|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, losing the second domain means no domain spells, which hits pretty hard. I thought that was, in this case, reasonable even given that in addition to giving up a domain, the advocate requires your other domain be trickery. That said, since we're firmly in the realm of house rules, there's no real reason to think we'll come up with the same answer. :)
A key design goal of advanced weapon training was to provide options for core fighters, and a strong part of their balance was the fact they can't be taken by a broad range of characters. The more different builds you allow to take something, the more carefully you have to check for every conceivable interaction of options. In this case, I intentionally decided to allow advanced weapon training push the envelope, which required it to keep a narrow scope.
Martial Focus allows characters to access Weapon Mastery Feats, because those are feats, rather than alternate class features. Advanced weapon training is closer to a set of specific fighter talents, and I'm comfortable keeping them tightly as fighter-options with just a *very* few exceptions. Even excluding archetypes that have given up weapon training was by design. I'd rather weapon training get much more flexible, but only for people who already have it, than create a whole new subsystem for everyone to become better combatants.
Otherwise to avoid power creep, advance weapon training would have to be less flexible.
Of course, play style has a major impact on how various rules systems actually impact games. I encourage people to do whatever makes sense for their home campaigns, but those choices often won't make sense for the baseline game as played by everyone else.
Blood of Shadows would be an ideal book to also provide some developer clarifications on RAW usage and adjudication of the 3 big "Shadow" spells in Pathfinder - Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation and Shadow Enchantment (and all their lesser/greater variants).
It is [very rare for core rule clarifications to come from a Player Companion. I expect it'll remain rare. That's not what these books are for and, honestly, I think that's best.
GM Aram Zey wrote:
Note that I'm not making a FAQ or errata statement, just talking about my interpretation.
An amulet of mighty fists can be augmented with weapon special abilities that affect melee weapons.
Sharding is a weapon property that affects melee properties.
So you can put sharding on an amulet of mighty fists.
This means you can make a special ranged attack in place of melee attack. By throwing a duplicate fist. That may look weird, but anyone who has played fighting video games can envision it, I'm sure.
It's worth noting that when you throw a greatsword, you're throwing an improvised weapon unless you have Throw Anything or a similar ability. The same is true of fists. A fist is not a thrown weapon, so when you throw one, it's an improvised weapon. We know this because the ability says "as if thrown by the wielder."
Of course, Throw Anything fixes a lot of that.
Just a note, "Weapon Master Weapon Training" is not actually "Fighter Weapon Training" as it does not meet the requirements of the archetype replacement FAQ. That's why the new companion had to add an explicit exception letting that archetype take and benefit from the advanced weapon training feat.
I DID think it would be a shame if Weapon Master wasn't a good option for a player excited by options in the Weapon Master's Handbook. :D
Chess Pwn wrote:
I'm really happy with this book. I feel it's inspired a lot of thought into making some "off-meta" builds that are now more supported. Also I feel they gave a lot to help classes that get a lot of feats feel like they have good options to go into.
I'm really glad you enjoyed the book!
Lou Diamond wrote:
Owen, I was disappointed in the weapon masters handbook.
I'm obviously sorry you are disappointed. However, suggestions that change how core rules operate, such as changing Vital Strike so it works on a charge without any other player resource being spent on it, or giving every martial character weapon training as part of the base character classes, just aren;t going to happen in a Player Companion. These books are ways to contextualize the existing rules in Golarion-specific ways, and offer new campaign-specific options that work within the existing rule framework.
We're not going to overturn how the whole games work in a 32-page soft back.
There are, of course, options here that are more than a list of feats. Advanced weapon training specifically looked at a way to expand what kind of fighter builds a player can create without making the fighter give up feats. The divine fighting techniques offer different kinds of alternatives.The stamina and combat tricks boost feats characters already have.
But a straight redesign of martial classes that boosts their baseline power for no swap-out isn't something a Player Companion is ever going to do.
Just make sure the Caligni get some generious love Owen....and I'll be a happy camper :P
Sadly the order of then the books have to be outlined and approved vs when Bestiary 5 was actually out means we didn't do specific caligni support, though obviously there are lots of dark- and shadow-themed options they can access.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just got the Weapon master handbook, it's awesome, but the Rondelero Flexibility ability has me really confused. The Rondelero fighter archetype has a very similar ability, minus the keeping buckler AC, but I feel it's been "established" that the ability doesn't actually DO anything, since you can already alternate between weapons and not take 2WF penalties. BUT since the ability was printing again I am super curious if it's actually supposed to mean anything. Or does the fighter's really do nothing and the swashbuckler's really just saves you a feat to keep ac? Does anyone know more about this?
So, obviously when developing a Player Companion, I can't go back and adjust the wording of other books already in print. And of the thousands of people who will buy and use this book, not all of them are part of online discussions. So I want to make sucre it's clear to people who have already put the Rondelero fighter archetype into their games that this class can do the same thing. The fear is if we *don't* mention that, there will be people who see the absence as meaning the new archetype can't do it. And if some new FAQ or official rules change comes along (which I have no reason to think will happen, but like to be prepared for), the two Rondelero will continue to operate in the same way.
However the swashbuckler ability DOES do something, since it allows you to shield bash witch a buckler without losing the AC from the buckler, and that's a nice ability if not overwhelming. For one thing it means you can attack a foe hit with a full attack action, hit, roll damage, discover the foe has DR 10/bludgeoning, and swap to your buckler for your second attack without fear of weakening your defenses.
I added them both but shouldn't those be listed as hybrids or alternates as they draw from existing class features primarily?
That's not really my call, it's not my list. :D
The RuneGuard clearly *isn't* an alternate ranger, despite using a lot of ranger numbers as shorthand. That's a simple way to present a class, but there's nothing about the base attack bonus, saves, skill points/level, starting age, or starting money that's uniquely ranger-ish. The skill and skill points/level are changed, anyway.
It's also pretty clearly not an alternate witch, since it's a martial class designed to fight with weapons. It does have hexes, which only shamans and witches (and hexcrafters, and hellions, and maybe other archetypes and or 3pp classes) get, but that's mostly because they're an underexplored concept. Lots of classes have spells, for example, which doesn't really make them hybrids or alternates of each other.
Given its not thematically at all a ranger, and is not going to play in any way like a spell caster (shaman/witch), I don't really think it's a hybrid of those either.
These are clearly abbreviated class descriptions, but the *intent* is certainly to provide new base classes that, at the game table, will produce a unique play experience despite being built on new ways to use existing rules.
It is true that there is both a (shadow) sub school of illusion, and a [shadow] descriptor (in UM) for things that manipulate or involve travel to the Shadow Plane.
It's also true that is is confusing and unfortunate.
There's a part of me that wants to make a spell just called shadow, which would be an illusion (shadow)[shadow] spell that allows you to enhance creatures' shadows with semi real shadowstuff from the Shadow Plane that made everyone around them cold.
It would, of course, be perfect for a witch (winter witch)/winter witch.
But I won't actually DO that...
The Swordplay Style feat on page 17?
It applies to one weapon you choose (which you must have Weapon Focus with) from the heavy blades or light blades fighter weapon groups. So yes, that includes falchion, elven curve blade, great sword, heck even the scythe.
It may seem one-handed weapon focus because of the swashbuckler's special benefit with it, but in that same section it notes fighters with heavy blade or light blade weapon training can use it with any weapon in that weapon group, so it's definitely not restricted to 1-haned weapons.
Jack of Dust wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
Much thanks for the spoilers. Can anyone give a quick rundown of the styles available or is it just the racial styles?
There are two pages of racial styles, then two pages of ranged styles (available to everyone) and two pages of melee styles (available to everyone).
The divine fighting techniques aren't officially styles and work differently, though thematically they are similar.
Human Fighter wrote:
I'm pretty much disappointed in what I read.
Sorry you don't like it. There's no part of being able to use multiple weapon styles and tack on combat feats as needed in combat, trade out secondary weapon training for brand new options (including one to treat base attack bonus as skill ranks for two skills), or having options to have people who miss you provoke an attack of opportunity, add Vital Strike to Cleave damage, or to a charge, or turn it into ongoing damage, nail a foe to the ground with a crossbow, treat ranged weapons as maces (and threaten with them automatically), ready multiple ranged attacks at once, using Sunder to lover hardness of targets, move 10-feet on a 5-foot step, double weapon training damage bonuses with Weapon Finesse attacks, shooting allies out of grapples, cutting arrows from the air, dispelling a target's spells with a crit from a cold iron weapon, or forcing a flaming sword to cast brining hands (to select one thing from random from each page over several pages, all available to human fighters) that my human fighter characters don't love. :)
As long as this is not an official errata of FAQ, I take it that this is still being discussed?
The entire question of how and if any official faq system is going to be used for Player companions is still being discussed.
This exact question is not being discussed, and there is no opposing opinion how how the ability reads or works by anyone I am aware of within the office.
Specifying an specific option doesn't give you the most broken thing someone might want to claim it gives is not any reason to think it gives you the second-most-broken thing.
I can see "potion master" or "scroll master" but not "immovable rod master" not so much. Though could put it in a "rod master" book but I think people might get the wrong idea for about one;)
I've actually pitched Player Companion: Rod, Staff, and Wand.
I'm NOT going to reveal how that meeting went anytime soon, though. :)
Good to know.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
"Unarmored" options are unlike to appear in "Armor Master's Handbook"
Now if I do an Unarmed Tactics Toolbox later down the line, that might see a lot of both unarmed and unarmored options.
Let me guess, the swashbuckler archetype is huge in Taldor and uses a buckler and Falcuta.
Human Fighter wrote:
So there'll only be one archetype for the fighter? Paladin and ranger are such jerks that they need to get involved too!?
Paladins and rangers have specific weapon builds, so they make sense as archetypes for this book. Fighters also get one, but fighters have lots of other cool options beyond an archetype.
Human Fighter wrote:
The swashbuckler archetype isn't going to be goofy with a gun or something, right?
It's a way to build a specific in-world combatant that makes sense for swashbucklers, that the class doesn't normally do well. No guns.
Human Fighter wrote:
If I understand things correctly, weapon focus will no longer be a trap feat for the most part, but will instead lead to better and brighter things, especially for the fighter? Maybe a feat that gets better if you get weapon focus, specialization and the greater versions over time?
While Weapon Focus is a gateway to several of the feats (though there are also lots of feats without it), those are ALL designed to give you new options in combat, rather than just tack on bigger attack and damage numbers. They aren't built on Weapon Specialization or greater versions of any of that chain, but on doing new and interesting things with a weapon you have Focused with.
Myrmidarch, Weapon Training(rouge talent),Variant Multiclassing, other archetypes ect. allow access to the weapon training feature. Will there be a feat or feat tree in the book to allow access to weapon training.
You mean to allow any character of any class to gain the weapon training class feature? No. It's a fighter class feature we occasionally use in archetypes as a specific design choice, not something we're going to open up to everyone.
And rogue weapon training just gives you the Weapon Focus feat, not the weapon training class feature. It's actually pretty rare for non-fighters to gain access to the weapon training class feature.
And Myrmidarch, and anyone else who gets multiple picks of the fighter weapon training class feature, but *mostly* fighters.
Does swashbuckler weapon training count as weapon training for the purpose of meeting prerequisites of the feats that can be bypassed with weapon training?
They aren't feats in this case, they are literally alternate options for weapon training. Swashbuckler weapon training doesn't work the same way, and thus doesn't work with these options.
My only issue with the "feat-currency" it that we only get so many feats, fighters, warpriest and other classes that gets feats from class features will excel with this book. For that I ask what might be other non-feat options in this book, such as traits, uses for skills or combat options/maneuvers "like when steal came out in the APG".
We do have a set of traits, tied to specific traditions of weapon training throughout the Inner Sea. And there are magic weapons, which can be bought by characters who find them a good thematic match.
New uses for skills are rare, and we didn't do any in this book. Similarly I doubt we'll ever add new combat maneuvers in a Player Companion - that's more the kind of thing we're likely to cover in a hardback rulebook.
The other non-feat option that gets a bit of space is Advanced Weapon training, but that's still mostly a fighter option (since it requires weapon training class feature).
Cao Phen wrote:
That is one of the things being discussed.
Dirty Trick shows up a few times, but for the very reason you mention it was rarely the focus of any design push.
There are some other options allowing a character to apply conditions or penalties to foes, though I'm not sure they raise to the level of a rebuffing build, they do offer some new options in combat.
The swashbuckler archetype uses a buckler but is pretty specific (which is appropriate for the in-campaign-world Player Companion books), but there are lots of non-archetype options to help master a weapon without sacrificing your buckler.
No slayer archetype. Lots of non-archetype things slayers may find useful. (There are only 4 archetypes ion the book, since an archetype helps one class, and everyone can want to master weapons.)
There's nothing similar to crane style. For the most part (and I admit there are exceptions) if the hardback rulebooks, and their errata and faqs, have decided how to handle an idea I'm not gong to try to introduce a new way to handle the same idea. I'd rather explore new ideas.
It counts as an amulet. It occupies the neck slot.