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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 545 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

As initially written VS wasn't broken, but it did seem to introduce weird fear in the developers. Nerfing it so it wouldn't cause that fear might avoid tortuous interpretations to avoid allowing VS to apply, but that ship sailed years ago. Also it'd make VS one of the many never-use feats in PF1.

If you were rewriting PF1 I'd hope you could listen to explanations as to why VS wasn't broken (in fact short of builds which max effective size it's outright weak), and that you wouldn't nerf it unnecessarily.


Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Ok, why would you move 10 feet then attack WITHOUT Spring Attack? Guess what: Spring Attack cannot be used with Vital Strike.

Seriously, when something says "When you use the attack action", it means "Everytime you use the attack action", be during a move action, standard action or full-round action. But no, because the devs backpedaled like crazy and literally shot down all manners of combining Vital Strike with any other feat, making it a case-by-case scenario camouflaged as a major rewriting.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Ok, why would you move 10 feet then attack WITHOUT Spring Attack? Guess what: Spring Attack cannot be used with Vital Strike.

Seriously, when something says "When you use the attack action", it means "Everytime you use the attack action", be during a move action, standard action or full-round action. But no, because the devs backpedaled like crazy and literally shot down all manners of combining Vital Strike with any other feat, making it a case-by-case scenario camouflaged as a major rewriting.

You are still not answering my question. You're talking about many things, but none of them is about why are you proposing removing a perfectly fine way of using this feat, which is making a VS attack after a move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
You are still not answering my question. You're talking about many things, but none of them is about why are you proposing removing a perfectly fine way of using this feat, which is making a VS attack after a move.

Because it's NOT a "perfectly fine way of using this feat". Everything else has been modified to block Vital Strike. It's like if at first, VS could have been used in 9 situations out of 10... and now, it's just 1 situation out of 10.

Either make it work everywhere and everytime, or make it work on its own terms.

"I move and use Spring Attack."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I move and use Shot on the Run."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I charge."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I feint and attack."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."

THAT's how VS should have been used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

actually every other thing needs reworked TO work with vital strike.

One big hit builds need to be more viable and to do that you need to be able to use them with things like cleave, spring attack and the feats that put weird buffs or debuffs on single attacks and yes, even the abilities that might let you make multiple attacks as a standard action if you meet proper conditions (cleave).

Really vital strike needs to be reworked to work like the heritor knight ability.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
JiCi wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You are still not answering my question. You're talking about many things, but none of them is about why are you proposing removing a perfectly fine way of using this feat, which is making a VS attack after a move.

Because it's NOT a "perfectly fine way of using this feat". Everything else has been modified to block Vital Strike. It's like if at first, VS could have been used in 9 situations out of 10... and now, it's just 1 situation out of 10.

Either make it work everywhere and everytime, or make it work on its own terms.

"I move and use Spring Attack."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I move and use Shot on the Run."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I charge."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."
-----
"I feint and attack."
"Make an Attack Roll."
"I use Vital Strike."

THAT's how VS should have been used.

Uh, it’s fine in that it is the actual intended use of the feat. Move and attack for a bigger hit.

If I’m not moving I’ll just Full Attack.

Your “solution” of making it a Full-Round Action makes it useless, as Gorbacz has been pointing out and you’ve been skating around. It certainly won’t help with your wants for the Feat and other combat options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Why not just reword it to say "As a standard action"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That would be the simplest fix.


Dragon78 wrote:
More light based powers for the fire kineticist element, maybe even solid light construct to give it a physical blasts.

Light-based powers are actually associated with the Wood Element, oddly enough.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
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.

Why not just reword it to say "As a standard action"?

Because it would still lock it out of options... and since it was already locked, might as well lock it into another variant, similar to focusing an attack and striking harder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There are already other options for making a single attack as a full attack and they all suck. We don’t need to make Vital Strike worse.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
There are already other options for making a single attack as a full attack and they all suck. We don’t need to make Vital Strike worse.

It wouldn't be worse if you could activate Vital Strike everytime you are entitled to an attack roll, without action restriction.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
JiCi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There are already other options for making a single attack as a full attack and they all suck. We don’t need to make Vital Strike worse.
It wouldn't be worse if you could activate Vital Strike everytime you are entitled to an attack roll, without action restriction.

And how does your proposed solution help with that?


Rysky wrote:
JiCi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There are already other options for making a single attack as a full attack and they all suck. We don’t need to make Vital Strike worse.
It wouldn't be worse if you could activate Vital Strike everytime you are entitled to an attack roll, without action restriction.
And how does your proposed solution help with that?

VS cannot be used in every other situation. It would be easier to just have VS be used on its own custom one. Even if you make a standard action, it's still restricted to too many other things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So you want it to continue to be unusable in every other situation but also increase the action cost so it can’t be used with a move action?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So you want it to continue to be unusable in every other situation but also increase the action cost so it can’t be used with a move action?

Ok...

When Vital Strike was supposed to be used
- during Spring Attack
- during a charge
- after a move-action
- after a feint
- during Cleave
- during any other action that allows you to make an attack roll

When Vital Strike can actually be used
- after a move-action

When Vital Strike should be used
- as a full-round action to represent a very precise strike
OR
- during any action that allows you to make an attack roll

Making it a standard action would not have fixed the problem, because you still cannot combine it with other options. You cannot stack effects that require the same kind of action.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

When Vital Strike was supposed to be used

- during Spring Attack
- during a charge
- after a move-action
- after a feint
- during Cleave
- during any other action that allows you to make an attack roll

No, the dev team has made it very clear that it was only supposed to be used in conjunction with a move action. It was never intended to be used with Spring Attack and the like. 'Any other action that allows an attack roll' would include every attack on a full attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Fine, if I don't get to use Vital Strike when I want to, nobody gets to use it at all. So there!"

I made characters who made great, if not optimal, use of Vital Strike. Your proposed change would cut off those characters' noses to spite Paizo's face. Or something. Meh, metaphors are overrated. Basically you'd be decreasing my satisfaction with the feats rather than increasing it, and it sounds like I'm not alone in that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

"Fine, if I don't get to use Vital Strike when I want to, nobody gets to use it at all. So there!"

I made characters who made great, if not optimal, use of Vital Strike. Your proposed change would cut off those characters' noses to spite Paizo's face. Or something. Meh, metaphors are overrated. Basically you'd be decreasing my satisfaction with the feats rather than increasing it, and it sounds like I'm not alone in that.

Its literally the first time ive ever seen "vital strike needs to be more restrictive" as a position. Its kind of blowing my mind.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*nods*

You want VS to work with those options, does not mean it was supposed to. It has its use, allowing you to move and hit with a heavy attack, rather than stay rooted and full attack, or getting screwed if you just have to move all of 10ft.

Making it a Full Round Action would remove any and all use from the Feat, there'd be zero reason to take it. Not wanting other people to be able to use VS is not really endearing to your stance.

Silver Crusade

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

Well, we've had people say Dex to damage feats are OP, we've had people say that Clerics are weak, we've had people suggest Wizards need more powers to compensate for the ever-happening "somebody stole my spellbook" scenario, I guess I'm not surprised.


Rysky wrote:

*nods*

You want VS to work with those options, does not mean it was supposed to. It has its use, allowing you to move and hit with a heavy attack, rather than stay rooted and full attack, or getting screwed if you just have to move all of 10ft.

Making it a Full Round Action would remove any and all use from the Feat, there'd be zero reason to take it. Not wanting other people to be able to use VS is not really endearing to your stance.

I feel like almost everybody WANTS vital strike to work with those abilities. To me it feels like the missing link for mobile fighting that allows it to be a functional strategy if not the best one for classes that lack access to some sort of pounce.


Ok, you guys are telling me that you liked it when the devs literally told you that you can use Vital Strike with moves, but not with this action... or that action... or this action... or that action... or this action... Yeah, you can use Vital Strike, except for all of those actions that would have used in 99% of situations.

What's the point of constantly moving at least 10 feet and Vital Striking? You're exposing yourself to attacks of opportunity, to the point which it's not worth risking dealing more damage in one attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My cleric uses it when he has to move in and can't get his full attack. It works especially well with Furious Focus, which he has for the early levels when he only makes one attack a round anyway.

And no, I did not like the way attack actions were errata'd. I would have much preferred Vital Strike be errata'd to a Standard Action to make it simple and clear.


Take another look at the feat's description:

"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."

Where does it state that the attack action is an actual action on its own? Nowhere, and this is why people hated the whole errata/correction. Like I said, it looked like everytime you could attack, be as a swift, standard or full-round action, you could have used Vital Strike.

The feat itself works... but everything else around it doesn't.

Fine, maybe Vital Striking as a standard action is less punishing, but you still would be restricted to doing nothing else that is another standard action or slower.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So your real issue is with the prevalent "attack action vs standard action that does an attack" thing that plagues so much of Pathfinder 1e, and not Vital Strike itself? Is that it?


Grankless wrote:
So your real issue is with the prevalent "attack action vs standard action that does an attack" thing that plagues so much of Pathfinder 1e, and not Vital Strike itself? Is that it?

Now that you mention it, yes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Where does it state that the attack action is an actual action on its own?

*rubs eyeballs yet again* In the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.

Silver Crusade

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

*adds 50th item to the list of PF1 issues people have in this thread that PF2 fixed but they likely didn't even realize that*

*smiles*


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

*adds 50th item to the list of PF1 issues people have in this thread that PF2 fixed but they likely didn't even realize that*

*smiles*

Would you kindly f$&$ off with this s!#&


blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Where does it state that the attack action is an actual action on its own?
*rubs eyeballs yet again* In the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.

I was stating that attacking is often described as a separate kind of action, as if it wasn't a Standard or Full-Round action, but an "attack action".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Where does it state that the attack action is an actual action on its own?
*rubs eyeballs yet again* In the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.
I was stating that attacking is often described as a separate kind of action, as if it wasn't a Standard or Full-Round action, but an "attack action".

Well, the terminology is all over the place, with rules alternating between "attack action", "standard action that is an attack" or just "attack", but the general idea is that attack action is its own thing.


Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Where does it state that the attack action is an actual action on its own?
*rubs eyeballs yet again* In the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.
I was stating that attacking is often described as a separate kind of action, as if it wasn't a Standard or Full-Round action, but an "attack action".
Well, the terminology is all over the place, with rules alternating between "attack action", "standard action that is an attack" or just "attack", but the general idea is that attack action is its own thing.

Then again, I believe that people can tell that making one single attack is a Standard action, while making a full attack is a Full-Round action, on your turn at least. Attacks of opportunity are Immediate actions, because they happen during someone else's turn.

Look, my major gripe with Vital Strike is that it is written as if you can use it every time you can attack, as it doesn't state whether or not it's a Standard action to use, like the Attack action. Due to this, everyone started combining VS with other existing special moves, because VS doesn't restrict you in your actions. However, the devs shut down all of these by stating that VS cannot be used.

It would have been much easier to correct VS that making it a Standard action, that's it. The problem is it's still would have been locked out of everything else.

It's almost a Mandela effect that some actions were once move actions and standard actions combined that got turned into full-round actions...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Be mindful that VS is not only a player-side feat. VS tree on a Colossal high STR creature that does just a single attack is downright brutal and combining it with too many other feats could make it easily way too good than any other monster feats.


Gorbacz wrote:
Be mindful that VS is not only a player-side feat. VS tree on a Colossal high STR creature that does just a single attack is downright brutal and combining it with too many other feats could make it easily way too good than any other monster feats.

I agree, because natural weapons cannot be used wit iterative attacks [most of the time]. It just annoyed me that instead of rewording Vital Strike, they reworded everything else.

I mean... Pummeling Style got reworded because it was too powerful and people combined it with other feats. Believe me I was there. Would it have been too hard to do the same for Vital Strike? Just making it a Standard action would have ruled it out of Full-Round actions and would have made it clear.

The reason I said that it shoudl a Full-Round action at first is that once you're in melee, you're there for a while. You're not going to move 10 feet per round without getting hacked by attacks of opportunity from every single creature that can somehow notice you moving behind their backs.


Ventnor, fire still has more light based abilities then wood, basic pyrokinesis has light and flare, it has brilliant infusion, flash infusion, firefox utility and it has the firefox infusion as well.

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.

I wrote the first of these last night while I was having trouble sleeping. It still needs some refinement, but the basic mechanics (monster comes and fights, disappears after some time, etc) is there.

LINK

Dark Archive

Dragon78 wrote:
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,

A version of that usable by alchemists to create a pool of temporary alchemical consumables *or* a toxicologist to craft a pool of temporary poisons for the day, etc. would be a cool class option to allow various specific classes to make use of those specific costly materials without having to blow their WBL on consumables.


Set wrote:
A version of that usable by alchemists to create a pool of temporary alchemical consumables *or* a toxicologist to craft a pool of temporary poisons for the day, etc. would be a cool class option to allow various specific classes to make use of those specific costly materials without having to blow their WBL on consumables.

I know this is a "recommend 3rd-party fixes" thread, but this is what you do with the Alchemy sphere in Spheres of Might.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got a good list of things I wish PF had:

You know my mounted Cavalier build that was really powerful to the point of breaking even already-unbalanced games -- well, I wish they added a Feat that gave him a +5 to Ref Saves and Evasion. Then he'd really be cool.

Oh, and you know my Rogue build that I like so much, I wish they published a PF version that let him use a Greatsword and be able to use Vital Strike on each one attack during a Full Attack. And I'd get to use STR and DEX for damage. Then it'd be even cooler than the current Rogue build I like so much. Oh, and another Feat so my Rogue could use a Shield while using his Greatsword. Then it would be great.

And I guess I'd like to have seen a Divine Caster build that got access to all the Wiz/Sor Spells without having to take the Prestige Class, then we wouldn't have as many problems convincing someone to play a Cleric in our group. And you have to give him 8 Skill points per Level like the Rogue

But maybe the thing I'd like to have seen most is an Elven Racial Archetype (I love playing Elves.) that you could have that gives him SR 11 + HD, Darkvision as well as Low-light, and extra Feat (like Humans) and two +2 Ability Score modifier bonuses -- Player choice -- cuz man, the current +2/+2/-2 really stifles.

Yeah -- those are the things I most wish was in PF. Who needs PF2!?

P.S.: I almost forgot: I wish that PF had streamlined the Skills even more so that Diplomacy and Bluff and Knowledge Local and Spellcraft were the same Skill.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I just wish there was a Pocket Edition of Pathfinder Unchained. Honestly, THAT is what bugs me about moving from PF to PF2. I need a Pocket PF Unchained!

.

(And while we're at it, a Pocket New Paths Compendium!)


Gorbacz wrote:
Be mindful that VS is not only a player-side feat. VS tree on a Colossal high STR creature that does just a single attack is downright brutal and combining it with too many other feats could make it easily way too good than any other monster feats.

The combination of flyby attack plus VS chains on like...dragons is a damn near unfair combat tactic

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I had a brilliant time with Flyby Attack on a phoenix. Realizing it allows a Standard Action instead of an attack meant it could cast spells on the move.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Be mindful that VS is not only a player-side feat. VS tree on a Colossal high STR creature that does just a single attack is downright brutal and combining it with too many other feats could make it easily way too good than any other monster feats.
The combination of flyby attack plus VS chains on like...dragons is a damn near unfair combat tactic

Except it's the only way you can design a non-CR 20+ Colossal melee monster which must have just one attack so that it won't one-shot the entire party due to its obscene size bonus to STR, so in order for that one attack to meet the dmg targets, it has to go all out in VS.

501 to 545 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.