What is "The Elephant in the Room" as it pertains to Pathfinder?


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

@Kurald/Temperans.

Please to the math. While you can theoretically do these things with no feat investment, it will nearly never be a good idea in practice, so the decision may as well not exist.

Against a 2 Attacks on a full attack enemy, moving away (trading one attack and an AoO for a full attack) is generally worse then full attack trading because he hits twice at full bab, rather then with his best attack and his iterative. If you have mobility, this changes to make it an equal decision.

Tripping/Sundering/etc. as the AoO is a horrible idea if you dont have improved in it, because you get AoOed back.

Look, if people have combat expertize, and dont make use of it, its their problem not the rules problem. It has better exchange rates to trading AB for AC via fighting defensively, and the exchange rate can be improved even further if you pick the appropriate trait (threatening defender), which is cheaper then the feat neccessary to make fighting defensively really good.


I use Combat Expertise all the time on my Bloodrager. It's not nearly as bad a feat as people think.

The example given used spring attack to get an attack while still being far enough away to get an AoO when the enemy closed. He does this by level 7 (judging by the penalties and AC bonuses given by Combat Expertise), which means he either spent 5 of his 5 feats on Whirlwind Attack (or 5 of 6 if Human) or he used the EitR rules and only spent 2 feats. So this is either an example of a Very specialized level 7 Bloodrager, or a good example of how the EitR rules can give you options without taking all your feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
MrCharisma post is the first post in this thread to actually have any kind of valid reason for this system.

Why thank you.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
I still don’t think this is something that is really in need of fixing, but I can at least understand and respect this point of view.

Yeah honestly we don't really use it. We have used it, and I don't mind it, but I don't think you need it. I can see why people would use it though, and I think there's a reason it's one of the most well known and widely used set of house rules.

If you like it, great. If not, also great. If you want to "fix" the Martial/Caster problem then maybe look elsewhere.


Mightypion wrote:

@Kurald/Temperans.

Please to the math. While you can theoretically do these things with no feat investment, it will nearly never be a good idea in practice, so the decision may as well not exist.

Against a 2 Attacks on a full attack enemy, moving away (trading one attack and an AoO for a full attack) is generally worse then full attack trading because he hits twice at full bab, rather then with his best attack and his iterative. If you have mobility, this changes to make it an equal decision.

Tripping/Sundering/etc. as the AoO is a horrible idea if you dont have improved in it, because you get AoOed back.

Look, if people have combat expertize, and dont make use of it, its their problem not the rules problem. It has better exchange rates to trading AB for AC via fighting defensively, and the exchange rate can be improved even further if you pick the appropriate trait (threatening defender), which is cheaper then the feat neccessary to make fighting defensively really good.

That's my point that specific example was bad because you compared "guy does full attack" with "guy actually uses the feats they have". Of course the second will sound better than the former, thus coming across as disingenuous.

Tripping without improved is not nearly that bad if you are using a tripping or reach weapon which most people who would try would. Not to mention without a tripping weapon if you fail by 10 or more you would get tripped anyways, even if you have the feat.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Mightypion wrote:
Against a 2 Attacks on a full attack enemy, moving away (trading one attack and an AoO for a full attack) is generally worse

Or you use tumble, or the withdraw action.

Quote:
Tripping/Sundering/etc. as the AoO is a horrible idea if you dont have improved in it, because you get AoOed back.

Or you use a reach weapon.

You're trying to tell us that characters with EITR have choices that Core characters do not, but it looks like these choices exist in Core just fine. If you want to claim that the choice exists for both but is only worthwhile for one of them, please show us your math on that.


Kurald Galain wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
by the time a character finishes the cleave line, or finishes a single combat maneuver line, etc. to fully enable the tree, they have maybe one or two feats remaining in a campaign and are level 13-17
The discussion at hand is not whether martials are on par with casters, but whether it's totally unfair if a character has to wait all the way until level 7 ("jumping through hoops") in order to get the trick he built his character for.

I'm sorry, you think it's fair for the martial when the caster just had to make a free selection on any spell without prerequisites (let alone useless prerequisites) and said caster still has at a minimum 15 other useful spells? What planet do you live on where this "any spell" can potentially kill outright or fatally cripple a single target with only a few things maybe being absolutely immune to it, and where the fighter who spent over 50% of his feat selection on whirlwind attack, an ability that is rarely useful are considered fair against one another? If your answer is "oh well he shouldn't have invested in this feat line because its expensive or he's only a level 7 martial how competent can he be compared to a 140+ iq wizard?" then I think you are either completely missing the point of EitR or insanely misrepresenting the actual assumptions of the game.


Kurald Galain wrote:
Mightypion wrote:
Against a 2 Attacks on a full attack enemy, moving away (trading one attack and an AoO for a full attack) is generally worse

Or you use tumble, or the withdraw action.

Quote:
Tripping/Sundering/etc. as the AoO is a horrible idea if you dont have improved in it, because you get AoOed back.

Or you use a reach weapon.

You're trying to tell us that characters with EITR have choices that Core characters do not, but it looks like these choices exist in Core just fine. If you want to claim that the choice exists for both but is only worthwhile for one of them, please show us your math on that.

Reach weapon doesn't help against an opponent with reach as well, he also forgot to mention being hit on the AoO for not having improved makes the damage act as a penalty to your CM roll, and we have already explained the math on several occasions. Not having to pay anywhere from 1 to 3 feats as a tax for a feat line means you can afford more feat lines. Instead of being the wizard who casts any number of spells more or less whenever they want, and now finally instead of being the fighter who gets to safetly duplicate the spell effect of a single 1st level spell, Thunderstomp, this fighter can trip someone and maybe cleave, or have a useful shield 2wf/bull rush build.

You keep making the argument "oh yeah they already could do this one thing" as if our point is that they should be able to do this one thing better, when it's "you should be able to do more than one thing".


In my case the argument is that EitR doesn't quite do what it says it does, as well intentioned as it may be. Nothing to do with casters, everything to do with what someone is willing to try, risk, and build around.


Kurald Galain wrote:
Mightypion wrote:
Against a 2 Attacks on a full attack enemy, moving away (trading one attack and an AoO for a full attack) is generally worse

Or you use tumble, or the withdraw action.

Quote:
Tripping/Sundering/etc. as the AoO is a horrible idea if you dont have improved in it, because you get AoOed back.

Or you use a reach weapon.

You're trying to tell us that characters with EITR have choices that Core characters do not, but it looks like these choices exist in Core just fine. If you want to claim that the choice exists for both but is only worthwhile for one of them, please show us your math on that.

Lets first remind everyone that tumble cannot be used by anyone bearing a medium load, or wearing medium armor or more, which considerably reduces its applicability to essentially a subset of dex based martials.

Tumble is Acrobatics vs. CMD.

CMD scales with STR, BAB, size and Dex, and with any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC.

Acrobatics scales off a much lower number of possible boni, its basically just your class level, your dex, and specific boni either from class skill or items to acrobatics.

Look at it this way, your acrobatics is class level + dex modifier + 3 (most relevant classes have it as a class skill)-ACP (although it should be low because classes that actually tumble tend to get near zero ACP relatively early).

A serious threat you want to tumble at, or away from, will typically have a greater or equal BAB then you have class levels, and his STR + DEX bonus will often be higher then your Dex. You then have 3 + extra boni to acrobatic -ACP, and hope that this is higher then their size + circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred, which frequently wont be the case.
The penalty for failure quite devastating, you get a max Bab attack, and will probably get full attacked next turn.

Concerning trip/sunder/bullrush without the improved version:
You can trip relatively risk free without the feat if you do have reach advantadge. That is not much of an if for a Bloodrager (who are basically the easiest class to get 10 feet reach advantadge in the game), but can be a sizeable if for anyone else.
Trip is vs CMD rather then AC. CMD is typically greater then AC, by something like CR/1,5 (outliers exist, but its surprisingly accurate).
If it is something you would hit on an 11, you would, assuming relatively low CR, probably self trip and a 3 or less. The Feat sizesable reduces this to a 1 or less in this case. I typically find that improved trip reduces my odds of catastrophic failure by about half.
Something with a 1/20 risk of catastrophic failure is a lot less risky then something with a 1/7.

The reason these things are bad without EITR are because failures are catastrophic. Tumble failure and trip AoO failure can mean character death. With EITR, I am not rolling to tumble at all, and while the trip can fail, I would need to be seriously unlucky for a catastrophic failure.

101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What is "The Elephant in the Room" as it pertains to Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules