quickly as you can. But then one of your guys goes down, and you need him to get through this, but your healer is being grappled by aforementioned zombies, so you need to pull them off of him, etc. Hardly a "charge in and start swinging. Stop when they're dead" situation.
This is exactly the type of situation where the Spring Attack style character is the weakest, because you need to kill the zombies ASAP - by the time you've destroyed them with your "dashing in and out of combat" tactics, both the healer and the downed party member are probably dead. indeed, if you remove yourself as a target, even more Zombies are gonna pile up on the healer.
That's the main problem. The whole concept breaks down the second the enemy has another target aviable, and in a normal game, that's almost all the time.Distance and terrain- if a mobile combatant is faster than you, distance becomes a serious problem. If they have a way to circumvent things like difficult terrain, distance is effectively doubled.
We aren't just talking about any kind of "mobile combatant", but someone who's "dashing in and out of combat" - i.e. using something like Spring Attack. Which means the other guy has to waste half his movement to get back into the original position (or at least away again). I'd be more worried about a ranged combatant behind difficult terrain that I can't ignore, instead of a Spring Attack one - at least for the latter, if nothing else, I can ready an action to hit him when he gets in range.
The fact is that no, this sort of thing is not viable as the original rules stand.
So you do agree with me that as-is, "dashing in and out of combat" is crap in Pathfinder? Because that was basically me entire point.
It's not so much as that. I don't play with the vast majority of supplements. Characters at my table are more akin to "human fighter" than "fiendish half-gold dragon blood elf barbarian-oracle-pirate king-walker of the third way".
This is not what I was talking about (especially not templates, ugh). I was talking about how without unchained, or one of the stronger archetypes plus Qinggong, or at the very least handwraps plus Pummeling Charge, Monk is not a functional class. Or how a Fighter without Advanced Weapon Training or an archetype like Mutation Warrior or Gloomblade just doesn't play in the same league as the likes of Barbarian or Paladin. Or as a Rogue... well, actually, even unRogue is crap; you need a lot of system mastery to make one that isn't closer to an NPC than a PC. But cRogue is way worse still.
The fewer books you allow, the worse the issue is (in general), because CRB only is the most imbalanced (non-houseruled) state you can play Pathfinder in.
So you do agree with me that as-is, "dashing in and out of combat" is crap in Pathfinder? Because that was basically me entire point.
The "fast, mobile combatant with a good defense that slowly wears out opponents with lots of quick, individually weak attacks" doesn't translate very well to most systems, unfortunately.
--that was part of my first comment in this thread, the one that you replied to. So yes, as-is, it doesn't work right. Along with tons of other things. And since the first rulebook basically says "feel free to change any of this", I think it's safe to point out that an idea doesn't quite work, then offer some possible solutions/changes to make it work.
This is not what I was talking about (especially not templates, ugh). I was talking about how without unchained, or one of the stronger archetypes plus Qinggong, or at the very least handwraps plus Pummeling Charge, Monk is not a functional class. Or how a Fighter without Advanced Weapon Training or an archetype like Mutation Warrior or Gloomblade just doesn't play in the same league as the likes of Barbarian or Paladin. Or as a Rogue... well, actually, even unRogue is crap; you need a lot of system mastery to make one that isn't closer to an NPC than a PC. But cRogue is way worse still.
The fewer books you allow, the worse the issue is (in general), because CRB only is the most imbalanced (non-houseruled) state you can play Pathfinder in.
Eh, sure. Though "Qinggong, handwraps, Pummeling Charge, Mutation Warrior and Gloomblade" all see as much play at our table as any template, and are generally regarded in the same light. The basics are a springboard into more specific characters, and while archetypes, templates, prestige classes, alternate racial traits and the like are sometimes useful for an idea, everything that isn't a base race + a base class is made from the ground up. The stories and settings just feel more cohesive. We were making "archetypes" back in 3rd before we'd ever heard of Pathfinder.
As for the rest, I think it's clear that the games we sit down to are very different.
If one of my players gives me a concept (a real concept, like grizzled caravan guard. Not elven fighter 2/barbarian 4) and we can't find a way to make that concept contribute mechanically in a meaningful way, I work with the system until they can. And while characters are never useful in every situation, they all feel like they add something to the game. No one feels left behind or outclassed. Not at this table.
Specifically, the guerrilla-style ranger got to use his speed and mobility in many situations, while he was left wishing he was a bit slower and sturdier in others. Which is exactly how it should be.