|
Having played a generic, bare-bones chained monk from level 1 (but otherwise meeting all your conditions), I’d estimate around 60-70%
It tapers off as you get to higher levels. I only played him to level 12, but starting around level 9 the percentage dropped to 35-45% (maybe). Two reasons: 1) adventure writers and GMs really start designing encounters to make full-attacks difficult to achieve and 2) your party members have spells or abilities that can kill/incapacitate enemies so fast that you never get to round 3, 4, 5, etc. after you get next to your target. Doesn’t matter if it’s a massive fireball, a phantasmal killer or the rogue you moved to flank with landing 4 sneak attacks on her full-attack - you’re going to need to find a new target.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the largest factors isn't mentioned in your criteria: What is the rest of your party doing?
Many years ago, I had an Affliction (Damage over Time) Warlock in World of Warcraft and the damage I dealt in a dungeon run was highly erratic: Some times I'd top the charts, while other times I was 'would they even notice if I went AFK' and this puzzled me for a little bit before I realized the underlying issue:
- DoT specs have a 'build-up' time where they establish all their debuffs and get all their damage effects running.
- With a random group of players, I'd have plenty of time to get everything set-up and would often top the charts.
- When running with my actual friends/guildmates (who were both good at the game and well geared), nothing lived long enough for my damage to really get going...
Likewise, when we played through Wrath of the Righteous, the party paladin rarely got a chance to shine in the first half because his initiative was so far behind the rest of the party (Ninja, Gunslinger, and Oracle using Charisma for init) that most foes would be dead before he went
So, I guess what I am trying to say is: The better your party is, the fewer 'full attacks' you're likely to make...
|
I've played a ranger/fighter from 1st level to 20th, in a group that was fairly optimized for combat. He went the Vital Strike route with a two-handed weapon (earth breaker), so rarely full-attacked, except when he was trying to NOT kill things outright. (Even attacking nonlethally, his Vital Strike was frequently deadly due to overkill.)
Ironically, at higher levels, he started using full attacks MORE often rather than less. Between his high static damage bonus and Improved Critical, he could easily dish out more damage per round with a full attack than with a single Improved/Greater Vital Strike (despite how obscene that got to be). And if he could get into a position to reach multiple foes, full attacking let him spread that damage around more efficiently than just wasting it all on one target.
are you stating without other gear? why are you limited to a greatsword?
my cookie-cutter greatsword fighter ('Ijanai Cook', read repeatedly turn into 'cookie-ja-nai' - im not a cookie) had quick draw and 10-20 chakrams just for the time where you need to move to get up to the enemies faces. he'd move and throw (or just full attack throw and let them come closer. depend)
heavy blades fighter group includes chakram and greatsowrds for a reason.
There are too many variables around the rest of the party and the monsters to calculate.
As an example, I’m playing a Warpriest in Jade Regent book 5. 3/4 of the party are melee combatants with outflank, and our main tactic is swarming things. Our arcanist is a party support wizard not a blaster.
Last fight but one, huge undead giant, we surround it and pound it down. All rounds bar the first are full attacks.
Last fight four small undead with flyby attack and 100’ movement. Nobody in the party got a full attack apart from the animal companion who has pounce.
My experience when I played melee characters without pounce was that I'd move to an enemy, make one attack, next round full attack (they would die) and then repeat. Sometimes an ally would attack the same enemy and it wouldn't even require a full attack on my turn to kill them, or they'd already be dead.
So I'd say less than 50% of the time would I get a full attack.
However at medium levels and above combat tends to last at most 4 turns.
As a melee character, pick the strongest looking enemy on the field and set to work trying to kill them.
In my experience usually about 50%-75% of attack rounds are made at full attack. Our GM pool has recognized that good players with optimized characters can deal insane amounts of damage. So we normally play with CR=APL+4 (or more), and with max hit points on the bad guys. So very seldom can a maxed out fighter one shot kill a bad guy. This allows for fun combats and Allows things like Pounce, haste, multi attack, etc to all still have meaningful impact on the game.
Also, even with that, the mooks tend to outnumber the party, so the fighter (who's typically out in front) winds up with multiple bad guys trying to attack him, so he will have plenty of targets for his multi-attack.
In my experience usually about 50%-75% of attack rounds are made at full attack. Our GM pool has recognized that good players with optimized characters can deal insane amounts of damage. So we normally play with CR=APL+4 (or more), and with max hit points on the bad guys. So very seldom can a maxed out fighter one shot kill a bad guy. This allows for fun combats and Allows things like Pounce, haste, multi attack, etc to all still have meaningful impact on the game.
Also, even with that, the mooks tend to outnumber the party, so the fighter (who's typically out in front) winds up with multiple bad guys trying to attack him, so he will have plenty of targets for his multi-attack.
Yeah, if you start deviating from the base rules you can end up like this. When my group was still playing PF1 that was the case, we also ended up with something around CR+4 for an average fight and usually a whole host of enemies that didn't have HP but rather just a "hit me twice and I die" rule. It was specifically introduced just to slow us optimizers down some. Still combats were over pretty quickly.
The fighter didn't spend any resources on either closing more quickly, keeping a target from fleeing, reaching more targets while full attacking, ignoring terrain, or anything like that?
It's easier to think about the encounters I run rather than trying to figure out what's standard, but I'd say maybe 1 in 10 combats would offer an opportunity for frequent extended base to base combat assuming no other player was motivated to assist with positioning. But I like mixing terrain heights, using difficult terrain, high winds, variable encounter start distances, things like that. So the guy with 5ft reach with no backup weapon, who can't run and can't sneak should at least get a mount so he shows up before combat is over.
The more I think about it, the more I have to agree with the others about what the rest of the group is doing. If they engage without consideration for greatsword guy's limitations, and they don't need him, he can easily get left out. But that's the same for quite a few characters, so it's not really a greatsword guy specific issue.
|
|
All of the above are good replies.
You can add that it depends on the GM and adventure too.
Most official adventures have very few or a single opponent in every encounter, as it is easier to manage. That reduces the number of meaningful full attacks you can do, as every attack is aimed at those few opponents, and some spells can disable them before the melee guy has the time to get into full combat range.
In my current campaign, I am trying to be more "old school" and have large encounters with large numbers of relatively weak opponents.
That makes getting the chance to full attack more common.
All of the above are good replies.
You can add that it depends on the GM and adventure too.Most official adventures have very few or a single opponent in every encounter, as it is easier to manage. That reduces the number of meaningful full attacks you can do, as every attack is aimed at those few opponents, and some spells can disable them before the melee guy has the time to get into full combat range.
In my current campaign, I am trying to be more "old school" and have large encounters with large numbers of relatively weak opponents.
That makes getting the chance to full attack more common.
yeah, the single bad guy is part of why we are working to nerf the archer builds in our games. Round 1: Archer goes first due to super high dex. Fires 6 shots, bad guy is dead before anyone else gets to go.
Yeah, if you start deviating from the base rules you can end up like this. When my group was still playing PF1 that was the case, we also ended up with something around CR+4 for an average fight and usually a whole host of enemies that didn't have HP but rather just a "hit me twice and I die" rule. It was specifically introduced just to slow us optimizers down some. Still combats were over pretty quickly.In my experience usually about 50%-75% of attack rounds are made at full attack. Our GM pool has recognized that good players with optimized characters can deal insane amounts of damage. So we normally play with CR=APL+4 (or more), and with max hit points on the bad guys. So very seldom can a maxed out fighter one shot kill a bad guy. This allows for fun combats and Allows things like Pounce, haste, multi attack, etc to all still have meaningful impact on the game.
Also, even with that, the mooks tend to outnumber the party, so the fighter (who's typically out in front) winds up with multiple bad guys trying to attack him, so he will have plenty of targets for his multi-attack.
The problem is, that Pathfinder is built for 4, 20 point buy, non-optimized characters, with somewhat inexperienced players. Once you get past any of these limitations, you have to start making changes to the game to make it enjoyable. I've been playing with the same group for over 35 years, we have the experience, and optimization just comes naturally - So yeah we had to make some "adjustments"
The problem is, that Pathfinder is built for 4, 20 point buy, non-optimized characters, with somewhat inexperienced players. Once you get past any of these limitations, you have to start making changes to the game to make it enjoyable. I've been playing with the same group for over 35 years, we have the experience, and optimization just comes naturally - So yeah we had to make some "adjustments"Yeah, if you start deviating from the base rules you can end up like this. When my group was still playing PF1 that was the case, we also ended up with something around CR+4 for an average fight and usually a whole host of enemies that didn't have HP but rather just a "hit me twice and I die" rule. It was specifically introduced just to slow us optimizers down some. Still combats were over pretty quickly.In my experience usually about 50%-75% of attack rounds are made at full attack. Our GM pool has recognized that good players with optimized characters can deal insane amounts of damage. So we normally play with CR=APL+4 (or more), and with max hit points on the bad guys. So very seldom can a maxed out fighter one shot kill a bad guy. This allows for fun combats and Allows things like Pounce, haste, multi attack, etc to all still have meaningful impact on the game.
Also, even with that, the mooks tend to outnumber the party, so the fighter (who's typically out in front) winds up with multiple bad guys trying to attack him, so he will have plenty of targets for his multi-attack.
Oh yeah, very similar boat. Although I will note I think most written adventures are actually based on 15 point buy, but I absolutely hate such a low point buy, and even feel 20 points can chafe if you're trying to play a character to do things that your class doesn't already reinforce. Like if you want to play an archer fighter, but also want to be face your class doesn't give you many skill points per level, and you don't have use for charisma. So you have to spread points between strength, dex, con, wis, int and cha. You want int for more skill points so you can bluff, be perceptive, be diplomatic, sense motive. You need charisma to do some of your skills decently. You want wisdom for saves. You want con for hp and saves. Dex is your main attack stat, and strength for your damage bonus.
I feel on 20 point buy you really have to sacrifice and you don't end up with a satisfying character. Even if you're not trying to be the best ever, you end up so mediocre that it's discouraging to try.
I much prefer giving an ability score array that's very generous, but honestly for SAD characters doesn't do much but for a build like the above it's a godsend to help make your concept more viable.
As a melee character, pick the strongest looking enemy on the field and set to work trying to kill them.
This doesn’t work out very often in my experience… you pick out the strongest enemy, you make your way into melee range with them and you hit them once… while you are waiting for your turn to come back around a hail of arrows fly past you and turn them into a pincushion, every enemy around you gets bathed in the embers of an empowered selective fireball, a large cat just pounced over your head and now has the big guy on the ground in a death grip, and a storm cloud just formed above him and struck him dead with a bolt of lightning… meanwhile the rogue who turned invisible with a ring of invisibility is now standing in front of you on the otherside of the corpse looking just as disappointed as you are that the tough guy died before you could wail on him in a full attack…
This sort of experience is exactly why every melee character I’ve made has either focused on standard action attack abilities or had some way to combine a full movement with a full attack (pounce, rolling flurry, circling mongoose, mobile fighter’s rapid attack)… speaking of… I’ve seen numerous posts claiming that pounce is easy to get… I have to ask… How? It has been my experience that pounce is very difficult to get access to…
As a melee character, pick the strongest looking enemy on the field and set to work trying to kill them.This doesn’t work out very often in my experience… you pick out the strongest enemy, you make your way into melee range with them and you hit them once… while you are waiting for your turn to come back around a hail of arrows fly past you and turn them into a pincushion, every enemy around you gets bathed in the embers of an empowered selective fireball, a large cat just pounced over your head and now has the big guy on the ground in a death grip, and a storm cloud just formed above him and struck him dead with a bolt of lightning… meanwhile the rogue who turned invisible with a ring of invisibility is now standing in front of you on the otherside of the corpse looking just as disappointed as you are that the tough guy died before you could wail on him in a full attack…
This sort of experience is exactly why every melee character I’ve made has either focused on standard action attack abilities or had some way to combine a full movement with a full attack (pounce, rolling flurry, circling mongoose, mobile fighter’s rapid attack)… speaking of… I’ve seen numerous posts claiming that pounce is easy to get… I have to ask… How? It has been my experience that pounce is very difficult to get access to…
That's absolutely possible. But my experience has been that by engaging the strongest looking enemy (often the boss if there is one) you draw aggro of the other enemies or you lockdown the boss so the archers and mages can do their job. While the pure shitstorm of arrows and magic you're referring to can absolutely happen, I only see that happen when you have large (6+) person groups such that you end up with like 3 full spell casters, an archer, a bomber alchemist, and your character that can't pounce or otherwise get a full attack while moving.
Anyway, if the BBEG dies before your next turn and you didn't need to full-attack, then the combat is basically over and your team did a good job, even if you didn't get to win the DPR Olympics.
But honestly to Mark Hoover's point, it depends on a lot of things, mostly outside your control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level will effect the percentage, but party size will effect the odds much more. In a party of 3, you’ll have lots of chances to full attack. In a party of 7, you may only rarely have a chance
As a melee character, pick the strongest looking enemy on the field and set to work trying to kill them.This doesn’t work out very often in my experience… you pick out the strongest enemy, you make your way into melee range with them and you hit them once… while you are waiting for your turn to come back around a hail of arrows fly past you and turn them into a pincushion, every enemy around you gets bathed in the embers of an empowered selective fireball, a large cat just pounced over your head and now has the big guy on the ground in a death grip, and a storm cloud just formed above him and struck him dead with a bolt of lightning… meanwhile the rogue who turned invisible with a ring of invisibility is now standing in front of you on the otherside of the corpse looking just as disappointed as you are that the tough guy died before you could wail on him in a full attack…
This sort of experience is exactly why every melee character I’ve made has either focused on standard action attack abilities or had some way to combine a full movement with a full attack (pounce, rolling flurry, circling mongoose, mobile fighter’s rapid attack)… speaking of… I’ve seen numerous posts claiming that pounce is easy to get… I have to ask… How? It has been my experience that pounce is very difficult to get access to…
And this is why we banned/restricted archers, as well as animal companions. We also upped the CR of all encounters, maxed the HP's of all bad guys, and in general just put more mooks in the encounter.
This also depends on how intelligent the enemies are. Smart enemies don't usually walk up to the party TWF blender and let themselves get shredded. And smart enemies realize that attacking once and disengaging while risking an AoO is way better than certain death.
===
This sort of experience is exactly why every melee character I’ve made has either focused on standard action attack abilities or had some way to combine a full movement with a full attack (pounce, rolling flurry, circling mongoose, mobile fighter’s rapid attack)… speaking of… I’ve seen numerous posts claiming that pounce is easy to get… I have to ask… How? It has been my experience that pounce is very difficult to get access to…
Dunno about those claiming pounce is easy to get, don't think I've seen that. It's way easier to secure swift action attacks and AoOs. They also fare much better than normal builds while moving for obvious reasons.
I wouldn't place Circling Mongoose in that list of yours, though. It doesn't help you move toward an enemy and attack which is the real issue, and prevents 5-ft stepping as it is movement. So relying on Circling Mongoose means that you're actually even more limited in who you can target than normal.
Certainly, people expending resources should be expending as few as possible. If your fighter with a greatsword can handle the encounter, then he should. Generally a caster is trying not to cast spells, which is why haste and create pit spells are so highly regarded. With haste you've helped all the greatsword guys get into position and attack, and create pit spells make it more likely that the enemy has to approach your greatsword guys with their own action.
The most important spells in the game are those that remove or create obstacles because those are the ones that help other characters shine.
Why optimize? To make sure your character is reliable enough at something that others can include you in their strategy. Sometimes people go overboard, but that's separate from the tactical considerations of melee exclusive characters.
I also think it's worth asking where exactly is the value of optimization? If the encounter was easy enough that the enemies died in one round without the martial being able to get in at all, do we even care that we didn't do much damage? Should the casters have even bothered expending a spell slot? Maybe I'm thinking about this entirely wrong and your average number of full attacks in a campaign doesn't matter; only the average number of full attacks in the "encounters tough enough to actually challenge the party and make optimization useful".
FWIW I think the only important rule of optimisation is that all of the characters in the campaign should be optimised to roughly the same level. It doesn’t matter if my party killed encounter X in AP Y in one round and yours did it in six, because we aren’t playing together. The problem only arises when one half of the party have built for the DPR olympics and the other half believe optimisation inhibits roleplay.
Even if the fight itself wasn't a challenge, being able to spare party resources for fights that are a challenge is still important. But there's obviously a balance needed there, a character that easily ends most combats in a single round but can do nothing on more challenging combats isn't great, but a character who has a once per day instant death attack and nothing else also isn't that great.
If you had a 4 person party of once per day instant death characters, and nothing left after killing 4 dudes, the guy who can kill a bunch of weak dudes is going to seem like a good pickup.
FWIW I think the only important rule of optimisation is that all of the characters in the campaign should be optimised to roughly the same level. It doesn’t matter if my party killed encounter X in AP Y in one round and yours did it in six, because we aren’t playing together. The problem only arises when one half of the party have built for the DPR olympics and the other half believe optimisation inhibits roleplay.I also think it's worth asking where exactly is the value of optimization? If the encounter was easy enough that the enemies died in one round without the martial being able to get in at all, do we even care that we didn't do much damage? Should the casters have even bothered expending a spell slot? Maybe I'm thinking about this entirely wrong and your average number of full attacks in a campaign doesn't matter; only the average number of full attacks in the "encounters tough enough to actually challenge the party and make optimization useful".
The problem comes in when most of the table is highly experienced, and the rest of the group are newbies. Many players get frustrated having to "play down", and it's not always easy to teach someone how to keep up. But I agree with your sentiment - everyone should be as close as possible to the same level of play.
Sorry if my previous post was a bit scattered. I'm kinda just throwing words down on a page and hoping somebody takes it somewhere.
I agree that people over-optimize sometimes (particularly for damage) but that wasn't actually the point. What I was trying to get at was something like this:
Many people have stated so far that the number of full-attacks you get depends on how quickly your party members kill the enemies; if your party shreds the encounter from a range in round 1, you're unlikely to get full-attacks for obvious reasons.
My questions is, from the standpoint of somebody trying to optimize a melee character, do you care about that fight? Do you feel worse about your character as a result?
I'd kind of argue you shouldn't because I don't think the strength of a character is really tested in those fights. I think the fights you should use to measure yourself are those tough enough to actually give your party a decent challenge, and I don't think those tend to end on round 1. That's purely anecdotal though.
It depends on the person.
One person might be "Oh good, the fights over. What's next?"
Another is "I wanted to show off too, why do you have steal all the kills?"
A third goes, "Well, when the next fight has wind wall up I'm going to shine."
I’ve seen all three of these happen in my own pathfinder group… at the same time even…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure damage ownership is a very useful idea. Does the cleric own all your damage if he's resurrected you? Does the guy who cast the light cantrip get half your damage in otherwise dark rooms? And ensuring turn by turn damage parity doesn't sound like an exciting thing to build a game around either. If that's what you wanted, you could make a game where everyone killed 1/4 of a monster per turn, and simplify things considerably. You could also smooth out the difference between melee and ranged by using old school final fantasy positioning. You move forward, attack with all your attacks, then move back. And your whole game could be published on an index card which is convenient.
Is it a bad thing that melee characters can build toward getting their damage in different ways? Is there no value in a melee characters ability to occupy and control more space than an archer?