The Gaming Den

momothefiddler wrote:That said, it seems a bit disingenuous to use "lances and spears are the same" as the base an argument on whether lances can be used to Power Attack.

It's a good thing that literally nobody is doing that, then.

In the imaginary instance that anybody at all was confused about whether you can power attack with a lance, the answer is predicated on it being a melee weapon, nothing more.

Voss wrote:Actually... this is more complicated than you seem to think. PF power attack is tightly capped, but the point-for-point damage benefits are better, especially for one handed weapons: +2 damage for each -1. 3.5 power attacks is +1 dmaage for each -1 for one handed weapons (which is how lances are used when mounted). So depending on level, your gendarme player is going to have to take a much higher attack penalty to squeeze out damage bonuses.

If your players are at 8th level, they can currently take -3 for +6 (which is then doubled for lance charge), but if you switch to 3.5, they'd have to take -6 for +6, but could go up to -8, +8. The big problem with the PF version for players is level has so much weight on the damage cap.

In pathfinder even if you wield it as a one handed weapon, you still get the 2h power attack bonus. A -3 would result in +9 damage.

Harime Nui wrote:You're right that it's not that significant. I'm just pissed expertise is a feat tax for so much and they made it virtually pointless. If a player's gonna turtle at least have them be a little okay at turtling?

Why not just remove it from the game then?

Paizo even wrote a FAQ for the lance:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

Keep in mind the pathfinder rules are oddly specific at times. The rules state that while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
If the rules would have said you'd treat it as a one-handed weapon, you'd use this FAQ instead:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

Covent wrote:Mounted combat FAQ is another bad knee jerk due to ragelancepounce

Nah, this was the FAQ to deal with ragelancepounce:

Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

The Pathfinder FAQ may be the single worst D&D product ever written. It's free and yet no where near worth what it costs, which in this case is my sanity.

Paizo wrote: No, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

Wow, there is so much wrong with this answer it's kinda hilarious. The Core Rulebook was based off a system where you actually could do this via splats, so why the hell they didn't assume their rules expansion would eventually cover this (it's the same damn people!) is completely beyond me. Second, I'm pretty sure an attack is an abstraction rather than "one sword swing" , so I legitimately don't see why you are equating impact -> your only attack ever. Third, even if we need multiple impacts to count as attacks, you are on a horse with the weight of your horse and your plate-mail wearing ass behind it. You could make an argument that your attack knocks your opponent back enough so that your lance hits him again, without any momentum loss whatsoever! Twist the lance when you've impaled the guy, I don't even care. This is one of those "realism" arguments that is traditionally made at gaming tables when no one knows what they're talking about so literally anything goes if you can convince your fellow neckbeards. The actual rules don't support this position at all!

CapnTthePirateG wrote:

Paizo wrote: No, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

Wow, there is so much wrong with this answer it's kinda hilarious. The Core Rulebook was based off a system where you actually could do this via splats, so why the hell they didn't assume their rules expansion would eventually cover this (it's the same damn people!) is completely beyond me. Second, I'm pretty sure an attack is an abstraction rather than "one sword swing" , so I legitimately don't see why you are equating impact -> your only attack ever. Third, even if we need multiple impacts to count as attacks, you are on a horse with the weight of your horse and your plate-mail wearing ass behind it. You could make an argument that your attack knocks your opponent back enough so that your lance hits him again, without any momentum loss whatsoever! Twist the lance when you've impaled the guy, I don't even care. This is one of those "realism" arguments that is traditionally made at gaming tables when no one knows what they're talking about so literally anything goes if you can convince your fellow neckbeards. The actual rules don't support this position at all!

Exactly, if I am not wrong, Pounce is a Barb rage power so it is literally within the Core Rulebook of Pathfinder.

So what the heck were they saying about not within it?

I've never understood this urge to nerf things. It's like these people don't want you to have fun with something the don't like. From a design standpoint I'd argue it's almost always better to improve something else instead of hitting stuff with the nerf bat. And I'm not talking about broken mechanics. You fix those.

It's easier to nerf than to buff, and players/DMs really don't like it when they're upstaged.

Ideally the developers would have an expected power curve. Deviating from that too much will upset your encounter design (and mention player enjoyment), and since you've sold a bunch of adventures to your customers that is a problem. Too little power is bad design but is somewhat self-healing. Players simply won't pick those character options, or when they do some DMs will take pity and give them an item fix. Too much power is more difficult because you can't rely on players to not pick awesome character options. You need rules to patch it - and if the developers themselves don't do it then individual DMs will, and a bunch of them will Do It Wrong.

Pixels wrote:Ideally the developers would have an expected power curve. Deviating from that too much will upset your encounter design (and mention player enjoyment), and since you've sold a bunch of adventures to your customers that is a problem. Too little power is bad design but is somewhat self-healing. Players simply won't pick those character options, or when they do some DMs will take pity and give them an item fix. Too much power is more difficult because you can't rely on players to not pick awesome character options. You need rules to patch it - and if the developers themselves don't do it then individual DMs will, and a bunch of them will Do It Wrong.

In addition, it is generally much easier for a GM - in terms of labor effort - to modify a party of 3-6 characters to up their power level to match the preset monster statblocks rather than to modify every monster encounter to match overpowered PCs. There's only one party, and there are hundreds of premade monsters and NPCs.

Mechalich wrote: In addition, it is generally much easier for a GM - in terms of labor effort - to modify a party of 3-6 characters to up their power level to match the preset monster statblocks rather than to modify every monster encounter to match overpowered PCs. There's only one party, and there are hundreds of premade monsters and NPCs.

This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
[*]PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
[*]PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
[*]PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.

hogarth wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
[*]PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
[*]PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
[*]PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.

Sure, in melee physical attacks, but can't you just give the goblins alchemy items like Alchemist fire?
Now, you ignore their armor and hit touch.
Heck, in pathfinder, you got ranged touch (bottled lightning, Tangleburn bag, Star Candle Firework),
grenades (like burst jar, fuse grenades, pellet grenades),
and melee touch (Flame fountain Firework)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapo ... l-weapons/

Now, they don't add Stat mod to damage for the attacks, but those gobbos still hit.

Power creep and escalation isn't an idiot proof approach by any means but it sure as hell beats taking people's toys away since it can at least lead to a sense of accomplishment when the PCs smash foes that are nominally above their pay grade.

Slade wrote:

hogarth wrote: It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
[*]PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
[*]PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
[*]PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.

Sure, in melee physical attacks, but can't you just give the goblins alchemy items like Alchemist fire?

Giving all monsters the ability to target touch AC is not really any different from giving all monsters +20 to hit (except for the aesthetics, I suppose).

hogarth wrote: Giving all monsters the ability to target touch AC is not really any different from giving all monsters +20 to hit (except for the aesthetics, I suppose).

It does kinda matter how you get there though. PCs have eyeballs so statting up Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you with isn't a bait 'n' switch dick move in the same way that that giving pitchfork wielding goblin peasants equivalent secret super powers would be. Gauging how tough critters are is already a serious problem in D&D land even without going the 4e route of giving everything stat blocks that bear no relation to similarly armed opponents.

Whipstitch wrote:[..]Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you[..]

At that point you're starting to stray away from the assertion that it's super-easy to add a few goblins to any encounter to challenge PCs, though.

hogarth wrote:

Whipstitch wrote:[..]Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you[..]

At that point you're starting to stray away from the assertion that it's super-easy to add a few goblins to any encounter to challenge PCs, though.

No you aren't, and that's because you are dumb and you completely failed to understand the point.

If the PCs are level 18, it's really easy to add a few Vrocks. If the PCs are level 6 it's really easy to add a few goblins.

It's not that it's easy to add goblins because they are CR 1/4. It's easier to add additional enemies period, and you can add a few of whatever is balanced to be an extremely minor threat but still take up time, actions, and resources to kill while posing a minor but not insignificant threat.

And the only "problem" with the PCs fighting an EL 12 encounter instead of an EL 10 encounter is that they feel like more of a badass after having a more engaging combat.

And the best part is you can add a bunch of lower level mooks for free and they will serve a purpose. Either they have an annoying tactic that can do something to the PCs and force some consideration for them in party tactics, or they might be cannon fodder that tricks them into wasting an action or resource before they realize there is no threat. And if they realize the mooks aren't a threat, GOOD, they are rewarded for playing smart. Not everything has to be a finely tuned encounter, sometimes the PCs deserve to steamroll something.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Seerow wrote:
Most notable thing I can remember about that variant is that it makes haste effectively useless (since haste just raises the cap on number of attacks you can gain instead of giving you a free attack...

Yikes, I assumed it worked like two weapon fighting in that it just fave you an extra hit if you hit once. Alright, let's just say that it just gives you an extra hit then if you hit at least once.

EDIT AFTER UNFUCKING QUOTE TAGS: I suppose I could just allow all attacks on a full attack. Just considering a rule that reduced die rolls a bit, but I'm thinking just allowing characters to do all their attacks on an attack action would be the simplest.

The Pathfinder Unchained one-roll attack routine is basically gibberish. It doesn't really interact properly with stuff like Two Weapon Fighting or Rapid Fire, it screws people who prioritize damage bonuses over to-hit bonuses (like sneak and power attackers), it completely fucks anyone who tries to defend themselves with armor class, and it makes rending beasts like the Girallon into inescapable death blenders.

If that sounds like it pretty much takes every viable weapon-based character to the woodshed for punishment beatings... you're almost right. I think the San Diego Supercharger doesn't much care. But the shield fighter, the archer fighter, and the ninja all cry tiny tears.

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to make a new edition where people rolled one attack roll on their turn like 4th edition D&D. But you do have to rewrite all the warrior archetypes around that premise. Like the Tome of Battle, and not at all like Pathfinder Unchained.

-Username17

Could I get a bit more nuance on this? I'm increasingly looking at doing more of a one-shot "go ahead and have your stable of characters" episodic model since it's getting so hard to get a group of people that can all show up on the same day, every week. I'd really like to make combat quicker to resolve so that it doesn't take up entire sessions.

I'm toying with a sort of "For every X your attack roll exceeds your target's AC, you get a hit, up to your max attacks" and maybe doing a simplified damage roll where you figure out your minimum, average, 3/4 max and max damage, write them down, and roll a single die to determine which number you tell me.

Brainstorming under the cut-

Multiple Attacks
As a character levels up, they gain an extra attack at 6, 11, and 16 Base Attack. When full attacking, they gain a circumstance bonus to attack equal to 3*number of attacks. If they meet or exceed the target's AC, they get a hit. For every 5 points by which they exceed the target's AC, they gain an additional hit, up to their maximum number of attacks. For each hit, they deal their weapon damage again.

Two Weapon Fighting
When using two weapons, you may take a penalty on attack (see below table) to count each hit twice. Your maximum number of attacks from Base Attack is doubled.

Conditions	Penalty
normal penalties	-8
Off hand weapon is light	-6
Two Weapon Fighting feat	-4
Two Weapon Fighting, Off hand weapon is light	-2

Rapid Shot
A creature with Rapid Shot gains a bonus attack with ranged weapons. When making a full attack, they take a -2 to their attack roll to count their first hit twice and increase their max attacks per round by 1.

Haste
Haste gives a creature a bonus attack per round, increasing their circumstance bonus, and causes their first hit to count as two hits.

Granted, it could use some copy editing, but I think it at least integrates well with core stuff.

Adding extra enemies is easy, but depending on in what way the PCs are off the power curve, it might not help.

If the problem is that their defense is at untouchable levels, then additional goblins (or whatever) aren't going to accomplish jack shit. If they have area attacks that kill everything, then additional foes don't matter unless you have the perfect terrain. If their damage is at one-shot levels, then they can still take out any major foes in round 1 and spend the rest of the time mopping up.

I ran a halfway high-op campaign a couple years ago, with nobody even pushing all that hard (there weren't any fully optimized casters, for example), and even that took a lot of extra work in customizing foes and encounter design (and a complete disregard for the CR system), and would have been even worse if I was trying to use published adventures. If they'd gone whole hog? I could see that hitting the threshold of "too much damn work, I give up".

So while Paizo sets their threshold far too low, there still is a point where it's better to tone the PCs down than beef everything else up.

So, less complaining and more fascinated:
Druids can now have swarm familiars instead of animal companions. Also turn into a swarm at 12th.
Issue is why they decided they must be familiars instead of companions?

Sadly, since they are familiars, if vermin like house centipede they lose mindless traits, have Int, and gain 1 feat (since no longer mindless).

One of choices is cats. You can be a crazy cat lady with a swarm of cats.

The swarm monger bonds with one creature which they can turn for a minute/level into a swarm. That creature needs to be small enough to be a component of a swarm, hence the familiar instead of animal companion. Not that fascinating really?

Yeah but that's dumb.

Nobody playing Imhotep or The Pain wants a certain special bug friend who they can talk to and take particularly good care of, they just want to be walking around with a terrible seething tide of horror skittering around under their skin, full-time. The animal companion style of "little utility, just motherfucking" fits the model better.

I mean, I guess somebody might play a Disney princess and agree to specific animal friends and be willing to abide by a five-minute limit on the swarm they get for their respective musical numbers, but then they still aren't interested in just getting a horde comprised only of squirrels. You want the forest to answer with whatever's at hand; birds, chipmunks, elk, bears. Whatever. Also, Cinderella and Princess Allura actually have a little ensemble cast of rodent buddies. Basically, the model for these guys is better if they have an itty-bitty swarm of a dozen or so moderately intelligent creatures that can cooperate to pick the lock on the prison door or help them assemble an outfit for the royal ball, and then when they wanna summon the rampage for a few minutes they can have that, too.

I have no idea you think paizo would be aiming to model any of those cases. Or that they'd be able to even if they wanted to.

There are at least a half dozen ways of getting swarms already in the rule set. It isn't even a high level thing for the most part, and often fuck off useless once you move past bandits and orcs., as even minimal AOE takes care of a lot.


The little ensemble cast is handled by pack lords and brood master summoners