Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6074951" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The Cleave Changes are great.  The rest.  Not so sure.  Spoiling this as its a lot of stuff that most won't care to look at.[SBLOCK]Lets take these two Fighters:  Level 16 Fighter+ 3 Flaming, Keen Greatsword.  No Flank Bonus.Build 1 (9 feats)Dazzling Display, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Shatter Defenses, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Greater Vital Strike, Deadly Stroke, Improved CriticalBuild 2 (6 feats) + 3 free (for cleave, great cleave, or defense):Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved CriticalUnfortunately, the math just doesn't work out (even if Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike were stackable).  Assuming Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike were stackable, assuming the target was flat-footed every single round, assuming the level 16 Fighter is neither hasted (or speed weapon) and doesn't have a flurry ability, you're still looking at a damage spread of around:AC    DPR % of Fighter 2 to Fighter 1 vs AC26    103 %27    9628    90 29    8430    78.531    73.532    6833    6334    5735    5236    48Once you add in flanking, it bunches up dramatically.  Once you add Haste, it becomes hugely in favor of the 2nd build (spread of 175 % down to 98 %).  Once you add Haste + Flurry, its really not even in the realm of comparable (200 % down to 110 %).  When you do those things and then take into account the reality that (1) DS and VS don't stack (so replace with weapon spec + 2 damage - which lowers the total damage) and (2) that targets won't be flat-footed anywhere near 100 % of the time - or even 50 % of the time), the damage disparity explodes.  Enormously.  Far enough beyond the realm of comparability that the two can't even really be discussed.  I'm sure there is a few synergistic builds with class features and magic item cheese that can put those two somewhere closer...but I can't imagine that it would be near enough together such that it would be worth it - the loss of 3 extra feats, the loss of power attack, the loss of multi-attack synergy for multiple targets.  And it doesn't stack with Spring Attack (a trap build) nor Charge (so charge feats wouldn't apply).  I don't know.  That looks like a classic trap build to me.  Looks spiffy when you read the feats, but the math doesn't work out nor does it work out in play (as you're eating AoO's to get that skirmishing Vital Strike Attack).  There may be some features/a build that mitigates those AoOs though (outside of classic Mobility - which you can't get with that build).[/SBLOCK]Beyond that, Martial Melee characters default mode of attack should scale with the same Action Economy as primary casters default mode of attack...and their feats should diversify them and make them thematically and tactically deep.  Their build choices shouldn't bear the weight of legitimizing them toward parity (and then not doing the trick in the final analysis).Further, Pathfinder's answer (which doesn't work out in the end) doesn't address my other main concern - the legitimacy of high level Melee foils/villains (I've never been anything but a DM, ever, at all).  Multi-attacking monsters/NPCs/Dragons are legitimized by normalization of the Action Economy (Full Attack converted to Standard Action).  Their DPR payload is not rendered inert through easy, cheap kite tactics that takes away their Multi/Full-Attack Routines.  Normalizing the Action Economy allows Dragons to actually be Dragons and not just gargantuan, uber HP/AC Sorcerers with stray Breath Weapons and it allows other melee multi-attacking enemies to take on the role of major villain.So I still say that normalizing the Action Economy (and then allowing martial builds to gain advantage and tactical depth through diversification of their tactics within that action economy structure...rather than trying to come up with builds that deals with the action economy and gives you some kind of payload within the Standard Action structure) would have been the best move for Pathfinder.  It has 4 large boons in one fell swoop (without the danger of too many 2nd order interactions):- helps balance melee vs t1 casters- allows melee to build for fun rather than work toward parity- creates the potential for more dynamically mobile fights- and legitimizes high level melee villains so every major foil doesn't have to be a caster in order to challenge the PCs.</blockquote>

Verification