Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8148961" data-attributes="member: 12731">(cont'd)This is why I can totally see a version of <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1357" target="_blank">automatic bonus progression (ABP)</a> that only hands out &quot;devastating attacks&quot;. And leaves all other forms of bonuses as-is (=you apply item bonuses the regular way, most notably by finding or purchasing magic items).Somewhat off-topic, but it's worth mentioning:Automatic bonus progression confers a HUGE bonus to warrior-type heroes (i.e. weapon users). The variant helps martials MUCH MORE than spellcasters, since it saves warriors the obvious and non-negotiable cost of striking runes.Compared to the standard game, ABP leaves warriors with considerably more cash to spend on skill bonus items or whatnot (relative to casters).I would say it's a drawback of the variant that Paizo does not discuss or even acknowledge this issue. In my opinion, warriors don't need this help. It would have been useful to see a version of this variant that attempts to be &quot;class neutral&quot;.Let me use a hypothetical ruleset to illustrate. If &quot;devastating attacks&quot; applied also to magic* that would be more neutral. (It would deviate from how the game usually run, but it would mean you could apply the variant without so clearly** benefiting warriors more than casters) That is, if the default game allowed casters to purchase striking runes that somehow applied to spellcasting, that would leave casters with as little money as warriors for other stuff, and assuming this would apply even to ABP's &quot;devastating attacks&quot;, you could then use ABP without worrying about martial-caster balance.*) obviously only to a single target per casting - even when you cast an area spell where I guess randomizing the main target would make sense**) since most attacks are one action and most spells are two actions, it still benefits warriors more. But the gap is less noticeable</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8148961, member: 12731"] (cont'd) This is why I can totally see a version of [URL='http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1357']automatic bonus progression (ABP)[/URL] that only hands out "devastating attacks". And leaves all other forms of bonuses as-is (=you apply item bonuses the regular way, most notably by finding or purchasing magic items). Somewhat off-topic, but it's worth mentioning: Automatic bonus progression confers a HUGE bonus to warrior-type heroes (i.e. weapon users). The variant helps martials MUCH MORE than spellcasters, since it saves warriors the obvious and non-negotiable cost of striking runes. [B]Compared to the standard game, ABP leaves warriors with considerably more cash to spend on skill bonus items or whatnot (relative to casters).[/B] I would say it's a drawback of the variant that Paizo does not discuss or even acknowledge this issue. In my opinion, warriors don't need this help. It would have been useful to see a version of this variant that attempts to be "class neutral". Let me use a hypothetical ruleset to illustrate. If "devastating attacks" applied also to magic* that would be more neutral. (It would deviate from how the game usually run, but it would mean you could apply the variant without so clearly** benefiting warriors more than casters) That is, if the default game allowed casters to purchase striking runes that somehow applied to spellcasting, that would leave casters with as little money as warriors for other stuff, and assuming this would apply even to ABP's "devastating attacks", you could then use ABP without worrying about martial-caster balance. [SIZE=3]*) obviously only to a single target per casting - even when you cast an area spell where I guess randomizing the main target would make sense **) since most attacks are one action and most spells are two actions, it still benefits warriors more. But the gap is less noticeable[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification