Therefore, the game is based off fantasy, and in fantasy, the Katana and Wakizashi IS better than a longsword and short sword. This is nothing to do with reality, it's to do with fantasy preconceptions. If we're going with fantasy for things like cross-bows, armor, spells, etc, then it is hypocritical to demand historical accuracy for the katana/wakizashi.
And in fantasy, samurais DON'T wear armor; and even if they do, katanas cut armor as if it was paper. So, why is there an armor section in the book, and why are samurai proficient with full-plates? Why do they follow the FANTASY trope that eastern weapon are better, but not the FANTASY trope that eastern peoples don't wear armors?
Algorithm for creating eastern setting:
And the effect of the crane style feat:
The feat has two effect; the second effect works only when you use the crane style; the first effect doesn't have this requirement.
Therefore, if you have the crane style feat, and you fight defensively while using the boar style, you have -2 to hit (the penalty for fighting defensively with the feat) and +2 AC (the normal bonus from fighting defensively while not using crane style).
You can use a free action at any point point of your turn; but the crane style has no effect if you're not fighting defensively (therefore, you can activate the crane style at the end of your turn, but it does nothing except if you were fighting defensively with an other style).
@Mojorat: it seems that the crane style feat reduce the penalty from fighting defensively even when you're not using crane style.
Back up a minute their padre. So if we are going by RAW and partial charged wands then how about we go with custom made items? Their RAW in every sense of the words. Do you think that would be fair?
No, cf my last post.
In a real game, the fighter will find his favored weapon; because a good DM won't say "you have +5 to hit/damage with falchion, but you find a +5 vorpal greataxe AHA!" (or he will state it at character creation: "look, I use random loot and no magicmart, therefore you shouldn't specialize into one weapon"). And in a real game, you will also find partial wands, and those wands will contain useful spells, because a good DM won't say "you find a wand with 15 charge of Command plant, but I don't use plant creature and it count in your WBL AHA!". The "useful spell" can be CLW, gravity bow/lead blade, instant enemy, entangle, whatever: the important thing is: you don't chose the spell but it is useful.
Anyway, a "fair" rule for me would be:
And some rules like this, that doesn't allow custom item, but allow items that exist per RAW (partial wands exist per RAW: buy a wand, use a charge, you now have a partial wand), and doesn't allow "anything because it's convenient". Likewise, you can chose any weapon, but your build shouldn't be based on a powerful particular weapon (same rule of thumbs: you should write "+3 defending falchion (or any other special property)", and certainly not "my AC is low, but I can activate the defending property if necessary" - except if your weapon is "+3 defending whatever").
Oh. And the rules state that 25% of your WBL should be weapons(/offensive gear), 25% should be armor(/defensive gear, including cloak of protection I guess), 25% should be "other stuff" (eg handy haversack, bag of tricks, winged boots...), 15% should be "consumable" (partial wands are here ;) ), and 10% should be "money". A character without any item crafting feat should follow those guidelines, or lose some of his WBL ("I remove 1000 gp from the consumable category in order to gain 500 gp in the weapon category").
Want to know what's RAW? Want to know exactly what I plan for when I gain levels? A +2 weapon. That's all.
+3 or more random weapon (because the chance of rolling a +3 or more weapon isn't negligible, and at some point you will find some of those weapons; the chance it is a falchion is very small - each time you find a medium or major item, the chance it is a +3 or more falchion is less than 1 over 1000 - , and the chance it is a falchion with the special property you want is abysmall); or +2 specific weapon with some weak special properties (eg flaming).
If we choose to ignore this hidden advantage of other classes over the fighter, then we have to compensate with other magicmart-advantages like partial wands for rangers or paladins.
No wonder you GMs give you whatever you want...
Once and for all: stop making false assertions, because it doesn't make your post look clever. It only makes you look ridiculous. Eg: it is ridiculous to assume that my DM give me whatever I want because my fighter don't find the +3 falchion.
Therefore, finding a 12-th level wizard with the feat and willing to create the falchion isn't DM fiat, but finding a partial wand is? How many 12-th Wizards are there in a kingdom, how many of them have the feat, and how many of them are willing to craft such a falchion for some unknown PCs?
That make no sense at all. Stop whining because you want to use your houserules and instead of Ashiel's houserules.
The rules state the price of partial wands, and the price of a +3 falchion. The rules state that you can't buy a partial wand, and you can't buy a +3 falchion (barring from a very lucky roll). Either you accept both, either you accept none. I don't care if you accept both or none, but your request for a double standard doesn't make sense in a challenge.
Don't forget the rules about purchasing item for your fighter either: a +3 falchion is cheese.
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. [...]
The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective.
Do we agree that the OP is wrong?
Matthew Downie wrote:
(like you need a high charisma, while the fighter can dump it)
The paladin can replace Con with Cha: for him, Cha is just more efficient than Con, be it for HP or for Fort save. It's hardly a disadvantage to "pump Cha instead of Con and gain more benefit".
A true paladin who finds a horde of magic items in a bandit camp should try to return them to their rightful owners or their heirs. A fighter would just keep them.
A fighter can also be LG, you know. And the DM can decide that there's no way to know who are the former owners of the items. Or the paly can decide that he will do a better usage of the items than the legitimate owners ("oh, this one belongs to the Witch-king of Angmar. I guess i'll keep it.").
And anyway... "OMG, the paly may have to investigate about the owners of some items, and then look for them! He can have some adventures! That's such a great drawback for a D&D character!"
Did you even read the rules about purchasing magic weapons?
In the greatest cities, you can find almost any minor item; a minor weapon is at most +2, and can have some minor properties like flaming (no holy, no burst, no speed...). Then, you have 4d4 medium items and 3d4 major item; 10% of those items are weapons; that's 1.75 +3 or more weapons per metropolis. Then you have to roll the type of weapon, and then the properties.
The paladin can buy a +2 flaming sword, and then he can add the speed, holy and keen properties, and use GMW to have a +5 enhancement bonus. Or he can find a +5 holy speed sickle, and use it since he doesn't care about the weapon type.
A fighter with WF (greatsword), GWF (greatsword), WS (greatsword), GWS (greatword) and WT (blade, heavy) has to find a greatsword to use his class abilities; either he uses a +2 flaming greatsword, either he's very lucky with the loots/purchases, either he uses some +5 [random properties] heavy sword that's not a greatsword and lose +2 to-hit/+4 damages, either he uses some other weapon and lose +6 to-hit/+8 damages, either he forces the wizard to get the weapon creation feat, either he uses two feats to create magic weapons by himself.
Or he uses DM's fiat and get his +5 [random properties] greatsword.
Or finally, he commit suicide and create a new fighter, since the purchasing rules punish characters who try to improve their gear, but do not punish new characters.
And now the fighter has his +5 [whatever] greatsword, he has to find a composite longbow. Again, the paladin pick a random longbow, add some properties, and use GMW.
And actually, there's a reason why Paladins fight mostly Evil opponents. Because they are, you know, Paladins. "No, I decline your mission: I'm here to fight Evil, not to help some random group to gain influence", "hey guys, we don't have to fight, we're not some kind of savages who kill each other when they disagree", etc: a Paladin tries to avoid the fights if there's no Evil implied. He sometime has to fight such opponents, but that's not what he usually does.
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.
Yeah, they instead rely on a certain type of weapon. While paladins can pick any pointy stick, cast GMW on it, then add the speed property, and then bless it.
On the other hand, the fighter will ALWAYS fit your martial concept (A lot of feat intensive builds are only possible with a fighter, too.)
What feats can I use to fit my Jedi knight concept?
Rasmus Wagner wrote:
You missed the point of the OP.
The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective.
Indeed, he does rely on a LIMITED amount of HP instead.
True story: in an AP, we decided to play the "standard 4-men band" with Kyra, Valeros, Merisiel and Seoni; I played Kyra. I never asked for rest.
But Valeros and Merisiel didn't rely on LIMITED amount of spells and spell-like abilities, and that's great, I guess.
Spell combat specifically doesn't allow the use of an off-hand weapon.
Spellstrike is specifically allowed in conjunction with spell combat.
Ergo: spellstrike use the only weapon you're allowed to wield. The one used to make a full attack. Or spellstrike wouldn't specifically state it's usable with spell combat, since it wouldn't be usable with spell combat.
From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.
You should add combat Casting into the mix, it's almost a feat tax for magus (a human magus should have it at level 1). Or at least, a +2 Concentration trait.
Bobson: The other interpretation is that you just use the sword in place of whatever touch attack you would normally get, and that spell combat needs an actual off hand weapon (the touch spell) to get in another attack. That casting the spell is still a standard action and you can't take a full round action to use spellstrike with that standard action.
BTW, you don't need to know the precise statistics of the monster you are facing to get a fairly good idea of how difficult it is to hit, or how good it is at hitting you, in the first couple of rounds of combat.
Yes, you do.
Especially to know how difficult it is to hit you.
I remember a game, PCs were level 5, and they were fighting CR 1/2 monsters. I rolled almost only 19s and 20s for the attacks of the monsters (and more 20s than 19s: CE wouldn't even have divided their DPR by 2). Had I used a screen, the PCs would have thought "oh, those monsters are very good at hitting us!" (or "you're cheating, aren't you?"). You need far more than 10 attacks to have an idea of the hit probability, because that's how probabilities work.
Anyway, I don't justify my choice for not taking CE by "CE sucks, [blah]", but by "I take the XXX feat" (eg XXX = Dodge). Even if I used some "CE sucks" argument, it's not really "metagaming" to see that CE gives the same penalty to the character and his opponent - ie the character pays a feat to gain no advantage when he uses it.
I played my level 1 magus for the first time a couple of days ago and I didn't use the AM trick as my hit and concentration were too low to validate (I roughly calculated).
i also did rough calculation for my Magus, and it appears that I gain some damages; not an incredible amount of damages, but still, it's a bit better than "wielding my weapon with two hand and using PA".
But my magus isn't the best test-case: we rolled abilities, and I rolled very high (to the point that the DM changed the creation method; the initial rule was "roll abilities, if your rolls are poor you can use a 20-point build", and after I rolled my character, the rule was "roll abilities, if your rolls are poor you can use a 35-point build").
Donovan Lynch wrote:
I would prefer a demonstration of how it is a tactically preferable choice in a general (not specific) situation, based on math.
...and you won't have this demonstration, you will instead have responses like "CE is not about numbers, it's about roleplay".
And maybe one or two responses implying some metagaming before you use the feat ("if your opponent has +X to hit and Y AC, and you somehow know it, then...").
If I use the NPC 3-point build:
A jack-of-all-trade combining study and intuition ; not very perceptive, clumsy, and no strength. Better charisma than average (but no rank in Diplomacy, only in Perform skills), high intelligence.
The thing is, alot of the posts above seem to treat these discussions like characters act in a vacume. Your right the Monk cant deal with everything the Enemy casters can do. but if one of the PC casers removes his defenses.. well then he just gets choked to death.
Anyone can easily kill a caster if his defenses are removed.
Just out of curiosity, what would the BSF do with his full BAB against that awesome flying/displaced/invisible caster?
That's why I said, in core, anti-caster are druids, other casters, ranged characters, and then monks (who are probably more efficient for this task than BSF).
Everything bar possibly blocking line of effect, and I'm assuming you mean physically standing in the way of spells here
I was more thinking about things like wall of thorn. or fog cloud, although I'll give you that it doesn't block line of effect, only line of sight.
A monk can close the gap just as quickly as a druid, taking less damage, and force concentration checks and/or use maneuvers to render the caster useless.
Bob the red dragon casts spells at the party while flying. A druid can transform into a flying creature, a caster can throw spells at Bob or nullify his spells, a ranged character can attack Bob, how exactly is the monk "closing the gap"?
Same question with Derry the derro sorcerer and his shadow effect surrounding him, Lula the Aranae who's climbing and invisible, Frank the Efreeti who casts scorching ray while standing in an infernal fire, and Shawn the shadow demon who uses his spell-like while possessing one of your friends (to be fair, i don't think a druid can handle Shawn more efficiently than a monk).
Depends on what wildshape you use but the druid is fairly limited in terms of defense against magic. Sure he can buff up with energy resistance or what have you but by the time he's done that the monk has already beat the caster into a bloody paste :P
Melee Druids can counter magical effects. They can fly, reveal invisible, dispel, create creatures with supersenses, block line of effect... And they can also beat opponent into a bloody paste or gain super-manoeuvre abilities (grab, trip...).
Other casters can also counter magical effects, ranged character can inflict absurd amount of damages at range.
The monk can try to engage the caster in melee if he's not out-of-reach, and then try to beat him into bloody paste if the caster isn't some sort of monster-caster with high melee offense or DR.
That's why I though the core anti-casters were melee druid, then caster/ranged, then monk.
the core monk is probably the best class for hunting down ranged enemies and/or casters.
I though the best core class to hunt down ranged enemies and/or casters was the melee druid. Followed by other ranged character/caster. And then the monk.
I'm just a layman, but even I can watch two people fight and quickly figure out which one is the more skilled combatant if there's enough of a difference.
The keyword here is "enough".
A human won't notice a +2 bonus on a d20-vs-DC roll. If I give you two list of head or tail results, one with 50% "head" and the other with 60% "head", you won't be able to differentiate both without a detailed mathematical analysis. A human will start to notice the difference if you raise the "head" probability to something like 70%-75%.
Simply put, on a d20-vs-DC roll, a human won't notice any bonus until this bonus raise to +4-+5.
+4/-4 CE is at level 12, and actually, that's only a +2 over fighting defensively. A human will perceive CE only from level 12, and only if you stack it with fighting defensively. He will perceive CE alone only at level 20. And actually there's so many thing you can stack at level 12, nobody will be able to determine if you actually have CE or any other combination by looking at your fighting prowess.
So, no, you won't notice CE - except if the fighter says "look at my sheet! I have CE!"; CE is just about numbers, and it doesn't affect those numbers enough to be perceived without a mathematical analysis.
Just to add an anecdote to the discussion, my fighter in out local group playing CC would have died last night if it weren't for CE. Twice. The +3 bonus (we're level 11) prevented two scorching rays from hitting me that would have likely killed me outright (single digit hp at the time). Plus the GM had a lot of describing me parrying the rays with my sword.
"look! without CE you would have been hit!"... Hadn't the DM pointed that, Ryric wouldn't know if CE was useful or if if the attack rolls were crappy - because a human can't differentiate a 60% hit rate from a 45% hit rate, especially if there's only two rolls.
Anyway, you didn't respond: why can't you simply fight defensively and say you're parrying the blow with a dashing speed?
But if I'm fighting defensively AND using combat expertise, then suddenly I'm doing something normal people can't do.
No. You have numbers normal peoples can't have. They still won't notice any difference between you and someone with Dodge until high level. Yes, you can stack dodge on top of that. And a defending weapon. And 3 ranks in acrobatics. And still, peoples won't notice CE, because you're stacking such an amount of boni, they can't say what you are exactly using.
I still don't see any difference between CE and fighting defensively, except numbers. In-game, I can describe both with exactly the same words, I can do the same crazy things with both.
And in-game, nobody will notice you have CE except if you actually state you're using it; the effect is just too similar to fighting defensively, a human can't differentiate both by looking at your rolls/your hit percentage/anything. And saying something like "look, I have CE written on my sheet, so what I'm doing is more special than what is doing the other guy!" is far from my own vision of what "roleplaying" is.
It is clear you don't like the spell.
I don't know what it's supposed to do.
If I have a detailed informations, I use those informations ; if I have some tales or rumours, I study those tales or investigate those rumours. Two third of the spell could be a single line in Diplomacy, "investigating about rumours or tales takes 2d6 weeks".
Anyway, reading Hogarth's post and re-reading the spell, I can see one of my mistake: I though you needed "a detailed source of information" (like a library) instead of only "detailed informations". Well, indeed, it can be different.
Generally, one should at least get more than one has by casting legend lore. It specifically notes that the first two levels should give you "where to go for more information" in addition to whatever you get. If you're not getting at least that much, the problem is with your GM, not with the spell.
For the second case, you already have a detailed source of information, which means: all relevant informations. The GM may add "oh, and the climate is continental in this place" if he really want to add new informations, but the fact is: you already have the relevant informations.
If you have rumour and your GM isn't "a problematic GM", you will be able to investigate about the rumours within less time than the spell's casting time. Rumours don't come from nothing, they have origin etc; and if the GM uses rumours as plot hook, you can bet he already planned that PCs will investigate and gain useful informations. If he doesn't use rumours as plot hook but as random rumours... "OK guys, we learned 15 new rumours during our last journey; I will be spending the next two years casting Legend Lore on all those rumours".
Anyway, even without those metagame considerations about the third use of the spell, you may gain some informations with the spell, but "gaining some informations about rumours within 2d6 weeks (average 2 month)" doesn't seems magical at all.
Yes and no.
When a GM gives "a detailed source of information" about something, his intend is obviously to give all relevant informations if the PCs study the source for a few days. I don't think there is any GM on earth who will say "AHA, you have detailed source of informations about the fountain of youth, but the location was erased from the writing, now you need a divination spell to know where it is!"... Then yes, stricto sensus "a detailed source of information" and "less complete and specific [than if you have the thing at hand]" do have different meanings and can have different interpretation, but I don't think there's a difference in any actual game.
For rumours, what are rumours except "vague and incomplete informations"? The spell may allow you to differentiate "rumours based on facts" from "false rumours", but you also have to take into account the ridiculous casting time and the spell's level: if you are level 10 and you're not able to investigate about rumours to learn something useful within a month, you failed at life. Well, it can be useful in some corner-cases, if you don't want anyone to know that someone is investigating, and you think that teleporting from tavern to tavern with disguise and seek thoughts (or any other discrete investigation method) is too suspicious... It's so specific, I don't see the real necessity of a spell for that, and I don't think that's the intend of the spell.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I was responding to the statement that it was irrelevant unless it came into play much more often than a spell or was 100% effective. There are a lot of very common feats that don't meet that criteria.
Except Iron will comes into more often than many very useful spells; at least it comes into play each time someone casts some of those spells on you.
This is (partly) so you can get information about areas where there are no books, or no local informants (e.g., a lost city, or a legendary person that went missing.)
No, since you must either:
You can't use Legend lore if there are not at least some rumours (which implies the existence of informants), and you can't have detailed informations if you don't already have detailed informations.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I've played with GMs who consider these sorts of spells to be "cheating" and therefore give nothing of value when they are cast.
If the GM sticks to the description of the spell, he won't give anything of value even if he don't think it's "cheating": the spell only allows you to gain the informations you already have.
I mean, what's the point of spending 1d10 to get detailed informations if you already have access to detailed informations? Why can't you just use the detailed informations you already have? And from the DM's viewpoint, you already gave a detailed sources of information to the PC, a source which contain all the necessary informations to make the plot advance further, what more can you say if someone casts a spell intended to give those informations again?
if by "less useful", you mean "useless", then we agree: Legend Lore can be useful if the person or place is at hand.
If your defenses deter people from harming you than your defenses are doing their job.
Your defenses are doing their job, but is the character himself doing his job? I don't think the guy who is fighting defensively with a guardian weapon, a tower shield and CE is doing much damages or succeeding many manoeuvres.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Ex: Last night our game was very combat heavy with zero RP. So there were a lot of encounters. I think I made 3 will saves the entire night. I made 2 and failed 1. The rolls and bonuses were such that taking or not taking iron will would have made no difference at all. However, iron will is still one of the most suggested feats on the list.
There are far more situation in which you must make the save than situations in which you must not be hit. And you also have more way to improve AC than save.
Let's make it simple: let's say I know a rumour about the fountain of youth, like "there's a pirate named Jack Sparrow who've seen the fountain of youth"; I can take 2d6 week to cast Legend Lore, and learn something like "if you want more information about the fountain of youth, you should talk to the pirate named Jack Sparrow". Or I can spend 2d6 weeks to not cast any spell and learn other rumours, or even find the pirate.
Let's say I'm in a library with many information about about the fountain of youth.
I don't understand; what is the spell supposed to do? Why is it magical, when obviously the effect is totally mundane, like "using the rumours you know to get a better source of informations" or "using the detailed source of informations"?
Um, can't someone using Combat Expertise STILL fight defensively?
You can. you can also use a guardian weapon (which has the same effect as CE, except you can decide the amount of bonus/penalty) and a tower shield (which has the same effect as +2/-2 CE).
So, CE has a unique effect when it stack on top of a guardian weapon, a tower shield, and you're fighting defensively with 3 rank in acrobatics. if you're always fighting defensively with a guardian weapon and a tower shield, then you should consider CE. And monsters should consider totally ignore you, making your AC irrelevant.
I don't know if Tom was thinking about toughness, or if he did a miscalculation; that's why I didn't quote your question (I wasn't answering to you specifically, I was just saying that even if Tom is wrong, a character can gain 22 HP for the same cost as CE).
The additional 11 hit points (not 22) would not have been enough to protect him.
The cost of combat expertise (13 Int and a feat) at his level is more something like 15-20 hit point (it's a rough estimate based on the fact that 10 -> 13 Int costs 3 character points and 14->16 Con costs 5; and you can also go for 14->15 Con and +1 Con at 4th level). Except if he needed Int for something else than CE (eg 13 Int isn't a cost for a magus).
At the cost of 3 skills point, fighting defensively is -4/+3, and those skill points can also have an effect when you're not attacking (with the total defense action). 3 skill points have the same cost as 3 HP.
No matter how you try to argue this one, in the scenario given, combat expertise was the better choice. The only other option that would have been better would have been a miss chance.
If I use a resource which is more costly than a known spell (eg: a feat slot), I want it to come into play more often than a spell (or to be more decisive than a spell when it comes into play... But hey, we're talking about fighter's feats). The fact that in some rare circumstances, the feat has a 15% chance of saving my life, isn't very relevant in my final selection (it would be relevant if it had a 100% chance of saving my life under those circumstances).
You got a point.
EVERY melee monk is going to take Spring Attack. When you have 80-90' of movement, how could you justify not taking it?
Because you're in a party, and moving around dealing pitiful damages doesn't help the party at all.
Spring attack is a feat I've seen on NPC monks, never on a PC monk.
You shouldn't consider succubus as a creature with a giant libido, but as a creature who use sex as a tool. And as a demon, as in "a creature who enjoy spreading destruction".
Now, you have a PC who want to have sex with a succubus. That's great, and certainly not Evil (nor Chaotic, generally speaking - it can be Chaotic in some particular circumstances). The question is: what will he do to have sex with her? How can the succubus use this to make him fall?