Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,122 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

I wish the equipment trick and weapon trick feat style was moved over to skills. With things like skill focus and "deft fingers" or whatever providing different effects or new uses for the skill based on which requirements you met.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if this has been said already, but, first, revise the summoning system and update the list of summonable monsters.

Summoning is weak if you are not a Summoner because you have your summon for 1/lvl rounds.

And the summonable monsters' list is so outdated and unbalanced... After you reach the second half of the list, most of the creatures are demons and devils. Plus, there are so many fun creatures from the newest bestiaries that you could summmon, such as new demons/devils/angels, daemons, psychopomps, animals, etc etc...

Also, another alternate spellcasting system, something other than vancian casting. Or at least some new content for Word-casting.

Plus, balancing and adding support for more classes for Mythic adventures. Post-Mythic adventures classes and some older classes such as Summoner really have a bad time as mythic characters. There's not enough options in my opinion.

Finally, a comprehensive book/article about how to properly create a dungeon and/or an "adventuring day". Balancing your encounters without making a "1-encounter day" is a lot of trial and error to me.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Almarane wrote:
And the summonable monsters' list is so outdated and unbalanced... After you reach the second half of the list, most of the creatures are demons and devils. Plus, there are so many fun creatures from the newest bestiaries that you could summmon, such as new demons/devils/angels, daemons, psychopomps, animals, etc etc...

I had the same thought several years ago. Here's the list for expanding for summon monster I. It has links to the other lists. I hope you enjoy the expanded list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Almarane wrote:
And the summonable monsters' list is so outdated and unbalanced... After you reach the second half of the list, most of the creatures are demons and devils. Plus, there are so many fun creatures from the newest bestiaries that you could summmon, such as new demons/devils/angels, daemons, psychopomps, animals, etc etc...
I had the same thought several years ago. Here's the list for expanding for summon monster I. It has links to the other lists. I hope you enjoy the expanded list.

You, sir, deserve a medal. Thank you :)


Never thought I'd hear someone say summoning is weak.

Grand Lodge

Base summoning is. Adding all the bells and whistles makes it markedly better.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Base summoning is. Adding all the bells and whistles makes it markedly better.

The guy cannot summon monsters if he has already summoned his eidolon...

I'll let that sink in...

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Gem dragons(diamond, ruby, emerald, saphire, and pearl).

[tangent]

Pearl being a 'gem' dragon annoys the pedant in me. It's oyster poop, not a gemstone! Diamond, Ruby, Emerald, Sapphire and Amethyst (the other of the 'five cardinal gemstones') or Topaz (yellow topaz would cooler from a color perspective, IMO) would work better for me (and yeah, I know that rubies and sapphires are pretty much the same stone, with some different impurities, but the pedant in me isn't *that* picky). :)

Pearl could go in some *other* five-dragon classification with random organically-derived stuff that's also valuable, like Coral and Amber and Ivory and Darkwood, or whatever.
[/tangent]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Gem dragons(diamond, ruby, emerald, saphire, and pearl).

[tangent]

Pearl being a 'gem' dragon annoys the pedant in me. It's oyster poop, not a gemstone! Diamond, Ruby, Emerald, Sapphire and Amethyst (the other of the 'five cardinal gemstones') or Topaz (yellow topaz would cooler from a color perspective, IMO) would work better for me (and yeah, I know that rubies and sapphires are pretty much the same stone, with some different impurities, but the pedant in me isn't *that* picky). :)

Pearl could go in some *other* five-dragon classification with random organically-derived stuff that's also valuable, like Coral and Amber and Ivory and Darkwood, or whatever.
[/tangent]

Aren't gem dragons trademarked by WotC ^^; ?

If dragons are concerned, I just wished that they would stop halting at 5... Planar dragons were the only family which got more dragons past 5.

Chromatic: Yellow, Orange, Purple, Grey and Brown
Metallic: Adamantine, Mithral, Steel, Noqual and Horacalcum


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I could have done with less True Dragons: they take up ridiculous amounts of space because you have to stat one up for each age category.

Grand Lodge

JiCi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Base summoning is. Adding all the bells and whistles makes it markedly better.

The guy cannot summon monsters if he has already summoned his eidolon...

I'll let that sink in...

...yes he can. He just can't do it faster than any other caster.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Never thought I'd hear someone say summoning is weak.

The summon monster spells are actually pretty terrible as far as a combat spell goes, especially at low-level. It is a full-round action, so everyone on the board gets a chance to end your spell before it goes off, then they are around for rounds/level so you can't do it before entering combat. Their damage output is pretty low compared to other spells of the same level: summon monster II wolf does an average of 4 damage/attack but it has to attack each round to do that and it has to survive that long. Their HP and AC is low so surviving 3 rounds is doubtful. Compare that with acid arrow where it does an average of 5/round, but the second round is guaranteed damage, no attack roll required. And you can do it at long range, where summoning is close.

Then there's the point that Almarane was discussing above: B1 was made with enemies to fight, not with filling out the universe. So the number of evil outsiders on that list VASTLY outnumbers the good outsiders. The summon monster VIII list literally has 3 monsters on it, two of which are evil.

There's more, but I believe the point is made.

[/tangent]

Grand Lodge

The best use of summon monster without investment is filling the battlefield with blockers and attack sponges, but that doesn't become viable until a few levels in due to the short duration.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The best use of summon monster without investment is filling the battlefield with blockers and attack sponges, but that doesn't become viable until a few levels in due to the short duration.

and the real need to summon more than 1 thing at a time and have it be Hp relevant


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The best use of summon monster without investment is filling the battlefield with blockers and attack sponges, but that doesn't become viable until a few levels in due to the short duration.

Sounds more like what's needed is a summon obstacle spell. Maybe summon mobile obstacle.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Personally, I could have done with less True Dragons: they take up ridiculous amounts of space because you have to stat one up for each age category.

*barely succeeds the Will save to resist bringing up that PF2 bestiaries have just 3 dragons per age category*

Phew, that was close!

Grand Lodge

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The best use of summon monster without investment is filling the battlefield with blockers and attack sponges, but that doesn't become viable until a few levels in due to the short duration.
Sounds more like what's needed is a summon obstacle spell. Maybe summon mobile obstacle.

Once you are able to bring out a handful of earth elementals it gets pretty effective.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh yeah, earth elemental spam, almost as good as lantern archon spam or foo creature spam.


I typically value summons for the flexibility of the slot rather than straight damage. Not amazing without investment is more of a feature than flaw for me when it comes to magic. 3rd level for example, is a very short time for a wizard to need to wait before their summon spells start pulling great value even without investment.


Anyone here a bit bummed out with some weapons and how they have been represented?

For instance, historically, the Bardiche was used by musketeers like Y-shaped stands during battles, so... why doesn't it provide a bonus when wielding firearms? What I mean by "bonus", I mean something akin to not having to drop the Bardiche when using a two-handed firearm. You could have been able to draw a musket, notch it on the Bardiche and fire.

You still don't have a free hand to reload, but... the Bardiche acting liek a stand would have benefitted for muskets and even culverins... as silly as it can be :P


How about just a weapon design system so they don't have to keep printing new ones?


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
How about just a weapon design system so they don't have to keep printing new ones?

We did get one, in the Weapon Master’s Handbook, but the rules used in that system doesn't always include special bonuses that newer weapons provide.


JiCi wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
How about just a weapon design system so they don't have to keep printing new ones?
We did get one, in the Weapon Master’s Handbook, but the rules used in that system doesn't always include special bonuses that newer weapons provide.

Ah. I thought I'd seen one, but didn't know where (or even what system).

Then they should have been required to add new special abilities to that system as they went.

Dark Archive

And they should also have gone back and fixed weapons that didn't fit/make sense with that system (I.E. Chakram vs Boomerang)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One that has come up in a game we're running at the moment - with all the subsysyems / customisation the game includes, why isnt there an option for different horses? I'm not looking at animal companions here, just mundane horses.

In the real world people pay exorbitant amounts for faser than usual racehorses or ones from particular sires. In game, it would be cool to have the option to acquire a faster horse, or one that can go longer on less food, or even a horse that has some odd magical bloodline. There's flavour text in the Qadira book, but nothing rules-wise.


Neriathale wrote:

One that has come up in a game we're running at the moment - with all the subsysyems / customisation the game includes, why isnt there an option for different horses? I'm not looking at animal companions here, just mundane horses.

In the real world people pay exorbitant amounts for faser than usual racehorses or ones from particular sires. In game, it would be cool to have the option to acquire a faster horse, or one that can go longer on less food, or even a horse that has some odd magical bloodline. There's flavour text in the Qadira book, but nothing rules-wise.

I swear to god ive seen rules for this somewhere.

Silver Crusade

Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Anyone here a bit bummed out with some weapons and how they have been represented?

The hunga-munga stats make me sad. Dagger damage? Less damage than a chakram? Gah. Reading about one (anecdotally) chopping a dude's leg off at 10 paces, I was hoping for, like, *spear* (1d8) damage, but with less range (more like a throwing axe, 10 ft. increments).

But we all have our favorites. I'm irrational about hunga-munga, and curvy blades like scimitars, falchions, falcata and khopeshes.

And yet I also wish we had better rules for spears. Spears are fun in GURPS (cause that sweet Impaling damage, plus sometimes being able to use the superior Staff parry with them), but kind of blow in most iterations of D&D/PF.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Personally, I could have done with less True Dragons: they take up ridiculous amounts of space because you have to stat one up for each age category.

I would not be adverse to a generic 'dragon' and then a series of templates to make it red (breath is fire cone, spell-likes are blah, blah and rhubarb, gets the fire subtype, alignment is 'rampagingmegalomaniac') or white (breath is cold cone, spell-likes are thus and such, gets the cold subtype, alignment is 'dumbbutmean'). Save a ton of space repeating those basics about claws and scales and attributes that, really, are kinda the same-ish. (Starfinder did something like that, IIRC.)

'Cause, yeah, less dragons is more, IMO. Dragonlance, and then the Realms with it's 'Time of Dragons' flocking events kind of spoiled them, for me.

That said, the fact that the various Bestiarii have *stats* for a bazillion types of 'true dragon' doesn't mean that my own iteration of the game setting is gonna have all that crap flying around... My last campaign, I didn't even have *metallic* dragons, let alone imperial, occult, primal, planar, etc.

But that doesn't mean I don't want the *options* in the Bestiaries. No reason not to have a fully stocked kitchen, just because I'm not gonna use *every* spice for every single meal. :)


Rysky wrote:
Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.

Is that the only place? Doesn't war for the crown have a taldan breed as well in one of the back parts?


Set wrote:
I would not be adverse to a generic 'dragon' and then a series of templates to make it red (breath is fire cone, spell-likes are blah, blah and rhubarb, gets the fire subtype, alignment is 'rampagingmegalomaniac') or white (breath is cold cone, spell-likes are thus and such, gets the cold subtype, alignment is 'dumbbutmean'). Save a ton of space repeating those basics about claws and scales and attributes that, really, are kinda the same-ish.

"Build your own dragon" I'd be cool with.


Set wrote:


I would not be adverse to a generic 'dragon' and then a series of templates to make it red (breath is fire cone, spell-likes are blah, blah and rhubarb, gets the fire subtype, alignment is 'rampagingmegalomaniac') or white (breath is cold cone, spell-likes are thus and such, gets the cold subtype, alignment is 'dumbbutmean'). Save a ton of space repeating those basics about claws and scales and attributes that, really, are kinda the same-ish.

Um, that is basically what they did.


Set wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Anyone here a bit bummed out with some weapons and how they have been represented?

The hunga-munga stats make me sad. Dagger damage? Less damage than a chakram? Gah. Reading about one (anecdotally) chopping a dude's leg off at 10 paces, I was hoping for, like, *spear* (1d8) damage, but with less range (more like a throwing axe, 10 ft. increments).

But we all have our favorites. I'm irrational about hunga-munga, and curvy blades like scimitars, falchions, falcata and khopeshes.

And yet I also wish we had better rules for spears. Spears are fun in GURPS (cause that sweet Impaling damage, plus sometimes being able to use the superior Staff parry with them), but kind of blow in most iterations of D&D/PF.

You want something to be fixed for spears and polearms? Make Bracing an immediate action, or a reaction.

I mean, come on, when someone, be the GM or a player, literally tells that he or she is bracing the weapon, the others WILL not fall for it. It's not like setting a trap for a monster to which it must succeed skill checks. When someone declares to Brace themselves for a charge, that's like revealing your card hand. No one will willingly charge against the Bracing character. It's not they need to make a Reflex save to negate the Bracing effect or something.

Want to surprise with a Bracing weapon? Make like Braveheart and draw it out 1 inch before the charging character notice it.


Yeah Set, I agree, the stats for the Hunga-Munga was disappointing.

Personally I think the boomarang should have been a martial weapon and the rogue should have been prof. with it as well.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.
Is that the only place? Doesn't war for the crown have a taldan breed as well in one of the back parts?

I looked at the Qadira book - the alternate horse breed is lovely, but “commands a prive of 5,000 gp or more assuming the owner can be convinced to sell to an outsider”, which is outside the sort of thing I was looking for, which was something like the rules in Pendragon.

Reading War for the Crown is veto’d till we finish the AP.

I could probably home-brew a system where horses have traits, but it just seemed like a hole to me. The archetypical PF party seems to walk everywhere, unless they have a rideable animal companion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's almost like if 3PP existed just so that they can put out supplements on horses!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.
Is that the only place? Doesn't war for the crown have a taldan breed as well in one of the back parts?

I looked at the Qadira book - the alternate horse breed is lovely, but “commands a prive of 5,000 gp or more assuming the owner can be convinced to sell to an outsider”, which is outside the sort of thing I was looking for, which was something like the rules in Pendragon.

Reading War for the Crown is veto’d till we finish the AP.

I could probably home-brew a system where horses have traits, but it just seemed like a hole to me. The archetypical PF party seems to walk everywhere, unless they have a rideable animal companion.

I'm not sure its war for the crown, it might be one of the Taldor sourcebooks but i swear i saw something about a taldan horse breed in some book somewhere


Here's another thing that I wished Paizo would have done justice: the Wand Rifle.

This... has to be the only magic item that was never officially added to the game after its release, back in 2008 in Entombed with the Pharaohs.

Pathfinder Wiki wrote:
Designed by Pathfinder Kaldis Blacksquall, the wand rifle is a wooden-barreled device that can be loaded with two separate wands. This enables the user to cycle between them as desired, though only a single wand may activate at a time. The slender barrel provides greater accuracy to the user than she would have using a wand alone. The rifle itself can be fitted with a serrated bayonet for use in situations when ranged attacks are not possible or ideal.

Basically, it's a two-handed firearm that holds 2 wands and grant a bonus to attack rolls with rays. The catch is that it,s nowhere to be found, be in the Archives or on D20SRD. Even after the introduction of firearms in P1, the rifle was never considered a legal item. The Ranged Tactics Toolbox could have added it as well, but it wasn't.

If anything, a Fighter with the Child of Acavna and Amaznen archetype, wielding a wand rifle would have been a perfect fit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More Magic Items

-Monster vials- thrown vial breaks and creates(not summons) a monster to serve you for a limited time before it melts into alchemical goo. Aberrations, oozes, and monstrous humanoids would be good choices.
-Magical spray cans, such as spray on clothes/armor.
-Magical paintings like ones that are pocket dimensions, two way travel, monster summoning, etc.
-Magical chess sets and other board games.
-Artifacts based on real world myths such as Aegis(Shield), Excalibur, Muramasa, Solomon's Ring, Thor's Hammer, etc.
-"Spinning Tops of Doom";)

Alchemical Items

-Greater versions of the damage dealing alchemical items.
-More powerful version of holy water(holy hand grenade?!).
-More class features and feats that improve the alchemical item's damage, effect, range, usefulness, etc.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Alchemical Items

-Greater versions of the damage dealing alchemical items.
-More powerful version of holy water(holy hand grenade?!).
-More class features and feats that improve the alchemical item's damage, effect, range, usefulness, etc.

This was kind of where I thought the alchemist class was going to go, when it was first announced. Better ability to throw alchemist's fire, acid, etc. Increased dice of damage as he levels up. Bonus side effects like extra rounds of burning, or creates a smoke cloud on impact by combining effects of items like alchemist's fire + smoke stick, or a corrosive tangly goop that's tanglefoot + alchemical acid, with effects DC's also increasing with class level. A pool of crafting points increasing by level that refreshes daily and allows them to craft temporary alchemical consumables that remain fresh for 1 day, allowing them to create stuff to throw or use, without having to spend their WBL just to throw at enemies or drink away.

And then... The actual class has almost nothing to do with the pre-existing craft (alchemy) rules. I was a bit disappointed (although the mutagen bit was super cool!).

Shadow Lodge

You should probably take a look at Scholar from Spheres of Might, and the Alchemy Sphere from the same book. Quality 3rd party right there.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

-Monster vials- thrown vial breaks and creates(not summons) a monster to serve you for a limited time before it melts into alchemical goo. Aberrations, oozes, and monstrous humanoids would be good choices.

Ohh! *Scribbles notes*

Mind you, this thread is a gold mine...but this...ohhh!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Would have liked the Alchemist to have had more abilities related to alchemy like the ability to make x/day alchemical items without cost to use in combat, construct creatures(especially homunculus), creature creation(aberrations, oozes, etc.), chemical creation to inflict status ailments that bypass creature type immunity, more transmutation effects both creature and material, mutagens that changed your form(polymorph), mutagens that add creature templates, mutagens that change your alignment(add alignment related abilities), option to change out bombs/mutagen for monster companion(aberrations, constructs, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, or vermin), maybe mutant animal companion option as well, alchemy that focused on different fields such as creation, healing, necromancy, mutations, pixie dust, plants, poisons, transmutations, vermin, etc.

New types of homunculi would have been nice.

Magical seeds that when you plant them create plant creatures, giant beanstalks, fruit bearing trees(or other plant), create plant based spell effects like wall of thorns, infuse the land with positive energy, etc.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.
Is that the only place? Doesn't war for the crown have a taldan breed as well in one of the back parts?

I looked at the Qadira book - the alternate horse breed is lovely, but “commands a prive of 5,000 gp or more assuming the owner can be convinced to sell to an outsider”, which is outside the sort of thing I was looking for, which was something like the rules in Pendragon.

Reading War for the Crown is veto’d till we finish the AP.

I could probably home-brew a system where horses have traits, but it just seemed like a hole to me. The archetypical PF party seems to walk everywhere, unless they have a rideable animal companion.

I'm not sure its war for the crown, it might be one of the Taldor sourcebooks but i swear i saw something about a taldan horse breed in some book somewhere

Maybe you're thinking of the Mount traits from Knights of the Inner Sea?


Ventnor wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Qadira, Jewel of the East by Jessica Price has a few alternate horsies.
Is that the only place? Doesn't war for the crown have a taldan breed as well in one of the back parts?

I looked at the Qadira book - the alternate horse breed is lovely, but “commands a prive of 5,000 gp or more assuming the owner can be convinced to sell to an outsider”, which is outside the sort of thing I was looking for, which was something like the rules in Pendragon.

Reading War for the Crown is veto’d till we finish the AP.

I could probably home-brew a system where horses have traits, but it just seemed like a hole to me. The archetypical PF party seems to walk everywhere, unless they have a rideable animal companion.

I'm not sure its war for the crown, it might be one of the Taldor sourcebooks but i swear i saw something about a taldan horse breed in some book somewhere
Maybe you're thinking of the Mount traits from Knights of the Inner Sea?

maybe?


More light based powers for the fire kineticist element, maybe even solid light construct to give it a physical blasts.


Something that should hav ebeen errata'ed... by a long shot: Vital Strike, oh boy...

Feat description wrote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

This should have been reworded as follow:

"As a full-round action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."

OMG the fiascos that this ONE feat created. Every single other feat and action got reworked to NOT work in conjunction with Vital Strike. Spring Attack, Ride-By attack, Manyshot, charging, bracing, attacks of opportunity, moving 10 feet + 1 attack, melee/ranged touch spells, name it...

The only times Vital Strike can be useful are with ranged weapons (to conserve ammo) or bypass damage reduction and hardness. That's it. It was a poorly-designed feat that should have worked every time you can attack one time, but that was so busted that everything else was changed.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

Something that should hav ebeen errata'ed... by a long shot: Vital Strike, oh boy...

Feat description wrote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

This should have been reworded as follow:

"As a full-round action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."

OMG the fiascos that this ONE feat created. Every single other feat and action got reworked to NOT work in conjunction with Vital Strike. Spring Attack, Ride-By attack, Manyshot, charging, bracing, attacks of opportunity, moving 10 feet + 1 attack, melee/ranged touch spells, name it...

The only times Vital Strike can be useful are with ranged weapons (to conserve ammo) or bypass damage reduction and hardness. That's it. It was a poorly-designed feat that should have worked every time you can attack one time, but that was so busted that everything else was changed.

So, you want to eliminate the possibility of moving and making Vital Strike, which was the only scenario where it was useful short of niche weapon size abuse builds?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

This should have been reworded as follow:

"As a full-round action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."

I thought the intent was that you didn't have to use a full-round action and thus could move and still attack with good damage.

Then again, I never paid attention to Vital Strike because I figured it should be a base option and not a feat.


Gorbacz wrote:
So, you want to eliminate the possibility of moving and making Vital Strike, which was the only scenario where it was useful short of niche weapon size abuse builds?

Vital Strike itself isn't the problem; the fact that every other mechanic got reworked to NOT allow Vital Strike is.

"When you use the attack action" technically states that you could use Vital Strike whenever you can attack. Spring attacking, charging, sneaking, everytime. However, everything became full-round actions... and Vital Strike cannot be used.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, you want to eliminate the possibility of moving and making Vital Strike, which was the only scenario where it was useful short of niche weapon size abuse builds?

Vital Strike itself isn't the problem; the fact that every other mechanic got reworked to NOT allow Vital Strike is.

"When you use the attack action" technically states that you could use Vital Strike whenever you can attack. Spring attacking, charging, sneaking, everytime. However, everything became full-round actions... and Vital Strike cannot be used.

That's not what I was asking about. I was asking why do you want to eliminate the ability to move and VS. This feat has problems, but nerfing it even further does not solve them.

451 to 500 of 1,122 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.