Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Swordpriest

Tels's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,963 posts (5,995 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:

Well, whatever the [Redacted] class is, let me be the first to say what we're all thinking:

[Redacted] is the final nail in the rogue's coffin. The rogue class was already the weakest in the game, and the [Redacted] only makes it worse. Anything you can build as a rogue you can shoehorn into the [Redacted] class instead, and doing so makes a better rogue than the actual rogue.

The Slayer and Investigator have already finished killing the Rogue and burying it. All further classes could do would be defile the corpse.

Though Pathfinder Unchained might resurrect it, in which case this is likely simply not true.

See, the Rogue thought he could use his 2 more skill points each level to either outwit or out skill the Slayer so that, even if he were killed, he could be found and bought back.

But then along comes the Slayer's partner, the Investigator, who uses his substantial skills and brains to cover up all traces of the Rogue. Who best to hide a crime scene, but one who solves crimes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Tinkergoth wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Taunty, Taunty, Taunt, Taunt...

That is all...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Taunter

Curse you Bulmahn! Curse yoooooouuuuuuu!

Your wails of agony.. they sustain me.

They give my psychic strength.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Sounds like the Mino-Dragon has become a disciple of Cosmo.

I blame Cosmo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if, one of the new Psychic Magic classes has the special ability to reveal what all of the [REDACTED] comments are?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS is a specific house-ruled version of the game intended to make a baseline game with as little table variance as possible so that everyone could play a character and know that character will be accepted at any PFS table.

Trying to use PFS as part of an argument why something does/doesn't make sense is as pointless as trying to say that a houserule a table plays with makes a game option over powered. PFS doesn't follow the normal rules of the game, so arguments based on PFS don't carry much weight.

At PFS, the whole item creation chapter, including combining magic item slots, is strictly banned. There can be no alterations to items in PFS beyond increasing the static bonuses of upgradeable items, and even then, only by someone else. PCs can't upgrade items in PFS.

Trying to base arguments around PFS is exactly the nonsense that lead to the Crane Wing nerf. I don't want this game to be balanced around a sub-set of a game with such an extensive set of houserules and changes, that it's almost a 64 page book in and of itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Zark wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Zark wrote:
And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?
Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.
Eh. They have not modified the feat.

Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.

Ah true. I still think it is a waste of space and I also think the move is a bad one.

They have actually nerfed the feat for paladins and changes to feats in the core book should be fixed in the Core book. The thing about the Warpriest, should be handled with a FAQ or text in the class section.

Changing feats in the core book by republish them in a splat book is bad.

Yeah, that's actually Paizo's policy and excuse as to why they won't modify stuff in other books. Every time someone asks for some buffing for Rogue or something, they say they won't change the Rogue in a later book because it invalidates the earlier books.

So why they would modify a feat in the ACG which invalidates the feat as printed in a different book is beyond me. Probably a mistake on their part or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Daring Champion Cavaliers are probably better Swashbucklers than the Swashbuckler Class...and the new kings of DPR at high levels. Why? Precise Strike adds their level to damage. Also, Challenge adds their level to damage. So...double their level to damage on all attacks while Challenging is now a thing. Go Order of the Dragon (or a few other Orders) and you get +5 to hit by 20th level as well. TWF (easy as hell to do, given the Dex-focus of the build), and it gets worse.
Daring Champions get a very specific list of swashbuckler deeds. (Hint: not all of them). Precise Strike is not on the list of deeds that the class receives.
Daring Champion wrote:


Panache and Deeds (Ex): At 4th level, a daring champion
gains the swashbuckler’s panache class feature, along with the
following swashbuckler deeds: dodging panache, opportune
parry and riposte, precise strike, and swashbuckler initiative.
This ability replaces expert trainer.
I recommend you read it again.

Wow... They traded Expert Trainer for that? No contest, I'd take Panache and Deeds over Expert Trainer every day of the week! Methinks they should read up a little on archetype design.

HA! Got my blog plug-in for the day!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

So my friend went to Gencon like he always does...I asked him to pick me a signed copy of the Advanced Class Guide. I always ask him to do this with Pazio's Gencon release.

So I finally get in touch with him and he says he could not get it as it sold out too quick.

So I am blaming Cosmo for my friend's failure in getting me a signed copy of the Advance Class Guide.

Luckily you can always buy a copy online and send it with your friend to GenCon next year to get it signed. Unless Jason, Logan, Stephen, and Mark's hands are all mysteriously chopped off at the same time. Which would probably be Cosmo's fault.

It's possible Jason might arrange for something like this to happen to everyone else so no one punches him in the face with the Gauntlet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Tenzin was truly heroic in the last episode. If he didn't get outnumbered I think he could eventually have worn Zaheer down.

He was completely on the defensive in that fight and couldn't land a single blow until after Tenzin got ganged up on. Still, I bet if it wasn't for Combustion Lady, he could have held all three off for quite some time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
El Ronza wrote:
I just want to find every single person responsible for the awesome and give them a huge hug, then give Mikaze a hug as well for reporting it.

Mikaze should get more hugs just for being Mikaze.

MMCJawa wrote:
Tels wrote:
The only thing I'm worried about is the playtest time period. Hopefully, there is going to be a much longer playtest so the rules get a better pass over.

Well...on the plus side, 6 classes might be more manageable than 10 on that front (and part of the book will be monsters, so the whole thing won't be player options). I do think 10 classes at once might have been a bit much, given Paizo's current production schedule.

although man, I do wonder about archetypes. since that potential section got a lot bigger now that ACG is out.

I agree, 10 classes was too much, but so too was the time period too short.

However, this isn't going to be a playtest of just the classes, but also the mechanics of Psychic Magic. In addition, each of the classes will be custom built from the ground up, unlike in the ACG where the classes each had a parent class to draw abilities from.

So there's going to need to be playtests to ensure the classes function, but also playtests to ensure Psychic Magic functions well.

As for the book itself, I expect it to be very large.

-6 new classes with all new mechanics. (2-3 pages each)
-Archetypes for the 6 classes. (2-3 pages each)
-Archetypes for the 29 base classes that already exist, or new class features like Mysteries, Rage powers etc. (2-pages each like ACG)
-Prestige Classes (20-30 pages or so)
-Magic Items (A good 50 pages)
-Feats (A good 50 pages)
-Spells/Spell lists (A good 100 pages)
-New subsystem that comes out in every hardcover book (Word Casting, Armor as DR, Downtime etc.) (30 pages or so)

We're likely looking at a book that might go into the 350+ page count here. Although they could trim down the page down by cutting content like not including new material for each of 29 classes, or skimping out on the feats/spells and just recycling a lot of the spells from previous books and only developing a ~50 pages of spells or so.

Still, I expect this to be a rather large book once all is said and done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
And much the same way magus is underwhelming and underpowered so is war priest.

BWAHAHAhahahaha!!!

Magus underpowered?! *wipes tears* That's a good one!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
Poldaran wrote:
Troodos wrote:
Guess I'll have to house rule it in, whats the point of getting to be a cyborg if you can't be General Grievous?
You could just start out with a Kasatha to get the required number of limbs.
Yeah, but Grievous started as a Kaleesh, which have the normal number of limbs

Play it off as the cybernetic equivalent of a Reincarnate spell, only into body of a cybernetic Kasatha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

So basically, if I'm reading this right, a semi-automatic weapon can make one extra attack during a full-round action as if you were using Rapid Shot, and if you actually have Rapid Shot it can instead make two extra attacks, abet at a –6 penalty on all attack rolls made during the round.

Sound about right to anyone?

Sounds about right to me. I'm just curious if you can still make iterative attacks, or if you're locked in to making only 3 attacks.

Mmmm... find some way of making a Laser Longbow on a Sohei Monk... NaStY!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am extraordinarily delighted to find out I was wrong and the writers didn't have Zaheer beat Tenzin. Zaheer was, instead, completely on the defensive the entire fight and any time he did attack, Tenzin countered it effortlessly.

Hypothetical non-canon question that just now popped into my head...

Since we know Waterbenders can alter the physical state of water from ice to liquid even to mist/steam, and we know Earthbenders can to (or at least one), what are the odds of Airbenders being able to do the same? Like, make Liquid Air? Or Solid Air?

I imagine such a thing would be incredibly cold and might allow an Airbender to pass as a Waterbender.

I know such a thing will probably never happen, but it's just a thought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Flawed wrote:
If strength governed your AC through a deflection bonus by pushing attacks away from yourself with a weapon everyone...
Woah, that is a cool idea.

[austrian]I deflhected youh bullets wit mah mahscles![/austrian]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Troodos wrote:
Can you get more cybernetic arms than you originally had?

And NOW I'm interested.

Please fill me in, so that my dream of Mecha-Kali can come to fruition!

Mecha-Marilith?

How about Alchemist 2 + Extra Discovery = 2 Vestigial Arms. Now replace them with cybernetic arms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just had a thought... What if the whole feat chain has a massive typo and it's actually supposed to be Pommeling Style?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint_Yin wrote:
Tels wrote:
(BTW, since a lance is used to punch through the armor of enemies, it totally counts for Pummeling Charge)
I like where this is going. Because a cup can can be filled with punch, it totally counts for Pummeling Charge.

So *thats* how Riddick did it!

(Glad someone got the joke)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect Pummeling Style will be up there with Power Attack as feats that your would be stupid not to take!

I can't really think of any reason why Pummeling Style wouldn't be an early feat and Pummeling Charge wouldn't be a 9th level feat for every Brawler/Monk out there.

MONKS CAN HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... if I ever form a business that becomes popular, I want to do all of my releases by Samoa Standard Time, just to watch people squirm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone shared this on Facebook: If Gamers wrote about cookbooks like they do RPG books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Troodos wrote:
Ive been dying to know: WHAT THE HECK IS AN EXTINCTION WAVE!?!?
Imagine a nuclear weapon that only kills living things with an intelligence score, but leaves structures, objects, and mindless organisms intact.

Does Numeria actually have this weapon, or is it a possibility. 'Cause I kind of wonder why such a thing wasn't used against the Demons in the hypothetical 'Heroes Lose' scenario at the end of Wrath of the Righteous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for this Fifty Shades of Frozen trailer ruining Frozen.

I do, however, thank Cosmo for giving me Gilbert Gottfried Reads 50 Shades of Grey so I can ruin the book for those who enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for my facetiousness and for my family not laughing at my joke.

My sister has a habit of holding her hands up near her neck and it appears like she's strangling herself. So I told her she could be like Robin Williams, then I pointed my fingers at them in a joking manner and said, "Too soon? Eh? Eh?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When I posted 'more generic' I probably should have gone on to clarify that I meant 'more options than just the scimitar'.

The impression I had gathered, was that the feat would be limited to a single weapon, but it would be a weapon that you could choose instead of limited to only the scimitar.

So you would take Greater Finesse and choose (dagger) and then you could gain dex to damage with daggers. Or you could choose (kukri) or (rapier) or (elven curved blade) etc.

A feat like that is one I would (mostly) be fine with, because it would work and it would be available to people.

Hell, if Slashing Grace were re-named and the wording changed to read more like, "When wielding a weapon in one hand with which you have weapon focus, you can add you dexterity score to damage in stead of strength." Then I would be fine. Especially if this allowed you to gain multiple weapons by requiring you to take Weapon Focus for each of the weapons.

That would be a great feat to add to the game. It's limited, so it doesn't turn all finesse weapons into dex to damage, and it's got an acceptable feat tax that should make anyone happy. Especially, since TWF Dex characters would then be able to get the dex to damage option they wish.

It would also allow for weird options like axes, or even clubs to gain dex to damage. As for 'giving more utility to Swashbucklers' you could then include the same line as Slashing Grace in that "Weapons that benefit from this feat can be treated as one-handed or light piercing weapons for the purpose of class features such as the duelist's or swashbuckler's precise strike."

So now you have a feat that makes just about everyone happy, and it isn't open ended. Problem solved and this matter would be over, or even better, it would never have happened if they had done this from the get-go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Just...why???

Just because I'm crawling through an orc infested hell hole, that doesn't mean I don't want to look my best.

Prestidigitation can clean all of you, not just your armor and sword. Kind of defeats the purpose if you went through that Orc Hell Hole and your armor is spotlessly clean, but your hair is matted in blood, you've got filth on your face and you smell worse than a sewer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Did not know that. Interesting.
The less the rest of the world knows, the better Kobolds are suited to taking over. And by Kobolds, I mean Humans/Aasimar with mystical racial heritage relating to Kobolds. Somehow.

Father was a Celestial Kobold Chieftain with some really strange fetishes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I want a dex-based warrior because I find them to be so much more cool and fun than someone who just powers through things with strength.

That's not to say that strength is bad, I've got several characters that can hurl cars with the best of them, but, when ever I think of the type of character I would most want to play, it's not someone with bulging muscles. It's always someone who focuses much more on grace and precision, attacking key points and using technique to defeat foes.

It's one of the reasons why I've always like the Monk and the Rogue classes the best to play. Both classes, ideally, should be relying on their skill and technique to be able to defeat foes. In actual play, you have to be very good with your rules-fu to pull them off and make them good. Both classes take a lot of effort to get functioning, unlike say a Barbarian for whom a new player can pick up and play and kick ass with minimal effort involved.

As for the Crane Wing thing... one of the biggest things that upset me about that was so many of my characters that had it, weren't even monks (outside of a dip to get it). I had a number of characters I never got to play that incorporated it because it fit them, because in actual fencing (with both foil and real rapiers), you are able to simply slap the blade of an enemy away if you wear nothing more than a good leather glove. So the idea of a fencer, or dex character, being able to deflect the blow of a weapon by nudging it enough to miss really appealed to me.

Plus it allowed for the hero who wore only leather armor and relied on is ability to dodge and agility to really function in the game. Crane Style and Crane Wing really made up for the lack of good armor on such a character.

So it wasn't just Monks that were hurt by the Crane Wing nerf, it was also a great many dex characters who were hurt as well.

Off-Topic:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Crafting and/or upgrading to +5 celestial armor is RAW.

For totally unralated and off topic reasons, I find this not that true. I mean, yes you can upgrade it, but how ? how much it cost? does the the book tells that?

Lets imagine a´+3 armor that cost 25 K. It is 9 K for the +3 and 16 k of added price. or it is more like a +5 amror?.

Because if it is the first then upgrading it to +5 would make it worth 41 K. In the second case it would cost 49 K.

I mean, can we should be call it RAW despite that there is no written rule?

Unless it appears on the enhancement equivalency chart, then any special ability of armor is assumed to be a flat +gp cost. So you subtract the cost of +3 armor and pay the difference from +3 to +5 and now you've got +5 Celestial Plate Armor.

Technically, you could take it further and make Mithral +5 Celestrial Plate Armor, but that's pushing it for many GMs.

FanaticRat wrote:
I just wanna punch stuff with lightning. That's all I ask. I don't wanna use a scimitar.

So much this. I've wanted to play a much more mystical monk for a long time. I would love to see a Magus/Monk archetype, or even better, hybrid included in the game. Being able to punch Fireballs or Kick Lightning Bolts would be absolutely badass.

Maybe even do something weird like cast multiple low-level spells in a Flurry of Spells or something.

Hell, a Monk/Magus Hybrid could even have Elemental Archetypes to mimic some Avatar bending styles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zapbib wrote:

I think it's reasonable to assume slashing grace actually work for light weapons. I already said that i thought it was the intent, and someone else in this thread pointed the distinction between one-handed melee and one handed slashing.

I think it,s reasonable to assume it will be in the FAQ that it is a correct reading of the feat. To insist otherwise reeks a little bit of purposefully searching for the worse reading in order to placate paizo.
I will assume this is correct way of reading the feat in all my following comment.

Now I think it would be interesting to discuss the value of the feat if it is read that way. I am personally sad that it doesn't work more like the dervish dance feat for other slashing or piercing weapons (a feat that have been found quite balanced up to now).

Right now it seem to favor two weapons user over one weapon user in the mechanics. This is a little sad as I like things that favor one handed one weapon user, a common sight in most stories, but almost absent in pathfinder.

This is intentional mis-reading of rules language and is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Devil's Advocate Post:

This is certainly making the Warpriest look better, but is it doing so because the Warpriest is in the hands of someone who knows how to play, or is it because it's the Warpriest itself making himself look good?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Not This Day- use 10 rounds of Raging Song to reroll a save or force an enemy to reroll an attack roll.

Sons of Mendev! Of Sarkoris! My brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me! A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day. *Re-roll save vs fear* An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of Men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! *Re-roll sunder* This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good land, I bid you stand! Men of the North!

*Inspire Rage* CHARGE!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for getting lost in the YouTube beast by watching 'Frozen' parodies, including... Do You Want To Kill a Planet featuring Nappa and Vegeta!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tels wrote:
But that is for a discussion in another thread. The point of this thread was to talk about possible errata or the possibility of a better, more generic Dex to Damage feat that...
Me, I'd like to see a simple easy feat. All you need is weapon finesse to take it and all it does is allow "any weapon that you can use weapon finesse with you may use dex instead of str for damage." I fail to see the need for pointless restrictions to one weapon or multiple prerequisite feats needed.

I agree, but I'd rather see the restrictions and a useable feat, then no feat at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
anlashok wrote:
Tels wrote:
snip

Hostility? Maybe a tiny bit, but it was moreso an observation. Sacred Geometry is greenlit while frankly innocuous martial feats are laughed out of the room.

I disagree with Sacred Geometry not being fair game though.

Plus while I could be nicer, this is a two way street. I mean, the best way to get people like me to shut up would be to actually fix it.

Ok, I don't understand this post. I point out to you that the Pathfinder Design Team didn't make Sacred Geometry, I even mention that the Design team didn't want Dex to Damage at all, but agreed to do so after lots of proof and discussion. Yet you still bring it up?

Ok, lets phrase it this way...

Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

There is a known disjunction between the Golarion product line and the Rule book line of designers. The Golarion product line is allowed to include far more powerful options in it, because those rules are not considered to be part of the core rules of Pathfinder. They are apart of the rules of Golarion.

If you play Pathfinder on Faerun, the books about Golarion are not entirely applicable because Golarion is different from Faerun.

How about an analogy?

You buy a car. The has a few issues, but over all, it's fine.

You buy a stereo system. Installing the stereo system causes the back window to vibrate too much and shatter.

So you blame the car maker for not making a better window.

Does that make sense?

The guys in charge of making the core system are not responsible for the guys making the additions to the world in which the system is played.

Stop blaming the car for the window breaking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Oddly enough, I didn't say the Design Team. I said "I don't understand why they (They, in this instance, being Paizo as a whole, as the people behind Pathfinder) can give the OK on something like Sacred Geometry, or Dazing Spell, for that matter, but a Dexterity-to-damage Feat is, to paraphrase Mr. Jacobs, 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'"

The design decision, as a whole, on this doesn't make sense to me, at all. I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, personally, but it doesn't change the fact that this Feat is not good for what it is supposed to do, and I don't understand why.

Edit: I agree that 'design decision' may be a bad choice of wording, but I cannot, in my frustration with this, come up with a better way of putting it.

Mr. Jacobs did not say that. Based off the Ask James thread, Mr. Jacobs is perfectly fine with a Dex to Damage option, in fact, it's why Dervish Dance and the agile property exist.

I can't find the quote right now, but I believe, in the past, one of the Design team (as in Mark, Jason and Stephen who make the hardback rule books) said that they didn't include agile in Ultimate Equipment because they were worried about people switching over to entirely Dex based builds and no longer playing Strength characters.

The concern has turned out to be unfounded. After many complaints and many playtests and many instances of math and reports proving it wrong, the PDT finally decided to allow a Dex to Damage option into the Core line of books. It's just unfortunate the feat itself is a clunky one.

What was said about Mythic Weapon Finesse, was Mr. Jason Bulmahn expressing his concern that that Mythic Weapon Finesse was perhaps too powerful for Mythic as someone could, almost totally, obviate the need for strength if they do it right.

Obviating the need for strength is something they're concerned about. I can understand why they're concerned, but as someone who has built many Dex characters with even a 10 strength, I always find myself toeing the Encumbrance line. As many of those characters have been monks, Encumbrance is a very bad thing!

The point is, the Pathfinder Design Team is in charge of books like the Advanced Class Guide. They aren't in charge of what comes out of the Player Companion line, or the other Golarion products.

Yet people still get up and arms and blame them for everything that comes out. I've seen a lot of comments like, "Why can't Monks get a nice feat but Casters get Sacred Geometry" or "No Dex to Damage but the PDT gives Casters Sacred Geometry" "No move and attack but casters get Sacred Geometry"

The Pathfinder Design Team is not responsible for the existence of Sacred Geometry! So stop blaming them for it.

I would like to see Jason, or Stephen, or even Sean come in here and talk about a more likeable and useable Dex to Damage option in the core line of books. But if people keep getting so vile and hostile against them, I can't see why they would even bother. They're just going to come in and lock the thread if people keeping tossing around insults like what's been included so far.

Bottom line is the:

If you want input from the Design Team, START. BEING. NICER!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Could you guys *not* get so hostile or snarky? I've been informed that we're unlikely to get a designer response here (at least as far as Mark is aware) because the tone in this thread is really hostile and combative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manuelexar wrote:
Tels wrote:
I heard there was an issue with the cover of the PDFs, can any one tell me what that's about?
You mean the fact that the physical copy shipped with the adventure path logo instead of the RPG logo? They made a blog post about it! :)

That's probably it. I don't read all the blogs, so I didn't catch it. I'll go check it out now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ahmadin wrote:

Also checked Book Depository and it also states that this book releases September 02 AND with a different hardcover than the one presented here.

Can anyone please enlighten me?

The hardcover in question is this one:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71Q3ND2UNzL.jpg

Same situation as with Amazon.

Retailers get placeholder cover artwork and the point when Paizo announces the book for distributors ... which is the point where Paizo doesn't have the final cover art yet but has to provide something so that stuff doesn't sit on websites with <blank> cover.

Of course, once the final art is ready Paizo sends it over to distributors, who are supposed to send it to retailers, who are supposed to update it. Which they almost never do until timely.

Besides, neither BD or Amazon deals with Paizo directly, they both go through distributors - Diamond/Alliance in case of Amazon and likely Esdevium in case of BD.

My snark detector is picking up nothing in this post. I'm confused?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
I know the whole Slashing Grace was buffed last minute thing makes people think the developers didn't think about this at all, but I'm fairly certain it was more thought out than: "Hey, Slashing Grace sucks. Should we make it baseline?" "Nah, let's just put Dex to damage on it."

Logically, I agree with this, but feelings almost never follow logic. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except you are applying a loose interpretation of the rules. You are intentionally reading the rules in a way that breaks how the rules have been handled for over a decade.

A 'one-handed' weapon always means 'one-handed' weapon. Every time the rules take about weapons when it comes to handedness, it always refers to 'light' 'one-handed' or 'two-handed' weapons. That means, every time the rules say 'one-handed' it refers to the 'one-handed' category of weapons.

If they meant light weapons, they would have said light weapons because words like 'one-handed' have specific rules connotations to it.

The only exception is if they had phrased it in a way similar to the following: "Choose one kind of slashing weapon that can be wielded in one hand (such as a longsword or kukri)..." Then that would apply to light slashing weapons as well. But they didn't phrase it that way. The method of their phrasing is done so in such a way that the rules term of 'one-handed' weapon applies to it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
So yeah... that kind of might be part of the reason it's not on TV anymore....

I've thought about using air bending like that before, but I just assumed they didn't want to make the show too violent. Water bending could do the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is probably the oddest thing I've ever had to blame Cosmo for.

I had to go to the bathroom, and when I sat down, I noticed something out of the corner of my eye. Turns out, there was a sheet of unpopped bubble wrap just laying there (Praise Sara Marie). So I picked up the sheet, and began popping the bubbles.

Anyway, so 20 minutes later, I run out of bubbles (for which I blame Cosmo), and then when I go to stand up, my butt has fallen asleep. As the blood comes rushing back, I get that needle-like sensation on my butt and I can't help but squirm.

I blame Cosmo for this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to be able to play a spear dancer, personally. Every time I watch a movie like Hero, or Hellboy: The Golden Army, I have a longing to play a lightly armored, agile spear wielder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

I... But... AAAGHH!!!

This or ACG, this or ACG!?

I hate being poor.

TELL ME THERE'RE TESLA CANNONS! I MUST SHOOT ELECTRICITY AT PEOPLE!

Tesla to me = Einstein to Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory)...

FOR SCIENCE!

Lightning Bolt never gets the love...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Don't forget that they forgot about daggers too!
The Feat was made with Swashbucklers in mind, and daggers aren't really iconic to that Class. I suspect it's more like they just didn't think of them in the context in question.
I also suspect they just plain missed including Light weapons in that list, but daggers absolutely are an iconic Swashbuckling weapon. They are the traditional off-hand weapon as a companion to a rapier, if you're not using a buckler. Actually, some styles even involved holding both a buckler and dagger in the same hand, with a sword in the other. And it's not hard to imagine an Eastern Swashbuckler using a Katana and Wakizashi.

Here's the thing, if they made a mistake, they should fix it. Instead of releasing an entirely separate feat in a separate book that only fixes a single weapon, they should fix the core issue that is Slashing Grace not being a functioning or appropriate feat.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)

NO! That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!

I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.

A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.

If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.

If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.

I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.

I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I proposed an alternative feat to have been written into the ACG that would have gone as follow:

Proposed Feat wrote:

Greater Weapon Finesse

Your skill and speed with your weapon allows your quick and agile strikes to land devastating blows.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (chosen weapon)

Benefit: You may replace your strength modifier for your dexterity modifier on damage rolls with any finesseable weapon with which you have weapon focus.

Special: Characters with Swashbucklers Finesse and similar abilities that allow them to treat a weapon as a finesseable weapon or use their dexterity score on attack rolls with a weapon are treated as if they have weapon finesse with that weapon for the purpose of this feat and it's prerequisites.

Such a feat would allow any weapon that qualifies for weapon finesse to have a dex to damage option.

Then, for a Slashing Grace feat, I would have done the following.

Proposed Slashing Grace wrote:

Slashing Grace

You are able to use your speed and agility when fighting with a slashing weapon.

Prerequisites: BAB 3, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (chosen weapon)

Benefit: A light or one-handed slashing weapon with which you have weapon focus with is treated as if it were a finesseable weapon even if it otherwise isn't. In addition, the weapon can be treated as a light or one-handed piercing weapon for the purpose of class features that require it, such as a duelist's or a swashbuckler's precise strike. This weapon must be appropriately sized for you.

Special: Characters with Swashbucklers Finesse and similar abilities that allow them to treat a weapon as a finesseable weapon or use their dexterity score on attack rolls with a weapon are treated as if they have weapon finesse with that weapon for the purpose of this feat and it's prerequisites.

What the above two feats do together is make a Dex to Damage character feasible. The Greater Weapon Finesse feat allows for any finesseable weapon to gain Dex to Damage as long as you have Weapon Focus in it.

This means that:

1) It limits the Dex to Damage to a Weapon Focused weapon. So people could have multiple Weapon Focus' if they need to, such as Weapon Focus (rapier) and Weapon Focus (shortsword) if they want to TWF and get Dex to Damage on both weapons. It's a heavy feat investment, but it's possible.

2) It allows for outliers like the Elven Curved Blade or the Aldori Dueling Sword to qualify automatically for Dex to Damage.

3) A character that wants to be an agile combatant with an axe, can do so, but they need Slashing Grace as Slashing Grace lets them qualify for Weapon Finesse and Greater Weapon Finesse.

With these two feats, I can't imagine there would be much, if any, discussion at all, except for the odd person who would want to play an agile warrior with a hammer, or club.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made a thread to talk about dex to damage options and the Slashing Grace feat. Link.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

TL/DR Slashing Grace is unsatisfactory as a dex to damage feat option as it is highly restrictive of what weapons it can be used with, has clunky mechanics, only truly works with the Swashbuckler base class, and denies iconic weapons the option to be used effectively.

Jason Bulmahn explained how the feat came about, and spoilered a feat coming about in an upcoming product to address only one aspect of the many issues of Slashing Grace.


21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 27 people marked this as a favorite.

As some people may know, a new feat, Slashing Grace, was released in the Advanced Class Guide. Many people are unhappy with the feat as the mechanics of the feat itself are clunky, extremely limiting, and denies iconic weapons from being function able with the feat.

Another poster on the forums copy/pasted the feat into the Advanced Class Guide thread that I will quote here:

Advanced Class Guide wrote:

Slashing Grace (Combat)

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Issues with the feat above include the following:

1) The feat is limited to a single one-handed slashing weapon. This means that weapons in the 'light' weapon category, either piercing or slashing, are not applicable with this feat; such weapons include the dagger, shortsword, wakizashi etc. One handed piercing weapons, like the rapier, do not benefit from this feat either; the big one in this group being the Rapier, the single most iconic swashbuckling and fencing weapon in all history.

2) The feat allows weapons to benefit from their dexterity score to damage, but not on attack rolls. So except for the Aldori Dueling Sword and the Whip (to my knowledge) there are no other one-handed finesseable weapons that also deal slashing damage. This means that the only class that truly benefits from this feat is the Swashbuckler, because they have the ability to apply their dexterity score to more weapons than the traditional weapon finesse feat.

3) The feat harms iconic images with the above limitations of problem #1. You can have a character wield a battleaxe and get his dexterity score to damage, but not a rapier. You can benefit from Dex to Damage with a Bastard Sword, but not a dagger (a common weapon that is paired with rapiers). There are a great many weapons in the game that *should* benefit from Dex to Damage, and yet they are restricted due to the language in the feat itself.

4) Weapons that should be capable of benefiting from a Dex to Damage feat, aren't capable of doing so. They can still benefit from the agile weapon property, but that means the character is entirely reliant on a magical weapon using a weapon property from a non-core rule line book; something many GMs don't allow or have issue with.

5) The feat restricts the option of fighting with multiple different weapons as you can only take the feat once. So unless you have someway of fighting with two one-handed weapons at a reduced penalty, such as sawtooth sabres, then you can't do something like fight with a rapier and dagger (even if the weapons were viable selections), unless you have enough wealth to afford at least a +1 agile enhancement for both weapons.

Now, you may question how such a massive oversight came to be? Well, Jason Bulmahn did weigh in on the feat itself in the thread with this post.

I will quote the main explanation, as the post itself is rather long:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So, this feat originally had nothing to do with damage. It was just a way for the swashbuckler, and a few other classes, to use slashing weapons with some of their class features. Thats it. As the book was getting close to print, we were looking over it and felt that was just too weak. The damage component was added to make the feat more attractive. It was not until after it went to the printer that we realized the odd case we had created (that you cannot get Dex to damage on a rapier). Since this was obviously a vital part of the iconic character for that class, we saw it as a real problem and started looking for a solution.

So, the reason this feat is so limiting is a mistake on their part; an oversight that was unintentional. Now, this does send up red flags in my mind and I will explain why.

During the ACG playtest, we, the players, were promised a more generic dex to damage feat. Based on my reading of the above post, it sounds to me that the Dex to Damage option only came about because they felt the feat itself need a little more 'oomph' in power and attractiveness. Now, if they were already promised to give out a Dex to Damage feat, then why was the Dex to Damage option tacked onto a feat at the last minute?

Purely my own interpretation, but it feels to me, as if though they weren't going to include the Dex to Damage option at all! This hurts me as a customer because I place a lot of trust in Paizo as a company to keep their word, and it feels like they only managed to do so by sheer coincidence.

However, that is neither here nor there. It is entirely my own feeling and though it doesn't have any bearing on the outcome of this thread, I felt the need to express it.

Now, Jason also went one step further to say that they, as the designers, realized the issue with Slashing Grace, but only after the final edition was sent to the printers. So he promised to fix this, but including a feat called Fencing Grace in the upcoming Player's Companion: Advanced Class Guide Origins. He even included the proposed feat in the post for us to use:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FENCING GRACE (COMBAT)

Your extreme style and fluid rapier forms allow you to use agility rather than brute force to fell your foes.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier).
Benefit: When wielding a rapier one-handed, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The rapier must be one appropriate for your size.
In addition, if you have the panache class feature, you gain a +2 bonus to CMD against attempts to disarm you of your rapier while you have at least 1 panache point.

While this solves the issue of the Rapier being denied a Dex to Damage option, it still doesn't fix the issue with the other multitude of weapons that are more deserving of a Dex to Damage feat than a battleaxe.

My question, is should Paizo release a FAQ/Errata to fix the Slashing Grace feat to make it a more generic Dex to Damage option than what currently exists?

Why is it that I can't play a Dexterous Dagger Wielder that gets Dex to Damage, without becoming Mythic, but I'm able to wield an axe and get my dexterity to attack and damage? Why is a battleaxe more 'dexterous' than a weapon like a dagger? Or a shortspear? Or a shorsword? Or a wakizashi?

Should a more generic Dex to Damage feat function more like Dervish Dance, allowing only a single weapon to benefit from dex to attack rolls and damage? Should it be allowed to be taken multiple times, so a character that wants to fight with two weapons can do it, but it requires a heavy feat investment?

How do you feel about this? What are your thoughts?

To the Paizo Admins, I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but, as it's not errata, and more of a discussion on whether or not errata should even be done, I felt it would fit best here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for my threads blowing up. Came back to the forums to see over 500+ posts that need reading :(

1 to 50 of 1,123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.