| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think stunt damage has a lot of work it could be doing for this class, but the limitations on it are pretty brutal.
1. It is nonmagical physical damage not connected to an attack. Resistances will reduce it quickly.
2. It is not going to double on critical effects all that often, so it is significantly less than many other martial damage bonuses.
3. It is often dependent on something that can be pretty situational.
I have a hard time seeing stunt damage as a class defining feature for the daredevil, but without it, there is almost nothing a fighter can’t do better. It seems like it could be at least a d6 higher if it is otherwise going to stay as it is, although even then it might not be enough, as I have found it pretty difficult to use that often in my play testing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with Stunt Damage, a fighter has an easy way to deal nearly as much, if not more, damage than a daredevil using Shove through their own feats and the Punishing Shove feat if they dip into guardian to obtain it. And unlike the daredevil, the fighter also doesn’t need props to trigger that damage in the first place.
I honestly think the whole concept of props should be scrapped, while keeping their flavor by incorporating it directly into the abilities themselves. What I mean is that, instead of having codified mechanics for characters crashing into environmental objects, players could simply describe their character pushing someone into scenery that was already part of the environment but not important enough to be mechanically defined. These would be elements that don’t occupy a square on the grid or impose penalties like difficult terrain, but still help sell the cinematic feel of the action that the class seems to push.
For example: “I push the target toward that rock by the wall,” or “I kick the target in the legs, making them stumble backward and trip over a bump in the floor.” Even something like “I grab the rock next to me and smash it into the target’s face” should work. The class already supports improvised weapons, and the whole point of Stunt Damage is to deal damage using elements that are already part of the environment, so why should I only be able to throw the target into a prop, but not throw a prop at the target?
The GM shouldn’t need to describe beforehand that there’s a rock or similar object present, as long as the player describes using something that could plausibly exist in the scene. The size of the prop shouldn’t matter either, not only because that creates balance issues where daredevils of certain sizes become more optimal than others, but also because the important part isn’t the object being used, but rather that you are the one using your surroundings creatively as a tool to deal damage.
This would, of course, require other maneuvers like Trip or Grapple to interact with Stunt Damage as well. In fact, I would even consider replacing Stunt Damage with something more akin to a weapon-like effect, similar to the alchemist’s versatile vials, that would scale on its own, replace your improvised weapon damage, and that would be automatically dealt as damage with all your daredevil abilities. The "Prop" trait could work to show which abilities benefit from this damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think the whole concept of props should be scrapped, while keeping their flavor by incorporating it directly into the abilities themselves. What I mean is that, instead of having codified mechanics for characters crashing into environmental objects, players could simply describe their character pushing someone into scenery that was already part of the environment but not important enough to be mechanically defined. These would be elements that don’t occupy a square on the grid or impose penalties like difficult terrain, but still help sell the cinematic feel of the action that the class seems to push.
Doesn't that kind of remove one of the main conceits of the class though?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't that kind of remove one of the main conceits of the class though?
I honestly think the whole concept of props should be scrapped, while keeping their flavor by incorporating it directly into the abilities themselves. What I mean is that, instead of having codified mechanics for characters crashing into environmental objects, players could simply describe their character pushing someone into scenery that was already part of the environment but not important enough to be mechanically defined. These would be elements that don’t occupy a square on the grid or impose penalties like difficult terrain, but still help sell the cinematic feel of the action that the class seems to push.
If the mechanic is bad and has problems, which seems to be the case, what's the problem with removing it?
Flavor-wise there's no change at all.
If the mechanic is bad and has problems, which seems to be the case, what's the problem with removing it?
I mean like I just said, it's a very core component of how the class works right now. That it's slightly underpowered means it could stand to be buffed.
It's like saying you could fix the alchemist by getting rid of alchemy and replacing it with some always on bonus. Yeah maybe it might be mechanically stronger, but..
Flavor-wise there's no change at all.
It significantly changes how you interact with the world so that's clearly not the case, because flavor and mechanics inform each other. If one character is maneuvering around terrain to create benefits and the other is standing completely still and just making things happen there's no real room to call them thematically identical.
If the mechanic is bad and has problems, which seems to be the case, what's the problem with removing it?I mean like I just said, it's a very core component of how the class works right now. That it's slightly underpowered means it could stand to be buffed.
It's like saying you could fix the alchemist by getting rid of alchemy and replacing it with some always on bonus. Yeah maybe it might be mechanically stronger, but..
Flavor-wise there's no change at all.It significantly changes how you interact with the world so that's clearly not the case, because flavor and mechanics inform each other. If one character is maneuvering around terrain to create benefits and the other is standing completely still and just making things happen there's no real room to call them thematically identical.
Except that isn't my proposal at all.
The current daredevil pushes someone into a prop the GM has to mention it exists beforehand, while the daredevil I'm proposing still pushes someone into a prop but instead the player has to describe it themselves as part of the action using it, or take said prop and smash it in the head of the target. The only real change is that it removes work from the GM and moves it to the player (the one that wants to play the class in the first place) and it takes the concept of a feat that already exists like Breakaway Attack and makes it part of Stunt Damage innately. I'm literally just moving the pieces that already exists around to make the class feel more mechanically satisfying than its current iteration. At least that's how I think it could be solved. Its fine if you disagree, but I don't think I'm changing the flavor of the class at all.
If DD feats just did "attack+damage" that pretty much just is any other martial by another name. There has to be some tactical choice being made with how the damage gets applied at this point in the game cycle or it really doesn't need to be a new class at all.
"How are you using terrain?" is an interesting question to look at with a new class. If your GM really doesn't tend to include interesting terrain features, then this class would probably be as useless as an investigator in an arena combat campaign (and by that I mean a realy arena combat campaign, not a mystery masquerading as as an arena combat campaign...ah hem, Fists of the Ruby Phoenix). That part alone doesn't bother me about this class, it is the fact that the damage will be more situational then a rogue or ranger or barbarian or inventor or Thaumaturge, but without really any payout for being so. +STR mod damage is nice for STR Daredevils, really the only feasible type in the play test, but those other limiting factors (no doubling on crits and no magic or ability to modify the damage type to bypass resistances) are really going to blunt that bonus damage, especially as it isn't really all that easy of a way to play the class in the first place.
I don't know if boosting it by a D6 would really be enough of a difference, but it does feel like it needs to be meaningful when you do land that bonus damage, because right now, I still think the most effective damage dealing Daredevil MCs into fighter to pick up a good one action repeatable press attack and attack with an agile weapon is a free hand fighter with agile grace.
I do think there is a meaningful difference in gameplay between the player flavoring props as part of their normal attacks, and the player having to make use of props that exist on the battle map and thereby position accordingly. Of all the restrictions the Daredevil has (and there are many), this I think is the one limitation that I feel is justified on them, as I do feel it makes for meaningfully different gameplay from other classes, and fun gameplay too. The class has a ton of problems that get in the way of this gameplay, including weak stunt damage as the OP mentions, but I'd personally rather the class changed to feel good at this gameplay and work better when it doesn't happen, as opposed to got rid of that mechanic entirely.
I think stunt damage has a lot of work it could be doing for this class, but the limitations on it are pretty brutal.
1. It is nonmagical physical damage not connected to an attack. Resistances will reduce it quickly.
2. It is not going to double on critical effects all that often, so it is significantly less than many other martial damage bonuses.
3. It is often dependent on something that can be pretty situational.
1: you add your str bonus to the Stunt damage so you're more likely to get through resistance than, say an Elemental Instinct Barbarians elemental bonus. And as an extra attack, it triggers weakness again [no matter how instance of damage shakes out].
As to magical, other than Incorporeal, what do you need it for? Not really offbrand that smacking a ghost into a wall isn't very effective. Maybe add a line that magic props, like a PC wearing magic armor, count as Magical attacks.
2: compare to a 19th ranger [3d8], rogue [4d6] and Daredevil [5d6+7]. Sure others might do more on a crit, but daredevils do more on normal attacks. Adding Str to our regular attack makes them beefier.
3: Since your own party can count as props, it doesn't have to be any more situational than flanking.
IMO, the hard locked one size over your for several feats are a bigger issue. managing your size vs props and enemies is the core issue IMO.
If DD feats just did "attack+damage" that pretty much just is any other martial by another name. There has to be some tactical choice being made with how the damage gets applied at this point in the game cycle or it really doesn't need to be a new class at all.
I think its foul to believe that people after 7 years of PF2e (or 17 years for those that are here since the release of PF1e, and this year gap becomes even bigger if we include those that come from D&D 3.X or earlier D&D editions) people are going to start designing combat maps with props because of a single class. The investigator has a niche that's easier to adapt and, using your own words, the class still feels useless for most tables anyways.
Props are the daredevil's bane and the fact that people on this forum talk about taking an animal companion or protector tree to have an readily available prop for all situations is already telling that for a ton of tables this class is going to be dead on release or homebrewed to work without props.
If you guys want props to stay as is, then the daredevil needs a way to make its own props, and even then, its very likely that such a feature would become a feat tax for most daredevils (assuming it would be a feat, which I think its the most likely) which is a problem in and of itself.
2: compare to a 19th ranger [3d8], rogue [4d6] and Daredevil [5d6+7]. Sure others might do more on a crit, but daredevils do more on normal attacks. Adding Str to our regular attack makes them beefier.
Except this isn't true. The ranger and rogue add their 3d8s and 4d6s to their weapon damage. The daredevil only deals 5d6+7 and if there's a prop.
This is without even taking into account the guardian’s Punishing Shove and the fighter’s Brutish Shove, both low-level feats that individually deal damage comparable to the daredevil’s Stunt Damage. However, the issue becomes clear when you consider that a guardian or fighter can have both feats by 4th level and, unlike the daredevil, do not require any props to use them. And the problem of daredevils potentially having both by 10th level as well.
That's going to become the new magus psychic dip if it isn't fixed on release.
I was unaware that other people have been playing dungeons and dragons for all these years without having walls in their dungeons. I am sorry to hear that.
Maybe some people have gotten used to playing with nothing but walls in their dungeons, but honestly, that is boring and depressing to me as I have been designing dungeons with moving parts and furniture for at least 30 years and it has always made games more fun.
Most ideal to me would be that the book this class comes in to come with a lot of additional rules and guidance for running more dynamic encounters. I am guessing this will include some vehicle stuff but could easily include more variant+additional rules for treating/creating hazards out of everyday setting pieces. Fighting on boats should include swinging sails, pitching decks, sliding crates and all that other cinematic stuff, not just unmoving ship layouts with no three dimensionality to them. That is something this book could offer beyond classes.
I agree that stunt damage is most often not going to occur with damage and that is why the current numbers are too low, especially for non-str DDs who really start losing a lot if they try to push STR past 4.
Except this isn't true. The ranger and rogue add their 3d8s and 4d6s to their weapon damage. The daredevil only deals 5d6+7 and if there's a prop.
This is without even taking into account the guardian’s Punishing Shove and the fighter’s Brutish Shove, both low-level feats that individually deal damage comparable to the daredevil’s Stunt Damage. However, the issue becomes clear when you consider that a guardian or fighter can have both feats by 4th level and, unlike the daredevil, do not require any props to use them. And the problem of daredevils potentially having both by 10th level as well.
That's going to become the new magus psychic dip if it isn't fixed on release.
Except it is true as they brought up extra damage. If the complaint was that the basic feats don't do enough damage, I'd agree. Punishing Shove/Practiced Brawn seems required as does Caroming Charge. Just using the in class feats leaves you lacking for sure. SO less that the stunt damage isn't enough but that the feat actions don't do enough.
On props, again I don't see that as an issue as your own party can count. No one complains flanking is too hard afterall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I don’t fully agree with exequiel759, I do think he has a point: when enemies aren’t close enough to terrain features or each other (while being valid props), which in my experience wasn’t that infrequent, the Daredevil finds themselves with very little they can do to trigger stunt damage. I do think the class could benefit from fallback options where even in the whitest of white rooms, they can still do something useful that comes from their class, even if it’s much riskier or less rewarding than using props when available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daring stunt to knock someone prone and then following it up with a good press strike against an off guard enemy is good damage though, in fact, probably better than trying to do any kind of press shove maneuver for stunt damage. The dare devil does need a one action version of that though to really take advantage of audacious combat. I don’t think the dare devil needs to be doing stunt damage every round to be effective, even if I think the stunt damage should be a little better, especially to compensate for never critting.
I was unaware that other people have been playing dungeons and dragons for all these years without having walls in their dungeons. I am sorry to hear that.
Maybe some people have gotten used to playing with nothing but walls in their dungeons, but honestly, that is boring and depressing to me as I have been designing dungeons with moving parts and furniture for at least 30 years and it has always made games more fun.
I started playing Dungeons & Dragons on a bare tabletop with the walls of a room outlined by pencils.
I am currently running Hurricane's Howl. Let me look at the battlemaps included with that module.
1. Spire Dormitory. This has walls, and beds and sofas in the rooms, and sofas in the common area. The architecture is a lot roomier than any dormitory I have seen: the hallway is 25 feet wide and the smaller rooms measure 25 feet by 40 feet.
2. Sparring Area. An empty field with trees on the fringe.
3. Pond surrounded by grassland. We have more trees by the edges than the previous map, but the closest is 15 feet from the pond. The tree trunks are not visible, but the leaf pattern of palm and palmetto trees clearly define their location. Not so much for other species of trees.
4. Similar to #3, but a creek instead of a pond.
5. Ruins of Bloodsalt, a crumbling cityscape with city walls and 14 small buildings and a sea to the north instead of walls. It has a lot of piles of rubble: can those be used as props?
6. A former campsite. This grassy field has an extinguished campfire ring, one large rock, and two trees, each in a corner.
7. Gravesite. Bandits buried three bodies in this muddy plain, but the artist did not mark their location.
8. Terwa River. One of the major rivers in the Sodden Lands, with a boatbuilding village further upstream is only 20 feet wide. And a Huge behemoth hippopotamus lives in it. It has trees on the fringe and three trees are next to the river, but the river jogs southward for a 45-foot-wide grass plain.
9. Stony plain with six trees.
10. Baobob Orchard. 40 baobob trees, a farmhouse, a shed, and a barn. The barn has crates and two wagons in in. That is a good collection of props.
11. Jula Alehouse. The alehouse is mostly a large room with chairs, snall tables, large tables, a bar counter, and a fireplace. The building also has a kitchen and storeroom.
12. Smuggler Caves. A standard cave system of twisty tunnels and a few larger cavern rooms. The biggest rooms have crates.
13. Prison of the Vacant Eye. A two-page underground dungeon. Most rooms are 15 foot by 25 foot, so a wall is always nearby. The lowest level has a small lake with a lake monster. Good that my playtest daredevil Kittyhawk has a Swim speed.
The biggest maps--Bloodsalt, Baobob Orchard, Smuggler Caves, and Prison of the Vacant Eye have plenty of walls, but for most outdoor maps the artists prefered empty plains with trees on the fringe. Once they reach the mountainous territory, the module sent the party indoors.
These places also had trees, tables, and crates. We need clear rules about when those qualify as props.
I added 11 other maps to this module, some are battlemaps offered on the internet and others were floor plans of real buildings. One of them replaced the 20-foot-wide Terwa River with a 60-foot-wide river and I put a 40-foot-long fishing boat in the middle of the river for a battle. The hippopotamus showed up after the boat battle.
Most ideal to me would be that the book this class comes in to come with a lot of additional rules and guidance for running more dynamic encounters. I am guessing this will include some vehicle stuff but could easily include more variant+additional rules for treating/creating hazards out of everyday setting pieces. Fighting on boats should include swinging sails, pitching decks, sliding crates and all that other cinematic stuff, not just unmoving ship layouts with no three dimensionality to them. That is something this book could offer beyond classes.
In Roll20, turning a boat on an underlying river map--which the sailor PC Junx Fuun tried--is too messy. I would have had to reposition all the character tokens as the boat rotated on the grid. We settled for the boat moving closer to shore without changing its angle. Swinging sails, pitching decks, and sliding crates would be more verbal description that defies static pictoral representation.
This Tuesday my playtest was on a map of a bridge over a mountain stream. The picture had plenty of rock outcroppings and a steep riverbank to use as props. But Kittyhawk's fight ended up in the middle of the road, 15 feet from those props. Instead, Caroming Charge worked great by running through bandits lined up along the road.
Daring stunt to knock someone prone and then following it up with a good press strike against an off guard enemy is good damage though, in fact, probably better than trying to do any kind of press shove maneuver for stunt damage.
The literal only press feat with a Strike that you can get as a Daredevil from your 1st-level class feats is Pressing Pummel, which takes two actions and thus your whole turn after Daring Stunt. Taking an entire turn to deal less than two Strikes’ worth of damage at a -2 to your attack roll relative to most martial classes is not, by my books, terribly good.
Daring stunt to knock someone prone and then following it up with a good press strike against an off guard enemy is good damage though, in fact, probably better than trying to do any kind of press shove maneuver for stunt damage.The literal only press feat with a Strike that you can get as a Daredevil from your 1st-level class feats is Pressing Pummel, which takes two actions and thus your whole turn after Daring Stunt. Taking an entire turn to deal less than two Strikes’ worth of damage at a -2 to your attack roll relative to most martial classes is not, by my books, terribly good.
My very next sentence was:
"The dare devil does need a one action version of that though to really take advantage of audacious combat."I have been advocating for more 1 action press strike abilities early much earlier for a DD since I first read it. There is no reason Fighter MC should be nearly mandatory on this class.
That said, if you are using an agile weapon, your attack will only be at -1 compared to a regular strike against an enemy who is not off guard. The Daredevil in our play test has managed to get in quite a few nasty critical hits (like probably one an encounter) using a war razor. I think a light pick would be an even more fun weapon though.
It is just tricky when you have so little support for making strikes as a martial character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately Daredevil has to deliver the damage. Fighter & Rogue inflict debuffs too, while excelling at damage, so it's within the power curve. Fighter uses its superior Strikes to execute maneuvers; is DD meant to have superior maneuvers to execute Strikes? That seems the vibe, albeit not from examining at the mechanics. Press requirements, and a way to mitigate them, feels more like a gate against poaching than a useful mechanic itself. This makes DD superior...at penalized maneuvers? Ouch, those feats better pay off if so, and with damage as positioning depends on circumstances. A DD needs to function on the Air Elemental Plane too.
My very next sentence was:
"The dare devil does need a one action version of that though to really take advantage of audacious combat."I have been advocating for more 1 action press strike abilities early much earlier for a DD since I first read it. There is no reason Fighter MC should be nearly mandatory on this class.
Your very next sentence does not contradict the point I am making, which is that your statement about "good damage" is pure magical thinking that does not actually exist in the class as written. The class does not in fact deal "good damage" by doing what you've described, and would not do so even if they could make that press Strike as a single action.
I do, however, agree that many of the Daredevil's current press feats could stand to be reduced to single actions. Press is a majorly restrictive trait that, even with the class's MAP reduction, guarantees that any attack made as part of the action is far less accurate. This is why so many of the Fighter class's press feats offer benefits you'd normally expect from two actions in just one, and while higher-level Daredevil feats offer more consistent action compression in that respect, it's a far more mixed bag at early levels.
If Paizo ends up releasing a class that makes the idea of props work, making people design more engaging combat maps in the process, I really wouldn't be against it. I agree that, in a way, Starfinder 2e managed to do this already (I haven't really played a Starfinder 2e campaign yet, just a few one-shots) but I think we can agree a whole system has an easier way to encourage a change of paradigm and mentality on how its supposed to be played than a single class that's releasing for an already existing system. It's a tall order for sure.
The daredevil needs a fallback option for when props aren't available, and the options that already exist need to be stronger because their current power doesn't compensate for the fact that there's situations in which they actually don't work at all, and because they are worse than similar options with less requirements.
Just a quick thought; Let's say the daredevil ends up having a class feature that allows you to use negligible or unimportant objects that exist in the environment as improvised weapons or tools as part of your daredevil abilities to deal more damage, but that when you actually use a prop that exist in the map that damage is increased? Using Breakaway Attack and Weapon Improviser's Improvised Pummel feats as a baseline for inspiration, it would be something like this:
Breakaway Weapon
You can use a piece of your surroundings to make a surprising attack. When you make a Strike, you can choose to replace the weapon you're wielding or unarmed attack to instead use the environment to make a Strike with a special improvised weapon known as a breakaway weapon. Describe how you are using your environment (throwing a pot or pan, kicking a loose post to make scaffolding fall, or slamming a door open or shut, for example). Any fundamental runes you have on a weapon you're wielding or handwraps of mighty blows apply to this Strike. A melee breakaway weapon deals 1d8 bludgeoning damage and has the finesse and deadly d8 traits. A ranged breakaway weapon deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage and has the deadly d10 and thrown 20 feet traits. If the breakaway weapon is a mundane level 0 item, it is destroyed after the result of the attack roll is revealed; otherwise, it falls to the ground in your target’s space. The GM can determine that your breakaway weapon deals a different type of damage, depending on your description and the circumstances. Finally, you don't take the normal –2 penalty to attack rolls with improvised weapons.
Stunt Damage
When you smash your enemy into the scenery, it does real damage. Whenever you have adrenaline and force a target to move, the target takes an amount of bludgeoning damage equal to your breakaway weapon damage. If the movement is interrupted by a prop, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 11th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 19th level, increase it to three extra dice.
I wrote this as a way to exemplify what I mean. This isn't a proposal as I made it without thinking too much about balance or possible problems it could have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The daredevil needs a fallback option for when props aren't available, and the options that already exist need to be stronger because their current power doesn't compensate for the fact that there's situations in which they actually don't work at all, and because they are worse than similar options with less requirements.
My personal take on this is that props should always exist... specifically, in the form of the Daredevil's allies. This is already the case for party members one size larger than the Daredevil, but the size restriction means that the Daredevil's player has to size down according to the party they're playing with, which is unlikely to work well in PFS where you can get matched with characters of any shape and size without knowing ahead of time. If props were simply creatures with a level plus appropriately-sized terrain features, then unless the Daredevil were solo dueling other lone enemies in white rooms, they'd always have props to play with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO props should be abstracted at all.
This very concept of “I need to have something available during the fight for my abilities to work” is bad by itself. This will always make it a class that needs the scene/GM to have available something for the class to work on, while all other classes don't have such restrictions.
This is no different from all non-Starlit Span magus. It's like, “Cool, a gish class with many subclasses to do many roles, like Inexorable Iron to make a two-handed gish or Laughing Shadow to make a rogue gish” but in practice it's “Ok, there are too many interesting hybrid studies concepts, but many times these subclasses force me to lose a round without Spellstrike due to the waste of an action moving or risking to trigger a reaction when I Spellstrike. So while all these concepts are cool, it's more effective to just make a Starlit Span and just spam Spellstrike every round”. DD makes something like this but at the class level. You can make a cool, light, maneuver-focused class that requires a prop to get 2 of its basic benefits (currently in practice, the only real one is the extra speed because stunt damage using forced movement is just a weak Strike that can't crit), or you can simply make a fighter, making maneuvers when necessary and just Striking better at the rest of the time.
So as an initial point for the class not to fall into a Starlit Span-like dilemma, just remove the artificial disadvantages that are there just to make the class look cooler. In practice, they are just an unnecessary weight that doesn't justify itself at all.
It's a common mistake the designers make occasionally that's “It would be fun if I made a class with a mechanic who requires some special condition to work, but if I make it strong, I may make the players start an arms race to circumvent the restriction as much as possible, so instead let us make this special condition to make it OK and weak without it” but ultimately this just creates a class that is cool in concept but weaker mechanically.
I'm not saying that thematically the props shouldn't exist, but instead they are always available. A ground could be a valid Prop for example, allowing the DD to smash some faces into the ground when it doesn't have another cool object or creature closer. Or maybe the PC can use some object that it's carrying and using as Prop as part of the action. All this is inserted only in the flavor but not mechanically. When it has some cool Prop available, it can describe that it used this cool Prop instead if the player wants, again all in flavor only.
|
Props are the daredevil's bane and the fact that people on this forum talk about taking an animal companion or protector tree to have an readily available prop for all situations is already telling that for a ton of tables this class is going to be dead on release or homebrewed to work without props.
smh I leave this forum alone for a single week and thats all it takes for someone to interpret my Beastmaster suggestion like I'm saying walls don't exist in Pathfinder.
Paizo loves their dungeon delves so I don't particularly see finding a prop to be a huge problem 50% of the time, especially at low level play- high level play can and probably will be a different story as those fights can tend towards larger fields however. I wouldn't be surprised if the tradeoff in play realistically is an increased amount of larger enemies that are props by default (even if the whole relative size thing feels like it needs a rework) and higher likelihood of having a party that's built to have large PCs to interact with your playstyle by that point. Several ancestries have great late level options to become large, as well as Jotunborn and the HotW options for it, so with good support I feel like its easy to shore up a Daredevil with the current rules as written in scenarios where their abilities don't shine as well.
I do think that the effect could potentially be buffed to some extent, either in frequency of application or impact of effect, but as is I think the trigger condition of the effect is mostly fine in-play.
EDIT: Also, as written, tripping a flying creature or causing someone to fall off a ledge should deal stunt damage, so there's always that fun interaction. (The ground should almost certainly count as a prop when they impact it in these cases)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can even see this in Pathfinder more recently. The Runesmith and ESPECIALLY The Necromancers are much more "3-Dimensional" classes and ask you to think about battlefield positioning. (That high level Runesmith feat that lets you physically draw lines between your runes and hurt anyone the line touches is ADORABLE).
Sorry, what? Necromancer is a very 2 dimensional class. Thralls basically don't work once a fight is actually 3d because they don't work in the air. Enemies can effortlessly just fly over them and then they're only really useful as something to sacrifice to use another ability.
Daredevil has the same problem: there isn't a lot of props once a fight takes to the air.
Yes, that was actually one of the complaints we made during the necromancer's playtest. It was only possible to create flying Thralls with the recurring nightmare focus spell, but this spell was only accessible at level 14, long after most enemies and players had already gained flying speed, which comes around level 7 and becomes more common from level 9 onwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After my level 8 play test, my opinion about stunt damage has changed a little.
Now I don't even think just increasing the damage is going to do much for it, and the idea of the daredevil doing damage to enemies by shoving them into props becomes a bigger and bigger trap option as you get higher level. The class itself kind of realizes this and stops feeding you ways to trigger stunt damage with your actions and instead gives you feats that move you into making strikes (and getting more out of your strikes). Seriously, there is topple the dominos at level 12, which is just flatly worse than Caroming Charge for hitting as many enemies as possible with stunt damage, but before that level 4 is the last level that has shove or reposition feats that would let you do stunt damage.
I think there is a good reason for this though, in that taking actions specifically to do stunt damage instead of strike (with the one possible exception of Caroming Charge) is the much worse way of doing damage. In theory, your stunt damage would come on top of pushing enemies as well and that you would have a purpose for pushing enemies beyond just getting damage from it, but most of the push/reposition options move 5ft on a success, so you are probably not moving anyone and doing stunt damage at the same time, at least not most of the time. Since pushing someone into a prop doesn't cause them to fall down or debuff them in any way, pushing and repositioning for stunt damage is really just a strike by another name...a strike that cannot crit, can't benefit from runes, or any special weapon traits.
It would surprise me to hear that any play test Daredevils past level 4 did much stunt damage in encounters beyond Caroming Charge, and maybe some Daring Reversal attempts.
Increasing stunt damage won't really change the fact that higher level daredevils have much better things to do with their actions than try to shove an enemy nowhere. Even with the autohit ability of Caroming Charge, it is hard to imagine that players are going to feel great doing that levels 11+ when the caster in the party can unleash a chain lighting in the handful of encounters per day where that feat is still going to shine.
SO is there value in increasing Stunt Damage? I kind of think not, unless the class changes significantly to focus on it, and at that point, I think just adding more feats like Daring Reversal, that build a strike into a shoving/repositioning maneuver, are better than just upping the damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having the same feeling. The main problem with Stunt Damage isn't the damage itself, but the difficulty in finding a use for it. Perhaps a better approach would be to incorporate it into maneuvers—and I mean all of them, including Trip and Grapple and the class's extra maneuvers—and deal damage on successful hits, not just critical hits like some press maneuvers do.
Caroming Charge, on the other hand, I haven't tested at high levels yet, but I already imagined it would lose efficiency with progression. Since it's something that can be spammed at will, I don't really like comparing it to spells with daily usage limits. Instead, I prefer to compare it to impulses, which, because they can be used freely from the start, make more sense in the comparison.
Current damage of Charoming Charge, focusing on strength:
LvL 1-4: 1d6+4 = 7.5 avg
LvL 5-8: 2d6+4 = 11 avg
LvL 9: 3d6+4 = 14.5 avg
LvL 10-12: 3d6+5 = 15.5 avg
LvL 13-16: 4d6+5 = 19 avg
LvL 17-19: 5d6+6 = 23.5 avg
LvL 20: 5d6+6 = 24.5 avg
There are other important additional advantages and a significant disadvantage to Charoming Charge: the fact that the DD can move at 2x its speed, which not only allows it to damage virtually all enemies in the encounter, but also allows it to finish in a good position, avoiding. This makes it difficult for enemies to retaliate without spending movement actions. However, it also has the major disadvantage that if there are many enemies reacting against movement, it practically makes the activity unusable.
Now let's compare it to Flying Flame. I'll include the increase to d8 and the weakness to fire here, but I won't include Thermal Nimbus because it creates a combo with more feat and action requirements. However, this is probably how most fire kineticists would fight, so if you like, you can imagine them dealing half of the level as extra damage per round.
The average damage of Flying Flame will be calculated as the enemies having the Reflex save DC that the kineticist has as a class DC, just to simplify the calculation. It will be multiplied by 75% (0.75) considering that half the chance is for the target to hit and the other half is for the target to take half. Critical misses and critical hits cancel each other out, since one causes nothing and the other causes double.
Flying Flame's average damage, including the benefits of Impulse Junction and the weakness of Aura Junction (lvl 5-20):
LvL 1-2: 1d8 = 4.5*0.75 = 3,375 avg
LvL 3-4: 2d8 = 9*0.75 = 6.75 avg
LvL 5: 3d8+2 = 13.5*0.75+2 = 12,125 avg
LvL 6: 3d8+3 = 13.5*0.75+3 = 13,125 avg
LvL 7: 4d8+3 = 18*0.75+3 = 16.5 avg
LvL 8: 4d8+4 = 18*0.75+4 = 17.5 avg
LvL 9: 5d8+4 = 22.5*0.75+4 = 20.875 avg
LvL 10: 5d8+5 = 22.5*0.75+5 = 21,875 avg
LvL 11: 6d8+5 = 27*0.75+5 = 25.25 avg
LvL 12: 6d8+6 = 27*0.75+6 = 26.25 avg
LvL 13: 7d8+6 = 31.5*0.75+6 = 29,625 avg
LvL 14: 7d8+7 = 31.5*0.75+7 = 30,625 avg
LvL 15: 8d8+7 = 36*0.75+7 = 34 avg
Level 16: 8d8+8 = 36*0.75+8 = 35 avg
Level 17: 9d8+8 = 40.5*0.75+8 = 38.375 avg
Level 18: 9d8+9 = 40.5*0.75+9 = 39.375 avg
Level 19: 10d8+9 = 45*0.75+9 = 42.75 avg
Level 20: 10d8+10 = 45*0.75+10 = 43.75 avg
Here it's easy to see that, from level 5 onwards, Flying Flame already causes more average damage than Charoming Charge, which perhaps justifies why the designer included Charoming Charge without checks. The designer knew its damage progresses slowly and without critical hits, although it's still a bit strange to automatically deal such damage, especially at low levels. It still stands out for basically having the same damage as a d6 weapon. Perhaps it makes more sense for its feat to increase to level 4 or even 6 instead of adding a check. Because its main advantage for me is allowing me to end my turn away from enemies right after dealing damage while risking triggering several reactions and forcing me to give up the activity. In the end, I'm finding it even more balanced than I initially imagined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunt Damage needs to be added to Strikes to compete, which yes, might entail tying maneuvers to Strikes too.
Played with a Daredevil the other night, zero Stunt Damage inside a spacious building with furniture (the museum flip mat). Player had a standard build, positioned himself and rolled fine, but would've had to have rolled superbly to contribute what the Animal Barbarian did routinely (with hands free to also do maneuvers when desired).
Oh, and thank goodness the one monster with Reactive Strike died before his turn. Hard to Tumble while hopping about.
Curiously I'm planning to add the Stunt Damage to next Strike when reach the level 8 in the daredevil fighter build adding Brutish Shove fat to it and using a Scythe.
This way I will able to Trip with Daring Stunt while get adrenaline and then use Brutish Shove with MAP-3 to Strike and Shove to do Stunt Damage with the same action.
The difficulty is that I need a good prop to do this (maybe I have to get a companion or as the caster to summon some large creature to use as a prop).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the criticism here resonates with my experience, and in the end I've ended up equating what stunt damage is trying to do with the flavor of the Guardian's Shoulder Check: you're basically using your body or some measure of force to damage someone while maneuvering them into an obstacle, which I agree ought to also be possible while Grappling or Tripping someone close to a prop, so the damage ought to be in the form of a fist Strike or at least its damage on a hit (with the damage die boosted to a d6).
In a proof of concept I wrote based on my experience with the class, my personal take was to make it a free-action d6 fist Strike triggered each time you succeeded at a skill attack (so Athletics maneuvers, but also potentially Dirty Tricks too) against a creature that's adjacent to a prop, with the definition of "what is a prop?" widened to "any creature with a level or durable terrain feature": what this effectively meant was that you could pile on damage in the form of additional attack actions, and doing so would rack up your MAP a lot quicker, which obviously has its drawbacks but also its benefits on the Daredevil. Coupled with a reworked audacious combatant feature that reduced your MAP on all agile attacks, this meant you could reasonably keep making attacks at a -6 MAP while also dealing lots of chip damage with the right positioning, including just by maneuvering an opponent that you're flanking. From what playtesting I've done of this mechanic in particular, it made stunt damage a lot more consistent, and let it interact with a lot more of the Daredevil's kit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem with Stunt Damage isn't the damage itself, but the difficulty in finding a use for it. Perhaps a better approach would be to incorporate it into maneuvers—and I mean all of them, including Trip and Grapple and the class's extra maneuvers—and deal damage on successful hits, not just critical hits like some press maneuvers do.
I've only played at levels 2 and 4 (with plans to try 7 and 10 ere the playtest ends) and that's the conclusion I'm trending towards. Daring Stunt is usually how I get my adrenaline, and while rationally I know I *should* be grappling or tripping to give my entire party an off-guard target, but on a visceral level, I *want* to shove enemies into walls and get stunt damage off. It doesn't feel great the the fun way of using your special damage isn't usually a great idea