|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
No need to state "at 2nd level" again since the ability comes online at 2nd level anyway. Now, if you got the ability at 1st level, there might be a question as to whether or not it is a typo, but that isn't the case. Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is that it really does mean level 20. So from 2nd level on, he gains a scaling bonus from +1 to +10 to Will saves, and at level 20, in addition to reaching the +10 bonus, he also is completely immune to fear at that point, no save needed at all; while non-fear effects based on Will saves enjoy the +10 bonus.
Other than the penalties for medium load, there's nothing else hindering him. It's an opportunity cost; he can have additional gear available, but pays for that in the form of a constant penalty due to load. Alternatively, he can drop extra gear at the risk of it being picked up by a mob. It's typically bad game design to say, "This would hinder you, so you outright can't do it" unless the hindrance would be so much that it's untenable. Rather, the game says, "You can do that, but there are penalties involved so decide wisely." At the end of the day, the final determination is whether or not the character survived/succeeded. If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid.
Found the cynical heroes.
@Spike: I see that, but I also realize that while it isn't a hard prerequisite, it's a soft prerequisite. No practical person bothers with TWF if they don't have the feats (or equivalent) for it. So while a TWW doesn't need TWF feats to use his class abilities, he still "needs" them. And there are still the other hard prerequisites that I brought up which you did not address at all.
Furthermore, the fact that you took my explanation as a "rant" demonstrates you didn't comprehend a single thing about it so first, before you comment on someone's explanation, make sure you comprehend it so as to be able to make a valid point.
The math is the same regardless of whether you roll for each attack, or roll once and presume that to be the roll for all of them. To illustrate:
VS 15 AC, +6 BAB (2 iteratives), +10 net attack bonus, x2/20 crit
1st iterative) d20+10 vs 15 AC = hit on nat5+ (20% chance miss, 4% chance crit hit, 76% chance non-crit hit)
2nd iterative) d20+5 vs 15 AC = hit on nat10+ (45% chance miss, 2.75% crit hit, 52.25% non-crit hit)
Damage on hit = x
.04 * 2x + 0.76 * x = 0.84x
Total damage/full-attack: 1.4175x
By presuming a single roll that applies to all your attacks, we calculate a little differently:
d20+10/+5 vs 15 = both hit on nat 10+, first hit on nat 5+
0.0275 * 4x + 0.0125 * 3x + 0.51 * 2x + 0.25 * x = 1.4175x
Total damage/full-attack: 1.4175x
Basically, it's the difference between rolling crit as 2d8 or 1d8 * 2. In one, there's a central tendency that forces results towards the average. In the other, you're just as likely to "roll high" as you are to "roll average" or "roll low".
And, once again, a Savage Warrior can't use, at all, its class abilities based on using natural weapons if he doesn't have any natural weapons. A Roughrider can't use his class abilities based on being mounted if he doesn't have a mount. And a Shield Champion can't use his class ability of getting Shield Master without needing to spend a normal feat slot without meeting the prerequisite. I fail to see how you've made any kind of cogent point on the topic.
any one can two weapon fight without having two weapon fighting feat. All TWF feat does is improve your ability to fight dual wielding.
You failed to make a point there. Yes, you don't need the TWF feat to make an off-hand attack, but no one who is remotely competent with the system would bother with using TWF rules without having the TWF feats or equivalent; -4/-8 penalties even from using a light off-hand are pretty untenable. That was also just one of three different examples I provided illustrating a general principal which you did not address at all.
Actually, this method is most useful for balanced attackers more than straight Cha characters. Remember that even with a +10 Cha modifier, if your Str/Dex mod is only +2, you only get an additional +2 on attack rolls. Conversely, a fighter with 14 Str and 14 Cha spends 10 points for +4 attack bonus while 18 Str and 7 Cha is 13 points and only yields +2 attack (but +4 damage compared to +2) damage.
Basically, you use the highest of either the level of the target word or the effective level of the effect words combined. To illustrate:
Barrier is level 3. Two level 0 effect words in the same word spell is level 2. The level of this spell is 3. By contrast, Burst is level 1. Burst with two level 0 effect words is level 2.
Magic, even mind-affecting magic, typically affects the "creature targeted". So you cast Confusion on a Creature and that affects the creature's mind. But if that creature "jumped bodies", then they are no longer under the affect of the confusion because the thing causing the confusion was left behind with the body. By contrast, if you use intimidate to Demoralize an opponent, that is purely in their mind so it goes with them.
Charisma's root is Confidence. It's confidence in yourself that drives all the derived affects of the Charisma score. I'd just let it provide a morale modifier to your attack stat. The caveats are as follows:
1) You can't increase the governing ability score by more than double. So if your Str modifier is +3 and your Cha modifier is +4, you only gain +3 to your Str modifier.
2) If your Cha modifier is negative, it is a "negative typed bonus" of the morale type and, since only the highest bonus of the same type applies, you'll suffer a penalty from Cha, but any morale bonus will override it (ie. the Bless spell). To illustrate, a character with -1 Cha and +3 Str modifiers would net +2 to attack, but throw in the Bless spell for +1 and they now completely lose the -1 from Cha and net +4 instead.
Even if they don't "see" the creature, the attacked party member is going to make some kind of clamor. They may not be able to speak, but they can stamp their feat or clap their hands or something to get attention. So even if you have a terribad GM who doesn't understand the concept of abstract facing, he is still obligated to give you a prompted perception check to notice the noisy struggle going on "behind" you. If he fails to do that, as well as failing to understand abstract facing, he's not qualified to be a competent GM; find a new one.
If commanded to "attack", then the animal will refuse against not only undead, but several other creature types as well.
Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
Normally, they only attack Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants (which is a holdover because giants are humanoids in PF), and other animals. This means that you must spend two tricks for the animal to also be willing to target Undead, Constructs, Outsiders, Aberrations, Fey, Dragons, Magic Beasts, Ooze, Plant, or Vermin type creatures. But as for just "approaching", there's no general rule that states Animals won't approach these creatures, just that they won't attack them in combat if they can avoid it. So we go to specific rules like Unnatural Aura which is easy to adjudicate; Does your character have a specific trait that causes animals to flee from him? If yes, the dog will amscray. If not, the dog loves you because he is a dog.
First, a pouch of shuriken aren't a ranged launcher like a Bow or a Sling. Shuriken are thrown weapons just like any other thrown weapon with the explicit exception that they are drawn as ammo rather than needing to be drawn as a weapon. Normally, it's a move action to draw a weapon. With Quickdraw, you can draw a weapon as a free action. So, at BAB+6, you can throw a dagger as a standard then draw one as a move, or you can draw one as a free action with quickdraw and throw the second dagger as your BAB+1 attack, or you can start with a dagger in each hand and throw one as BAB+6 and the other as BAB+1. With shuriken, you can draw them as ammo, but they don't require any launcher weapon; they are thrown weapons and follow all applicable rules for thrown weapons except for what is stated otherwise.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects). At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects.
Flurry only denies gaining extra attacks from using multiple weapons (effectively, using TWF rules). If you are not using TWF rules to gain your extra attacks, then the extra attacks are permissible.
Additional attacks from using multiple weapons means using TWF rules elements to get extra attacks. Anyone, with at least two iterative attacks, can attack with more than one weapon. If you have a Longsword in one hand and a Hand Axe in the other, you can take your +6 attack with the Longsword and the +1 attack with the Hand Axe. This is not TWF and neither of these are "additional" attacks from wielding multiple weapons. Even if you are wielding a pair of Daggers and lack Quick Draw, you can throw one dagger as your +6 attack and the other as your +1 attack just fine; it isn't TWF and it isn't an "additional attack" from wielding multiple weapons. Rapid Shot is not TWF for ranged because you can still TWF with thrown weapons and get the benefit of Rapid Shot; thus the extra attack from Rapid Shot is not an "additional attack" from wielding multiple weapons. Only additional attacks granted because you are using TWF rules elements are "additional attacks from using multiple weapons". So the Monk in question can use Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, Flurry of Stars, and even throw in Haste, and, at BAB+6, he nets 2 iterative attacks, 1 bonus attack from FoB, 1 bonus attack and -2 attack penalty from Rapid Shot, 2 bonus attacks and -2 attack penalty from FoS, and 1 bonus attack from Haste for a net attack routine of +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+2/-3 before other attack bonuses are applied. The additional attack from using a Ki point wouldn't work because that must be an Unarmed Strike and we're going for a storm of shuriken here.
Because Tesla. Because that is pretty much the best real world example of mad science in the public mind.
What people call "Mad Scientists" rarely run controlled experiments to test a hypothesis. Instead, they often build large numbers of prototype, untested devices with reckless neglect of basic safety protocols. So "Mad Scientists" are really just misunderstood "Mad Engineers".
Ok, here's what I'm thinking, it'll take some 3.5 stuff to pull off:
1) Enlightened Paladin 1; Sacred Vow (3.5) (Human), Vow of Poverty (lvl 1), Vow of Nonviolence (poverty bonus feat), Merciful flaw, Scion of War (flaw bonus feat), Confident Defense[pally] (+Cha to AC, cap 1 point per class level).
Stats should leave Dex at 10, dump Int to 8, and pump Wis and Cha out the wazoo. Con of 14 or so should be more than sufficient for all the AC you're stacking. Use your lvl 4, 8, and 12 attribute bonuses to round out your Cha, Wis, and Str bonuses, then 16 and 20 to get another point of modifier to either Wis or Cha. Vow of Poverty attribute bonuses would go to Wis, Cha, Con, and Str. Get a class that offers Channel Energy, and you can pick up Guided Hand to use Wis for Attack Bonus. That way, you can leave Str at, say, 13, and just pick up Power Attack. You'll be damn near invincible and can shut down hostile enemies easily. AoP lets you turn Undead as well as Evil Outsiders (and banish if you are twice their HD). Even if you DO get hit, if it's a manufactured weapon, it must make a fort save or shatter harmlessly against your skin. If you want to favor Cha more, add in more Pally levels. If you want to favor Wis more, add in more Monk levels. If you want to keep both even, balance Pally and Apostle levels. You'll be the ultimate invincible controller with martial prowess to back it up. With a 20 point buy, you can get the following starting stat lineup:
Str: 13 (3)
Flowing Monk might be nice, it'll let you go all Jackie Chan and let the opponents beat themselves up trying to hit you. If you're not limited to Pathfinder exclusively, maybe Apostle of Peace from Exalted Deeds?
Just remember that making it a +3(weapon) Flaming OrcBane Heavy Shield doesn't give you +3 to AC and +3(shield) doesn't give you +3 to attack and damage, unless you have the Shield Master feat.
A spell component pouch contains quantum uncertainty. You don't really know what is in it, nor how much, until you use it and force it into a state of existence. It "could" contain nothing but bat guano, or it could equally contain a myriad of esoteric items of various magical uses. It is Schrodinger's Component Pouch.
1) Why do people rent homes when buying them is so much more cost effective? Instead of paying rent to a landlord, you can make payments on a mortgage towards actual ownership and, once you own the house, you just pay property tax and upkeep (substantially less than rent). So how do you justify rent in a world where buying a house is perfectly doable?
2) If Fighters are considered sub-par compared to other martial classes like Barb, Ranger, and Paladin, why do armies bother to use Fighters at all? For that matter, why do they bother to use the Warrior NPC class? Instead of hiring thousands of Warriors, with a hundred Fighters as NCOs, they could hire hundreds of Fighters as their rank-and-file and just a handful of Barbs, Rangers, and Paladins as the NCOs.
3) Everyone knows that crotchety old lvl 17 wizards are the nicest, most cooperative, and easiest people in the world to work with and have perform mundane magic for the benefits of your business. After all, it's not like they have any interest in delving ancient magic tomes day and night to unlock yet unknown secrets of the arcane arts... they're perfectly happy doing magic tech support for you.
The real reason that you don't have lvl 17 Wizards going around making a teleportation circle network is because of the durned unions. Sailors union, shipbuilders union, dockworkers union; they've all lobbied to prevent this kind of magical time and labor-saving nonsense because it destroys jobs.
Wielding a longbow and firing a longbow are synonymous. Holding may be different from wielding, mind you. You can hold a longbow, longsword, or greatsword, equally, using just one hand. But if you are holding a Greatsword in one hand, you don't threaten with it while holding a Longsword in one hand, you do threaten with it. You need to be holding a Greatsword in both hands in order to be able to attack with it. In the case of a Bow, you only commit both hands during the actual attack, but you are still committing your hand (as well as attack economy). This isn't exactly a hard concept. I get the distinct impression that certain individuals are being willfully ignorant regarding the matter. The terms "metaphorical hands" and "metaphysical hands" have become pejorative towards the concept of having an attack economy that reflects your potential capacity to make attacks. It's no more complex that understanding that weapons have various interlocking categories; they can be light, 1-h, or 2-h; simple, martial, or exotic; melee or ranged; they have a size category of the intended wielder; etc. But people are having these knee-jerk reactions upon finding out there were some aspects of the rules that the dev team, in their rush to get the rules books out, didn't elucidate as clearly nor as consistently as they would have hoped. They clarify, and people, for lack of a better term, throw s!$#-fits, purposefully throwing around fallacious arguments for no reason other than to stir up malcontent. Anyone should be able to understand the basics of action economy, including attack economy, even if they might get stuck on the finer details. And it certainly isn't an issue worth causing unnecessary trouble over.
So, to fully illustrate how it all works: Just as we use the term "action economy" to describe the amount and type of actions you get and can use in a turn, we can use the term "attack economy" to describe the amount and type of attacks within a round you can potentially make. Everyone starts with a single attack and can earn additional iterative attacks based on their BAB. At +6 BAB, and every 5 thereafter, you earn one additional potential iterative attack. These attacks can be made with any weapon you have to hand. If you have a longsword, a dagger, a boot blade, and a boulder helmet, and 4 iterative attacks, you could assign those attacks to any permutation of those weapons. You could make all four with the Longsword, for instance, or you could make one attack with each weapon, following your normal BAB sequence. What kind of weapon it is indicates how many hands, both actual physical hands as well as off-hand attack economy, it takes to be able to attack with it. It takes one hand to use a light weapon; that is, both a physical hand as well as a potential attack. An iterative attack is a potential attack. Your off-hand is a potential attack. Some light weapons exclude the need to commit a physical hand, but this doesn't invalidate the need to use your attack economy. Other weapons avert both; the Barbazu Beard and Sea Knife state you can use them for off-hand attacks even if you have already committed your off-hand attack economy to the use of a two-handed weapon; and both weapons come with steep circumstantial necessities for their use. A Bow requires the use of both hands to fire. Note that to "use" a weapon and to "wield" a weapon are both the same thing; there is no practical difference between the two terms when used in reference to weapons. We commonly think of wielding a 2-h weapon as involving both hands being "glued" to the weapon. But you only really need both hands firmly on the weapon when making an actual attack swing. But both hands need to be "committed" to the weapon in order to consider it being "ready for attack". In the case of a Bow, it is a "not an action" to nock the arrow to the bowstring; an inherent part of firing the bow. So putting your second hand on the bow is an integral part of making the attack; you don't need to even take a free action to "switch grip". And it's taken for granted where you are holding the bow. You know very well that just holding the stave of the bow in both hands doesn't count for wielding it; you use a bow by holding the stave in one hand and pulling the arrow back on the bowstring with the other. That should clear up most legitimate confusion regarding how attack economy works.
Are you using two hands to wield a Longbow, or to use a Longbow?
I know very well that you know very well that it takes two hands to use a bow (short or long). So what was the point of asking that question?
So, can I attack with my off-hand, without two-weapon fighting?
You can't attack with your off-hand, but you can leverage your off-hand attack economy to wield a 2-h weapon.
@BBT: By the same logic, a full-round action subsumes both your standard and move action that haven't happened and vice versa. If you make a move action to move 30', you cannot then start a full-attack that round but if you moved 30' in your last turn, you can make a full-attack this turn. That's a matter of action economy. Making attacks is a matter of attack economy. The off-hand "exists", but an off-hand attack doesn't exist if you aren't using TWF rules. But you still have your "off-hand" in the same way you have your "swift action". They just clarified that when the book says you use two "hands" to wield a weapon, it is talking about both your actual, physical hands, as well as the attack economy and weapons not wielded in a hand are only exempted from the physical hands restriction, not the attack economy restriction.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. It's fine because the Alchemist is not using the shield arm to help wield the weapon. The attack only interferes if you are using the shield-wearing arm to help make an attack.
A Bow isn't a 2-h weapon, but neither is a Longsword. But if you use your Longsword in two hands, it subsumes your offhand potential and so, too, does using a Bow; your off-hand is helping you wield the Bow. Now, regarding the Buckler, it explicitly states you can use a bow or crossbow without penalty. But that doesn't mean that using a Bow doesn't take up your off-hand attack economy. However, when you aren't firing the bow, the hand still counts as "free" for things like deflect/snatch arrows. There's even a bit in snatch arrows about catching and immediately firing the arrow back using your bow.
A Longsword also isn't a two-handed weapon. But if you use both hands on it, that still uses your shield arm. Also, off-hand attacks don't exist outside of two-weapon fighting, but the Buckler description clearly states, "whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon." Neither a Longbow nor a Longsword wielded in two hands are two-handed weapons, but you use your off-hand (read: subsume your potential off-hand attack) to wield them and, as such, they both restrict AC from the Buckler. It's closer to how natural weapons and manufactured weapons interact; if you attack with a claw, you can't use that hand to help wield a longsword, but if you use the longsword one-handed, you can still use one of your two claws for a natural attack.
master arminas wrote:
Keep in mind that wielding two weapons doesn't necessarily mean you are two-weapon fighting. Only if you use a weapon for an off-hand attack does it get half Str to damage. If a Monk with +6 BAB has 2 kama, and uses one for his +6 attack, one for his +1 attack, and the other for his first flurry bonus attack, that isn't two-weapon fighting; all the weapons get 1x Str to damage. To illustrate, he could use a cold-iron kama and a +1 flaming mithral kama and distribute his attacks between them and neither is an off-hand weapon. If he made a non-flurry full-attack, and wanted to use TWF rules to get an extra attack, that would be an entirely different story. So while there is a definite advantage to using a single 2-h weapon, it's not significantly different from any other 2-h martial; single 2-h weapon for damage output, different weapons for versatility.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Shields don't require an "off-hand." You can two-weapon fight with a long sword and unarmed strikes while using a shield.
Yes, but if you attack with a weapon in the hand of the arm to which a buckler is strapped, you are prohibited from defending with the buckler until your next turn. So defending with a shield doesn't subsume your off-hand attack in the same way that attacking with a 2-h weapon does, but making an attack with the same limb that is handling the shield denies your use of the shield. You can defend with a buckler while using a Longsword and kicks as unarmed strikes, but you couldn't defend with a buckler while using a Longsword and punching with your shield arm.
It well enough stands to reason that that act of attacking with a weapon means you can't bring the shield to bear against an attack if you're using the same limb; if making an attack interferes with using a buckler for a full round, it should apply to any shield.
The main query is whether you can make your full-attack of 2-h attacks and then use a quickdraw shield with the quickdraw feat (don/stow shield as free action) and still have your shield AC.
Invulnerable Rager and Urban Barb can go together. With that, you can slide Str and Dex depending on opponents you're facing. If they're easy to hit, throttle down on the Dex and pump damage. If they're hard to hit, go the other way.
I saw the title and thought something entirely different... like telling an Earth Elemental to climb into a cannon and curl up into a ball. Launch them as a cannonball to deal immediate damage, then have them uncurl and run amok when they touch down.
I think you had a format malfunction there.
You can take the feat, but you must provide your own tail by some other means. Now, you can very easily say that your Human character has, by quirk of biology, a tail right from the get-go and it is, for all intents and purposes, aesthetic until you take Tail Terror which grants it function. Alternatively, you can use a Monkey Belt which can temporarily grant you a tail. There may be other ways as well, but the feat itself doesn't cause a tail to burst from your posterior if you didn't already have one.
If you want to easily track arrows, just average it. Count up how many arrows miss, and they recover half that. So if, at the end of the fight, your archer missed with 4 mundane and 5 adamantine arrows, he recovers 2 mundane and flips to see if he gets back 2 or 3 adamantine arrows. If you want to add a bit more variability, or he fired off a lot of arrows, he can roll 2d6. 2 means he gets back none, 3-5 gets him 25%, 6-8 gets him 50%, 9-11 gets him 75%, and 12 gets him all his missed arrows. Ammo management is one of the few measures available to dampen the damage output of a well-built archer. No need to throw it out, but it can be streamlined so as not to drastically interrupt the game. All they need to do is track their misses with each type of arrow that could be recovered, not flip a coin for each and every one.
Holding a mace in your shield hand, and attacking with your mace in your shield hand, are two very different things. Moreover, if a Cleric with a Light Shield passes their mace to their shield hand, they are no longer properly using their shield (it must be strapped to the forearm and gripped in the hand). Having a light shield that is strapped, but not gripped, cannot be used for defense. But you aren't using that hand for an attack so, once you resume gripping the shield, you resume defending. So the Shield bonus only shuts down for the duration of the casting. But making an attack with that hand means you cannot defend until the start of your next turn.
If turns were sequential, then a spell with a 1 minute duration would end after 10 characters have taken their turns. If there are 5 characters involved in the fight, it lasts 2 full rounds. If there are 10 characters, it lasts only 1 round. More than 10 characters, and it lasts less than one full round. But the reality of it is that a 1 minute spell lasts 10 rounds regardless of how many or few characters are involved. Thus, your position is inherently untenable.
Everyone acts in parallel, but the system is abstracted in many ways. It does end up that, after a caster has finished their turn, subsequent damage doesn't trigger a concentration check because the spell has already been resolved. But not due to the turns not being parallel; rather, it is an abstraction. However, concerning shields, it explicitly states for Bucklers that once you attack with a weapon in that hand, you lose your shield AC bonus until your next turn. The rules state what you can and can't do. It states you can't resume defending with a buckler, and it would be a violation of all good logic to say you can't do as such with a Buckler, but you can do it with a larger shield. The FAQ regarding switching grip on a weapon has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with donning a shield.
All characters share the same 6s round. It doesn't matter if there are 2 combatants or 200, the time from count one of one turn to count one of the next is 6s. There is a certain amount of abstraction at play, but that doesn't change the fact that turns work in parallel and are only adjudicated in sequence.
That having been said, if a buckler loses its AC bonus for the whole turn even from just one two-handed attack, I see no good reason to say that a more encumbering shield encumbers your defense any less. Threatening with a weapon is, fundamentally, a different matter altogether. You CAN switch grip and resume threatening. You CANNOT switch grip and resume defending with your shield.
Always consider it a matter of "completing" the encounter, not defeating the enemies. If you use diplomacy (or intimidate) to get them to surrender, or stealth to avoid them altogether, it is just as valid a success as killing or disabling them.
The same reasoning applies to why you can't attack with a 2-h weapon, take one hand off, and make an off-hand attack. You can't attack with a 2-h weapon while wearing a Buckler, take one hand off, and say, "my hand isn't occupied now, so I get my shield AC." It's a trade-off, either the defense from your shield, or the offense of two-handing your weapon; without special abilities, you can't have your cake and eat it too. No reason for this principal to not apply even to RoFS or quickdraw. The real benefit of a quickdraw shield or RoFS is when using a 1-h weapon (ie. Longsword), where you can quickly "put away" your shield two switch between two-handed and sword/board styles. Normally, if using a buckler, you take an attack penalty for two-handing. If you use a heavier shield, you outright cannot two-hand. But using a shield that can be quickly donned or stowed means you aren't limited to just one-hand+shield style the whole time.
Most GMs don't have you roll all bleed dice and then take the highest value; instead, they just have you roll the largest bleed dice. That doesn't mean it's the way it's supposed to be done. In the case of bleed, if you have a 1d4 bleed and two 1d6 bleeds, you roll 1d4 and two 1d6 but only apply the highest value as damage since bleed doesn't stack. It's certainly possible to roll a 1 and 2 on the d6's and get a 4 on the d4; in that case, you'd deal 4 damage with your bleed. Likewise, you need to apply the DC independently for each character depending on whether or not the monster in question would be considered "common" or "normal" to them. "Most GMs don't do it that way" isn't a valid excuse.
The OP likely has already built their PC, over a year ago.
Probably, but the advise still stands for anyone pursuing a similar concept.
Because Dex is your major defense against Touch attacks. If Dex as the primary offensive stat were easy to get, even if it were sub-par compared to Str, you'd go for it because you can more easily avoid Touch attacks. A martial character's biggest weakness is supposed to be vs magic. Armor doesn't help against touch attacks. By contrast, a Dex-based character is designed to go up against magic users. Dex lets them avoid touch attacks and, while they deal less damage, you don't need much damage to take out a squishy caster. Thus, it all balances out; Strength-based Martials vs Dex-based Martials, Dex-based Martials vs Casters, and Casters vs Strength-based Martials. A Dex-based Fighter isn't supposed to be going toe-to-toe with Str-based Fighters; they're supposed to be surgically eliminating casters, dodging scorching rays and shocking grasps on the way in. Make Dex to Damage too easy to get, and you unbalance that whole rock-paper-scissors setup because Dex-builds become equally viable against both casters AND Str Martials (it's hard enough to balance as-is)