anthony Valente's page

Interesting discussion. My take:

I personally can't see how undead, intelligent or not, can be considered anything BUT evil. Just because an undead is mindless, that is no proof to justify otherwise. Several things in the game are mindless, yet still register as evil… lingering auras, spell effects such as desecration, and certain magic items/artifacts.

I also disagree with the notion that just because an undead creature is mindless, it can't discern it's environment. IRL, several mindless organisms exist that obviously fullfill their purpose, despite the lack of capacity to think… single cell organisms and viruses in particular. It's not a stretch to equate that to mindless undead.

I could see a better argument for a necromancer, for instance, who isn't evil himself, but uses evil magic (in the form of creating mindless undead in this case), but not necessarily for evil purpose. Obviously, said necromancer is walking a fine moral line.

I'd still say fighter over warrior. Just because he's had no formal training doesn't preclude him from the fighter class. He still gets experience from fighting just because he does it. Besides, not all feats need be related to formal training: Catch Off Guard, Toughness, Diehard, to name a few.

I am thinking of making a character and using Fezzic from the princess bride as my major inspiration. I’m not trying to completely duplicate the character, but use him for a major inspiration.

In what ability scores should I put my high rolls/ point buys?

In order:

So, I've got a problem on my hands, perhaps others have experienced this also.

Consider a common glass flask, 3 cp value
Consider The same flask filled with acid is 10 gp. that means one pint of acid is worth 9.97 gp.

Consider a modest 10 ft. cube acid pool. that's 1000 sq feet of acid.

Now according to onlineconversion.com the pool of acid 1 000 cubic foot = 59 844.155 844 pint [US, liquid]

That means your average 10 foot pool of acid is worth 596,646 gp + 23 cp

What's to prevent greedy players from purchasing 60 thousand flasks and sell the filled flasks for 300,000 gp profit or so?

I just want place interesting environments for my party, I don't want to need to resort to complicated economics around supply and demand to keep them from getting obscenely rich.

Best I can figure is to say that large quantities of acid are typically of a less dangerous variety (something like real world hydrocloric acid) as compared to something more dangerous (like sulphiric acid) in thrown flasks. Using the lesser acid would deal 1d3 points of damage with a throw, making them not an effective weapon, hence not worth harvesting.

Note: I don't purport to be any good at chemistry, but to my mind alchemy should work on very different principals anyways.

Any thoughts on this?

Returning to the OP. I would personally discourage this sort of play for the most part, but if my players were REALLY bent on selling this pool of acid, I'd just make them make Profession or Craft checks to earn the money, following all the rules for such checks. Sure, they'll make alot of money, but it'll probably take years to sell all 60,000 flasks of acid. For instance, assuming they sell 6,000 flasks a year (roughly 16 flasks each day), it will take them 10 years to realize the profit. IMO, that might be possible for a merchant dedicated to this endeavor, which is highly unlikely for the PCs. And if they did become THAT dedicated to setting up an acid selling business, we as a group might as well consider those particular PCs retired adventurers.

I might make it a little more complicated than this depending on how much they'd want to roleplay this aspect of the game. For instance, I might allow them several profession checks each week – one for each resource they find, but they'd also have to go through the process of setting up legitimate businesses for each one. The check indicates their net profit after paying all expenses for the business, that they delegate to have run by others.

If they wanted to get fast money for it however, I'd probably just come up with a reasonable price for selling the whole amount of acid to an interested buyer, and it would be nowhere near 300,000gp... more like 1,000 - 4,000gp.

I can see a human fighter all the way. So many feat possibilities to emulate him.

At a glance I can see:
Improved Unarmed Strike/Grapple feat tree
Catch Off Guard
Endurance, Toughness, & Diehard

Maybe even Leadership for an Enigo type cohort.

Imagine attacking an adjacent opponent with a dagger, then performing a 5-foot step, switching to a polearm, and hitting another target that was 15 feet away when you started the attack...all with a single "swing". And that's without using lunge.

You could do that with a full attack. But unless the targets were adjacent, you could not use Cleave. From your description, it sounds like they would not be.

anthony Valente wrote:

I converted Combat Vigor to PF by it giving you stackable temporary hit points that disappeared at the end of the encounter. It never sat well with me that you could actually end up with higher hit points at the end of a combat than you started just by fighting.

Ah... but going off of that method you "magically" end up going through a fight without a scratch even when you've be cut, stabbed, or even worse fire-balled. In the end, it works out the same right?

I like to think of the fast healing granted by Combat Vigor as a more time released form of Wholeness of Body. You are focusing your inner energies to speed up your natural healing.

Your focus is keyed off of that first strike... and then the adrenal surge sends you into a "bullet-time" as it were. Your brain activity speeds up making it seem like time slows and fresh oxygenated blood rushes to every part of your body increasing your vigor.

That's not what normally happens in practice. But yes, it works out the same MINUS the fact that you can actually heal yourself if the damage you take doesn't outpace the amount of fast healing you receive over the course of your focus. It just solves a lot of abuse.

The way I envision it, with the temp HP concept, you turn those cuts, stabs, and fireball burns into bruises, scratches, and singes... i.e. when you're in your focus, you non-magically reduce the lethality of attacks because you are in the zone. For example, lets pretend you have 45 hps:

Round:
1) You hit and get your focus. You have 49 hps (45 reg + 4 temp). Later in the round you get hit for 6 hp damage. You now have 43 hp.
2) On your turn you get 4 more temp hp. You now have 47 hp. You don't get hit this round.
3) On your turn, you get 4 more temp hp. You now have 51 hp. You get hit later in the round for 9hp damage. You now have 42 hp.
4, 5 & 6) On each turn you get 4 temp hp bringing your total to 54 hp (42 regular + 12 temporary). You don't get hit on any of these rounds and the battle ends on turn 6. Your temporary hp disappear at the end of the encounter, so you're left with 42 hp. So you definitely get nicked up under this version on any attack that does more than your current temp hp.

OK, so in a situation such as this:

EEEE
EP_E
E__E

EEEE
E_PE
E__E

would this be a viable use of 5' step with greater cleave, thereby allowing attacks on ALL the opponents? Just curious as to the responses. :)

I'd say it's fine. Whirlwind Attack let's you do it, as does having the combo: Cleave, Great Cleave, and Lunge and NOT taking the 5' step.

Just to point out: it is a relevant question because there are several situations where you may not be able to move diagonally to either side in the scenario given: fighting in a 5' wide hallway, in a crowd, in a doorway, and so on. And yet there are other situations where it may be tactically preferable to move straight ahead instead of diagonally (to get a flank or cut off movement for instance). Add the fact that there are several opponents who can be dropped at low levels by one hit.

My opinion is that it's not the original intent of the rules but I can see room for this interpretation. The question becomes, do any subsequent targets need to be initially within reach when you declare Cleave? You can indeed 5' step during an action – in this case a standard action. Consider this scenario:

OE
OEA

O = ally
E = enemy
A = attacker

Can 'A' declare cleave, make an attack on the lower 'E' creature, then 5' step straight up to cleave into the upper 'E' creature? Doing so would give him the advantage of benefiting from flank bonuses on each one.

One of my players brought up this interesting scenario:

E
E
A

E = medium sized enemy
A = medium sized melee attacker with a 5' reach.

When deciding to use Cleave, can you attack the adjacent enemy, then assuming it drops, 5' step directly forward to then attack the second enemy?

If you're going by-the-book, going over the wealth by level guidelines in the book shouldn't be a problem as long as the total cost of their equipment doesn't exceed them. Magic items are the biggest factor obviously, when equating treasure to PC power. Just make sure you limit access to more magic than should be appropriate for their level according to the tables, and give them other choices to spend their treasure on, such as the construction of a home base, or paying off lackeys of their own. If you want to be devious, cut one of their bags of holding or whatever they're using to carry their treasure, and watch the fun commence. I'd have some pick-pocket who doesn't know any better try to do it in public when they're traveling around town sometime. It'd be quite the scenario!

I converted Combat Vigor to PF by it giving you stackable temporary hit points that disappeared at the end of the encounter. It never sat well with me that you could actually end up with higher hit points at the end of a combat than you started just by fighting.

As you should.

My current DM uses the philosophy that the PC's should have better stats than the 'heroic' npc's. Which is a total bonus of +6. If your ability mods total up to +6 or lower - reroll. This seems pretty fair to me.

Just to contrast your GM…

I prefer to have PCs start out with at least average stats, and grow into better ones to be on par with "heroic" NPCs. Part of the satisfaction of being a hero is the journey to becoming one. I definitely don't want them to start out with better stats than accomplished NPCs (unlness they're really lucky with their rolls). Thus, I let PCs increase a stat every other level instead of every 4 levels.

anthony Valente wrote:

I allow for two methods:

15 point buy.

OR

My homebrew method:
Generating Ability Scores.
Follow the procedure below to generate your ability scores.
1. Roll 3d6 six times.
2. Place scores in order (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) as rolled.
3. Re-roll any one ability score of your choice, taking the new score if you wish.
4. Swap any two ability scores if you wish.
5. You may start over if the total of all your scores is 62 or less.

This satisfies those in my group who want complete control over character generation, and the others who want to let the dice help them flesh out the character or have some character flaws. Either method guarantees you the option to start with at least an average character. It's a little more complicated than this, but this is the essence of it.

A campaign I'm playing in right now used something similar. It was 4d6, drop lowest, but otherwise the same. We also had to declare race/class before rolling. It's nice to see characters that arn't min maxed. We have a lot of interesting characters that would not normally see the light of day, so there is a lot of flavor. There is the problem that people with good dice rolls have an edge over those who rolled poorly, but if everyone has fun, it's all good.

I normally prefer point buy systems. It keeps everyone on an even footing. Long campaigns where you have sub-par stats and are in a party with walking gods can get irritating, particularly if you are filling similar roles.

Spoilered to not derail the thread:

I allow for two methods:

15 point buy.

OR

My homebrew method:
Generating Ability Scores.
Follow the procedure below to generate your ability scores.
1. Roll 3d6 six times.
2. Place scores in order (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) as rolled.
3. Re-roll any one ability score of your choice, taking the new score if you wish.
4. Swap any two ability scores if you wish.
5. You may start over if the total of all your scores is 62 or less.

This satisfies those in my group who want complete control over character generation, and the others who want to let the dice help them flesh out the character or have some character flaws. Either method guarantees you the option to start with at least an average character. It's a little more complicated than this, but this is the essence of it.

Interestingly enough, my decision on whether or not to make combat numbers public to my players depends on the level of play we're currently at.

I prefer to keep numbers such as AC and HP of foes secret from the players, to better immerse themselves in the role-play, and rely on descriptions of the battle as it progresses, upon which the players can make decisions. I even go so far as to keep the individual HP of my players secret from each other. I describe a hit if an individual player has been hit and show them the actual damage on a calculator such that only that player can see it. They respond in kind with a role-play reaction to let the others know if it was severe or not.

HOWEVER, in high level play, (above say 14th level) it becomes increasingly straining to keep track of everything, so my general approach of keeping actual stats secret gets put by the wayside to keep the game moving at a decent pace. I end up divulging more information to the players so they can help me keep things straight.

I tell my players up front that I'm an equal opportunity PC item destroyer and anything they possess is fair game. Thier items are not sacred. They make a living at stealing other people's stuff after all, and shouldn't complain if it happens to them. The threat of item loss should always be there, just the same as a PC actually dying. In practice, I rarely ever actually excercise such tactics, it really only comes up in rare situations (such as the time one player's PC cleric fell into an elder black pudding... and came out with only his holy symbol, and hooded lantern of all things to show for it). In regards to a wizard and his spell book, he better guard the thing like a lich guards his phylactery (and spellbooks)!

In other words, Spell Mastery is a great feat in certain campaign styles and a poor one in others. Many feats are like this.

Marcus Aurelious, 3 things which I advise working with the PF rules and speaking to the subtle shift in spell combat dynamics from 3.5 to PF:

1) Consider the party make up. If you have a greater proportion of casters to non-casters, it's difficult to protect them all, especially with greater numbers of foes. (You probably already know this, but it doesn't hurt to mention it). Nevertheless, getting more shields to compensate is a consideration (whether from the Leadership feat, hirelings, summoned creatures, NPC allies, etc).

2) Wands and other spell trigger items in hand ready for use in the unfortunate event that a caster is too close in combat. As GM, it might be useful to sprinkle a few of these in treasure hoards (I like placing a few myself, with just a few charges and see what the players make of it).

3) Spell selection. There is a healthier emphasis on having spells that mitigate AoOs, whether they were on before combat or are great candidates to cast in the opening rounds. In other words, in some situations, it's better to get your Mirror Image up first before you try that Sleep spell.

Hope that helps.

vagrant-poet wrote:

Jesus, people need to give players a break when they roll high on the random encounter chart!

Coming from a GM's perspective, I'd say the player's need to give us a break when we roll high on the encounter charts!

GM: There's a rustling in the grass to your right. As you look closer, you realize it's a werewolf ready to pounce. If you run away right now you can probably-
1st level PCs: CHARGE!!!
GM: *facepalm*

Amen to that… amen to that.

Fortunately, if you're looking for more flavorful monster descriptions, we DO provide a lot of other options. With our revisited line of books, we generally end up doing 20 to 30 6 page monster chapters a year. We also generally do 3 to 6 more over the course of a year in the Pathfinder Adventure Paths. There, since those products are set in a world, we can afford to get really detailed about a monster without worrying as much about keeping things simple and easy to adapt to any old campaign world.

Thanks for the answer. Again, I'm more curious as to the reasoning behind the decision-making than anything. It really is a master piece and IMO is far better than any other monster manual except perhaps the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual.

To be honest, I've only recently started to truly look into your complete line of products beyond the core books… mostly due to the alluring flavor and set up of the Kingmaker AP (another masterpiece in the making). I have however picked up and perused the first (I think) monsters revisited book (the one with hobgoblins and ogres and such) at my FLGS and ironically, I just can't take the next step to buy it because I don't find the art particularly appealing.

I'm mulling this over myself in another thread. If I were to convert it to Greyhawk, I'd say the Bandit Kingdoms too. Thematically, they function the same between the two settings. As to a specific location, I think placing the action (and soon to be built new kingdom) between the Artonsamay River and Rift Canyon could work, with the Tangles replacing the Narlmarches.

That's how I feel about Paizo! I much prefer PAY-zo to the correct pronounciation of PIE-zo.

Even READING the word spelled like "Pay-zo" makes me wince.

What?! That's not the correct pronunciation? You know… "when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking and says its own name?"

Mmm… I'm going with my 1st grade teacher's advice on this one ;).

Aw, c'mon. No one wants to weigh in?

Would treating a sunder attack against a tower shield that is being used as full cover as an attack against an unattended object (just for determining whether the attack hits, not for any resistances, etc.), be out of line?

I'd say no. I'd reason that the shield can still be angled to deflect the impact of the sunder attempt. In other words, I wouldn't consider it an unattended object as the wielder can move the shield in response to attacks specifically against it.

Vak wrote:

Wonderful :) I hope monsters in this one are more detailed than the last!

This will give PFRPG what it's missing and will hopefully reduce the need to look at SRD for monsters!

The format for Bestiary II is going to be the same as the first Bestiary. There'll be over 300 monsters in all, most of them with a single page. We learned a lot about building a monster book this way with the Bestiary, so hopefully we'll be able to squeeze in a bit more information about monsters this time around.

But let me be clear: presenting a lot of flavor for monsters is actually the 3rd priority for a monster bestiary. First priority is to give all the rules you need to run the monster in a game—that's the whole point of the book. Second priority is to fill the book with art—monsters without art are forgotten and never used, and good art makes a book MUCH more successful. What space is left over after the rules and the artwork are in is pretty much all we have to work with for flavor and details, and that's not going to change because that's the way a Bestiary HAS to work.

Fortunately, we have plenty of other of places available for us to get superdetailed with new monsters. The Revisited line (and other books in the Chronicles line) are a perfect place for us to go into great detail about monsters, and we have no plans of canceling that line anytime soon. And secondly, a LOT of new monsters in Bestiary II are coming from Pathfinder Adventure Paths, where they all had 2 pages of information. Their incarnation into the hardcover Bestiary will reduce those two pages to one page... but their two page versions still exist in those Bestiaries. Anyone who loves new monsters really should strongly consider subscribing to the AP line, since every one of those volumes has 10 to 14 pages of new monsters in them.

Just out of curiosity, have you considered just putting less monsters in and/or smaller images? The Bestiary is one of my favorite books you have made so far, and if I have one caveat to it (albeit a very minor one) it would be that some of the monsters could have used more flavor text than a couple sentences worth… especially some of the new ones like the Linnorms.

Also, if you're interested in alternatives to magic weapons and armor, Dragon issue #358 has a great article entitled, "Master's Forge", detailing new item qualities for masterwork weapons and armor.

That is difficult indeed. First you need to understand that the mechanics of the game are designed with the idea that PC's will have access to the resources necessary to defeat the foes they'll face at higher levels. Foes with damage reduction or who pretty much require magic to deal with, that sort of thing.

My personal recommendation would be to throw down for a copy of Iron Heroes. It offers a low magic system (while still provided a magic using class that's fun and interesting to play if not the powerhouse standard wizards tend to be) and makes melee combat far more fun than 'roll to hit, roll for damage' monotony it can often be. The Conan RPG offers a good system for low-magic fantasy as well. Using either and then tossing in PRPG elements like CMB and CMD is simple enough.

I know you emphasize low *adventure* rather than magic but I think either of these books can work perfectly with that while keeping the game fun for the players. Just my two bits.

I can't comment on Iron Heroes as I've never seen the rules for that game. But I have seen several posters say the same thing you do as well as praise its value as a game in general.

However I do disagree with the part I bolded above. A GM is in total control of what he has his players face and given time and experience, will generally know what sorts of monsters will challenge his players or be too much for them to handle. So in a gritty, low-magic campaign, maybe a lot of the higher CR monsters aren't going to be compatible for the most part. But lower CR monsters in larger quantities can easily substitute in their place. I can easily envision higher level parties taking on progressively larger numbers of foes instead of progressively more powerful singular ones. Keep in mind, in such a set up, it will be very difficult to raise AC above a certain point without magic available, so lower CR monsters should still be somewhat of a threat. Not to mention the rules for for advancing lower CR creatures and downgrading higher CR creatures in the Bestiary. The game does give tools for such a campaign.

I would consider the following ideas, which might give you the feel you're looking for without coming up with lots of house rules:

1) Eliminate magic shops and the sale of magic items in general as a market. Individuals who posses magic items are loathe to sell them unless they get something better or more desireable in return.

2) Make the manufacture of magical items difficult and time consuming. The old fallback of needing to obtain rare ingredients which simply cannot easily be bought will help. Perhaps potions and scrolls, and even other single use items aren't hard to make, but permanent ones are.

3) Eliminate Stat boosting items for the most part.

4) Keep ability score generation on the conservative side (such as 15 point buy, or the standard 4d6 method).

5) Enforce the use of spell components. In a campaign that emphasizes mundane items, this should fit nicely. Instead of hand-waiving spell components, make their acquisition important. If the wizard doesn't have any bat guanno left, he can't cast fireball. Alternatively, you can come up with more exotic/costly components for spells that aren't easily obtained, yet at the same time, not too difficult either.

6) End your campaigns around the mid-levels (9th-12th), before casters get access to the really high level spells.

All these ideas serve to put the control of magic back into your hands. You can choose to hand out as much magical treasure as you wish, without worrying about players creating or buying their own. Likewise, you aren't redesigning the casting classes, instead reigning them in with the tracking of spell components and not allowing free access to items which dramatically boost their spell power (stat boosting items, metamagic items) and spells per day (wands, and such). Curbing a caster's ability to customize their own magical equipment - at discount no less - (item creation feats) is a big control for you.

EDIT: One other thing to consider is looking at spells on a case-by-case basis. If going for a gritty mundane oriented campaign is what you're after, certain spells that trivialize mundane hazards, or the abilities of non-casters should at least be looked at. Create Water for instance comes to mind. If you want to emphasize survial through mundane means, a spell like this really puts a damper on it.

I've bantered about the idea myself, and can see its benefits, but I haven't committed to it. If you and your players have played Warhammer, I bet it's not too much of a stretch to say you'll do well adapting your Pathfinder games. One suggestion I do have is to make "measuring sticks", thin lengths of wood cut to specific common lengths to speed up movement. 4" and 6" sticks immediately come to mind for instance. You could use a 1.5" or a 2" stick for reach weapons too.

If you just want to do 'Kingmaker in Greyhawk,' there are a few places on the map that jump out;

Keoland or the Yeomanry could expand move into the Hool Marshes / Dreadwood / Tors region, with the Sea Princes playing the role of the 'lawless' River Kingdoms.

Gran March could move into the Rushmoors / Dim Forest hexes, to put a buffer between them and the giants-dominated remnants of Sterich.

Tenh or the Pale could start attempting to 'civilize' the Troll Fens / Phostwood area on their borders.

Either Nyrond or the Duchy of Urnst could expand into the Celadon Forest / Gnatmarsh areas.

Sunndi could push south into the Menowood / Vast Swamp region.

For an all-evil Kingmaker campaign, a Scarlet Brotherhood colony could start expanding into Hepmonaland.

Funnily enough, my "new" campaign has started off with a conversion of the original The Keep on the Borderlands module (man... they threw a lot of monsters at parties back then... I love it), as most of my players have never played it. And it's set in the Tors near the Yeomanry. This follows on the heels of the Age of Worms campaign, where those retired PCs now have become fixtures in the Flanaess. I was thinking if I did move to convert Kingmaker, I might have it take place in the bandit kingdoms north of the rift canyon, and somehow work in the "new" ruler of Alhaster be the benefactor (replacing Rostland/Restov). He does have cause for creating new allies in the region with the presence of Iuz. But that seems to be a lot of converting at a glance. And if I purchase new APs and modules from Paizo in the future, I've set the precedent of doing that for all.

I thought only "large - Tall" was the 4-square space thing?

wouldn't a wolf be "large - long" and be like 2-squares long or something?

Did PF mess with the space occupation stuff as well?

*confuddled*

Yeah, that sounds like 3.0 stuff. Large has been 4 squares for every large sized creature, no matter the shape for a while now. In other words, PF didn't mess with it to my knowledge.

I sorta kinda put the "coast" of Golarion in the west so that people could make it the "other half" of Oerik if they wanted to.

Shoot! Can't edit my original post anymore. I said "eastern part of the Oerik continent" (which wouldn't make sense since the Flanaess -the heart of the Greyhawk setting - is already there). What I meant was "western part of..." It's really cool that was actually taken into account when you guys worked up the concept when designing the Pathfinder campaign setting!

I do like this idea, as well as the idea of bringing all of Oerik into the Pathfinder setting (since I personally have just stuck to the Flanaess proper). The thought of two separate worlds very briefly crossed my mind, but I'd rather just stick to one world I think.

Fighter has always been my favorite. Conceptually, the most customizable class. I'm glad that Paizo didn't give it too many class abilities actually. I am however looking forward to what the Paizo staff came up with in regards to alternate class features (not just for the fighter, but for all classes) in the APG.

Perhaps substitute Oerik for Arcadia?

You could keep the continents separate, and make the ocean voyage between them shorter and more manageable. And Western Oerik could be a short boat ride away from Casmaron, and Kelesh/Tien...

Hmm. I didn't think of that: importing Oerik into Golarion by replacing one of its undeveloped continents. I like that idea. Thanks GW.

Speaking of which, I was briefly perusing some of the world map threads, which prompts this question: assuming if the Paizo people eventually provide an entire world map, will they completely flesh out the entire world or will they leave perhaps one vague continent untouched, and left to the creative devices of GMs? I'm advocating for the latter if it's not too late. It would a be perfect device to incorporate what I'm thinking above, not to mention I'm sure several other GMs who have their own ideas.

I've been using the Greyhawk campaign setting for years, but since purchasing the Kingmaker adventure path, I've been contemplating combining the Greyhawk and Pathfinder settings. I really don't want to part with the enjoyment that the Greyhawk setting has given me over the years, yet Golarion has so much to offer. So I was thinking of possibly combining the two. My initial thought is to make the Inner Sea region the eastern part of the continent of Oerik, since it hasn't really been developed in Greyhawk to my knowledge. The maps don't quite line up, but it does seem feasible with a little work. My thinking is that I'd rather combine the two more or less as is and perhaps save myself a lot of conversion work. Any thoughts? Anyone else try something like this? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I thought you could only switch out the bonus combat feats--which armor proficiencies are not.

That's true. I was looking to see if there was anything in the rules that would technically allow you to do this, but I was getting "bonus feat" confused with "combat bonus feat". Problem solved.

In the end it really sounds to me like an alternative fighter class feature, legal or not.

I'm really just curious if it is plausible is all. I am the GM ;-) and I highly doubt it's RIA. But it seems reasonable to at a glance.

At 4th level (or 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th), can a fighter swap out his Heavy Armor Proficiency or any other bonus weapon or armor proficiency feat he starts out with for a different bonus feat?

I like these ideas and would like to see more. Waterspout is way to good for what amounts to a super-soaker. A Reflex save at least to be blinded; or a good no save alternative is to count the target as dazzled. It is an at-will power after all.

Not sure how you use the electric balls. Move actions? Standard actions? Can't remember if it's explained in the rules.

To be honest, I'm not sure. In regards to two-handed weapon + armor spikes, I know that works. The FAQ clearly answered it in 3.5, it fits the wording, and doesn't seem at all broken. To the contrary, it seems rather an underpowered option.

As for what you suggested, make an attack with one end of the double weapon as 2H and then punch with a gauntlet? From the old FAQ, that sounds fine, and in truth still seems like a sub-par option. The main benefit in using the double weapon is the same benefit you get from using two different weapons of the same kind. They both benefit from one weapon focus, one weapon spec, or other things that apply to a single weapon. That, and a gauntlet doesn't do that much damage compared to other light weapons anyhow. 1d3 vs. 1d6 or so.

...

In any case, I'll try an experiment tomorrow. I'll make three Fighters, we'll say level 10, with 20 point buy. One normal two-weapon fighter with a couple short swords, one guy that uses a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, and another that swaps between a two-handed weapon and a gauntlet (I won't bother with the quick-draw route and a separate light weapon since you have to drop the sucker just to get your last two-handed attack in).

At this point, I'm not debating the legality of it nor whether or not it is OP, as my own investigating different builds leads me to believe that it doesn't seem overpowering. What I question is the "strangeness" there seems to be in the rules themselves: that a guy using both his hands to wield a greatsword can use armor spikes just fine and yet a guy who uses both hands his to wield two weapons somehow can't, even though the armor spikes may be on the legs in both cases for instance.

I actually built five different fighters: A TWF two-bladed sword user, A TWF dual short sword user, A TWF greatsword + armor spikes user, a TWF dual kukri user, and a 2-handed greatsword user; all with 15 point buy. I did not give them magic items however, which may or may not skew things.

In pure damage taking into account standard attacks I'd rank them:
1) 2-handed greatsword
2&3) toss-up ATM: dual kukri user or greatsword + armor spikes
4) dual short sword user
5) 2-bladed sword user

I found #s 2&3 still quite potent when you factor in open feats that they aren't devoted to spending on TWF to keeping up damage on two different types of weapons. The greatsword + armor spikes user can mitigate his feat lag somewhat by switching out previously taken feats
at 8th and 12th levels (for instance when reaching 8th level, he can actually get Greater Weapon Focus for both the Greatsword and Armor Spikes by sacrificing a feat taken earlier that doesn't relate to TWF) to stay relevant in pure damage. I also found the 2-bladed sword user particularly lackluster due to the fact that he needs a high dex or TWF, yet can't Weapon Finesse his chosen weapon to take advantage of its higher base damage. Comparatively, an Elven Curve blade + Armor Spike user is clearly better. Still, that is not to say the weapon is completely useless. In actual play, our group rolls for scores, so I could see the 2-Bladed Sword seeing potential use if someone happened to roll 2 very high scores along with decent scores overall and they really liked the weapon.

@ Karui Kage: Don't you find it rather dubious however that you can legally two-weapon fight using one end of the double weapon two handed for your first attack, let go with one hand (as a free action) and punch with say your gauntleted fist, for your second attack, then regrip your double weapon with two hands again (as a free action) for your final attack; but you cannot legally do this if you fight with both ends of a double weapon? That makes no sense. Regardless of RAW or RAI, or its overpowerdness or lack thereof, there is clearly a disconnect with TWF and Two-handedness depending on the weapon combos in play.

I haven't posted much in this thread, but have taken great interest in it to the point that I'e tried several TWF combos and one 2-handed combo to see if 2-h weapon + Armor Spikes is overpowered. Although I do think that it may be better than any other TWF build if made properly as far as pure damage goes, it does indeed come at a high feat cost (but not any more ability cost than a normal TWFer), to the point that you lose a lot of versatility. This drawback IMO doesn't overshadow other TWF builds. Also making a 2-handed fighter for comparison, the 2-handed fighter seems the superior choice for pure damage + room to do other things as well.

I can see however the potential for the 2-handed weapon + armor spikes fighter being over-powered compared to other builds IF you roll for scores (and get two very high ones), or if you build PCs starting with a very high point buy, as these approaches allow the potential to get the high Dex requirements for TWF without investing, which in turn, allows one to focus solely on increasing Strength.

EDIT: I can see why Xum sees this as potentially OP: 36 point buy? That's a lot! I've been using Standard 15 point buy for my comparisons.

So I can swing a two handed weapon, use quick draw to pull a dagger, and attack with the dagger also, drop the dagger, swing with the two handed weapon again?

Quickdrawing is a free action, and is dropping a weapon.

Yup! Assuming you have three iterative attacks from a high BAB, or two iterative attacks and the two-weapon fighting feat (and take the -2 penalty to all three attacks).

After all, you have been able to just *hold* a two-handed weapon in one hand for a while, otherwise clerics with two-handed weapons would have to sheathe/drop their weapon to cast.

So you could also technically attack with the primary end of a double weapon two-handed, (using it as a two-handed weapon and gaining the requisite benefit of such), and then use the off-hand attack to attack with the other end.

I'm with Xum on this one. If you strip away all the imagery, what you get is technically a Two-Weapon Fighter that fights with a great weapon in his main hand and a light weapon in his off hand. This two-weapon fighter benefits from 1.5 Str from his main hand and more damage on standard actions. That's not RIA IMO.

That's what I'm wondering. If you substitute a trip attempt via the whip in place of an attack, do you get the +2 bonus Improved Trip provides?
.
.
In other words:

str mod=+2
bab=+3
twf=-2
Imp Trip=+2
Total=+5

or +7 on a single attack

I'm converting a hobgoblin in an old adventure who fights with a whip and a sword. This is what I gave him:

3rd level fighter, Str 15, Dex 15, Int 13
feats: Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (whip), Improved Trip, Two-Weapon Fighting
equipment: whip & short sword

Here is his attack routine:
full attack: primary hand – whip +5 (no damage, but trip)
off-hand – short sword +3 (1d6+1)

standard attack: whip +7 (no damage, but trip)

Do these numbers look right?

ProfessorCirno wrote:

You're missing what I'm saying.

No I'm not. (See below.)

ProfessorCirno wrote:

The problem with Cure Minor Wounds is that it could be cast after battle and knock everyone's health to max no problem. You can't use the Crusader mechanic after a fight.

Sure you can. The stance effect continues outside of combat - stated specifically in the rules - and all you have to do is succeed a melee attack roll to trigger it. There is nothing in there that forces it to only be effective in combat.

Non-silly "abuses" of the power:

1) A rousing sparring match between party members after a tough battle to loosen them up and impress upon them what they learned in the battle. Anything that heals hit point damage heals an equal amount of non-lethal at the same time, so unarmed attacks won't set the party members back really.

Rationale: Anyone who has been in a fight, and not been knocked out, can tell you how "pumped" they are after wards. How much "more alive" they feel. How much better they feel, despite any injuries suffered.

2) Same as above, but wrestling. The characters do not have to do damage, and to perform combat maneuvers, the player makes an "attack roll." Combined with the fact that barring certain weapons, all maneuvers are melee only...

Rationale: Same as above.

I think more relevant examples would be PCs acting like SOBs and starting random fights with NPC commoners and such. Or having a foe in a legitimate encounter rendered helpless (via the party wizard for example or a stunned opponent, perhaps and pummeling it until the whole party was healed).

An actual in-game experience I have was : we were in a dungeon where we encountered several zombies locked in jail cells (don't ask me why). The party crusader wanted to stab them through the bars with her guisarme to heal us. The DM thought about it, and ruled, "nah! Don't think so." He obviously ruled according to RIA, but it stinks at times when the rules are worded such that you have to make these judgement calls in the first place.

I myself can't see most GMs letting such stuff go on for long, but I do see the potential for head aches.

It's also an inherent problem of a game versus a story. Just take the example of the iconic old wizard. Let's say he's a 15th level wizard, one of the most powerful in the land. He lives in a tower and trains your new PC as his apprentice. Your 1st level wizard PC then begins his adventuring career at the age of 18. He adventures for 2 or 3 years and now at the age of 20-21 returns as a 20th level wizard, maybe even an Epic level character.

Make sense? Not really, but it's what happens when you play a game.

Hell, 6 months ago we started the current game I'm running. The PCs were village kids having their coming of age ceremony. (Crypt of the Everflame.) They're now 8th level. Real time it's been 6 months, but in the game it's been 2, maybe 3 months since they left for the Crypt. Yeah I'm using Fast progression but even that doesn't make sense if you look at it logically.

Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."

I'm glad Pathfinder introduced the medium and slow progressions for this very reason. It's nice to see that as a GM, you actually can make the players have to work to get to a new level now.

To the OP: On the face of it, I can see what you're getting at. However, I think NPCs getting hit dice are there primarily to facilitate hirelings and cohorts through high level play. BAB and hit dice indicate luck and favor, just as much as skill and I can see a legendary commoner or expert and so on having it.

Alright, I think this should sound clear and achieve what I'm going for:

Martial Arts (Combat)
You are trained in hand-to-hand combat.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can attempt a bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, or trip combat maneuver without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Special: If you have this feat, you do not need Power Attack to qualify for Greater Bull Rush, Greater Overrun, Greater Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, or Improved Sunder. You also don’t need the Combat Expertise feat to qualify for Greater Disarm, Greater Trip, Improved Disarm, or Improved Trip.

Any thoughts?

Yes, but were they able to "surgically attack" when holding the lantern? :)

Here are my issues: I can use the feat when there is a 10' pole in my off hand, but not when I'm holding a dagger in it. Or I can use it while I'm swinging from a chandelier (holding onto it with my off hand) but not when I'm holding a shield. I can use it when I'm carrying a sack of gold in my off hand. I just see lots of abuse issues and weird situations.

Alternatively, it could be written that you can only use the feat if you are not using whatever it is you are carrying in your off hand. So you could hold a shield for instance, but not gain its bonus to AC if you decide to Surgically Strike. Or you could hold a dagger in it but can't attack with it.

In the end though, I think it's just simpler to say it doesn't work if you are carrying anything in your off hand.

It'll be a while before I run this path, but in general, it's simpler to add more monsters, rather than boost the power of any given monster. The stats are typically already there for you, so no work to do. In the case of solo monster encounters however, that just doesn't seem right, so applying the advanced simple template is a good solution.

I like TheChosyn's formula as a great guide as to how many extra creatures you should add by the way.