PF What fighter feats did PF nerf? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Coidzor

2012-02-07, 09:34 PM

Wait, how is getting your extra attack more frequently a nerf?

Well, you have to spend two feats to get the effect of old cleave and new cleave only works if there is an enemy adjacent to the main target of your attack. And doesn't work at all when full attacking, so the desirability of using it drops off significantly as one improves in level.

Pathfinder does not double the amount of feats one has to spend. You get 3 more feats than 3.5, and only one feat in PF over 3.5 that comes up before level 10(4 versus 5).

So what would take 5 feats in 3.5 (power attack, cleave, improved trip, combat reflexes, and combat expertise) instead takes 7 feats (power attack, cleave, cleaving finish, combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip, and greater trip) and eats up one's attacks of opportunity (which are required to get the trips in the first place as part of the battlefield control angle) instead of having a free follow up attack post-trip.

And what was once a single throwaway add-on feat requires additional feats in the chain to be useful for its intended purpose, further exacerbating the problems of being able to add on other approaches to combat in addition to one's main shtick.

Your allies get it too, which is a net gain. Also most tripper builds have combat reflexes anyway.

Which they mostly use for defense of themselves and their allies through tripping as battlefield control. Which you know, so I'm a bit confused, do you believe that trippers are able to afford higher dexterities in PF to make up for this?

As everything I've seen has been that while SAD is easier to get an 18 with in the point buy, MAD, even if it's only tri-stat, is still fairly difficult, since one wants maxed out strength and dexterity in addition to a high Con to be a tripper.

ericgrau

2012-02-07, 09:36 PM

In general you get more attacks with PF cleave though. Dropping a foe is harder.

Having more useful feats is a net benefit to the fighter though. If other classes have a harder time getting enough good ones that's all the better reason to play a fighter. True, other classes don't even get more feats than 3.5 until level 5, maybe 7 depending how you count it. Still, I think the greater X special effects are well worth it. Maybe not for a non-fighter who's tight on feats, but all the more reason to play a fighter then.

Which they mostly use for defense of themselves and their allies through tripping as battlefield control. Which you know, so I'm a bit confused, do you believe that trippers are able to afford higher dexterities in PF to make up for this?
No, I think it's rare for them to use all their attacks of opportunity anyway, and rare to be the only melee. Sometimes they will, and that's the drawback, but not usually. Most rounds they don't use any.

I mean that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, and all nearby allies getting a swing against a foe for certain is much better than maybe getting more attacks sometimes if your foes are dumb. It's better to assume that your party is somewhat coordinated and that foes are cautious than to assume your party is dumb and foes are likewise idiotically waltzing in for attacks of opportunity 3 times per round, round after round after round. That's just picking the worst case scenario to make a point when it makes no logical sense at all to consider it even remotely close to the normal scenario.

jmelesky

2012-02-07, 09:50 PM

Well, you have to spend two feats to get the effect of old cleave and new cleave only works if there is an enemy adjacent to the main target of your attack. And doesn't work at all when full attacking, so the desirability of using it drops off significantly as one improves in level.

Ah, true. I forgot that they changed it to a specific standard action. They were, i think, trying to give fighters options for standard actions (an admirable goal, but flawed execution).

Still, PF Cleave and Great Cleave do trigger the extra attacks more easily (on a hit, not a drop).

Also, the PF Fighter gets to swap out old feats later, so if you get Cleave early, you can trade it out at, say, 8th level for something more useful at that point.

Which they mostly use for defense of themselves and their allies through tripping as battlefield control.

Meleers have more battlefield control options in PF than they did in 3.5, so i'm not sure that follows.

In other words, you're right that PF's Greater Trip doesn't work with 3.5 tactics, but work well with PF tactics.

Coidzor

2012-02-07, 09:53 PM

Meleers have more battlefield control options in PF than they did in 3.5, so i'm not sure that follows.

In other words, you're right that PF's Greater Trip doesn't work with 3.5 tactics, but work well with PF tactics.

Mostly because PF killed tripping as much of a useful tactic during the point of play it was most useful for, IIRC.

Please though, tell me more of what battlefield control options fighters got to make up for the loss of tripping rather than just stating that they exist.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-07, 10:00 PM

Mostly because PF killed tripping as much of a useful tactic during the point of play it was most useful for, IIRC.

Please though, tell me more of what battlefield control options fighters got to make up for the loss of tripping rather than just stating that they exist.

Well, size modifiers were reduced, so you're not that bad against giants and stuff.

The loss of Stand Still really hurts though.

Really, the only thing PF added is a feat called Combat Patrol, which takes up your actions.

Acanous

2012-02-07, 10:20 PM

Leap Attack was nerfed pretty hard, now it's just a bonus 1 damage after you jump.

sonofzeal

2012-02-07, 10:24 PM

Armor proficiency of all things got nerfed. In 3.5, if you were proficient you didn't take penalty to Ride (among others skills), while in PF even proficiency means you're still biting that penalty.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-07, 10:28 PM

Leap Attack was nerfed pretty hard, now it's just a bonus 1 damage after you jump.

...What? Where's Leap Attack?

Greenish

2012-02-07, 10:38 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-07, 10:40 PM

Exotic Weapon Proficiency. At least in 3.5 core, you had one weapon worth it, with some more situational scattered around (gnome quickrazor, sharktooth staff, bone bow, kusari-gama, dragonsplit etc.).

Are there any exotic weapons worth the feat in PF?

...Meteor Hammer? Can be used as a double weapon or with reach, although you can only switch between reach and close at the start of your turn.

Coidzor

2012-02-07, 10:45 PM

Armor proficiency of all things got nerfed. In 3.5, if you were proficient you didn't take penalty to Ride (among others skills), while in PF even proficiency means you're still biting that penalty.

...Ow.:smallconfused:

sonofzeal

2012-02-07, 10:47 PM

...Meteor Hammer? Can be used as a double weapon or with reach, although you can only switch between reach and close at the start of your turn.
...so it's a mediocre reach weapon (less damage and crit than conventional reach weapon), that gives you the privilege of attempting to TWF with it instead? When TWFing is still just about as terrible for Fighters in PF as it is in 3.5?

Doesn't Guisearme + Armor Spikes still work in PF?

...Ow.:smallconfused:
Indeed. That one seriously disillusioned me to PF; it's such an elementary thing, most characters get those feats for free so they're unlikely to even look at it and realize it's different, and it's completely uncalled for as a nerf. The knight on his horse is such an archetypal image in fantasy, and it was hardly a balance concern, but PF saw fit to smite it with the nerf bat anyway - presumably because of melee and not having nice things. Like... a horse. Apparently horses are too nice for melee.

Even Paladins, who get one as a class feature.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

jmelesky

2012-02-07, 10:52 PM

Please though, tell me more of what battlefield control options fighters got to make up for the loss of tripping rather than just stating that they exist.

Well, in addition to bull rushing, overrunning, and tripping (all of which cause the target to provoke with the Greater feat), they added the reposition and drag combat maneuvers (which also cause provokes with the Greater feat).

Several of the maneuver feat trees have options beyond Improved/Greater. Bull Rush Strike gives free bull rush attempts on critical hits. There are similar Strike feats for reposition and trip, and for a couple of the non-moving-things maneuvers (disarm, sunder). They stack with the Greater effects, so cause provoking of AoOs.

You have feats like Shield Slam, which give you a free bull rush with every shield bash, with the bonus possibility of knocking the enemy prone.

Outside of maneuvers, there are feats like Pushing Assault, which give you automatic bull-rush-like pushback when power attacking.

In addition to those positional control things, meleeers can give opponents status conditions, ranging from blinded to stunned and dazed. There are a series of Critical feats, which put conditions on targets hit by a critical, as well as feats like Dazing Assault, which can daze your opponent in exchange for a to-hit penalty.

The loss of Stand Still really hurts though.

I'm not sure how the 3.5 Stand Still worked, so it may have been nerfed, but there's a Stand Still in core PF.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-07, 10:59 PM

I'm not sure how the 3.5 Stand Still worked, so it may have been nerfed, but there's a Stand Still in core PF.

Hm.

But yeah, that's a definite nerf to Stand Still. It's now tripping, but worse.

jmelesky

2012-02-07, 11:00 PM

But yeah, that's a definite nerf to Stand Still. It's now tripping, but worse.

How did the original work?

Seerow

2012-02-07, 11:03 PM

How did the original work?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill

Stand Still [General]
You can prevent foes from fleeing or closing.

Prerequisite
Str 13.

Benefit
When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks. Make your attack of opportunity normally. If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.

Since you use the Stand Still feat in place of your attack of opportunity, you can do so only a number of times per round equal to the number of times per round you could make an attack of opportunity (normally just one).

Normal
Attacks of opportunity cannot halt your foes in their tracks.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-07, 11:04 PM

How did the original work?

Normal AoO, and your opponent had to make a reflex save of 10+damage or stop moving.

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 12:22 AM

Yep, Stand Still gets added to the list of nerfed feats.

I did forget to mention the Dirty Trick maneuver, which lets a melee combatant tag anyone with a status effect.

I also forgot the Antagonize feat, which you can use to force anyone to make a melee attack against you (including flying mages). That's some very handy battlefield control when you can force enemy squishies to the front line with a skill check (though PF Fighters still don't get enough skill points).

Seerow

2012-02-08, 12:27 AM

I also forgot the Antagonize feat, which you can use to force anyone to make a melee attack against you (including flying mages). That's some very handy battlefield control when you can force enemy squishies to the front line with a skill check (though PF Fighters still don't get enough skill points).

Wait really? How the hell does PF get away with a literal taunt feat, actually even better than any MMO taunt I know of because it also forces the target into melee, while the people who play it complain about 4e because defenders have the marking mechanic?

This makes no sense to me.

olentu

2012-02-08, 12:31 AM

ericgrau

2012-02-08, 12:43 AM

Ah that feat is hilarious when you consider the out of combat uses.
"Come at me old woman!"
"Magical protective barrier, eh? Why don't you come out here and tell me that?"
"I don't see what's so special about your nun-hood."

Zeuy

2012-02-08, 12:45 AM

Indeed. That one seriously disillusioned me to PF; it's such an elementary thing, most characters get those feats for free so they're unlikely to even look at it and realize it's different, and it's completely uncalled for as a nerf. The knight on his horse is such an archetypal image in fantasy, and it was hardly a balance concern, but PF saw fit to smite it with the nerf bat anyway - presumably because of melee and not having nice things. Like... a horse. Apparently horses are too nice for melee.

Even Paladins, who get one as a class feature.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

I think it was a way to quickly remember which skills armor check penalty applies to. Saying all physical skills is easier than listing them. . .I guess.

ericgrau

2012-02-08, 12:50 AM

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 12:53 AM

Wait really? How the hell does PF get away with a literal taunt feat, actually even better than any MMO taunt I know of because it also forces the target into melee, while the people who play it complain about 4e because defenders have the marking mechanic?

It's been incredibly controversial, especially since the skill check DC was only the target's HD + the target's Wisdom bonus (it was a misprint, and is FAQ'ed to 10 + HD + Wis bonus).

The feat actually has a marking mechanic, too. There are two different skill checks you can make: Diplomacy marks (to-hit penalty and spell failure chance if they attack/cast at someone else), Intimidate forces the melee attack. It's a remarkably powerful feat, really.

Ah that feat is hilarious when you consider the out of combat uses.

I've used it to force someone else to start combat, as part of a preemptive "self-defense" legal claim...

They could have said all except ride. That's the only difference I see. Now what used to take 1 rank takes 7

One of the nice things about PF Fighters is Armor Training, which reduces armor check penalties (handy for riding), increases max dex bonuses (less useful), and eliminates speed penalties for medium, then heavy armor (surprisingly useful). Between that and mithral armor, Fighters eventually take no penalty even while wearing full plate.

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 01:00 AM

They could have said all except ride. That's the only difference I see. Now what used to take 1 rank takes 7 :smallsigh:. On classes with so few skill points it's a wonder they know how to tie their shoes.
There's a few others, like Disable Device and Sleight of Hand. It's a nerf all around. Ride is the really bizarre one though.

Othniel Edden

2012-02-08, 01:14 AM

I've used it to force someone else to start combat, as part of a preemptive "self-defense" legal claim...
Ah, reminds me of how I used to play Marrowind. You could basically charisma your way through anything and forget stealth.:smallamused:

ericgrau

2012-02-08, 01:31 AM

There's a few others, like Disable Device and Sleight of Hand. It's a nerf all around. Ride is the really bizarre one though.
Sleight of Hand already got the penalty in 3.5. Disable device was int in 3.5 so I missed it. Not that it matters much to rogues and alchemists who get a low ACP anyway.

Blisstake

2012-02-08, 01:39 AM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-08, 02:19 AM

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 02:36 AM

One of the nice things about PF Fighters is Armor Training, which reduces armor check penalties (handy for riding), increases max dex bonuses (less useful), and eliminates speed penalties for medium, then heavy armor (surprisingly useful). Between that and mithral armor, Fighters eventually take no penalty even while wearing full plate.
...at sufficiently high level, unless they're taking an archetype, yes. How does that effect Paladins, the class that get a mount as a class feature - or for that matter, what about the Dragoon Fighter archetype designed for fighting with a lance, from horseback, and which loses three levels of Armor Training in the process?

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 02:38 AM

So...I guess not that many problems.

And since I give all martial classes "Improved Maneuver" at LV 1 (Allowing them to use any maneuver they want without AOO) and sometimes even "Greater_______" This doesn't effect me whatsoever.

Watch yourself now, treading dangerously close to the Oberoni fallacy there. But, yes, you can avoid many of the pitfalls of a system when you're willing to houserule more or less extensively. That doesn't make them any less of pitfalls though.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-08, 02:51 AM

Watch yourself now, treading dangerously close to the Oberoni fallacy there. But, yes, you can avoid many of the pitfalls of a system when you're willing to houserule more or less extensively. That doesn't make them any less of pitfalls though.

Thats not a very hard thing to implement. I understand its a **** up but rather then bitch and complain about it I can just fix it without much effort on my part.

If it WOULD require lots of effort to fix then its a legit complaint.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 02:59 AM

Thats not a very hard thing to implement. I understand its a **** up but rather then bitch and complain about it I can just fix it without much effort on my part.

If that's how you feel about people sharing their opinions when you've asked for them, then why did you ask for them in the first place?

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-08, 03:02 AM

If that's how you feel about people sharing their opinions when you've asked for them, then why did you ask for them in the first place?

I asked if I was missing anything, people pointed out "No". I leave happy.

Its not like I don't care that these mistakes exist.

Krazzman

2012-02-08, 03:51 AM

Trip got nerfed because your AoO in that round is consumed when you trip, not when your enemy stands up? Where the hell is this a nerf? You can't trip a prone enemy...it's like trying to trip a snake...

The enemy is prone, tries to stand up, triggers AoO, gets hit, and is now standing. You can't lock an enemy down. AoO are resolved BEFORE the action takes place.

Additionally melee teamwork got improved. Spoilered for off-topic.
One with improved crit and butterfly sting, the other with a scythe (trip weapon) tripping strike, improved and greater trip. Tadaa 15-20 chance to score a critical threat, if you score a real crit, you can grant this crit to an ally that strikes the same enemy as you. That's where the Scythe comes into play, autocritted + iteratives + automatic trip attack -> with just level 6 that are 12d4 + 9xStr-Bonus + 6xother bonus (like Power Attack).

Frosty

2012-02-08, 03:53 AM

...at sufficiently high level, unless they're taking an archetype, yes. How does that effect Paladins, the class that get a mount as a class feature - or for that matter, what about the Dragoon Fighter archetype designed for fighting with a lance, from horseback, and which loses three levels of Armor Training in the process?Paladins who want to use their Mount are probably taking the Shining Knight Archetype, which eliminates ACP to Ride checks on their Special Mount. They also give their mounts CHA bonus to all saves...the Paladin's CHA, that is.

What do you lose for all that goodness? Immunity to diseases. :smallbiggrin:

Mystify

2012-02-08, 06:04 AM

I feel like most of the "nerfs" are people trying to use the tactics they had to exploit to function in 3.5 and finding they aren't as powerful because they aren't as necessary. My pathfinder group had absolutely no problem dealing massive amounts of damage to things without resorting to power attacks or cleaves. They took the things that were near automatic choices in 3.5, and made them on par with your other options, and everything is more or less viable.
People are complaining because their favorite tricks don't work the same, whilst forgetting the fact that they were their favorite tricks because they worked netter than other options.

And I have not seen anyone give me a compelling reason why TWF doesn't work in pathfinder. People throw power attack around as the reason in 3.5, but you can get just as much power attack damage with TWF as THF in pathfinder. Combine that with actual archetypes to support the style and further enhance it, it works really well.

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 06:19 AM

People throw power attack around as the reason in 3.5
No.

Well, I mean, that's one fact among many. The main problem is that you're hemorrhaging feats to make yourself categorically less effective.

Someone swinging a pair of shortswords does the same damage as someone swinging a greatsword if everything hits: (1d6 + str) + (1d6 + 0.5*str) = (2d6 + 1.5*str)

HOWEVER....

The TWF takes a -2 penalty on all attacks so there's more misses; they have to pay to enchant weapons twice; deal less damage on AoOs, standard action attacks, charges, etc; have to pay a whole series of feats just to keep up with iteratives; require high Dex just to get the feats but doesn't natively get Dex to either attack or damage; aren't as good at disarming and is easier for enemies to disarm; aren't as good at sundering and is easier for enemies to sunder......

If he gets a longsword in the main hand his damage becomes slightly better, but then he'd have to take any weapon-specific feats like Improved Critical twice.

TWF is made of fail unless you've got a significant source of precision damage, or simply don't have any twohanded weapons worth using.

Combine that with actual archetypes to support the style and further enhance it, it works really well.
I saw the TWF Fighter archetype; it seemed like a joke of a consolation prize, when two-handers got their own archetype that merely widened the gulf.

Mystify

2012-02-08, 07:01 AM

No.

Well, I mean, that's one fact among many. The main problem is that you're hemorrhaging feats to make yourself categorically less effective.

Someone swinging a pair of shortswords does the same damage as someone swinging a greatsword if everything hits: (1d6 + str) + (1d6 + 0.5*str) = (2d6 + 1.5*str)

HOWEVER....

The TWF takes a -2 penalty on all attacks so there's more misses; they have to pay to enchant weapons twice; deal less damage on AoOs, standard action attacks, charges, etc; have to pay a whole series of feats just to keep up with iteratives; require high Dex just to get the feats but doesn't natively get Dex to either attack or damage; aren't as good at disarming and is easier for enemies to disarm; aren't as good at sundering and is easier for enemies to sunder......

If he gets a longsword in the main hand his damage becomes slightly better, but then he'd have to take any weapon-specific feats like Improved Critical twice.

TWF is made of fail unless you've got a significant source of precision damage, or simply don't have any twohanded weapons worth using.

I saw the TWF Fighter archetype; it seemed like a joke of a consolation prize, when two-handers got their own archetype that merely widened the gulf.

Sure, it takes a lot of feats, but I can easily take every feat I care about on top of all the TWF feats.
The archetype negates the accuracy penalty, the AoO and standard action penalties, fighter should have good dex anyways, since it is AC, disarming and sundering aren't as big of adeal. Esp since if you are disarmed, you still have weapon left, so they have to spend twice as much time trying to disarm you.
And its not really more expensive to TWF. the base enchantment should be obtained via GMW, for a fairly low cost. beyond that, the special ability bonuses are generally per-attack. Getting flaming on 2 weapons is much cheaper than getting flame and shock on one, but increases your damage output by a similar amount. You can actually save money via TWF, if you do it right.

You do not need precision damage specifically. Anything that is per-attack works. Which is most things. Esp. with double slice, so you are getting more strength output than a typical 2 hander. enchantment bonuses, special abilities, fighter bonus damage, it adds up.

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 07:30 AM

Sure, it takes a lot of feats, but I can easily take every feat I care about on top of all the TWF feats.
The archetype negates the accuracy penalty, the AoO and standard action penalties, fighter should have good dex anyways, since it is AC, disarming and sundering aren't as big of adeal. Esp since if you are disarmed, you still have weapon left, so they have to spend twice as much time trying to disarm you.
And its not really more expensive to TWF. the base enchantment should be obtained via GMW, for a fairly low cost. beyond that, the special ability bonuses are generally per-attack. Getting flaming on 2 weapons is much cheaper than getting flame and shock on one, but increases your damage output by a similar amount. You can actually save money via TWF, if you do it right.

You do not need precision damage specifically. Anything that is per-attack works. Which is most things. Esp. with double slice, so you are getting more strength output than a typical 2 hander. enchantment bonuses, special abilities, fighter bonus damage, it adds up.
- If you can burn three feats and not miss them, I think you're in the minority. Even for a Fighter those are feats that could have been better spent.

- Most of the fixes only kick in at high level. Standard action attack at 9th, AoO's at 13th, penalties negated at 15th. It's not quite as bad as Soulknives who get a class feature at lvl 17 to do something other characters might have done at lvl 1, but it's a consolation prize. Conventional board wisdom is that most gaming happen in the lvl 3-9 range, meaning most of those don't apply. Also, the problem with that piecemeal approach is that there's still gaps - charges, for instance. And charges come up frequently, in my experience.

- Dex isn't AC so much on classes with heavy armor proficiency. It's much easier to start with 10/12 Dex and fullplate for most of your career until you've got money to burn. TWF is fundamentally MAD on a Fighter.

- Also, not everyone IS a Fighter. PF had a perfect opportunity to rewrite the TWF rules to fix some of the problems, and completely missed it. A class-specific archetype added after the fact doesn't really change that, especially since taking it blocks you from taking ones that actually add something to your character, instead of merely replacing the things you lost by choosing to burn feats on a sub-optimal fighting style.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-08, 08:15 AM

All of the good ones. Of course there were not many good ones, but that just makes the loss of those few good ones they had more remarkable.

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 10:39 AM

Someone swinging a pair of shortswords does the same damage as someone swinging a greatsword if everything hits: (1d6 + str) + (1d6 + 0.5*str) = (2d6 + 1.5*str)

Though i realize one of your concerns is feat cost, there is a feat (Double Slice) which gives you full Str damage on your off-hand attack, which gives the damage edge to TWF, if only slightly.

There are also a couple feats that enhance TWF, like Two-Weapon Rend, which gives additional damage (1d10+1.5*Str) if you hit the same opponent with both weapons.

So i'd call TWF in PF at least on-par with THF, barring the feat tax.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 11:01 AM

And there's also Piranha Strike, PA for light weapons.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 11:05 AM

Though i realize one of your concerns is feat cost, there is a feat (Double Slice) which gives you full Str damage on your off-hand attack, which gives the damage edge to TWF, if only slightly.

There are also a couple feats that enhance TWF, like Two-Weapon Rend, which gives additional damage (1d10+1.5*Str) if you hit the same opponent with both weapons.

So i'd call TWF in PF at least on-par with THF, barring the feat tax.

But that feat tax makes it inherently not on par. Give THF any 4 feats with a even slight damage focus, and it pulls back ahead.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 11:09 AM

Trip got nerfed because your AoO in that round is consumed when you trip, not when your enemy stands up? Where the hell is this a nerf? You can't trip a prone enemy...it's like trying to trip a snake...

Trying to keep something permanently triplocked is not what is being referred to there.

Let's say that we have a tripper with 16 dexterity. With combat reflexes that means he can make 3 AoOs in a round. Now, against a single enemy this is perfectly fine and dandy. He gets his AoO to trip the guy for going through his reach, his AoO when the guy goes down, and then again when the guy stands up.

Now add in a second guy. He now has to choose between letting the second guy go through and getting both of his AoO hits on the first guy he tripped, not hitting one of the two guys after tripping, or not hitting one of the guys after they stand up.

Now add in a third enemy. He only has enough AoOs to trip them to stop their movement.

Now, in 3.5, yeah, he also would only have had enough AoOs to try to trip those three guys, but, he got a free attack when he did trip them, which up to doubles his effective AoOs relative to the Pathfinder tripper, who would have to have a Dex of 22 to emulate that capability.

Gullintanni

2012-02-08, 11:16 AM

Trying to keep something permanently triplocked is not what is being referred to there.

Let's say that we have a tripper with 16 dexterity. With combat reflexes that means he can make 3 AoOs in a round. Now, against a single enemy this is perfectly fine and dandy. He gets his AoO to trip the guy for going through his reach, his AoO when the guy goes down, and then again when the guy stands up.

Now add in a second guy. He now has to choose between letting the second guy go through and getting both of his AoO hits on the first guy he tripped, not hitting one of the two guys after tripping, or not hitting one of the guys after they stand up.

Now add in a third enemy. He only has enough AoOs to trip them to stop their movement.

Now, in 3.5, yeah, he also would only have had enough AoOs to try to trip those three guys, but, he got a free attack when he did trip them, which up to doubles his effective AoOs relative to the Pathfinder tripper, who would have to have a Dex of 22 to emulate that capability.

Compounding all of that, you also need a 13 Int for the Trip line. You're now Str-Con-Dex-Int MAD, and you have to prioritize Dex even higher. This isn't an issue exclusive to PF mind you, but in 3.5 there were plenty of ways to get Imp. Trip for free, and you could get by on a 12 Dex until you could find Gloves of Dex or something similar.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 11:20 AM

And I have not seen anyone give me a compelling reason why TWF doesn't work in pathfinder. People throw power attack around as the reason in 3.5, but you can get just as much power attack damage with TWF as THF in pathfinder. Combine that with actual archetypes to support the style and further enhance it, it works really well.

That you have to pay more for less effect isn't compelling to you? Or the doubled weapon cost draining resources that would go into defenses? If those aren't compelling reasons for at least understanding how others could view it as such, what qualifies as "compelling" to you?

It's the same reason as 3.5, which isn't Power Attack anyway, as has been mentioned. I don't even have the foggiest as to how you would've gotten that impression. :smallconfused:

Krazzman

2012-02-08, 11:43 AM

or not hitting one of the guys after they stand up.

That's the point I am refering to. You can't hit them AFTER they stood up, except you are one initiative step after them. Else you hit them directly before they stand up (while they are still prone). If this isn't about trip-locking enemies then where is this a nerf?

Now add in a third enemy. He only has enough AoOs to trip them to stop their movement.

And that's exactly the purpose of trip. I don't see the problem there. You said yourself it is not about triplock, but somehow I think you want to do both DD and BC. As long as you don't play alone, which you shouldn't, to effectly drop these enemies (bring them to below 0 HP) you have at least 1 Teammate.

Gullintanni

2012-02-08, 11:51 AM

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 11:52 AM

That's the point I am refering to. You can't hit them AFTER they stood up, except you are one initiative step after them. Else you hit them directly before they stand up (while they are still prone). If this isn't about trip-locking enemies then where is this a nerf?

I misspoke, as is the general convention of discussing AoOs on prone foes that are attempting to stand up, it should read getting them as they're standing, but that's still rather irrelevant as I was still not advocating triplocking in any way, shape or form, nor was I ever even implying such.

So what is your rebuttal to what I wrote about having less attacks in PF than in 3.5 due to not generating free hits with successful trips and how in PF, one would need to double one's dex modifier to get the equivalent, then, if you feel you can dismiss it without even responding to it?

Though, come to think of it, a feat to let you have double your dex modifier just for AoOs as part of a chain seems like it would almost fit in with Paizo's philosophy.

somehow I think you want to do both DD and BC.

You got that with 3.5's version. Hence why PF's inferior successor version is called nerfed.

As long as you don't play alone, which you shouldn't, to effectly drop these enemies (bring them to below 0 HP) you have at least 1 Teammate.

Ah, yes, the "rely on someone else to do your job" argument. That's already been well hashed out with regards to sucking down caster provided buffs when there's more interesting and effective things the casters could be doing, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before it'd have to get applied to the job of primary melee combatant.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 12:02 PM

Ah, yes, the "rely on someone else's help to do your job" argument.
FTFY. Doesn't change the fact that you're not alone in most cases.

gomipile

2012-02-08, 12:07 PM

Exotic Weapon Proficiency. At least in 3.5 core, you had one weapon worth it, with some more situational scattered around (gnome quickrazor, sharktooth staff, bone bow, kusari-gama, dragonsplit etc.).

Are there any exotic weapons worth the feat in PF?

Yeah, the nerf to the spiked chain was unnecessary, overboard, and reeks of "melee can't have nice things." It is probably the only change I really despise about the PF ruleset.

Gullintanni

2012-02-08, 12:12 PM

FTFY. Doesn't change the fact that you're not alone in most cases.

That's kind of incidental to the point Coidzor was originally, and accurately making. That Tripping was nerfed in PF.

You do the job solo in 3.5. In PF you need more feats, more stats, and/or friends. You're worse off.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 12:22 PM

FTFY. Doesn't change the fact that you're not alone in most cases.

If you have one friend that is in place, with reach, to capitalize on the AoO that your successful trip AoO grants, you have a rough sort of parity with what you had in 3.5. And since what was just suggested to me was that the tripper isn't actually even supposed to make that follow-up AoO himself, let's say that tripping is all that the tripper does.

So, essentially, that second character is doing the job that Improved Trip would have done, at the expense of his own AoO capabilities.

There is no free lunch, and someone is paying for that AoO, even if you manage to get two allies in place with reach to capitalize on the potential AoO they could make when a foe is tripped, which is what you need to exceed parity and instead exceed 3.5. And how likely are you to have 2 allies in the right place, with reach, to take advantage of all of the foes that you're AoO-tripping?

When the foe tries to stand, that's the same as in 3.5, last I recall, so there's no difference there, except for the fact that one's allies will not necessarily have combat reflexes to be able to capitalize on both AoO opportunities that you provide.

So now they are having to pay a feat (and have a Dex of at least 14) to do part of your job (the post-trip-success AoO) and to get from you what your job already would have given them anyway(the AoO on the creature as it stands).

gourdcaptain

2012-02-08, 01:03 PM

Yeah, the nerf to the spiked chain was unnecessary, overboard, and reeks of "melee can't have nice things." It is probably the only change I really despise about the PF ruleset.

On the one hand, I agree that it did nerf one of the good weapons. On the other, Spiked Chains are kind of incredibly silly weapons for everyone to be wielding. So it's a minus from a gameplay perspective, but a plus from an asthetics perspective. (Plus, my group I play with the one time I used a Spiked Chain made me the target of endless jokes about the impracticality of such a weapon.)

So I can kind of understand the desire to nerf it simply so people would stop carrying them around and get a slightly more practical weapon from a fluff perspective. (Honestly, I'd prefer it if they'd nerfed spiked chains and made all reach weapons capable of working in melee.)

Frosty

2012-02-08, 02:04 PM

I think that Combat Expertise and such are already feat-tax enough. I most like the Pathfinder system, but buying Improved X should automatically get you Greater X upin reaching a certain BAB.

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 02:26 PM

I think that Combat Expertise and such are already feat-tax enough. I most like the Pathfinder system, but buying Improved X should automatically get you Greater X upin reaching a certain BAB.

My homebrew for this problem has been to create a single "Improved" feat that can serve as a prereq for all Greater feats that have Combat Expertise as a prereq, and another for Power Attack feats. It's not ideal, but it was a decent quick fix.

Combat Expertise is pretty terrible, though. Not a nerf, mind you, just bad since prior to PF. Making the prereq Combat Reflexes or Weapon Finesse would fit reasonably well and be far less useless.

This is a conversation for the homebrew board, though.

gomipile

2012-02-08, 03:00 PM

On the one hand, I agree that it did nerf one of the good weapons. On the other, Spiked Chains are kind of incredibly silly weapons for everyone to be wielding. So it's a minus from a gameplay perspective, but a plus from an asthetics perspective. (Plus, my group I play with the one time I used a Spiked Chain made me the target of endless jokes about the impracticality of such a weapon.)

So I can kind of understand the desire to nerf it simply so people would stop carrying them around and get a slightly more practical weapon from a fluff perspective. (Honestly, I'd prefer it if they'd nerfed spiked chains and made all reach weapons capable of working in melee.)

It would have been understandable if they made the spiked chain still good for something as an exotic. They made it strictly worse than a heavy flail for most purposes by only taking its reach away. It was already statted out as an exotic, so they should have given it something in return for taking away its reach.

By only taking the reach away, they made their "melee can't have nice things" attitude too obvious.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 03:11 PM

By only taking the reach away, they made their "melee can't have nice things" attitude too obvious.

Or they're simply balancing the one core exotic weapon that's head and shoulders better than the rest.

Mystify

2012-02-08, 03:16 PM

It would have been understandable if they made the spiked chain still good for something as an exotic. They made it strictly worse than a heavy flail for most purposes by only taking its reach away. It was already statted out as an exotic, so they should have given it something in return for taking away its reach.

By only taking the reach away, they made their "melee can't have nice things" attitude too obvious.

PF gives melee lots of nice things. They are just toning down all teh things that were obviously superior choices.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 03:29 PM

Or they're simply balancing the one core exotic weapon that's head and shoulders better than the rest.

If by "balanced" you mean "Strictly worse than the weapons that don't need a feat".

The Spiked Chain was an exotic weapon worth spending a feat to get. All they gained by nerfing it was removing that option, where instead the other exotics should have been made competitive with the spiked chain.

gomipile

2012-02-08, 03:42 PM

Exactly. The change they made was functionally identical to, if not worse than, simply removing the spiked chain entirely. They should have made it into something interesting but different which was also worth spending a feat to use, if they thought it needed nerfing.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 03:46 PM

If by "balanced" you mean "Strictly worse than the weapons that don't need a feat".

The Spiked Chain was an exotic weapon worth spending a feat to get. All they gained by nerfing it was removing that option, where instead the other exotics should have been made competitive with the spiked chain.

I'm not saying I agree with their balance point, but they apparently wanted exotics to be weapons that provided only a small benefit (Bastard Sword, Dwarven war axe) or that were niche weapons for a particular style (elven blade and spiked chain for finesse users, monk weapons for monks) or race (any racial weapon). Much like the 3.5 designers, they don't seem to have intended for exotic weapons to be notably better than non-exotics. That may not be worth a feat to some, but the same is said about Weapon Focus or Dodge and people (mainly those that play at lower optimization levels) still take those.

Exactly. The change they made was functionally identical to, if not worse than, simply removing the spiked chain entirely. They should have made it into something interesting but different which was also worth spending a feat to use, if they thought it needed nerfing.

No, as it fills a niche for weapon finesse users that want a two-handed, combat manuever-capable weapon. Removing it entirely would leave those characters without an option.

mikau013

2012-02-08, 03:57 PM

Seerow

2012-02-08, 03:57 PM

I'm not saying I agree with their balance point, but they apparently wanted exotics to be weapons that provided only a small benefit (Bastard Sword, Dwarven war axe) or that were niche weapons for a particular style (elven blade and spiked chain for finesse users, monk weapons for monks) or race (any racial weapon). Much like the 3.5 designers, they don't seem to have intended for exotic weapons to be notably better than non-exotics. That may not be worth a feat to some, but the same is said about Weapon Focus or Dodge and people (mainly those that play at lower optimization levels) still take those.

Except exotic weapon proficiency is demonstrably worse than Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization.

Seriously. Bastard Sword? When using 1 handed, you spent a feat to gain 1 average damage. Even weapon specialization is +2 damage. Using two-handed, and it's strictly worse than any other appropriate 2 handed weapon, with or without the feat.

The new spiked chain? 2d4x2 with tripping and disarming properties. The heavy flail does 1d10, 19-20x2, with the same properties. We are talking about a balance point where you are actively spending a feat to get a new weapon that is WORSE than the equivalent martial weapon.

There is NO justification for that in any way shape or form. The only possible explanations are designers who have literally no idea what they are doing, or designers who hated a good option to the point where they wanted to make it absolutely worthless.

No, as it fills a niche for weapon finesse users that want a two-handed, combat manuever-capable weapon. Removing it entirely would leave those characters without an option.

So it's supposed to be a tax for finesse? Really? I mean you already have to spend a feat on finesse, now you have to spend a second feat for a weapon that is finessible that is worse than the str-based weapon available as a martial proficiency?

If the spiked chain were a martial weapon, and you had the weapon damage and crit threat range trade off for finesse, I could buy this argument. But as an exotic weapon, it is pathetic.

For comparison: The Rapier remains Martial, loses 1 damage die size relative to the longsword, picks up a crit threat range, and still gets the finessible property added on, without requiring exotic proficiency. By any logical system, this means either the rapier is massively overpowered, or the spiked chain is massively underpowered.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 04:03 PM

Except exotic weapon proficiency is demonstrably worse than Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization.

Seriously. Bastard Sword? When using 1 handed, you spent a feat to gain 1 average damage. Even weapon specialization is +2 damage. Using two-handed, and it's strictly worse than any other appropriate 2 handed weapon, with or without the feat.

The new spiked chain? 2d4x2 with tripping and disarming properties. The heavy flail does 1d10, 19-20x2, with the same properties. We are talking about a balance point where you are actively spending a feat to get a new weapon that is WORSE than the equivalent martial weapon.

Except that it's not worse for a weapon finesse user.

There is NO justification for that in any way shape or form. The only possible explanations are designers who have literally no idea what they are doing, or designers who hated a good option to the point where they wanted to make it absolutely worthless.

Or that they want them to be niche/flavor weapons, not mechanically supieror ones.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 04:03 PM

the rest debates if they should take it now or when the monster stands up so they get a +4.
Isn't the enemy already prone when he provokes AoOs for being tripped?

Seerow

2012-02-08, 04:09 PM

Except that it's not worse for a weapon finesse user.

See my edit.

Or that they want them to be niche/flavor weapons, not mechanically supieror ones.

If it's not intended to be mechanically valuable, why charge a mechanical resource to get it? What is the point of charging a feat, that is directly character power, for what is essentially a flavor option, and easily arguable to be gimping yourself?

Once again, there is no excuse for it. If they gave away exotic proficiencies with different character backgrounds, or even a 1-2 skillpoint investment, or whatever, I wouldn't care. But when you take a feat that is supposed to make your character better for a mechanically bad option, that is bad game design. Not all feats have to be identical in value or utility, but any feat you spend should get you SOMETHING. And exotic weapon proficiency is one of those things that clearly does not. PF took something that was already really bad, and made it even worse, then gets praised for 'fixing' it. That's bull****.

mikau013

2012-02-08, 04:09 PM

Isn't the enemy already prone when he provokes AoOs for being tripped?

It is basically the inverse of standing up. Standing up provokes, the AoO resolves before you are standing.
Being tripped provokes, the AoO resolves before you are on the floor.

Edit : taking out my edit since I can't find the source atm.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 04:20 PM

Or that they want them to be niche/flavor weapons, not mechanically supieror ones.

They might want that, but that's a horrible thing to want to have people pay a feat for, and even worse to justify.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 04:24 PM

So it's supposed to be a tax for finesse? Really? I mean you already have to spend a feat on finesse, now you have to spend a second feat for a weapon that is finessible that is worse than the str-based weapon available as a martial proficiency?

If the spiked chain were a martial weapon, and you had the weapon damage and crit threat range trade off for finesse, I could buy this argument. But as an exotic weapon, it is pathetic.

For comparison: The Rapier remains Martial, loses 1 damage die size relative to the longsword, picks up a crit threat range, and still gets the finessible property added on, without requiring exotic proficiency. By any logical system, this means either the rapier is massively overpowered, or the spiked chain is massively underpowered.

We're talking about the same game system that for some reason ("Realism" would be my guess) requires two weapon fighting to need multiple feats to not be up to par with a two hander. Wouldn't surprise me for similar logic here, extra training being required for the spiked chain.

If it's not intended to be mechanically valuable, why charge a mechanical resource to get it? What is the point of charging a feat, that is directly character power, for what is essentially a flavor option, and easily arguable to be gimping yourself?

Potentially for the same reason people like spending skill points in skills they'll never use for flavor reasons, because of what it represents for your character (in this case, training).

Once again, there is no excuse for it. If they gave away exotic proficiencies with different character backgrounds, or even a 1-2 skillpoint investment, or whatever, I wouldn't care. But when you take a feat that is supposed to make your character better for a mechanically bad option, that is bad game design. Not all feats have to be identical in value or utility, but any feat you spend should get you SOMETHING. And exotic weapon proficiency is one of those things that clearly does not. PF took something that was already really bad, and made it even worse, then gets praised for 'fixing' it. That's bull****.

Worse/better is subject to opinion, low op groups would find that it fits in better, and making them all simply better could lead to versimiltude breaking for some, as it would lead to an unusually high number of characters using weapons that according to the fluff aren't commonly used.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 04:36 PM

Reverent-One: Why are you arguing in favor of bad game design being a good idea simply because some people won't care how badly designed a game is and some people want to purposefully design bad games? :smallconfused:

If that's not what you're arguing then please just come out and state what your position and point is directly.

There are a couple of nerfs with tripping in pathfinder actually.
Most have already been mentioned in this thread, but I haven't seen these yet: more mobs immune to it.
And the fact that AoO's resolve before the action that triggered them (exception spell casting).

Also, by the time you can get all of the feats in the feat chain, casters are past the point where flight becomes nearly ubiquitous amongst them. This probably doubly pertains to the level appropriate monsters a that point.

Thus basically:
3.5: I trip someone, get a free attack on them with a +4 for them being prone (+ me and my allies gain AoO at +4 if the monster stands up)
pf: I trip someone, it provokes -> everyone with multiple AoO's take one, the rest debates if they should take it now or when the monster stands up so they get a +4.

Coincidentally, the +4 to hit for them being prone more than made up for power attacking for 4 (or more) as to hit with a trip attempt was a touch attack. Even with regular old power attack, the ability to take -4 to-hit for +8 damage is pretty nifty, especially when one doesn't have to be 12th level to do so in the first place.

Oh and don't forget about the reach nerf. In pathfinder small and medium chars with reach weapons no longer threaten on diagonals :smalleek:

Huh. Forgot about that one. Hope the DM hasn't doublechecked that...

Seerow

2012-02-08, 04:36 PM

So your argument is... you have no argument. The Spiked Chain sucks, but it makes extremely low op groups happy, because it provides flavor without giving them even marginally better utility. Even going so far as to compare it to two weapon fighting (another style which even in this topic has been pointed out as sucking for the same reasons!) doesn't improve your case any. It just shows that Pathfinder has a bunch of monkeys at the helm who don't believe melee should be allowed nice things.

Sorry, I don't buy into that tripe.

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 04:54 PM

Oh and don't forget about the reach nerf. In pathfinder small and medium chars with reach weapons no longer threaten on diagonals :smalleek:

I'm unfamiliar with that. Do you have a source?

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-08, 04:59 PM

I'm unfamiliar with that. Do you have a source?

I think he's referring to the "every other diagonal square is ten feet". But that's how it worked in 3.5 too. I don't have the core book with me at the moment, so I cant check the combat chapter.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 05:00 PM

Oh and don't forget about the reach nerf. In pathfinder small and medium chars with reach weapons no longer threaten on diagonals
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-templates
Kinda looks like you're wrong.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 05:03 PM

Reverent-One: Why are you arguing in favor of bad game design being a good idea simply because some people won't care how badly designed a game is and some people want to purposefully design bad games? :smallconfused:

If that's not what you're arguing then please just come out and state what your position and point is directly.

My point is whether or not this is bad game design is a matter of opinion depending on the design goals. It's another example of a higher focus on realism/versimlitude and lower target optimization level than I would require in a game, but that the 3.X designers and a number of 3.X players share, that you find throughout the system.

So your argument is... you have no argument. The Spiked Chain sucks, but it makes extremely low op groups happy, because it provides flavor without giving them even marginally better utility.

No, it gives marginally better utility to the intended user, the weapon finesser.

Even going so far as to compare it to two weapon fighting (another style which even in this topic has been pointed out as sucking for the same reasons!) doesn't improve your case any. It just shows that Pathfinder has a bunch of monkeys at the helm who don't believe melee should be allowed nice things.

No, it shows that the intended purpose of exotic weapons is not what some people think it is, and has nothing to do with melee not being allowed nice things.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 05:16 PM

My point is whether or not this is bad game design is a matter of opinion depending on the design goals. It's another example of a higher focus on realism/versimlitude and lower target optimization level than I would require in a game, but that the 3.X designers and a number of 3.X players share, that you find throughout the system.

I fail to see what's realistic about needing to waste a feat, a metagame resource, to use a weapon that is not worth it.

No, it gives marginally better utility to the intended user, the weapon finesser.

Did you miss the point about the Rapier?

Longsword vs Rapier: Rapier loses 1 avg damage, gains +1 crit threat and finesse.

This would imply that the threat and finesse together combine to be worth the damage die increase. Yet

Dire Flail vs Spiked Chain: Spiked Chain loses .5 average damage, loses 1 crit threat, gains finesse.

This would imply either that the rapier is amazingly good (something I don't think anyone really believes), or that the spiked chain is amazingly bad, even when put as a martial weapon. As an exotic weapon, it is a slap in the face.

Following the pattern of the Rapier, the chain should have been 1d8, 18-20 crit range, and a martial weapon. Following the example of other exotics, to be an exotic it should have had at least the same 1d10 damage, if not a 1d12/2d6.

As it is, the way the spiked chain was designed was just an outright nerf. It being finessible does not make up for what it loses, much less the extra feat besides.

No, it shows that the intended purpose of exotic weapons is not what some people think it is, and has nothing to do with melee not being allowed nice things.

When you have feats being used as a resource for power, and you have a feat that fails to deliver in that regard, you have a bad feat. No amount of fluff or flavor makes that less true.

olentu

2012-02-08, 05:17 PM

Seerow

2012-02-08, 05:19 PM

Oh by the by I believe the stated response given for why the spiked chain was nerfed was as follows.

"The biggest problem was that the spiked chain was the only weapon that granted reach, but also allowed you to attack adjacent. Add that on to all of the other benefits the weapon gave you and it was just too good. Exotic weapons tend to grant some cool abilities, but the spiked chain really went over the top."

So apparently the spiked chain was just too over the top.

And then they nerfed it to being worse than a martial weapon.

Even leaving it with reach but no ability to attack non-adjacent would have at least made it somewhat useful. Instead in typical PF fashion they see something nice and do everything they can to make it terrible.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 05:35 PM

I fail to see what's realistic about needing to waste a feat, a metagame resource, to use a weapon that is not worth it.

What represents training with a weapon? Proficiency. How you get proficiency for any other weapon that don't come with the class? Feats. Thus, one would represent training in an exotic weapon with a proficency feat.

Did you miss the point about the Rapier?

Longsword vs Rapier: Rapier loses 1 avg damage, gains +1 crit threat and finesse.

This would imply that the threat and finesse together combine to be worth the damage die increase. Yet

Dire Flail vs Spiked Chain: Spiked Chain loses .5 average damage, loses 1 crit threat, gains finesse.

This would imply either that the rapier is amazingly good (something I don't think anyone really believes), or that the spiked chain is amazingly bad, even when put as a martial weapon. As an exotic weapon, it is a slap in the face.

It could have used the extra crit threat, or at least not lost any, though even if they had done that, we'd still be having this discussion since it lost the more powerful aspect, the unique version of reach. An extra crit threat wouldn't stop the cries of "melee can't have nice things".

Even leaving it with reach but no ability to attack non-adjacent would have at least made it somewhat useful. Instead in typical PF fashion they see something nice and do everything they can to make it terrible. don't see eye to eye with me on what qualifies as nice.

Fixed that for you. It's just a game, don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with your preference in game design.

mikau013

2012-02-08, 05:39 PM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-templates
Kinda looks like you're wrong.

Uhmmm those are images a third party site made up. They have nothing to do with what the rules are.

I'm unfamiliar with that. Do you have a source?
Sure.

Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.

And if you were wondering why it is a nerf:

Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)
Sadly, pathfinder doesn't have this note, thus reach weapons default to the general distance measuring rules.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 05:43 PM

What represents training with a weapon? Proficiency. How you get proficiency for any other weapon that don't come with the class? Feats. Thus, one would represent training in an exotic weapon with a proficency feat.

But it didn't need to be this way. With pathfinder, if they wanted weapon proficiencies to not provide any decent benefit, the answer shouldn't have been "make them suck but still cost a feat" but instead change how proficiencies are gained. A Wizard can pick up a new spell for a few hundred gold, given how weak exotic weapons are, it would have been totally in line to say a Fighter can spend some gold on training with an exotic weapon and be able to use it, without spending any resources. Or that he can spend a skill point to get it. Or that people from a background where that type of weapon is common get it free.

The problem is, that pathfinder doesn't do any of that. They insist on continuing to charge a feat, which is a resource that directly contributes to character power. The second you make something a feat, a player has every right to expect that it is going to be worth the feat they invested.

It could have used the extra crit threat, or at least not lost any, though even if they had done that, we'd still be having this discussion since it lost the more powerful aspect, the unique version of reach. An extra crit threat wouldn't stop the cries of "melee can't have nice things".

It might not have stopped those cries, but it would have at least been able to stop me from pointing out that within pathfinder's own system, they have created an exotic weapon with worse relative attributes than a martial weapon. This should not be a point I am even capable of arguing rationally, but Pathfinder has screwed up badly enough to make it possible.

Fixed that for you. It's just a game, don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with your preference in game design.

Sorry, but when someone tries to argue "Charge more for something weaker" I will call that out as bad game design. It's not just a different philosophy, it's outright bad. This isn't even an example of a trap option that is worse than other things you could take a la toughness. At least toughness provides you a mechanical benefit. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain)? It doesn't.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 05:56 PM

Uhmmm those are images a third party site made up. They have nothing to do with what the rules are.
d20pfsrd.com is known for being quite accurate.
I don't consider it to be nerfed just because they didn't specifically pointed out that it works diagonally as well.

jmelesky

2012-02-08, 06:10 PM

Sure.

So, i did some research to provide a source for this, since it's not clear from the text (or, at least, unclear enough that d20pfsrd.com interprets it differently from mikau013).

In this thread (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/threeQuestionsForTheDevsOrAnyoneMostlyTheDevs) at the Paizo messageboards, the Creative Director ruled for mikau013's interpretation. Later in the thread, he said he wasn't sure that was a good ruling, and people should rule it as they want to.

So, RAW, the "no corner squares" interpretation is accurate. RAI, it's, well, up in the air, since Paizo's CD isn't sure he agrees with himself...

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 06:32 PM

*Snip*

The key point of your argument is that the spiked chain doesn't give you a benefit for the feat cost. The fatal flaw with that statement is that it's simply false for a high dex, low strength weapon user who wants to disarm/trip. Without the spiked chain, their best option if they're not a monk is, as far as I can see, a rapier, since they need a free hand. By spending a feat, they increase their average damage by 1.5 + .5 for every point of strength they have, plus are now able to drop the weapon if they fail their trip attempt instead of being tripped themselves. They lose 2 points of crit threat in the process, but as long as they have at least 12 strength, the feat is at least as good as weapon spec, and they don't even need 4 levels of fighter. Alternatively, if they're a monk already and use the kama, they gain the same amount of damage and don't lose any crit threat.

By taking the spiked chain instead of the heavy flail the attack bonus for a character with 18 Dex and 12 str would increase by +3, and would likely only increase as the campaign goes on. +3 to attack rolls is nothing to you?

If the fact that the spiked chain isn't useful for characters it's not meant to be useful for makes taking EWP(Spiked Chain) worthless, then by that same logic, the metamagic feats are worthless because they're useless to a non-spellcaster.

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 06:32 PM

What represents training with a weapon? Proficiency. How you get proficiency for any other weapon that don't come with the class? Feats. Thus, one would represent training in an exotic weapon with a proficency feat.
Or a martial.

If I wanted my character to use an "Odachi", I wouldn't invent a new exotic weapon - I'd use greatswords and simply describe it as an Odachi. Bam, my character's proficient with a new weapon, and I didn't have to spend a feat. Yay!

In general, weapon catagorizations are made, not based on difficulty of use, but on power. Anyone who's trained with a variety of weapons (I have) can find all sorts of oddities. Slings are harder to use than Bows, but are simple because they're worse. Longswords are dead easy to use, easier than shortspears by a good margin, but they're also better so they're Martial while shortspears are Simple. Two-handed Scythes are incredibly difficult to use effectively in combat - they're slow, awkward, easy to block - but their effectiveness puts them in Martial.

With that in mind, Exotic makes perfect sense as a catagory for rarer weapons that are highly effective at particular tasks. If they aren't highly effective, they should be Martial or even Simple. Indeed, 3.5 tended in this direction later on, with a number of exotics that were simply upgrades on Martial weapons. Jovar, Greatbow, Khopeshi, Greathammer, the list goes on. And then there's the more unusual stuff that definitely justifies itself as deserving a special category - Sugliin, Anulat, Harpoon, Elvin Lightblade/Thinblade/Courtblade, etc.

When Paizo was putting together PF, they had free choice here. They could have - nay, should have - made Exotic weapons worth the category. Instead they went with the indefensible approach of making Exotic weapons no better, and in many cases worse, than Martial.

What possible justification can they use for the classification? Difficulty of use can be thoroughly debunked in five minutes sparring. In-game effectiveness we've already dealt with. Regional obscurity, perhaps? But different weapons were obscure in different areas.

WotC seem to have caught on that if it costs a feat, it should provide some return on that investment. The game is not just a medieval simulator, it's also a game. "Paying a feat" is a meaningless concept inside a medieval simulator, it's purely a game term. And as a game, if you're spending a highly limited resource, you should be getting something in return. Spending feats to make your character worse is a slap in the face from a game design.

This isn't the first time too. TWF is in the same category, but at least that one can be blamed on 3.5 legacy. Downgrading Spiked Chain was simply uncalled-for.

It could have used the extra crit threat, or at least not lost any, though even if they had done that, we'd still be having this discussion since it lost the more powerful aspect, the unique version of reach. An extra crit threat wouldn't stop the cries of "melee can't have nice things".
Well yes, because it's part of a whole series of "melee can't have nice things" nerfs. The reach wasn't actually that significant - AFAIK you can still use the Guisarme + Armor Spikes trick to accomplish basically the same result. All it did was give you a little extra flexibility and save you a bit of money.

IFixed that for you. It's just a game, don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with your preference in game design.
There are somethings that are subjective (for example, I think Fighters should have Spot and Listen as class skills, and Barbarians should have Balance). This is pretty objective though. Coidzor broke down the numbers, and it completely falls apart relative to other weapons. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact - Spiked Chain is now generally inferior to Martial weapons, even if it didn't also cost a feat.

d20pfsrd.com is known for being quite accurate.
I don't consider it to be nerfed just because they didn't specifically pointed out that it works diagonally as well.
Without that extra clause, it IS nerfed, and the makers of PFSRD objectively got it wrong. I don't blame them, it's a subtle point and one that's easy to miss in the conversion - especially if you're used to 3.5.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 06:39 PM

sonofzeal, my last post applies to yours as well. A feat not being worth it for some characters is not the same as a feat not being worth it for all characters.

olentu

2012-02-08, 06:41 PM

What possible justification can they use for the classification? Difficulty of use can be thoroughly debunked in five minutes sparring. In-game effectiveness we've already dealt with. Regional obscurity, perhaps? But different weapons were obscure in different areas.

I believe their stated reason at the time was obscurity as evidenced by this quote.

"Exotic does not mean better. Yes you have to pay a feat to use it in most circumstances, but that is just not exactly how these are designed. Some do offer some nice benefits, but that is by no means the rules. Exotic means rare and unusual first. That means that some of them are not the "best" in-game mechanical decision your character can make."

I can't really comment on what type of rarity they might mean not being familiar with their setting.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 06:43 PM

sonofzeal, my last post applies to yours as well. A feat not being worth it for some characters is not the same as a feat not being worth it for all characters.

Except the style you specified isn't something that needed to require a new feat to introduce and be balanced. Again, they could have introduced a martial weapon with the exact same attributes, and it still would have been considered weak.

The fact that they didn't doesn't excuse the fact that the spiked chain is weak for a martial weapon, let alone an exotic one.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 06:45 PM

Except the style you specified isn't something that needed to require a new feat to introduce and be balanced. Again, they could have introduced a martial weapon with the exact same attributes, and it still would have been considered weak.

The fact that they didn't doesn't excuse the fact that the spiked chain is weak for a martial weapon, let alone an exotic one.

No, it's quite useful in it's intended role as a martial or an exotic. That it's intended role isn't useful to all characters changes nothing. Again, by that logic the metamagic feats are worthless.

Coidzor

2012-02-08, 06:48 PM

I believe you mean Seerow, not myself, sonofzeal. :smallconfused:

sonofzeal, my last post applies to yours as well. A feat not being worth it for some characters is not the same as a feat not being worth it for all characters.

No, now you're talking players. It's always not worth it for the characters if it is objectively worse than the other options.

Which, as you undermined yourself earlier by admitting that it was mostly a matter of people playing at very low op that such would be attractive to, and the general principle that only two categories really play at that level, those with low system mastery and those who are deliberately and knowingly hobbling themselves. And it's a rather misanthropic view to legitimize abusing people who haven't learned the game all that well yet and people that really want to make themselves weaker or have more of a challenge can be directed as how to do so in such a way as to have said options be presented openly as such rather than with the illusion of being equitable with other options.

olentu

2012-02-08, 06:52 PM

No, it's quite useful in it's intended role as a martial or an exotic. That it's intended role isn't useful to all characters changes nothing. Again, by that logic the metamagic feats are worthless.

Actually as I recall pathfinder allows one to trip or disarm using any weapon they want. But I suppose it does give the benefit of being able to drop your spiked chain if you fail your trip attempt and +2 on disarming.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 06:59 PM

No, now you're talking players. It's always not worth it for the characters if it is objectively worse than the other options.

And if you're a high dex, low strength character that uses combat maneuvers, it's objectively better.

Which, as you undermined yourself earlier by admitting that it was mostly a matter of people playing at very lowop that such would be attractive to, and the general principle that only two categories really play at that level, those with low system mastery and those who are deliberately and knowingly hobbling themselves. And it's a rather misanthropic view to legitimize abusing people who haven't learned the game all that well yet and people that really want to make themselves weaker or have more of a challenge can be directed as how to do so in such a way as to have said options be presented openly as such rather than with the illusion of being equitable with other options.

Which isn't what I'm doing, since it's a viable, even good, option for specific circumstances.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 07:08 PM

And if you're a high dex, low strength character that uses combat maneuvers, it's objectively better.

Which isn't what I'm doing, since it's a viable, even good, option for specific circumstances.

Here's the thing: The weapon is demonstrably something that could qualify as a weak martial weapon. I've already shown that the comparison is weaker than an appropriate finessible martial weapon using other examples of pathfinder weapon stats. This isn't me making stuff up, it's direct correlation.

Even if it fills a niche that isn't otherwise filled by a martial weapon doesn't mean it is appropriate to be an exotic weapon. The niche could easily have been filled by a martial weapon, even a martial weapon with stronger stats, and nobody would have blinked at it. Hell it's not even guarantee that at some point in the future someone doesn't make an equivalent martial weapon.

You say it opens up a particular fighting style, I say it penalizes that style by making characters who want to use that style pay an extra feat for something they should already be able to do by default.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 07:15 PM

You say it opens up a particular fighting style, I say it penalizes that style by making characters who want to use that style pay an extra feat for something they should already be able to do by default.

Which is where the difference in game design comes in. Who decides what the default level of "good enough" is? By having martial weapons stronger than simple weapons, one could just as easily argue they're penalizing everyone that only starts with simple weapon proficiency by making them pay for something they should be able to do by default.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 07:18 PM

Which is where the difference in game design comes in. Who decides what the default level of "good enough" is? By having martial weapons stronger than simple weapons, one could just as easily argue they're penalizing everyone that only starts with simple weapon proficiency by making them pay for something they should be able to do by default.

They decided the level of "good enough" when they designed the rapier. At that point they determined that crit+finessible is directly equal to 1 damage die size.

Yes, I expect people who design things to be consistent. I don't think that's a difference in design philosophy, because if you aren't consistent, there is no design philosophy at all.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 07:22 PM

Yes, I expect people who design things to be consistent. I don't think that's a difference in design philosophy, because if you aren't consistent, there is no design philosophy at all.
PF is made by multiple people. Paizos design philosophy might be... diverse because of it.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 07:27 PM

They decided the level of "good enough" when they designed the rapier. At that point they determined that crit+finessible is directly equal to 1 damage die size.

Yes, I expect people who design things to be consistent. I don't think that's a difference in design philosophy, because if you aren't consistent, there is no design philosophy at all.

Given the statement olentu referenced, they are being consistent. Weapon stats aren't determined in a vacuum either, but based on the nature of the weapon. They just didn't fit your arbitrary desired level of power.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 07:28 PM

PF is made by multiple people. Paizos design philosophy might be... diverse because of it.

This would not make for a coherent design philosophy, even if that was the excuse. But honestly, why would they have multiple different people working on the same project and not even touch base on something so basic? I can understand someone working on wizards not getting the memo and accidentally making spells that invalidate the rogue. It's still bad design, but I can understand how something like that happens. Something as basic as "This exotic weapon following a simple design breakdown is weaker than a martial weapon" is something so profoundly idiotic I can't believe the argument has persisted so long.

edit:

Given the statement olentu referenced, they are being consistent. Weapon stats aren't determined in a vacuum either, but based on the nature of the weapon. They just didn't fit your arbitrary desired level of power.

No. A rapier being weaker than a longsword, because it is for a different style is something I can accept. Because the difference is marginal at best, and they are on the same proficiency level.

The spiked chain requires a feat, and is strictly worse in several different ways than the Dire Flail. This goes beyond desired power level, and is an insult to anyone wanting to play the style in question.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 07:36 PM

This would not make for a coherent design philosophy, even if that was the excuse. But honestly, why would they have multiple different people working on the same project and not even touch base on something so basic? I can understand someone working on wizards not getting the memo and accidentally making spells that invalidate the rogue. It's still bad design, but I can understand how something like that happens. Something as basic as "This exotic weapon following a simple design breakdown is weaker than a martial weapon" is something so profoundly idiotic I can't believe the argument has persisted so long.
I was in a discussion about a ruling on Paizo Boards. It was kinda heated. Two, maybe three people was arguing for one thing, and the rest was arguing against it. All common sense and actual rules were in those two posters favor. When SKR finally made a ruling, it was no surprise that he made it in favor of the more numerous and lauder camp. At that moment I lost all hope and respect for him.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 07:37 PM

No. A rapier being weaker than a longsword, because it is for a different style is something I can accept. Because the difference is marginal at best, and they are on the same proficiency level.

The spiked chain requires a feat, and is strictly worse in several different ways than the Dire Flail. This goes beyond desired power level, and is an insult to anyone wanting to play the style in question.

To someone wanting to play the style in question, it is strictly better than the dire flail. Saying that "Situational element <X> is weak because it's weaker than other options when used in situations it's not meant to be used in, and therefore we can ignore it's strengths in the intended situation" is ridiculous. At the least, forcing a finesse using character to use a rapier instead of a longsword should be equally insulting, since you're missing out on an option that would be stronger in other situations.

Seerow

2012-02-08, 07:42 PM

To someone wanting to play the style in question, it is strictly better than the dire flail. Saying that "Situational element <X> is weak because it's weaker than other options when used in the situation it's meant to be used in, and therefore we can ignore it's strengths in the intended situation" is ridiculous. At the least, forcing a finesse using character to use a rapier instead of a longsword should be equally insulting, since you're missing out on an option that would be stronger in other situations.

The difference is the rapier instead of longsword isn't charging you a feat for the ability to be worse. Spiked chain vs Dire Flail is. You may think "It's just a feat who cares" but the answer to that is "Anyone who actually thinks for more than a minute about game mechanics". An option that is weaker for the finesse character is okay, because finesse has some things going for it already (easier qualifying for some feats, better initiative, more AoOs, etc). But they already pay a feat tax for that option, and are already sacrificing some damage for that option. Adding a second feat tax on top of the first is the real insult.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 07:51 PM

The difference is the rapier instead of longsword isn't charging you a feat for the ability to be worse. Spiked chain vs Dire Flail is.

Only if you ignore the niche it's meant to fill. If you aren't doing that, you are paying a feat to be better, not worse.

You may think "It's just a feat who cares" but the answer to that is "Anyone who actually thinks for more than a minute about game mechanics". An option that is weaker for the finesse character is okay, because finesse has some things going for it already (easier qualifying for some feats, better initiative, more AoOs, etc). But they already pay a feat tax for that option, and are already sacrificing some damage for that option. Adding a second feat tax on top of the first is the real insult.

Except that it isn't a feat tax. It is, like many other feats, a feat you pay to increase in power. You can say it's power that you think they should have already, but that's purely a matter of opinion. Someone else might think the default level of power for martial classes should be on a par with the Frank and K Tome Samurai, which is fine for them, but they don't have any right to say that martial classes being less powerful that than is an insult or the result of "melee can't have nice things".

Grelna the Blue

2012-02-08, 07:51 PM

Helldog

2012-02-08, 07:54 PM

Seerow

2012-02-08, 08:01 PM

I don't see how you can justify saying they nerfed the feat EWP. They nerfed an exotic weapon. They have other exotic weapons that are pretty nice that weren't part of 3.5. The falcata and the Aldori dueling sword, for instance.

The Aldori dueling sword is as far as I can tell a carbon copy of the elven courtblade, but I will gave you it is at least marginally better than the rapier (goes back down to 19-20crit, but gains a weapon die size). I still wouldn't call it worth the feat, but it at least has a direct counterpart that it is marginally better than.

Note to Reverent-One: See, this here? This is an example of me stating an opinion that the boost isn't enough to warrant a feat. This is a case of my expected power level being higher than that of the designers. This is because the weapon exists, and is actually stronger when looked at within the confines of the PF system (which valued the crit increase as about half as valuable as a damage die increase), just not as much stronger as I would like {Though an argument could be made for it being weaker with enough bonus damage, since the crit scales better than the damage die, I'll stick with the assumption the +damage is better for now}. This contrasts with the spiked chain example which is when compared in a similar manner is weaker than its counterpart martial weapon, let alone the benefit expected of an exotic.

Only if you ignore the niche it's meant to fill. If you aren't doing that, you are paying a feat to be better, not worse.

Except that it isn't a feat tax. It is, like many other feats, a feat you pay to increase in power. You can say it's power that you think they should have already, but that's purely a matter of opinion. Someone else might think the default level of power for martial classes should be on a par with the Frank and K Tome Samurai, which is fine for them, but they don't have any right to say that martial classes being less powerful that than is an insult or the result of "melee can't have nice things".

You're repeating yourself here, and ignoring my responses from before. What I've put forth isn't a matter of opinion, it comes straight from dissecting the stats of other weapons they have published and comparing. Until you can make a valid claim that the spiked chain as written in pathfinder would not have fit as a martial weapon due to being too good, with some mechanical evidence to back it up, I am done with this exchange. It's gone on for two pages, and all you've managed to do is tell me that expecting consistency from the designers is expecting too much.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 08:09 PM

You're repeating yourself here, and ignoring my responses from before.

Funny, I could say the same to you. Like for example your edit:

This contrasts with the spiked chain example which is when compared in a similar manner is weaker than its counterpart martial weapon, let alone the benefit expected of an exotic.

A statement which ignores that it is more powerful than it's counterpart for the job it was made for.

What I've put forth isn't a matter of opinion, it comes straight from dissecting the stats of other weapons they have published and comparing.

No, because your method is incomplete, not taking into account other considerations the designers have stated they have.

Until you can make a valid claim that the spiked chain as written in pathfinder would not have fit as a martial weapon due to being too good, with some mechanical evidence to back it up, I am done with this exchange.

Strange, that's not what I was arguing at all. My whole point was that choosing the power level that they did for it isn't automatically invalid because you disagree with it, or because they hate fun things.

It's gone on for two pages, and all you've managed to do is tell me that expecting consistency from the designers is expecting too much.

Like I've said, they're being consistent. You just don't like how they do it.

sonofzeal

2012-02-08, 11:00 PM

sonofzeal, my last post applies to yours as well. A feat not being worth it for some characters is not the same as a feat not being worth it for all characters.First, the damage difference in two-handing doesn't show up until Str 14, and even then it's legal to two-hand a Rapier in 3.5. If PF took that out too, well, chalk that up on the laundry list of stealth nerfs. I'll take my 1d6/18-20/x2 over a 2d4/20/x2 that costs a feat, any day - especially since it gives me the option of wielding it onehanded if I want to.

Second, if you're talking about a Dex-focused character who wants to trip, there's the Sickle for that. Compared to the Sickle, the Spiked Chain has the same crit range (equal), does somewhat better damage (good), occupies both hands (very bad for a Dex-focused character). It can also disarm, but that's marginal since we're assuming a heavy feat investment already, and most things that could be disarmed effectively could be tripped just as easily.

All in all, the Spiked Chain is a viable option against the Sickle for our hypothetical Dex-focussed tripper. The Spiked Chain gets better damage, but the Sickle can be used with TWF for extra attempts or used with a shield for extra AC. I could see individual characters/players going with either... if neither of them cost a feat.

....in other words, it's probably not worth a feat even to a Dex-focused tripper. Assuming Simple Weapon Proficiency, which - let's face it - is a safe assumption.

As a side note, while I see an FAQ comment suggesting you can use Dex for CMB if you have weapon finesse, neither the CMB nor Weapon Finesse text show anything of the sort from what I've seen. I'm assuming it works, but if it doesn't then this hypothetical character just got a whole lot more hypothetical.

Reverent-One

2012-02-08, 11:25 PM

Your hypothetical character has some serious flaws, both in your math and in the concept itself.

First, the damage difference in two-handing doesn't show up until Str 14, and even then it's legal to two-hand a Rapier in 3.5. If PF took that out too, well, chalk that up on the laundry list of stealth nerfs. I'll take my 1d6/18-20/x2 over a 2d4/20/x2 that costs a feat, any day - especially since it gives me the option of wielding it onehanded if I want to.

Second, if you're talking about a Dex-focused character who wants to trip, there's the Sickle for that. Compared to the Sickle, the Spiked Chain has the same crit range (equal), does somewhat better damage (good), occupies both hands (very bad for a Dex-focused character). It can also disarm, but that's marginal since we're assuming a heavy feat investment already, and most things that could be disarmed effectively could be tripped just as easily.

All in all, the Spiked Chain is a viable option against the Sickle for our hypothetical Dex-focussed tripper. The Spiked Chain gets better damage, but the Sickle can be used with TWF for extra attempts or used with a shield for extra AC. I could see individual characters/players going with either... if neither of them cost a feat.

....in other words, it's probably not worth a feat even to a Dex-focused tripper. Assuming Simple Weapon Proficiency, which - let's face it - is a safe assumption.

As a side note, while I see an FAQ comment suggesting you can use Dex for CMB if you have weapon finesse, neither the CMB nor Weapon Finesse text show anything of the sort from what I've seen. I'm assuming it works, but if it doesn't then this hypothetical character just got a whole lot more hypothetical.

Wait, did you just say the benefit of being able to disarm with the chain is marginal because of feat investment, and then list TWF-use as a benefit for the sickle? :smallconfused:

That aside, while you are correct about a couple of minor errors, it doesn't counter my argument that the feat does actually provide a a benefit, it's just debating about the cost. This is very different than the idea that it is "paying a feat to make your character worse" as you suggested it was.

Helldog

2012-02-08, 11:29 PM

and even then it's legal to two-hand a Rapier in 3.5
No.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#rapier

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage.

olentu

2012-02-08, 11:43 PM

Remember you can disarm (and trip) with any weapon you want. All the disarming property gives is a +2 to disarming (and trip the choice to drop the weapon).

T.G. Oskar

2012-02-09, 12:19 AM

Alright, just to stop this back and forth thing, let's put things in perspective:

3.5 Trip

Uses touch attack roll
Causes Attack of Opportunity (except if you have Improved Trip)
Opposed Strength check

PF Trip

Attack roll, uses CMB (essentially your attack bonus + special size modifier) instead of BAB
Opposed by CMD (BAB + Str + Dex + size + Modifiers)

PF Trip seems to be simpler, but the CMD seems to usually be higher (all non-armor, non-shield, non-NA bonuses to AC vs. all bonuses to attack rolls), if only because it applies Strength and Dexterity. However, what I need to point out is that I should assume as correct that Weapon Focus applies Dexterity to the CMD.

Now, to put this point clearly: does Weapon Finesse adds Dex to your CMB, or replaces Strength by Dexterity? This is crucial, because this point is a bit more relevant to the discussion, and helps on what comes next.

--

Now, let's see the differences between the spiked chain in both editions:
3.5 spiked chain

2d4 piercing damage
Reach weapon; may affect adjacent opponents
Two-handed weapon (thus, add 1.5 times your STR)
Finessable
+2 bonus on trip checks; can drop weapon if trip attempt fails
+2 bonus on disarm checks

PF spiked chain

2d4 piercing damage
Two-handed weapon (thus, adds 1.5x STR to damage)
Finessable
Disarm weapon (+2 to disarm checks, add enhancement bonus to CMB?)
Trip weapon (+2 bonus to trip checks, can drop weapon if trip attempt fails?, adds enhancement bonus to trip checks)

Unless I'm missing something (please, no accusations of "you're not seeing it clearly" or something like that; I can't see it clearly if I'm just going through a cursory look at the SRDs), the spiked chain is almost identical except for three main points, of which I'll take concern of two:

First, the 3.5 version has reach, and it's the only weapon that can hit adjacent creatures aside from a few others (which tend to resemble the spiked chain, such as the kusari-gama). The Pathfinder version hasn't.

Second, the Pathfinder version allows you to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to the roll you need to do in order to trip the creature, which increases the effectiveness of this maneuver to anything but flying creatures or people with FoM.

Based on this, we can observe a few things:

The 3.5 version was best geared towards high Strength characters, because of being a two-handed weapon and Trip requiring a strong Strength check. With the reach, it was an unbeatable combination, if only because it could be used for an AoO trip attempt.
The Pathfinder version seems to add or replace Dexterity to the CMB, thus making dextrous characters capable of using a strong trip attempt, which turns better if you can add your enhancement bonus to the CMB attack roll. Thus, it seems to be designed for Dex trippers.

Now, having gathered all info, and putting the trip maneuver in perspective for a comparative study of the weapon, the argument seems to fall within the idea that PF traded the utility of the weapon for enabling a build that wasn't available before. IMO, the best answer is that it's both a buff and a nerf. No, this isn't Golden Mean Fallacy: it's a vertical nerf but a horizontal buff, as the main reason why you chose spiked chain over any other weapon (a trip weapon with reach that could hit adjacent creatures, hence allowing you to use the same weapon for trip-locking builds) was negated; this is the vertical nerf. However, it allows for a build that wouldn't happen in 3.5 because of how the system worked, which is a Dex-focused tripper (thus enabling Dex-specific builds to take the build); this is the horizontal buff, because while it doesn't augment power by itself, it augments the options.

Now, here's a few things to leave you with before finishing my post. Compare the spiked chain not with the flail (since it's a one-handed weapon), but with the sickle. The sickle in PF is almost identical to the spiked chain in practice, but it has one thing that the spiked chain beats: the damage dice is higher. In this case, the effect of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat grants a weapon that gives a damage dice higher than a simple light weapon. With that cleared, has the spiked chain been nerfed? I still stand by my answer: vertically nerfed (as Seerow claims), but horizontally buffed (as Reverent-One claims).

olentu

2012-02-09, 12:26 AM

Hmm if I recall correctly every weapon in pathfinder adds its enhancement bonus to trip checks.

Coidzor

2012-02-09, 12:28 AM

While if you're right about the dexterity aspect, there may be something to that argument, but the idea of a horizontal buff is a very peculiar notion. Unfortunately I cannot think of a better term offhand myself, aside from just noting that available real options are expanded.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 12:31 AM

The claim of horizontal buffing I still find dubious at best. If you're wanting to focus on tripping, you care a lot more about reach than about a bonus to your enhancement mod. If we're comparing to the 3.5 spiked chain (and you do specify in 3.5 spiked chain is best suited for a strength based character), then compare to a Pathfinder reach weapon:

The Guisarme. It's a martial weapon, has the same damage dice, has a x3 crit, and both reach and tripping as abilities.

Unfortunately, the spiked chain now lacks reach. This puts a huge damper on the effectiveness of tripping. And since we determined that the spiked chain is the option for a finessible tripping weapon, we can say that finessible trippers are just SOL. The finessible tripper may have more AoOs due to being dex based, but unfortunately doesn't have enough of them provoked due to the smaller reach area.

So strength based tripping in PF remains the only real option, and the spiked chain remains useless. The spiked chain may have remained useful as a reach weapon (even without inclusive reach) as an exotic. It may also have remained useful as is as a martial weapon. Unfortunately as it is, their apparent 'attempt' (I use this word lightly, because I don't see much of an attempt, and see more after the fact justification of a kneejerk overnerf) to provide a new option has failed.

As an aside: Reach as a property is actually a horizontal power boost. It increases options and range, but not numbers specifically. The updated tripping/disarming properties are vertical power boosts, because they make numbers bigger.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 12:40 AM

Seerow

2012-02-09, 12:46 AM

Really? Tripping without reach is useless? That's just total BS. You can't trip as many things, but the things you trip are still as tripped as they would be if you had reach. As T.G. points out, it's a heck of a lot better for Dex based trippers in PF.

The only way dex based tripping is really better than strength based tripping is if you can take advantage of the increased number of AoOs you have available each round. While the new tripping is more AoO intensive, not having reach means you are going to get many fewer attempts to get AoOs, so it balances out to a wash at best.

The only other thing dex based trippers really have going for them is a iffy interpretation that might maybe let you have both your strength and dexterity on CMB with weapon finesse. Given that when someone asked earlier, nobody managed to cite where you even get dex to replace str in CMB, much less add in addition to it, this seems like a pretty questionable interpretation.

The strength based tripper saves a feat and gets reach. The dex based tripper gets more AoOs per round, but significantly less opportunity to use them.

If you don't actually believe reach contributes to how often you get to take AoOs, I'd ask you to try playing a real game where your character has AoOs as a primary mechanic, and see how you do with only a 5ft reach.

olentu

2012-02-09, 12:47 AM

Really? Tripping without reach is useless? That's just total BS. You can't trip as many things, but the things you trip are still as tripped as they would be if you had reach. As T.G. points out, it's a heck of a lot better for Dex based trippers in PF.

Ah but the question is not if it is better but if it is worth the feat. The distinction is important because the dex for tripping applies to every finesseable weapon and the enhancement to tripping applies to every weapon.

So while it may have been buffed in certain aspects so were many of its competitors.

sonofzeal

2012-02-09, 12:55 AM

Wait, did you just say the benefit of being able to disarm with the chain is marginal because of feat investment, and then list TWF-use as a benefit for the sickle? :smallconfused:

That aside, while you are correct about a couple of minor errors, it doesn't counter my argument that the feat does actually provide a a benefit, it's just debating about the cost. This is very different than the idea that it is "paying a feat to make your character worse" as you suggested it was.
No. What I said was, for a dex-based character, the Spiked Chain was roughly on par with the Sickle.

Compare Longsword -> Greatsword. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

Now look at Sickle -> Spiked Chain. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

The Spiked Chain is right on par as the twohanded equivalent of a simple weapon.

Helldog

2012-02-09, 12:57 AM

Simple weapons are overpowered.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 12:59 AM

The only way dex based tripping is really better than strength based tripping is if you can take advantage of the increased number of AoOs you have available each round. While the new tripping is more AoO intensive, not having reach means you are going to get many fewer attempts to get AoOs, so it balances out to a wash at best.

The only other thing dex based trippers really have going for them is a iffy interpretation that might maybe let you have both your strength and dexterity on CMB with weapon finesse. Given that when someone asked earlier, nobody managed to cite where you even get dex to replace str in CMB, much less add in addition to it, this seems like a pretty questionable interpretation.

The strength based tripper saves a feat and gets reach. The dex based tripper gets more AoOs per round, but significantly less opportunity to use them.

If you don't actually believe reach contributes to how often you get to take AoOs, I'd ask you to try playing a real game where your character has AoOs as a primary mechanic, and see how you do with only a 5ft reach.

Whether or not strength is superior in tripping has nothing to do with whether dex based tripping is useless. Those are two entirely different statements. And yes, you can use Dex instead of strength for your CMB with WF as long as you're using a weapon to make the CM. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ojt)

No. What I said was, for a dex-based character, the Spiked Chain was roughly on par with the Sickle.

Compare Longsword -> Greatsword. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

Now look at Sickle -> Spiked Chain. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

The Spiked Chain is right on par as the twohanded equivalent of a simple weapon.

So like most exotic weapons, it's another version of an existing weapon with greater damage. And in this case the disarm quality. Again, what I've been saying.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 01:00 AM

No. What I said was, for a dex-based character, the Spiked Chain was roughly on par with the Sickle.

Compare Longsword -> Greatsword. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

Now look at Sickle -> Spiked Chain. Damage goes up roughly two steps, but it takes both hands instead of one. Everything else is basically the same.

The Spiked Chain is right on par as the twohanded equivalent of a simple weapon.

Simple Weapons get finessible for free, it's their benefit for being weaker in other areas than one-handed weapons.

So with it being a finessible two hander, jumping it up to martial would have been appropriate.

I have still yet to see any sort of mechanical reasoning for it being exotic, except that they feel making a dex based two handed tripping weapon was niche enough that you should have to waste a feat on it.

edit:

Whether or not strength is superior in tripping has nothing to do with whether dex based tripping is useless. Those are two entirely different statements. And yes, you can use Dex instead of strength for your CMB with WF as long as you're using a weapon to make the CM. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ojt)

Sorry, Q&A does not count as RAW. Never has for any 3.5 discussion, and it doesn't suddenly start for PF. Cite an actual rule.

And even by that ruling, you don't get to add both, as T.G. Oskar implied may be possible, which would have been an actual advantage in favor of dex based tripping (since you could take the stats from a str based tripper, swap the str and dex, and have a stronger CMB, as opposed to just the same CMB).

And actually, yes. If strength based tripping is better, and can be done with two fewer feats (no weapon finesse, no exotic weapon proficiency), then dex based tripping is useless. Just like two weapon fighting is useless, except worse since two weapon fighting actually has edge cases where it could be considered better, or at least worthwhile to pursue. Dex based tripping is nothing more than a novelty until it has some meaningful advantage over str based tripping for the feats you must invest to use it.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-09, 01:15 AM

So like most exotic weapons, it's another version of an existing weapon with greater damage. And in this case the disarm quality. Again, what I've been saying.

Except he's saying it should be a simple weapon. Just like a greatsword is s martial wespon.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 01:18 AM

Except he's saying it should be a simple weapon. Just like a greatsword is s martial wespon.

Maybe Reverent One's argument is the Great Sword should be an exotic weapon, since it is just like the long sword but with a bigger damage die?

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 01:19 AM

Sorry, Q&A does not count as RAW. Never has for any 3.5 discussion, and it doesn't suddenly start for PF. Cite an actual rule.

Weapon finesse lets you use Dex instead of strength on attack rolls, combat maneuvers are attack rolls, thus, Dex can be used. The FAQ merely makes it extremely clear.

And actually, yes. If strength based tripping is better, and can be done with two fewer feats (no weapon finesse, no exotic weapon proficiency), then dex based tripping is useless.

No. Just no. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the definition of the word useless. It does mean merely not the most optimal choice. If it did, every not-tier one class would be useless, in which case we'd have to wonder why are we discussing tactics that are primarily used by the useless classes.

EDIT:

Maybe Reverent One's argument is the Great Sword should be an exotic weapon, since it is just like the long sword but with a bigger damage die?

Ha ha. No.

Helldog

2012-02-09, 01:22 AM

Simple Weapons get finessible for free
What? That's not true. :smallconfused:

olentu

2012-02-09, 01:24 AM

What? That's not true. :smallconfused:

I think he meant light.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 01:33 AM

I think he meant light.

Yes that is what I meant.

No. Just no. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the definition of the word useless. It does mean merely not the most optimal choice. If it did, every not-tier one class would be useless, in which case we'd have to wonder why are we discussing tactics that are primarily used by the useless classes.

You have a point that useless may be too strong a word. But it is very much a trap option. You spend two feats for a fighting style that is inferior in almost every way to the fighting style that is free. Even if it broke even 100% it would be a tough call. But as it is, it's just terrible.

Weapon finesse lets you use Dex instead of strength on attack rolls, combat maneuvers are attack rolls, thus, Dex can be used. The FAQ merely makes it extremely clear.

Combat Maneuver Bonus

Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Special Size Modifier

Creatures that are size Tiny or smaller use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier to determine their CMB. The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus is as follows:

Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8.

Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.

So I see a specific rule allowing tiny creatures to use dexterity. I also see that there's a separate feat (Agile Maneuvers) that DOES let you replace strength with dex. So I guess we're now up to 3 feats required for the dex based tripper....

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 01:40 AM

You have a point that useless may be too strong a word. But it is very much a trap option. You spend two feats for a fighting style that is inferior in almost every way to the fighting style that is free. Even if it broke even 100% it would be a tough call. But as it is, it's just terrible.

No, it's a viable tactic for dex based characters.

So I see a specific rule allowing tiny creatures to use dexterity. I also see that there's a separate feat (Agile Maneuvers) that DOES let you replace strength with dex. So I guess we're now up to 3 feats required for the dex based tripper....

No, Agile Maneuvers is only required for combat maneuvers that you can't use a weapon with. Weapon Finesse handles the CMs that use a weapon since they're making an attack roll and WF lets you replace Str with Dex on attack rolls.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

Mystify

2012-02-09, 01:53 AM

mikau013

2012-02-09, 02:40 AM

RedWarlock

2012-02-09, 02:41 AM

Ok, you agree that dex based trippers have an advantage in AoOs per round, which is important. The chain tripper loses reach, which would seem to counteract the effectiveness of that.
However, there is also combat patrol. If you want to lock down the area with trips, that is useful. Sure, reach would still help, but its not as nessecary.
And since tripping consumes for AoOs, the advantage of dex tripping over str tripping is a little more pronounced.

I'm saying out front, I haven't done a lot with PF. But this sounds like it's an important point of distinction between a Str-based character and a Dex based character. The options don't need to be equal, because they're not about 'if Str & Dex were identical, which option would you choose', it's about a Dex based character being able to drop some resources to become capable at something Str-based characters have a general lead on.

The distinction here that I see is that Dex-based characters have a lot of other options besides being a tripper (like being a tumble-skirmisher or a ranged attacker), whereas Str-based characters are a bit more locked in, with respect to the options they able to build for that isn't just flat-out hulk-smash. So the ability for a high-dex character to take away one of a str-based character's stronger niches, with ease, isn't something I'd want to see.

Unless it has changed that dramatically between 3.5 and PF, dex is still highly valuable in most characters regardless of build or class, moreso than strength is. (Certainly a lot more than Charisma, which unless built for specifically is damn-near useless. :smallfurious: Sorry, sore point for me.)

Frosty

2012-02-09, 03:38 AM

If I ever want to do battlefield control and do stuff like Trip, I'll be an archery fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/archer), thank you very much with the Snap Shot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/snap-shot-combat) and Improved Snap Shot to be able to control an area of 15ft around me.

sonofzeal

2012-02-09, 05:09 AM

So like most exotic weapons, it's another version of an existing weapon with greater damage. And in this case the disarm quality. Again, what I've been saying.
No.

Exotic upgrades with greater damage use the same number of hands. Longbows->Greatbows, Longswords -> Bastard Swords (with the proficiency), Scimitar -> Rhoka, Battleaxe -> Waraxe....

When a weapon gains damage while changing handedness, that's just normal. Longsword -> Greatsword, Scimitar -> Falchion, Flail -> Heavy Flail.....

Ha ha. No.
So pray tell us what the difference is.

sonofzeal

2012-02-09, 05:53 AM

Just out of curiosity, I went through the PFSRD's list of weapons...

Non-Exotic Weapons
Combat Scabbard, sharpened

Combat Scabbard (presumably unsharpened)

Syringe Spear - because we all know how common these were historically.

Chakram - yes, Xena's signature weapon. Yes, it's martial. Don't ask me.

Hunga Munga - three-bladed dagger. The description doesn't do it justice, so here's a picture (http://extra.listverse.com/amazon/ancientweapons/hungamunga.jpg). Remember, this is the non-exotic list.

Stingchuck - "A stingchuck is a foul bag made of a humanoid’s head with the brain removed and the skull heavily scored so that it bursts open when thrown."

Blade Boot - exactly what it sounds like.

Starknife - "From a central metal ring, four tapering metal blades extend like points on a compass rose." Again, here's a picture (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LfCfl6PL6Gg/S-4HO2IwgJI/AAAAAAAAAhA/BfXWxj1DfD4/s1600/starknife.jpg). And again, this is supposed to be non-exotic.

Exotic Weapons
Sawtooth Sabre - exactly like a sabre, except serrated.

Swordbreaker Dagger - better known as a parrying dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger)

Butterfly Knife - one of these (http://www.filipvanbouwel.be/images/Butterfly%20Knife/butterfly_knife.jpg). Note that it functions almost exactly like a Switchblade Knife (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/knife-switchblade), which is martial, except the martial one can be thrown and the exotic one can't. Same damage, same crits, but the exotic one is costing you a feat to remove the option of throwing it. Oh, and you need Sleight of Hand to disguise the Butterfly Knife, while the Switchblade comes pre-disguised for free.

Shotel - basically a sickle (http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photos/items/32/003032/ph-0.jpg) as described by D&D, but sword-length.

Falcata - basically a machete (http://jodysamson.com/images/swords/10-6-05/falcata.jpg).

(edit) Just to repeat, this was about Spiked Chains and whether they make sense as exotic weapons given the PF nerfs. I'm not sure what conclusions we could draw though, except that PF has absolutely no internal consistency in categorizing its weapons, and that Spiked Chains would be in no way the strangest martial weapon in the game. They might not even be in the top five, assuming the artist doesn't try to draw them as a double weapon (which they aren't, and never were).

T.G. Oskar

2012-02-09, 06:47 AM

Hmm if I recall correctly every weapon in pathfinder adds its enhancement bonus to trip checks.

From what I see on the SRD, only weapons with the [Trip] option add their enhancement bonus to trip checks. It's pretty clear, at least from an FAQ ruling, which if RAW as mentioned before, makes only [Trip] weapons capable of granting their bonus to the check. What you CAN do is trip with any weapon, but with no benefit.

While if you're right about the dexterity aspect, there may be something to that argument, but the idea of a horizontal buff is a very peculiar notion. Unfortunately I cannot think of a better term offhand myself, aside from just noting that available real options are expanded.

"Horizontal" buff is a term to refer to broadening of options rather than an increase in power. It's best to see a change from two axis: power, and options.

If the ability was mostly a trap option and it was changed to be effective, then it's a vertical buff, as it increases in power. The inverse would be a vertical nerf, as it decreases the power (or the effectiveness) of the ability.

However, how do you measure the options? If the ability only applied to a specific build, and all of a sudden the ability allows other builds to apply, then it's best considered a horizontal buff, as it widens the breadth of options. The inverse would be a horizontal nerf, where the breadth of options slims.

If using a bare-bones "nerf/buff" conception, a horizontal nerf would be as any bit a nerf as a vertical nerf, because its effectiveness would be hindered. However, this allows to see exactly HOW it is hindered (or improved upon), and since the effect applies to an entirely different conception of things (the ability might just be as effective as before, but now more people have access to it), people might not see it as a proper "buff" unless it applies to a specific group of people, making it a specific conception other than a general conception. In that case, Combat Maneuvers as presented in Pathfinder should be seen on the horizontal (breadth of options) axis much as on the vertical (degree of effectiveness) axis.

The claim of horizontal buffing I still find dubious at best. If you're wanting to focus on tripping, you care a lot more about reach than about a bonus to your enhancement mod. If we're comparing to the 3.5 spiked chain (and you do specify in 3.5 spiked chain is best suited for a strength based character), then compare to a Pathfinder reach weapon:

The Guisarme. It's a martial weapon, has the same damage dice, has a x3 crit, and both reach and tripping as abilities.

Unfortunately, the spiked chain now lacks reach. This puts a huge damper on the effectiveness of tripping. And since we determined that the spiked chain is the option for a finessible tripping weapon, we can say that finessible trippers are just SOL. The finessible tripper may have more AoOs due to being dex based, but unfortunately doesn't have enough of them provoked due to the smaller reach area.

So strength based tripping in PF remains the only real option, and the spiked chain remains useless. The spiked chain may have remained useful as a reach weapon (even without inclusive reach) as an exotic. It may also have remained useful as is as a martial weapon. Unfortunately as it is, their apparent 'attempt' (I use this word lightly, because I don't see much of an attempt, and see more after the fact justification of a kneejerk overnerf) to provide a new option has failed.

Oh, I don't disagree with you on those terms. Even on 3.5, guisarme is extremely effective as a reach weapon because it provides reach and only requires Martial Weapon Proficiency, which most fighting classes have. The difference between both in 3.5 imply their effectiveness within the radius of 5 to 9.99999... ft., as you couldn't threaten that area (unless you used armor spikes, which don't allow for tripping but allow for AoO if they attempt to move within your threatened area).

Part of what makes trip-locking effective is what enables the trip attempts. The best way to handle trip-locking is if you keep the enemy limited to 5 ft. movements, so that they either lose their turn or are forced to fight you, in which case you move back and trip. AoO tripping is doubly effective because it enables you to stop an enemy's movement through your threatened area both explicitly and implicitly, enables a melee attack (through Imp. Trip), AND enables you to keep an enemy in the ground outside your turn (thus enabling action economy). This is the advantage of reach, since it increases your threatened area, and thus your direct effectiveness. I assume we can agree on that.

Now, in an attempt to be as neutral as possible, I mention the enabling of Dex-focused trip builds as a horizontal buff as a possible answer. I do agree that it's a vertical nerf, as what makes trip-locking so effective is reach, because otherwise they could enter your area, forcing you to make the trip attempts with your own attacks and reducing your area of effectiveness. However, you can't deny that it allows for other options to be enabled, even if they are less effective; that is much a horizontal buff as the CMB, even if the net effect is a nerf (because Dex-focused builds need another justification in order to be reliable builds other than "style" or "taste").

Really? Tripping without reach is useless? That's just total BS. You can't trip as many things, but the things you trip are still as tripped as they would be if you had reach. As T.G. points out, it's a heck of a lot better for Dex based trippers in PF.

I have to agree with Seerow and sonofzeal in that it's less cost-effective to make a Dex-focused build than a Str-focused build, because you're still somewhat limited in terms of feat options, as you require two feats to do what a regular Str-focused character does in one. On the terms of reach, while not useless, it's less effective to not use a reach weapon because it disables in most cases the use of tripping via AoO, which is part of what makes a trip-locking build effective. It's semantics, mostly, because you could STILL make trip attempts with your own attacks, but it's most effective when you can use your Attacks of Opportunity to use your trips rather than your normal attacks, as you could use your normal attacks to pummel the enemy with better accuracy. In PF that is less important than in 3.5 (the damage buffs are more streamlined, for lack of a better word, as PA works differently and that was the biggest buff), but nonetheless a more accurate attack is a more dangerous attack.

Had the spiked chain retain reach, it would have been extremely good for both options. Since I have little time to post, I'd like you to consider why khopeshes are so wonderful in DDO (a MMO game that uses 3.5 mechanics) and why other weapons aren't worth of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat in order to make clear why the removal of reach on the spiked chain seems more of a nerf than a buff, even if it has a horizontal buff. Had it retained reach, it would have been excellent for Dex-based trip builds.

The distinction here that I see is that Dex-based characters have a lot of other options besides being a tripper (like being a tumble-skirmisher or a ranged attacker), whereas Str-based characters are a bit more locked in, with respect to the options they able to build for that isn't just flat-out hulk-smash. So the ability for a high-dex character to take away one of a str-based character's stronger niches, with ease, isn't something I'd want to see.

I'd have to consider the way that works, since that way lies whether a Dex-focused trip build remains effective or if it doesn't. It lies pretty close to horizontal building (broadening options), but the point is if it retains good verticality (if all those options are equally effective or if the broadening of options comes at an expense of build effectiveness).

sonofzeal

2012-02-09, 07:20 AM

{bunch of excellent analysis}
While I agree with most of what you said, I don't see how you can justify it as a horizontal buff. A dex-based character who wanted to trip in 3.5 (presumably through use of size increases and Brains Over Brawn) would already find Spiked Chains their best option. The PF changeover might have made them better at tripping in general, but it made the Spiked Chain specifically worse.

Indeed, I'd consider the loss of reach a horizontal nerf, in the context of trip weapons specifically. The reason Trip+Reach is so popular in 3.5 is because it allows you to not only respond to enemies engaging you in melee, but also prevent enemies from moving around you to engage your allies. The loss of reach is not getting you lower numbers, it's reducing your options vis a vis actually protecting your allies. To be a vertical nerf, it'd have to also become worse at tripping, which isn't what happened.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the vertical/horizontal axis, that translates to vertically neutral and a horizontal nerf.

mikau013

2012-02-09, 07:37 AM

Keep in mind aswell that as you gain levels, many enemies gain arbitrary imunnities to trip in pathfinder, all flying enemies are now immune and enemies become bigger.

Since you can only trip enemies up to one size larger than you, you need size increases to keep tripping larger enemies. Size increases generally increases strength and decrease dex. Thus a dex based tripper doesn't scale as well.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 09:53 AM

No.

Exotic upgrades with greater damage use the same number of hands. Longbows->Greatbows, Longswords -> Bastard Swords (with the proficiency), Scimitar -> Rhoka, Battleaxe -> Waraxe....

When a weapon gains damage while changing handedness, that's just normal. Longsword -> Greatsword, Scimitar -> Falchion, Flail -> Heavy Flail.....

So pray tell us what the difference is.

I'm not the designers, but their reasoning seems rather clear from this quote:

I believe their stated reason at the time was obscurity as evidenced by this quote.

"Exotic does not mean better. Yes you have to pay a feat to use it in most circumstances, but that is just not exactly how these are designed. Some do offer some nice benefits, but that is by no means the rules. Exotic means rare and unusual first. That means that some of them are not the "best" in-game mechanical decision your character can make."

It's not hard to call it a rare and unusual weapon. Plus there's the fact it was a exotic in 3.5.

I have to agree with Seerow and sonofzeal in that it's less cost-effective to make a Dex-focused build than a Str-focused build, because you're still somewhat limited in terms of feat options, as you require two feats to do what a regular Str-focused character does in one.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing that it's less cost-effective, just with the extent to which Seerow dismissed it because it's not the most cost effective method.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 10:43 AM

I'm not the designers, but their reasoning seems rather clear from this quote:

It's not hard to call it a rare and unusual weapon. Plus there's the fact it was a exotic in 3.5.

See: Sonofzeal's last post. The one where he lists some martial weapons and exotic weapons. That quote is one designer trying to make up some BS to justify bad design, and people like you lap it up, but when you actually look at the weapons the argument doesn't fly. You have some really crazy stuff showing up as martial weapons, and things that are downright mundane and should be easy to use as exotics. Because of this inconsistency that actually exists within the rules, trying to argue that the spiked chain deserves to be exotic because it's strange doesn't quite work.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing that it's less cost-effective, just with the extent to which Seerow dismissed it because it's not the most cost effective method.

Tripping is already a pretty limited method that is relatively inefficient. Remember, in addition to all this argument about the spiked chain, you're required to pick up 4 feats just to be semi-decent at tripping. Now to be a dex based tripper, we're throwing another 2-3 feats on top of that, not even counting other feats you probably want (like power attack), or anything else you may want to do (For example combat patrol which someone else mentioned throws on another 2 feats).

In a build that's already running pretty low on feats, and you're throwing more feats on top, not to make it actually better, but to make it close to the same. This is a textbook case of terrible design. Once again I don't really get why this argument has lasted so long, you've always struck me as a reasonable poster before this.

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 10:50 AM

Why is this even a discussion? I mean yes, the maneuver feats most certainly were nerfed in PF, and the only one that matters is trip because the others weren't worth using anyways. It's worth pointing that out for sure.

But this isn't about the maneuvers being nerfed, it's about trying to use them anyways. The result of using a maneuver in PF is that you waste actions and do not perform that maneuver. So why devote several pages to that which is entirely worthless in game? Especially if you're going to try and melee with a Dex gimp of all things. You might as well spend your actions divesting yourself of your own treasure and handing it to the enemies to save them the trouble of looting it from you.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 11:10 AM

See: Sonofzeal's last post. The one where he lists some martial weapons and exotic weapons. That quote is one designer trying to make up some BS to justify bad design, and people like you lap it up, but when you actually look at the weapons the argument doesn't fly. You have some really crazy stuff showing up as martial weapons, and things that are downright mundane and should be easy to use as exotics. Because of this inconsistency that actually exists within the rules, trying to argue that the spiked chain deserves to be exotic because it's strange doesn't quite work.

Which just means that they simply made mistakes with some of the weapons (with most of the them coming from the same source, the Aventurers Armory), not that they didn't have that as a design goal.

Tripping is already a pretty limited method that is relatively inefficient. Remember, in addition to all this argument about the spiked chain, you're required to pick up 4 feats just to be semi-decent at tripping. Now to be a dex based tripper, we're throwing another 2-3 feats on top of that, not even counting other feats you probably want (like power attack), or anything else you may want to do (For example combat patrol which someone else mentioned throws on another 2 feats).

In a build that's already running pretty low on feats, and you're throwing more feats on top, not to make it actually better, but to make it close to the same. This is a textbook case of terrible design. Once again I don't really get why this argument has lasted so long, you've always struck me as a reasonable poster before this.

Because we're not agreeing/new people enter this argument, and I have bad case of this (http://xkcd.com/386/). It doesn't help that the arugment has now changed from "EWP(Spiked chain) provides no mechanical benefit/makes you worse" to " Dex Tripping sucks".

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 11:14 AM

Because we're not agreeing/new people enter this argument, and I have bad case of this (http://xkcd.com/386/). It doesn't help that the arugment has now changed from "EWP(Spiked chain) provides no mechanical benefit/makes you worse" to " Dex Tripping sucks".

Well, at least there's one thing we can agree about. Dex builds have always been gimp though and PF does absolutely nothing to change that. They also make maneuvers a waste of time and actions, so why devote this much time to wasting a turn?

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 11:17 AM

Well, at least there's one thing we can agree about. Dex builds have always been gimp though and PF does absolutely nothing to change that. They also make maneuvers a waste of time and actions, so why devote this much time to wasting a turn?

Stange, I've used and seen maneuvers used successfully pretty regularly.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 11:24 AM

Which just means that they simply made mistakes with some of the weapons (with most of the them coming from the same source, the Aventurers Armory), not that they didn't have that as a design goal.

Well either it was a design goal, and thus they failed to implement the design goal successfully and suck as designers. Or it wasn't a design goal, and they failed to balance their weapons appropriately and suck as designers.

I see no outcome where Pathfinder gets credit for having a different but still acceptable design philosophy.

Because we're not agreeing/new people enter this argument, and I have bad case of this (http://xkcd.com/386/). It doesn't help that the arugment has now changed from "EWP(Spiked chain) provides no mechanical benefit/makes you worse" to " Dex Tripping sucks".

That change happened because you took the argument from "Spiked Chain sucks because it's worse than a martial weapon" and made the argument that it makes dex based tripping viable in a way that martial weapons don't. So yes, of course the natural progression from the argument you made would be to argue against your point. It doesn't make my original point any less true, it just makes your counter point wrong as well.

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 11:38 AM

Stange, I've used and seen maneuvers used successfully pretty regularly.

{Scrubbed}

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 11:39 AM

Well either it was a design goal, and thus they failed to implement the design goal successfully and suck as designers. Or it wasn't a design goal, and they failed to balance their weapons appropriately and suck as designers.

I see no outcome where Pathfinder gets credit for having a different but still acceptable design philosophy.

So perfection is required to not suck as designers, I guess all game designers suck then.

That change happened because you took the argument from "Spiked Chain sucks because it's worse than a martial weapon" and made the argument that it makes dex based tripping viable in a way that martial weapons don't. So yes, of course the natural progression from the argument you made would be to argue against your point. It doesn't make my original point any less true, it just makes your counter point wrong as well.

Pointing out the benefits the spiked chain provides was basically required for my argument, but you started the "Dex tripping is useless/sucks" argument (In response to T.G.'s post, not any of mine even). Since dex based tripping isn't limited to the spiked chain, it's actually not neccessary to start going on about dex tripping as a whole.

{Scrubbed}

No, I mean like people make combat maneuver checks, succeed, and proceed to mess up the enemy by tripping, grappling, ect them.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 11:44 AM

So perfection is required to not suck as designers, I guess all game designers suck then.

Who asked for perfection? I ask only for very basic levels of consistency. They can't provide even that.

There are plenty of things I can look at and say "I disagree with that but it's fine" or "Wow that's terrible, but I can at least see what they're trying to do with it"

Weapon categories in Pathfinder are not one of those things. No matter which angle you try to come at it from, there are inconsistencies that just don't make sense. This is indicative of a failed design on what should be a very simple concept.

Pointing out the benefits the spiked chain provides was basically required for my argument, but you started the "Dex tripping is useless/sucks" argument. Since dex based tripping isn't limited to the spiked chain, it's actually not neccessary to start going on about dex tripping as a whole.

But here's the thing: If the only beneift you can come up with for the spiked chain is dex based tripping, and it's shown that even with the spiked chain dex based tripping is demonstrably weaker than strength based tripping, what did the spiked chain actually accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Once again, the spiked chain could have been a martial weapon, and dex based tripping STILL would have been worse, due to lacking reach, having lower damage, and having to blow a feat on weapon finesse. The feat requirement on exotic weapon proficiency is icing on the cake making it absolutely terrible.

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 11:46 AM

So all of the above but mainly B, as they are mathematically incapable of actually doing that, thereby making it impossible for them to do anything than waste their turn and yet you claim they are not wasting their turn.

Edit: There is a reason why I houserule all finessible weapons use Dex for to hit and damage automatically. Of course they'd still suck in PF so it's a moot point but in 3.5 it makes them usable (and still inferior).

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 11:52 AM

Who asked for perfection? I ask only for very basic levels of consistency. They can't provide even that.

There are plenty of things I can look at and say "I disagree with that but it's fine" or "Wow that's terrible, but I can at least see what they're trying to do with it"

Weapon categories in Pathfinder are not one of those things. No matter which angle you try to come at it from, there are inconsistencies that just don't make sense. This is indicative of a failed design on what should be a very simple concept.

And they are consistent with most of the weapons (of which there are dozens), there are simply a few that fell through the cracks.

But here's the thing: If the only beneift you can come up with for the spiked chain is dex based tripping, and it's shown that even with the spiked chain dex based tripping is demonstrably weaker than strength based tripping, what did the spiked chain actually accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

No, all spiked chain dex based tripping being demonstrably weaker than strength based tripping shows is that a character with similar stength and dex should use stength for tripping. For a character that's already dex based and wants to do tripping, the spiked chain provides A)increased damage, and b)disarm capabilties. In other words, more than nothing.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 12:04 PM

And they are consistent with most of the weapons (of which there are dozens), there are simply a few that fell through the cracks.

There was about a half dozen examples on both sides of the exotic proficiency line. That's more than just a couple falling through the cracks. There may be just as many or even a few more that do follow the stated design goal, but it doesn't change that the design is clearly not consistent with the stated goals.

No, all spiked chain dex based tripping being demonstrably weaker than strength based tripping shows is that a character with similar stength and dex should use stength for tripping. For a character that's already dex based and wants to do tripping, the spiked chain provides A)increased damage, and b)disarm capabilties. In other words, more than nothing.

Okay, now tell me how many dex based characters have roughly 7-8 feats to throw casually into tripping, because they don't need anything else. I'll admit I've been just assuming you're working with a generic fighter because of the number of feats involved, and that means that you don't really have any incentive to be dex based unless the dex based build has something objectively better to offer.

If you're imagining something like a rogue going and picking up tripping, I find this even harder to swallow as believable. These characters simply don't have the feats to waste on stuff like this. You do realize Pathfinder only gives like 3 more feats than 3.5 right?

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 12:26 PM

There was about a half dozen examples on both sides of the exotic proficiency line. That's more than just a couple falling through the cracks. There may be just as many or even a few more that do follow the stated design goal, but it doesn't change that the design is clearly not consistent with the stated goals.

That's only if you automatically assume SonofZeal is right about everyone he lists, and I wouldn't as he includes using scabbards as improvised weapons, a spear that would be used exactly the same as a normal spear, and a knife you use by kicking people as things that strangely don't require exotic weapon expertise. The ones I actually agree with are Chakram, Hunga Munga, and Starknife for non-exotic weapons and Butterfly Knife, Bastard Sword, and maybe the Swordbreaker Dagger for exotics. A fraction of the total number of weapons.

Okay, now tell me how many dex based characters have roughly 7-8 feats to throw casually into tripping, because they don't need anything else. I'll admit I've been just assuming you're working with a generic fighter because of the number of feats involved, and that means that you don't really have any incentive to be dex based unless the dex based build has something objectively better to offer.

Any fighter can have the important feats by level 3/4 (at least the ones that he's allowed to have by that level). If a monk is deciding to take Imp Trip for his level 6 bonus feat, he can have the other feats he'll need at a similar point.

Greenish

2012-02-09, 12:28 PM

A bit late to the party, but here we go.

(Honestly, I'd prefer it if they'd nerfed spiked chains and made all reach weapons capable of working in melee.)If they'd made all reach weapons capable of working in close, they wouldn't have had to nerf spiked chain, since it would've already been worse than a martial weapon.

Anyway, my point wasn't about whether spiked chain is silly or not, it's about having exotic weapons that're actually worth spending a feat for. I listed some from 3.5, but what about PF?

I don't see how you can justify saying they nerfed the feat EWP. They nerfed an exotic weapon. They have other exotic weapons that are pretty nice that weren't part of 3.5. The falcata and the Aldori dueling sword, for instance.Hmm, it seems there's an error in PF SRD, because according to it, those two weapons are identical to longsword (except that the dueling sword can be finessed if you burn a feat). Now, how is a longsword worth a feat? A finessable longsword, even? You'd be better off with an actual longsword, or a rapier, as the case may be.

In 3.5, you have spiked chain (reach&close, trip, disarm), kusari-gama (as former, light), eagle's claw (extra attacks), gnome quickrazor (draw/sheathe as free action), sharktooth staff (grapple with weapon, deal weapon damage grappling), pincer staff (as former, plus reach), scorpion claws (bonus to grapple), spinning sword (reach, finesse, one-hander, 19-20 threat, one-handed), flindbar (free disarm on crit threat), kaorti resin weapons (x4 crit multiplier on the base weapon)…

Best PF exotics I've yet to see are just "like martial weapon, but better damage", and many seem to be "like martial weapon, but worse". Of course, feel free to prove me wrong, my knowledge of PF weapons is far from complete.

Helldog

2012-02-09, 12:41 PM

No one is forcing anyone to take EWP just because. You take it when it's beneficial to you. For example:

Now, how is a longsword worth a feat? A finessable longsword, even? You'd be better off with an actual longsword, or a rapier, as the case may be.
Yes, you're better of with an actual longsword. If your Str is higher or equal to your Dex. If you don't have Str, but Dex instead, you might be better of with the dueling sword, especially if you have some Str to benefit from two-handing.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 12:50 PM

Hmm, it seems there's an error in PF SRD, because according to it, those two weapons are identical to longsword (except that the dueling sword can be finessed if you burn a feat).

FYI, the Falcata is a 19-20/x3 crit weapon, as opposed to the longsword's 19-20/x2 crit.

Greenish

2012-02-09, 12:52 PM

No one is forcing anyone to take EWP just because. You take it when it's beneficial to you.But if it never is?

If you don't have Str, but Dex instead, you might be better of with the dueling sword, especially if you have some Str to benefit from two-handing.Mmn. There are actual finessable two-handers in PF, like spiked chain and whatever they ended up calling elven courtblade. Those're exotic, too, so yeah, if you want a two-handed finessable weapon, you'll have to go exotic, because finesse needs more feat tax, right?

[Edit]:
FYI, the Falcata is a 19-20/x3 crit weapon, as opposed to the longsword's 19-20/x2 crit.Ah, so it is. Might be almost worth it for a crit-fisher, then.

Seerow

2012-02-09, 12:55 PM

But if it never is?

Mmn. There are actual finessable two-handers in PF, like spiked chain and whatever they ended up calling elven courtblade. Those're exotic, too, so yeah, if you want a two-handed finessable weapon, you'll have to go exotic, because finesse needs more feat tax, right?

It's just a different design philosophy! I don't see where you get this crazy idea that just because a style is already penalized for existing, it shouldn't be penalized more :smallsigh:

Helldog

2012-02-09, 01:02 PM

if you want a two-handed finessable weapon, you'll have to go exotic, because finesse needs more feat tax, right?
Sure. Better a feat tax than no such option at all.

Greenish

2012-02-09, 01:06 PM

Actually, browsing through PF SRD, there seem to be some weapons worth the feat.

Battle Poi (AA) makes your melee damage fire damage, and gives TWF (without Dex requirements) as a bonus. Pretty neat for lower levels (before you'd want rest of the TWF chain or run into resistance/immunity too often), for piercing DR, and such.

Fauchard (CHR) gets solid package of d10 18-20/x2 damage stats combined with reach and tripping. If you had a spare feat, you'd swap your guisarme for that.

Helldog

2012-02-09, 01:10 PM

Or if you had free exotic proficiencies, like Ninja Spy for example.

BTW. Why not just make it so MWP feat gives all martial weapons and EWP gives all exotic weapons? To not make it too good of an option (although it's not that good), you just give MWP the feat SWP as a requirement, aand EWP has SWP and MWP as requirement (or the appropriate class proficiencies).

Greenish

2012-02-09, 01:16 PM

Or if you had free exotic proficiencies, like Ninja Spy for example.Is there a PF Ninja Spy? The OA one has a specific list from which you have to pick.

BTW. Why not just make it so MWP feat gives all martial weapons and EWP gives all exotic weapons?That might be interesting, even though you'd probably end up using only a few.

Helldog

2012-02-09, 01:21 PM

Is there a PF Ninja Spy? The OA one has a specific list from which you have to pick.
Was just an example.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 01:34 PM

It's just a different design philosophy! I don't see where you get this crazy idea that just because a style is already penalized for existing, it shouldn't be penalized more :smallsigh:

So is allowing a non-standard option only if they pay some cost always penalizing something for existing? 4e let you spend a feat to switch out the stat used for melee basic attacks for any other one, should that have been the default rule without a feat in 4e and 3.5/PF?

Polarity Shift

2012-02-09, 01:38 PM

It's just a different design philosophy! I don't see where you get this crazy idea that just because a style is already penalized for existing, it shouldn't be penalized more :smallsigh:

And since all design philosophies are equally valid you cannot be wrong! This totally does not provide less than zero incentives to ever make a non Str build.

Greenish

2012-02-09, 01:39 PM

Was just an example.Ah. I often use exoticist variant fighter for it. Four EWPs on top of the feats you pick at fighter 1 and 2 is pretty neat.

Another option would be being much more liberal with Weapon Familiarity. In a generic setting, it doesn't really work, but if you have a specific setting, slapping regional familiarities around like candy should work pretty well. Eberron does a bit of it, though they could stand to go farther (after Valenar and Talenta, they chickened and went for "bunch of weapon familiriarities and some random minor thing"-style racial feats).

Mustard

2012-02-09, 01:47 PM

Well, if tripping sucks, then the good news is that you're less likely to BE tripped! Eh? Eh?

What? Sometimes rationalization is a viable course of action.

Greenish

2012-02-09, 01:50 PM

So is allowing a non-standard option only if they pay some cost always penalizing something for existing? 4e let you spend a feat to switch out the stat used for melee basic attacks for any other one, should that have been the default rule without a feat in 4e and 3.5/PF?Costs should be proportional to the benefits. Saying "yes, you can turn your enemies to chickens, but only on the second thursday afternoon of each leap year, and if you do, you and everyone you care about will die with no chance of resurrection" does not make turning your enemies into chickens a real option.

Coidzor

2012-02-09, 01:53 PM

Sure. Better a feat tax than no such option at all.

That doesn't answer the question of why require a double feat tax in the first place when dex-combat already has the feat tax of weapon finesse.

So perfection is required to not suck as designers, I guess all game designers suck then.

Considering the general consensus seems to be that the majority of game designers could stand to polish their skills and/or act less like close-minded old men who are stuck in their ways or married to sacred cows... Or even just think and re-examine what they're doing from time to time.

Not a good angle to start arguing.

RedWarlock

2012-02-09, 02:25 PM

That doesn't answer the question of why require a double feat tax in the first place when dex-combat already has the feat tax of weapon finesse.
Considering Dex-based combatants already have the lead by having a higher base AC and reflex save? Yeah, I think so.

Gullintanni

2012-02-09, 02:32 PM

Considering the general consensus seems to be that the majority of game designers could stand to polish their skills and/or act less like close-minded old men who are stuck in their ways or married to sacred cows... Or even just think and re-examine what they're doing from time to time.

Didn't someone suggest not long ago that PF was going to errata Brass Knuckles so that Monks don't deal their unarmed damage with them, on the basis that unarmed damage + enchantments = too strong?

You have my full support in calling for the impeachment of those responsible :smalltongue:

Seerow

2012-02-09, 02:37 PM

Considering Dex-based combatants already have the lead by having a higher base AC and reflex save? Yeah, I think so.

Actually in PF the best AC+Max dex combo is Mithral Full Plate with 9 AC and 3 max dex.

The next best after that (unless you have high wis for a monks belt or something), is Bracers of Armor +8, which is effectively the same as having 3 base armor and no max dex (since normal armor will have a +5). So even with the +8 bracers, you need at least +10 dex bonus to pull ahead, and you can only generally get to that point at pretty high levels. And you're spending 64,000gp vs 27,000 gp for your armor, plus using up an item slot that could have been used for something else.

I will give you that a dex based character has advantages. Higher initiative, better reflex save, more AoOs per round, but higher AC isn't really among those for the vast majority of the game. Also those advantages also have the trade off of lower damage, and typically weaker weapons. It still weighs in the dex based character's favor, especially if they can get some other non-str source of damage (some way of adding dex to damage, bonus damage dice, etc), so I'm not too upset about weapon finesse costing a feat. But other feats beyond that is over the top and an uncalled for tax on a style that is already struggling to to be useful.

mikau013

2012-02-09, 02:49 PM

Didn't someone suggest not long ago that PF was going to errata Brass Knuckles so that Monks don't deal their unarmed damage with them, on the basis that unarmed damage + enchantments = too strong?

You have my full support in calling for the impeachment of those responsible :smalltongue:

Problem is brass knuckles are both in the Adventurer's armoury and in the APG.
They have already released the errata that you can't use them with unarmed dmg for the AA, though they haven't released any errata for the APG yet, since they haven't run out of print stock yet. (they only post errata when they reprint stuff)

- Edit:

The next best after that (unless you have high wis for a monks belt or something),
Monk's belt was changed to Monk's robe and doesn't give wis to AC anymore.

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 02:50 PM

Well, if tripping sucks, then the good news is that you're less likely to BE tripped! Eh? Eh?

What? Sometimes rationalization is a viable course of action.

I'm afraid not for several reasons.

1: The same things that make PCs incapable of doing it make enemies easily capable of doing it. So get a little yapping dog, say a hellhound... it's better at tripping people, despite its gimpiness. Of course Dire Wolves are still better than hellhounds in every way as all the latter can do is run around blowing its bad breath everywhere and trying to flame people well beyond its own capabilities to defeat. Of course you can still send it scampering away like a kicked puppy simply by outclassing it. Of course you can take it out with one HEADSHOT. Regardless it's better at tripping people.

2: What being tripped does is knock you prone, imposes an AC penalty vs melee attacks and makes it so you have to use a move action to get up so no full attacks. Now you're already going to be automatically hit by everything. Power Attack nerfs mean you take no more damage when tripped than when not tripped. And a combination of PA nerfs and trip nerfs means you won't care that you can't full attack because you have no reason to play such a character.

3: If there were legitimate reasons to play something that cares about being tripped, that just means we're right back to enemies are better at your job than you catch 22 circular logic.

Afraid that doesn't work out.

Considering Dex-based combatants already have the lead by having a higher base AC and reflex save? Yeah, I think so.

Now if only Reflex saves were meaningful and he wasn't automatically hit by everything anyways that might matter. As it is he's based on a harder to buff stat using more resources on lesser weapons for lesser results.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 02:59 PM

Costs should be proportional to the benefits. Saying "yes, you can turn your enemies to chickens, but only on the second thursday afternoon of each leap year, and if you do, you and everyone you care about will die with no chance of resurrection" does not make turning your enemies into chickens a real option.

What do you mean? Free ability to turn enemies into chickens, and all I have to do is have a calendar and not care about anyone? Totally worth it. :smalltongue:

Considering the general consensus seems to be that the majority of game designers could stand to polish their skills and/or act less like close-minded old men who are stuck in their ways or married to sacred cows... Or even just think and re-examine what they're doing from time to time.

Not a good angle to start arguing.

I would distinguish being able to benefit from polishings their skills, ect from "sucking". Not that there can't be overlap, but they should not be equivalent statements.

I will give you that a dex based character has advantages. Higher initiative, better reflex save, more AoOs per round, but higher AC isn't really among those for the vast majority of the game. Also those advantages also have the trade off of lower damage, and typically weaker weapons. It still weighs in the dex based character's favor, especially if they can get some other non-str source of damage (some way of adding dex to damage, bonus damage dice, etc), so I'm not too upset about weapon finesse costing a feat. But other feats beyond that is over the top and an uncalled for tax on a style that is already struggling to to be useful.

Hmm, what about the reverse? What if any weapon with the "finesse" property (same weapons the feat currently works with) could be used with Dex to attack without a feat, how would you feel about spending a feat for the spiked chain, getting the 1.5 + 1/2 half stength damage and disarm property?

Mustard

2012-02-09, 03:03 PM

Afraid that doesn't work out.
Of course it doesn't, but that's not the point. Rationalization is a coping mechanism. It relies on logic, and that logic is broken by, say, monsters that trip well, but add in willful ignorance, for example, "we might see monstrous dogs of any sort at most once in this campaign", and the road to 1984-style complacence is paved.

Coidzor

2012-02-09, 03:04 PM

Well either it was a design goal, and thus they failed to implement the design goal successfully and suck as designers. Or it wasn't a design goal, and they failed to balance their weapons appropriately and suck as designers.

And if it's a mistake, and it's been pointed out to them, they refuse to even consider fixing said mistake, despite having claimed to be more willing and able to do that due to their current model of being more free with Errata and having actually FAQs maintained by designers that they want people to be comfortable with the idea of checking.

Didn't someone suggest not long ago that PF was going to errata Brass Knuckles so that Monks don't deal their unarmed damage with them, on the basis that unarmed damage + enchantments = too strong?

Something like that, yeah. (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfinderCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550) SKR was all like "how on earth am I to tell if it's a weapon or an unarmed strike?" Which was probably the worst part of it, that line of horse pucky thinking. :smallyuk:

Seerow

2012-02-09, 03:05 PM

Hmm, what about the reverse? What if any weapon with the "finesse" property (same weapons the feat currently works with) could be used with Dex to attack without a feat, how would you feel about spending a feat for the spiked chain, getting the 1.5 + 1/2 half stength damage and disarm property?

It would be better. Still not a good weapon, because its overall attributes still compare unfavorably to those of a martial weapon, but having less feat tax is always a step in the right direction.

[For the record, I personally let Finessible weapons be used without a feat, and let weapon finesse be taken to let you use dex with any weapon. So in my game that would end up being a choice between getting a spiked chain or a finessible Guisarme, I think it's clear which one I'd argue is better for the investment.]

Mustard

2012-02-09, 03:13 PM

And if it's a mistake, and it's been pointed out to them, they refuse to even consider fixing said mistake, despite having claimed to be more willing and able to do that due to their current model of being more free with Errata and having actually FAQs maintained by designers that they want people to be comfortable with the idea of checking.
Yes, it's very frustrating. They have stated openness to incorporate errata, and even demonstrated it on occasion, but most of that seems to be for garbage errors their contributors caused ("Reduce Nature's Lore", as I've complained about before. Seriously?). I don't know what the application process is for a contributor, but "knowing names of stuff" is apparently not a prerequisite.
As for trying to get errata added, they may state their good intentions, but they cannot effectively follow through, even if they wanted to. The big names all have assertive personalities (at least with respect to the game), and they seem to tend to disagree with each other often. So, even though I often hope for errata, I know deep down not to expect it. Such a shame. The potential is almost there!

Coidzor

2012-02-09, 03:17 PM

As for trying to get errata added, they may state their good intentions, but they cannot effectively follow through, even if they wanted to.

Part of me rather doubts that they wanted to, and suspects heavily that they were just lying through their teeth.
The big names all have assertive personalities (at least with respect to the game), and they seem to tend to disagree with each other often.

That's not assertiveness. That's bullheadedness, close-mindedness, an unwillingness to compromise and work together, pettiness, and a toss up between aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior. Not assertive behavior.

Assertive behavior does not prevent one from cooperating with others or treating them as equals, etc.

jmelesky

2012-02-09, 03:28 PM

Actually in PF the best AC+Max dex combo is Mithral Full Plate with 9 AC and 3 max dex.

Actually, in PF the best AC+MaxDex combo is Fighter 15 wearing Mithral Full Plate with 9 AC and 7 Max Dex (and zero armor check penalty). PF Fighters get Armor Training as a class feature, which improves Max Dex and armor check penalties as they level up. That fighter would also be moving at full speed, rather than laden speed.

Now, +7 is still only a Dex of 24, which isn't huge as a primary stat in the highest levels, but it's a good sight better than Dex 16.

Of course, you could get Celestial Plate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor/specific-magic-armor/celestial-plate-armor), which gives you a max Dex (at Fighter 15) of +10, which carries you all the way to Dex 30. Much more respectable.

I mean, the Core Fighter got actual class features. Even if they're not earth-shattering, it behooves us to pay attention to them in a thread about Core Fighters.

Mustard

2012-02-09, 03:48 PM

"Bullheaded", then. That's basically what I meant - set on one's own opinion and unwilling to compromise. Typing always gets me into diplomat mode, and often, Vaarsuvius-style verbose mode, but I've been working on that. Anyway...

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 03:51 PM

I'm afraid not for several reasons.

1: The same things that make PCs incapable of doing it make enemies easily capable of doing it. So get a little yapping dog, say a hellhound... it's better at tripping people, despite its gimpiness. Of course Dire Wolves are still better than hellhounds in every way as all the latter can do is run around blowing its bad breath everywhere and trying to flame people well beyond its own capabilities to defeat. Of course you can still send it scampering away like a kicked puppy simply by outclassing it. Of course you can take it out with one HEADSHOT. Regardless it's better at tripping people.

Dire wolf CMB: +8
Level 3 fighter with 18 strength, Improved trip, and a masterwork weapon with trip property CMB: +12

Which is better at tripping?

It would be better. Still not a good weapon, because its overall attributes still compare unfavorably to those of a martial weapon, but having less feat tax is always a step in the right direction.

Progress, I guess. I think I have erred in this debate by not giving the additional costs for Dex in the system as much weight in the value comparison as you did and was looking at it more of a vacuum (not entirely one, but more than you did). I do think that if we accept 1d6 20/x2 crit with trip property or 1d6 18-20/x2 crit with no properties as being a reasonable high end of finessable weapons without an additional cost, then a feat that provides damage similar to weapon spec as well as a bonus to disarm is not a horrible, or even particularly weak, feat. Is this an unreasonable opinion to you?

[For the record, I personally let Finessible weapons be used without a feat, and let weapon finesse be taken to let you use dex with any weapon. So in my game that would end up being a choice between getting a spiked chain or a finessible Guisarme, I think it's clear which one I'd argue is better for the investment.]

I'd agree under those rules, though I'd also expect the Spiked chain stats to be different if those had been the rules.

Mystify

2012-02-09, 03:57 PM

Actually, in PF the best AC+MaxDex combo is Fighter 15 wearing Mithral Full Plate with 9 AC and 7 Max Dex (and zero armor check penalty). PF Fighters get Armor Training as a class feature, which improves Max Dex and armor check penalties as they level up. That fighter would also be moving at full speed, rather than laden speed.

Now, +7 is still only a Dex of 24, which isn't huge as a primary stat in the highest levels, but it's a good sight better than Dex 16.

Of course, you could get Celestial Plate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor/specific-magic-armor/celestial-plate-armor), which gives you a max Dex (at Fighter 15) of +10, which carries you all the way to Dex 30. Much more respectable.

I mean, the Core Fighter got actual class features. Even if they're not earth-shattering, it behooves us to pay attention to them in a thread about Core Fighters.
In my experience, 3.5 fighters had the issue of maxing out AC, and getting stuck their because their dex couldn't scale through armour. Hence, dex based characters with the rogue would end up with a lot more AC. I consider expanding the Dex range on the fighters armour to be a critical change to help the class function in its role.

Laniius

2012-02-09, 04:08 PM

I think I got an answer (Power attack is weaker...sorta....kinda...I guess)

But are there any more feats that PF Nerfed for the fighter?

This is not a rant thread. Just tell me what was changed.

In some ways Power Attack got stronger. Sure, you can't dump your entire attack bonus anymore, but the initial level is a -1 to-hit for +3 damage.

As you level, you get further -1's to hit for further +3's to damage (as your to-hit drops by 1 and the damage increases by 2, modified by using a two handed weapon). So you are getting triple you're investment, as opposed to double with the 3.5 power attack (barring other feats, I'm looking strictly at core here).

So you're more likely to hit, as you aren't dumping you're entire BAB, and you're doing a decent amount of damage.

IP Proofing

2012-02-09, 04:20 PM

Of course it doesn't, but that's not the point. Rationalization is a coping mechanism. It relies on logic, and that logic is broken by, say, monsters that trip well, but add in willful ignorance, for example, "we might see monstrous dogs of any sort at most once in this campaign", and the road to 1984-style complacence is paved.

Well played.

Dire wolf CMB: +8
Level 3 fighter with 18 strength, Improved trip, and a masterwork weapon with trip property CMB: +12

Which is better at tripping?

The wolf of course, as even after the nerf it still gets the trip for free instead of in place of its turn, and it's going after lower target numbers. It also isn't having to burn a bunch of resources on it, it gets it for free.

Reverent-One

2012-02-09, 04:29 PM

The wolf of course, as even after the nerf it still gets the trip for free instead of in place of its turn, and it's going after lower target numbers. It also isn't having to burn a bunch of resources on it, it gets it for free.

Having lower target numers isn't a point in it's favor unless the difference in CMD is greater than their difference in CMB, which as long as the fighter has 12 Dex, it isn't. Wolf has a CMD of 24, the fighter is 19 + Dex, so +1 would make the same difference as their CMB. Nor is not devoting any resources to trip a benefit if that's because it doesn't have resources to devote to anything else. The fighter still has unspent resources at this point, the wolf does not.

olentu

2012-02-09, 09:21 PM

From what I see on the SRD, only weapons with the [Trip] option add their enhancement bonus to trip checks. It's pretty clear, at least from an FAQ ruling, which if RAW as mentioned before, makes only [Trip] weapons capable of granting their bonus to the check. What you CAN do is trip with any weapon, but with no benefit.

Ah you are taking that stance. Well as it is I see nothing that says you can add your enhancement bonus on trip attempts with any weapons at all other then "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."

However the enhancement bonus on any weapon is clearly applicable both to that weapon and attacks made by that weapon. Thus I must conclude that either you can add the enhancement bonus from any weapon to trip attempts or that you can not add the enhancement bonus from any weapon to trip attempts.

The only other possibility is that you can trip only with trip weapons and not anything else. However since you seem to agree that one can trip with any weapon this is something I did not consider could be your position.

Now then as part of your argument it seems that you bring the FAQ into the deal to try and support your position. If we are going to consider the FAQ I would say that this quote from the FAQ

"This is a revision of this FAQ entry based on a Paizo blog about combat maneuvers with weapons. The previous version of this FAQ stated that using a trip weapon was the only way you could apply weapon enhancement bonuses, Weapon Focus bonuses, and other such bonuses to the trip combat maneuver roll. The clarification in that blog means any weapon used to trip applies these bonuses when making a trip combat maneuver, so this FAQ was updated to omit the "only trip weapons let you apply these bonuses" limitation.."

Rather supports my argument. And so even bringing the FAQ into the argument does not make my position incorrect whether the FAQ is defined as a source of rules in pathfinder or not.

Coidzor

2012-02-09, 10:30 PM

In some ways Power Attack got stronger. Sure, you can't dump your entire attack bonus anymore, but the initial level is a -1 to-hit for +3 damage.

As you level, you get further -1's to hit for further +3's to damage (as your to-hit drops by 1 and the damage increases by 2, modified by using a two handed weapon). So you are getting triple you're investment, as opposed to double with the 3.5 power attack (barring other feats, I'm looking strictly at core here).

So you're more likely to hit, as you aren't dumping you're entire BAB, and you're doing a decent amount of damage.

Most games in PF and 3.5 tend to end around 10th to 12th level, from all that I've gathered. Certainly the game is a lot harder on beatsticks after that point.

A fighter has to be level 12 to PA for -4 in order to get +12 damage in PF.
A fighter has to be level 4 to PA for -4 in order to get +8 damage in 3.5.

That's an 8 level difference which is non-trivial.

By level 12, a fighter in 3.5 is most likely going to be able to afford to PA by more than 4. Especially if, say, shocktrooper is on the table. Then the fighter can PA for -12 for +24 damage with no penalty to hit. Or he can even take another feat that lets him get 3x for his investment in power attack with the leap attack feat and a trivial jump check.

Or, if he's taken the magical training feat or dipped a single level into cleric for domains, he can activate an (eternal) wand of wraithstrike and power attack for whatever as a touch attack. IIRC, this can combine with shocktrooper so that one can power attack for full while only partially diminishing one's AC.

Or true strike.

The main difference, in the long run, between the two is that 3.5's power attack is made to play well with other things, and things were made to play well with it. At 1st level, PF's power attack is ahead, but it falls behind with every level from there.

sonofzeal

2012-02-10, 04:57 AM

Let's put this together in a list, because I like lists...

(Caveat: this is what people have posted in the thread. I don't vouch for the accuracy of any of these statements. Opinions differ, and YMMV)

Nerfed Fighter Feats
Improved Disarm/Grapple/Bullrush/Sunder - now only provide half the bonus.

Improved Trip - now only provides half the bonus, and no free follow-through; even with Greater it consumes AoOs rather than granting free attacks, and even then it happens before they're down so it loses the +4 bonus against prone enemies.

Power Attack - static rather than flexible, scales more slowly.

Power Shot -> Deadly Aim - static rather than flexible, scales more slowly.

Cleave -> Cleaving Finish - more prerequisites (PF's Cleave does something completely different)

Improved/Greater TWF - now require higher dex claimed, but disputed.

Armor Proficiency - now fails to remove the ACP to Disable Device and Ride

Leap Attack - now only provides +1 damage after a jump (?!?)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - fewer options worth spending a feat on.

Stand Still - DC dropped dramatically in most situations; only works against adjacent.

Any others? Anything still being disputed?

mikau013

2012-02-10, 05:14 AM

Well some additions.
The greater trip AoO happens before people are on the ground, so you lose out on the +4 on the attack.
Stand still: adjacent enemies only, so reach weapons are worthless for this feat now.

I'm guessing we're only listing feat nerfs here right?

sonofzeal

2012-02-10, 05:28 AM

Gullintanni

2012-02-10, 10:41 AM

Something like that, yeah. (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfinderCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550) SKR was all like "how on earth am I to tell if it's a weapon or an unarmed strike?" Which was probably the worst part of it, that line of horse pucky thinking. :smallyuk:

Pfeh. One more bit of bad errata to shuffle into my +5 Wastebasket of Vehement Denial.

jmelesky

2012-02-10, 12:23 PM

Improved/Greater TWF - now require higher dex claimed, but disputed.

I'm the disputer there, and will lay out my claim:

3.5ed Improved TWF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTwoWeaponFighting), PF Improved TWF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-two-weapon-fighting-combat---final) - Prereqs in both: Dex 17, TWF, BAB +6

3.5ed Greater TWF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#greaterTwoWeaponFighting), PF Greater TWF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-two-weapon-fighting-combat---final) - Prereqs in both: Dex 19, ImpTWF, TWF, BAB +11

I've seen this claim a fair bit, but i've yet to see any reasoning or evidence behind it. It's possible that the prereqs were higher in an early printing and long ago errata'd.

Any others? Anything still being disputed?

I think that covers it. I'm now considering starting a thread entitled "What fighter feats did PF improve?"

mikau013

2012-02-10, 12:49 PM

Add.

I'm aware of the Reach one (even though PFSRD gets its diagrams wrong). Anything else relevant?

I didn't actually mean the reach nerf, but more things like the fact that all flyers are trip immune and some additional creatures like for example hydra's and mariliths gained trip immunity in pf

SpaceBadger

2012-02-10, 01:15 PM

Yes, it's very frustrating. They have stated openness to incorporate errata, and even demonstrated it on occasion,

Yeah, and they also have well-known problems with their PDF versions that make it difficult for some people (including me) to use them due to laggy and jumpy scrolling (something to do with images not being flattened, I was told), and they have had this problem for years and have been told about it, and still have not fixed it. Apparently it would be a pretty easy fix, but they haven't done it, and due to the security on their PDFs the user can't fix it for himself. :smallfurious:

Umm, sorry, you pushed one of my Rant buttons. :smalleek:

mikau013

2012-02-10, 01:17 PM

Hmm I kind of forgot about this one, since normally nobody uses it, but combat expertise is also nerfed.

- edit: grammar :smallredface:

Greenish

2012-02-10, 01:26 PM

Hmm I can't of forgot about this one, since normally nobody uses it, but combat expertise is also nerfed.What is this I don't even

Seerow

2012-02-10, 01:30 PM

What is this I don't even

I'd imagine they made it work like new power attack.

*checks* yep

Prerequisite: Int 13.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.

Coidzor

2012-02-10, 02:01 PM

What is the name of the Pathfinder's equivalent to Leap Attack again?

Umm, sorry, you pushed one of my Rant buttons. :smalleek:

I find it rather rant inducing when companies fall over themselves to promote piracy myself.

jmelesky

2012-02-10, 02:54 PM

What is the name of the Pathfinder's equivalent to Leap Attack again?

No idea. I can't find a feat like that on the SRD.

Mustard

2012-02-10, 04:57 PM

Umm, sorry, you pushed one of my Rant buttons. :smalleek:
Nothing to apologize for, let it all out!

They are pretty clunky PDFs, aren't they? Pretty much, I buy the PDFs to satisfy my conscience and support their efforts (which reminds me, I need to go take a look at Legend - the donation thing was down last time I checked, but read it was going to open again -- but back to the point), then proceed to use the unofficial, third-party "PFSRD" for researching character options, while referring to the official "PRD" for fact-checking. The actual PDFs only come in handy if I need to global search for a word, and don't want to use the PRD's terrible search option. Though I do read the PDF linearly when a new book comes out, but then the slowness is not that big a deal then.

Greenish

2012-02-10, 07:26 PM

(which reminds me, I need to go take a look at Legend - the donation thing was down last time I checked, but read it was going to open again -- but back to the point)Legend's "pay what you want" period is over. You can still download the stuff, but there'll be extras with fixed prices (going for child's play still) in the future, I think.

Infernalbargain

2012-02-10, 11:42 PM

PF did make Bull Rush cheesy. Spiked Destroyer + Greater bull rush means you can spam out all your attacks of opportunity on a charge. Now if you are willing to do shield bashes then you get double your AoO's per round on a target with shield slam feat.

darkdragoon

2012-02-11, 12:07 AM

Wait, how is getting your extra attack more frequently a nerf?

You need another book and more feat slots for what used to be a core effect. Something I'm pretty sure the design team said they were looking to avoid.

The prereqs are Dex 15, 17, and 19 for both systems. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

I am certain I saw versions with higher prereqs, might have been beta or bad copypasta.

I don't see how you can justify saying they nerfed the feat EWP. They nerfed an exotic weapon. They have other exotic weapons that are pretty nice that weren't part of 3.5. The falcata and the Aldori dueling sword, for instance.

It nerfed one of the few interesting options available, as opposed to a plethora of "slightly more damage."

And what are the new examples? Rapier with slightly more damage. Sword with slightly more critical damage.

Seerow

2012-02-13, 02:31 PM

mikau013

2012-02-13, 02:37 PM

Still better than that truenamer feat that actually made your char worse :smallsigh:

Seerow

2012-02-13, 02:40 PM

Still better than that truenamer feat that actually made your char worse :smallsigh:

Which feat was this?

Greenish

2012-02-13, 02:44 PM

Which feat was this?Focused Lexicon increases the DC of your truenaming checks.

Coidzor

2012-02-13, 02:51 PM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/prone-shooter-combat

Okay, as far as I know this feat didn't exist in 3.5, but someone on another forum recently pointed this out and it seemed like it would fit here. While it's not a feat that got nerfed I think the very existence of a feat that literally has no benefit counts as a nerf to the Fighter.

Definitely a trap option that checks whether you've actually read the darned rules or not.

By the by... Anyone know how to contact the site's maintainers to let them know that they've had typos or other transcription errors anyway? Their Prone Slinger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/prone-slinger-combat) feat writeup is all kinds of borked (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/ultimateCombatFeats.html#prone-slinger).

jmelesky

2012-02-13, 03:07 PM

By the by... Anyone know how to contact the site's maintainers to let them know that they've had typos or other transcription errors anyway?

They have a bunch of email contact points on the Get Involved! page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/get-involved)

IP Proofing

2012-02-13, 03:39 PM

Still better than that truenamer feat that actually made your char worse :smallsigh:

If you'd like to see the PF equivalent then Step right Up because we have a show you won't want to miss right here!

You can already ready a free action such as a 5 foot step as part of another action. There is absolutely no reason why you'd want to use a feat, an Immediate action, your 5 foot step from next round and 5 feet of movement from next round to do the same thing... especially if you have to still end up adjacent, a restriction normal 5 foot steps do not suffer from. And since the only reason to ever try something like this is to stay within threatening range of a spellcaster you need to have reach (which means you will not necessarily be adjacent), and you're going to be readying actions (to disrupt casting) regardless...

balistafreak

2012-02-13, 04:18 PM

If you'd like to see the PF equivalent then Step right Up because we have a show you won't want to miss right here!

You can already ready a free action such as a 5 foot step as part of another action. There is absolutely no reason why you'd want to use a feat, an Immediate action, your 5 foot step from next round and 5 feet of movement from next round to do the same thing... especially if you have to still end up adjacent, a restriction normal 5 foot steps do not suffer from. And since the only reason to ever try something like this is to stay within threatening range of a spellcaster you need to have reach (which means you will not necessarily be adjacent), and you're going to be readying actions (to disrupt casting) regardless...

Not always. There are plenty of times when you'd like to disrupt a caster, but you lack the actions.

Without Step Up, you have ready a standard action to hit him the face, like you said.

Therefore, your turn would look like a move action to get into range, and then your standard action to prepare the attack. If you stupidly decide to attack him during your own turn, he'll simply 5-foot step away and cast unhindered during his, the exact sequence of events we'd all expect.

But even if you're not dumb and blow your standard action him, if it takes a double move to get into range, or you need your standard action for something else (say killing another the other caster you started next to), you're still SoL.

With Step Up, you don't have to ready an action during your own turn - perhaps you full attack him if you started next to your target, perhaps you double move around threatened areas into range, or perhaps charge him, getting all that movement and an attack on your turn. Now, when the caster 5-foot steps, you Step Up with him. Now he'll suck down an AoO if he casts - accomplishing your same goal but freeing an entire standard action and unlocking the ability to use full-round actions during your own turn.

When enacting the series of actions that is "readying to disrupt a caster", Step Up represents an attack you wouldn't otherwise be able to take. This is equivalent to an entire standard action - a conditional one, but conditions that come up fairly often, I'd expect. Given the value of action economy, this is a Very Good Thing.

Step Up is a good feat for people who can fight in melee at 5-foot reach. A very good feat, I daresay. Now, personally, I prefer to go Armor Spikes + Reach Weapon or 15-foot reach weapon Eidolon for my melee types (yeah, I'd rather play an Eidolon than a Fighter), obviating the need for Step Up in the first place by getting the capability to spend actions and still disrupt casters without burning feats, but Step Up does what it's supposed to; give 5-foot reach melees additional offensive capability against casters.

IP Proofing

2012-02-13, 04:42 PM

mikau013

2012-02-13, 05:13 PM

I find Strike back (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/strike-back-combat---final) to be far worse. At least step up can have a use, this one.... well I've never met a dm who didn't let ready actions do that already. And it requires 11 bab too

balistafreak

2012-02-13, 05:14 PM

That seems convincing... until you remember the part where you are fighting more than one caster at the same time, or the part where you are fighting anything without reach.

Those are both conditions in which you are screwed regardless.

Anyone that did want to stop spellcasters from ruining their day as a melee character would have reach and 3.5 Mage Slayer. No 5 foot steps AND no casting defensively (which ranges from slightly easier to slightly harder but still easy). You also wouldn't have to ready actions at all, you can just do it. Automatically. At any time.

Eh, the situation where you want to cover multiple people who might provoke still comes up. Actually, I can't believe I forgot this: archers provoke upon attacking, and you can't say archers aren't an uncommon humanoid enemy. It's the same situation about provoking, just without the "oh god why am I a melee surrounded by casters" scenario, and archers can't even "shoot defensively" to avoid the AoOs. :smalltongue:

Yeah, Reach+3.5 Mage Slayer was the way to go against casters, not disagreeing there.

If for some bizarre reason someone insisted upon playing a melee character without reach, 3.5 Mage Slayer still does everything that Step Up is supposed to do, everything it wishes it could do, and so much more. All for the same cost. 1 feat. You're stuck readying actions so they can't just 5 foot step away from you (or getting something to prevent 5 foot steps) but that's still better than the alternative.

Again, archers. Mage Slayer does nothing for archers. :smalltongue:

... and I'm afraid that here you overstep yourself, exaggerate the situation. 3.5 Mage Slayer forces the (nonreach) Fighter to be stuck readying actions to 5-foot step. Step Up lets you spend that action doing something on your own turn. 3.5 Mage Slayer does prevent defensive casting on their part, but that's something entirely different, which doesn't matter at all if they're able to escape your threatened area.

In fact, I daresay that 3.5 Mage Slayer is worse than Step Up in the "I'm dumb and don't have reach" scenario. Step Up forces casters to cast defensively if you can end your turn next to them, period. By comparison, 3.5 Mage Slayer requires you to end your turn next to them and have a standard action to spare.

Once again, a Fighter with half a brain would have picked up his armor spikes and reach weapon and sidestepped this wacky scenario, but there you have it.

Not only is Step Up a massive Fighter nerf, but it's a backhand to the face for being worse than what they can do already for free.

Qualification: "Free" is followed by "with Reach".

Step Up does do something for a suboptimal fighting style, but the fact of the matter is that is does something. I guess you could call it a "trap" feat, one that seems to validate or patch suboptimal play. Similar to how the TWF feat chain is a "trap" - you ought to be picking up a two-handed weapon for maximum damage, but if you insist upon picking up two... weapons then yes, the TWF feats help you.

It's hardly as bad as Focused Lexicon.

Reverent-One

2012-02-13, 05:18 PM

sonofzeal

2012-02-13, 05:46 PM

Huh, you've had some nice DMs.
It depends if we're talking about reach weapons, or monsters with long limbs. For the former, the feat really does help. But I've never seen a DM who wouldn't let you take a swipe at an offending arm or tentacle; it's obviously within your reach since it's actively slapping you in the face, so there's no logically consistent reason you couldn't hack at it in the process.

Coidzor

2012-02-13, 05:58 PM

It depends if we're talking about reach weapons, or monsters with long limbs. For the former, the feat really does help. But I've never seen a DM who wouldn't let you take a swipe at an offending arm or tentacle; it's obviously within your reach since it's actively slapping you in the face, so there's no logically consistent reason you couldn't hack at it in the process.

Yeah, at that point I wouldn't so much couch it as DMs that allowed such being nice so much as DMs who wouldn't allow that being more on the end of the scale as hostile.

IP Proofing

2012-02-13, 06:07 PM

Frosty

2012-02-13, 06:49 PM

In PF, you have the Disruptive feat, which gives -4 to casting defensively. They need am improved version though to give a -8 or something.

IP Proofing

2012-02-13, 06:54 PM

Spend a feat to make it marginally harder but still easy...

Or buy a very cheap item to make it marginally harder by a slightly greater margin but still easy...

Or use a feat to make it entirely impossible...

Doesn't pass the giggle check I'm afraid.

Mystify

2012-02-13, 07:01 PM

To be fair, they did make it harder to cast defensively.

Seerow

2012-02-13, 07:03 PM

In PF, you have the Disruptive feat, which gives -4 to casting defensively. They need am improved version though to give a -8 or something.

To suggest that would be worth 2 feats in any way shape or form is indicative of "Mundanes don't get nice things".

For reference, in pathfinder the DC is 15+double spell level. So it caps out at DC 33 to cast a level 9 spell while right in your face.

Meanwhile, Pathfinder made it so you don't even need to invest skillpoints, and get to add your primary stat instead of con to the check. So the wizard has a +32 without even trying. Even with a -8 he will still succeed more than half the time.

balistafreak

2012-02-13, 08:37 PM

Archers might be common, but in PF especially they're not dangerous so it hardly matters. It's like taking 3.5 Cleave - why would you bother spending resources to do something you can already easily manage when you should be spending them to do things you would otherwise have a difficult time doing?

I'll counter that to a Fighter, Archers are plenty dangerous - they don't have all the tools that casters have to make arrow-fire a mere nuisance. A minorly optimized archer can make mincemeat of a target without magic defenses; see the Pathfinder Paladin Archer build.

Again, at another level of optimization, Step Up isn't even required, but for the poor lonely fighter, Step Up does something. It may be underwhelming, but at least it does something.

And as for character build philosophy... it's a saved action for the Fighter, an extra attack, an extra move that he gets before planting himself in position. I call gaining an action, even conditionally, pretty strong for a feat.

I don't understand your need to completely dismiss something as "useless". I accept that mundane melees are very much in the hole but that doesn't mean a feat doesn't do something. You're so quick to say something doesn't matter, I'm not even sure you're comprehending what I'm saying. It's a little... offputting. :smallconfused:

Since you do end up paying the action cost anyways and then some Step Up isn't actually doing you any favors even in that bizarre scenario.

I have no idea what you mean by "paying the action cost and then some". I just explained that Step Up frees an action up... can someone else read what I wrote? Tell me I'm whether or not I said what I thoguht I said? :smallconfused:

Step Up user moves near caster. Caster shrugs, casts defensively and does so easily. Step Up user still has to have readied action to disrupt casting, otherwise he won't disrupt it.
Mage Slayer user moves near caster. Caster can't cast defensively, and even if the MS user is dumb and lacks reach if he has an ability to prevent 5 foot steps it doesn't even matter.

Yeah, if the caster can cast defensively, that's the end of Step Up, and it's not even that hard, but the fact of the matter is, instead of blithely five-foot-stepping and casting as normal, he had to cast defensively. That means that Step Up, in a not-insignificant amount of cases (barring those where the mage can't fail his check), introduced a chance of failure for the mage. A low chance of failure, but a chance nonetheless. The feat did something. That's all I'm saying.

And I don't understand what you're trying to say with the bolded part. An ability to prevent 5-foot steps? You mean, like Step Up? You just end with "it doesn't even matter", as if Mage Slayer solved your problem ("if he has an ability to prevent 5 foot steps").

But Mage Slayer doesn't solve your problem in that case. In fact, it's even worse than Step Up in this case where you don't have an action to ready, because instead of moving into range and Stepping Up to maintain the threatened zone, you just stand there gaping like the stupid Fighter you are.

Can you tell me that you understand this sequence of events?

Anyone willing to devote one feat to stop people from casting spells in their face should take Mage Slayer.

This, I agree with - but Mage Slayer does not obviate Step Up.

If you have an action to ready with the conditions "mage 5-foot-steps", yes, Mage Slayer is better because you can 5-foot step as part of your readied action, hit him in face, and in having done so keep your threat on him, a really good threat that says "cast and suck an AoO, no save, no checks to weasel out". But if you don't have an action, Step Up is better, because without an action to ready Mage Slayer does nothing as the caster steps away from your stupidly unoptimized 5-foot reach.

Spend a feat to make it marginally harder but still easy...

Or buy a very cheap item to make it marginally harder by a slightly greater margin but still easy...

Or use a feat to make it entirely impossible...

Doesn't pass the giggle check I'm afraid.

Step Up... a Reach Weapon... or... not Mage Slayer if you don't have the aforementioned Reach Weapon. Look, mate, I'm not saying that properly done, Mage Slayer can't guarantee an AoO on a casting mage. I understand completely how Mage Slayer can optimally shut down casting, but I was never talking about that.

I'm trying to point out that Step Up has a very narrow, very trap-like niche to fit in, but you keep repeating your point that "Mage Slayer > anything you can say", which isn't really adding anything to the discussion. It's like you're trying to prove something, but I've already agreed with you on that point, so I'm not even sure what you're getting at. :smallconfused:

Truthfully, all I wanted to do was add a qualification to your original quote:

You can already ready a free action such as a 5 foot step as part of another action. There is absolutely no reason why you'd want to use a feat, an Immediate action, your 5 foot step from next round and 5 feet of movement from next round to do the same thing... especially if you have to still end up adjacent, a restriction normal 5 foot steps do not suffer from. And since the only reason to ever try something like this is to stay within threatening range of a spellcaster you need to have reach (which means you will not necessarily be adjacent), and you're going to be readying actions (to disrupt casting) regardless...

... that without an action to ready, Step Up would accomplish something, but you keep falling back to the blanket of "Step Up does absolutely nothing, Mage Slayer forever".

I've made my points as cogent as possible. I don't know else to tell you.

Infernalbargain

2012-02-13, 09:20 PM

To suggest that would be worth 2 feats in any way shape or form is indicative of "Mundanes don't get nice things".

For reference, in pathfinder the DC is 15+double spell level. So it caps out at DC 33 to cast a level 9 spell while right in your face.

Meanwhile, Pathfinder made it so you don't even need to invest skillpoints, and get to add your primary stat instead of con to the check. So the wizard has a +32 without even trying. Even with a -8 he will still succeed more than half the time.

But consider the evolution of the check. Let us assume that in 3.5, they have a 14 in con vs a 20 casting stat in PF. At level 1, to cast a level 1 spell we're looking at needing a natural 10 in 3.5 vs a natural 11 in PF. I am going to assume the PF caster is going to get the stat items when they represent less than half of total WBL and the 3.5 caster will not be getting any con boosting items.

Level 3.5 PF
1. 10. 11
2. 9. 10
3. 9. 11
4. 8. 10
5. 8. 10
6. 7. 9
7. 7. 10
8. 6. 8
9. 6. 9
10. 5. 8
11. 5. 8
12. 4. 6
13. 4. 7
14. 3. 6
15. 3. 7
16. 2. 6
17. 2. 7
18. 1. 6
19. 0. 5
20. -1. 4

While the 3.5 wizard is expending a skill point each level, this is assuming they don't buy a con boosting item which is something entirely reasonable for a caster to do also the PF wizard got the stat boosters rather aggressively. When you add in things like skill focus and custom Magic items to boost concentration, even steep penalties are irrelevant to the 3.5 wiz, compared to the rather few ways to boost conc in PF. So combining step up with casting defensively penalties from disruptive etc. and concentration will be problematic in PF