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

kyrt-ryder's page

12,016 posts (12,093 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 12,016 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Neurophage wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude.

Clearly we need to educate the gaming population that the last vestiges of realism disappear from the game around level 9, and martial characters have been violating the laws of physics to some extent from very low levels [in some cases as low as level 1.]

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

It works, I prefer a story element where this is a more natural evolution of power that explicitly is not magic, but this does work as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
High level mundanes are plenty epic, they just aren't as powerful as some of these shounen stories. You can do FotNS pretty well with PF out of the box, even if the game isn't designed to do DBZ or Bleach. Most importantly, the game is presented as flashily as lots of manga or anime.

Sure you can artificially do FotNS... if you ignore the action economy, restrict PCs to martial classes and give them way more levels than the enemy.


Look at something like Beowulf or Gilgamesh: they did some pretty epic s$#% but it isn't presented blow by blow (and no speedlines or shounen screaming) because merely telling you what they did should be enough to point out how frickin' amazing they were, and their exploits are in almost every respect perfectly doable straight out of core.

Mind showing me where a Fighter is able to hold his breath and swim underwater for several days [or even several hours] without magical bs lighting him up like a christmas tree on a Detect Magic?

Also bear in mind Beowulf is a low to lower-mid-level character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Disclaimer: I am a manga/anime fan, currently halfway through Macross Delta and Seven Deadly Sins. So yeah, if you hope for some quality harping on how weaboo wuxia bullcrap killed Gary Gygax, not here.

Anyway. I've noticed a conjecture. Several of the most outspoken "martial-caster disparity/Fighters need to be more awesome/Failzo failed us again by failing" people are big on action anime. Either they profess it openly here, or a cursory glance at the Internet reveals their passionate presence on anime forums or their YouTube channels full of Ninja Scroll clips or their 18+ Sailor Moon tumblrs. Also, Book of Nine Swords was the bestest d20 supplement ever.

This got me thinking. Perhaps, after watching this, this and of course this, their expectations regarding sword-swinging characters are at a level which Pathfinder, a game designed mostly by non-anime-watching folks who apparently envision high level Fighters more something like this, cannot quite satisfy. Which leads to frustrations elaborated in all the locked threads.

Maybe there is a game out there which caters better to running barefoot on clouds, swinging your sword so that mountains are torn assunder, EXCEPT YOUR SWORD DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH THESE MOUNTAINS, IT'S THE SONIC WAVE OF MANA WHICH THE SWING GENERATES THAT TEARS THE WORLD APART?

The Dragonball Z Roleplaying Forum is that way ------->

Or just play an arcane full caster in Pathfinder. You'll reach that point, just with a different flavor.

Mystic Theurge is an artifact of an era where Prestige Classes were an interesting idea being spitshot at the game. A concept like the MT has no place in Pathfinder as it has evolved to be.

Your options are two-fold.

Option A- a Prestige Class which requires 5 levels of casting in one class and grants secondary casting along with restricted progression of the initial class.

Option B- a single class designed to encapsulate what it means to be a 'Student of multiple disciplines of magic.' This might be a mix and match class which can cherry pick which casting classes it wants and which features from them, or it might have different forms dedicated to different class combinations.

AdrastusDarke wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
AdrastusDarke wrote:
Yes, so long as I would not become evil I would accept that deal 100%. I would give up, food, sex and the joy of a good sneeze in exchange for the power to fix 90% of the worlds problems.
90% might be a bit much on 11th level casting, at least unless you plan on a lot of Dominate Person to get stuff done.

I have all of eternity to hone my power if I need more. I will help where I can when I can and as my power grows I will be able to help with more.

I have no intention of even learning dominate person because free will is of great importance to me and I don't wish to take it from anyone, it always seemed like kind of a messed up spell to me. Although I can see how some would justify it's use in the pathfinder universe I would never do so personally.


Dominate Person is temporary. Strip the free will from world leaders, enact change in ways that they cannot easily undo, and allow them to regain their freedom when completed. This might require a few recastings but shouldn't last more than a year if well-managed.

Alternatively, use your human-like appearance and all the immense social boosters available [maybe a Bard Lich?] to gain political power and play by the legit rules with cheat cards.

The Mortonator wrote:
On another note, a level 1 Weedle (one of the weakest Pokemon) should at least be as or more dangerous than a Venomous Snake. And a swarm of them isn't remotely dangerous to a level 5 Bulbasaur.

This is why swarm mechanics suck. A sizeable group of weedle acting as individuals would easily wipe out a level 5 anything, by virtue of the minimum 1 point of damage per hit rule.

Balls of Steel [or Adamantine if you prefer.]

Lemmy wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat
Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.

To me, those are basically the same problem...


- Having 200 good feats is ok.

- Having 200 feats, 170 of which are complete garbage that will never see the light of day and were published as nothing more than filler, just so Paizo could add "200 new feats for your character!" to the back cover of the book... THAT is bloat.

Ironically I've actually playtested this line of logic on a single character with a Fighter hotfix [that plays fairly well but creates a LOT more homework for the player and isn't really worth using for that reason] that grants two bonus combat feats per level [instead of one every two levels] and the class just about performs its job, what with 30 feats [in addition to weapon and armor proficiencies] by level 20.

Granted I also allowed free access to 3.5 and 3.0 feats, many of which are more powerful especially martial options.

Kalindlara wrote:
Sounds good. Just explain how it works realistically, and we're all set.

Why does it have to be realistic?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Several of them would be far too good for a single feat
Examples please? The primary examples that come to mind immediately are Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting and Spring Attack, none of which would be overpowering as part of the core rules rather than feats entirely.
Did you even read my post? I meant that specifically in the context of Moonlight Stalker tree. Please don't quote me out of context.

I quoted you out of context because I wasn't familiar with that single specific feat chain example and was hoping you could provide additional examples to strengthen your position. Since you decided to hang your hat on this feat chain though, let's discuss it a bit shall we?

Moonlight Stalker Feint would be very OP as a single feat. Everyone with Bluff & SA would take it even if they could only use it occasionally.

A swift action to bluff? That's supposedly OverPowered as a single feat? Nay I say this just about fits right into the power level a feat should have. Without a mile of prerequisites.

Moonlight Stalker itself would be taken by every ninja who optimized at all.

Maybe. Against the rest of the current system certainly, but that's about where feats like Weapon Focus should be. Somewhat situational, but very good.

And what makes a feat too good for a single feat is how it stacks up to other feats, not if it would destroy the entire system.

No, a feat's effect on the system as a whole is far more important than in comparison to another feat. Far and wide if Paizo started publishing massively more powerful Combat Feats and Skill-Based General Feats [and Rogue Talents] then we'd have far fewer debates on these boards.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Several of them would be far too good for a single feat

Examples please? The primary examples that come to mind immediately are Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting and Spring Attack, none of which would be overpowering as part of the core rules rather than feats entirely.

It's basically crap the most often, roughly on par with not using VMC in a few cases, and extremely rarely a slight improvement.

I'd ballpark 70-28-2 out of 100

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You missed Kirth's point.

The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.

Unfortunately it's nowhere near accurate.

Indeed, the speed thing is partly relating to the player not being experienced with this setup. A skilled GM can run that many creatures in the same time it takes most players to run their PC, that's the sort of skill a Minionmancer needs to cultivate to not drag down the table.

Beyond that though, we're running into a scenario where the people at the table aren't playing the same game. It's bad enough at 9th-12th level when Wizards get access to the third tier of spells, but once level 13 hits [there's a reason PFS stops before that] the game completely changes and most people don't really comprehend it.

Level 18 has more than enough wealth.

Bring a level 18 Expert specced in UMD to do the same s*#@ [for a finite number of adventures] while also having plenty of skill points to be the knowledge monkey the party expects.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Honestly, that character is the Pathfinder version of PunPun, and should never be brought into an actual game.

Wait wait wait.

You're suggesting that a Core Class, using standard options available to it in main line books, is somehow the PunPun [as in, an obscure monster trick available in an obscure book utilizing an npc race] of Pathfinder?

Ranishe wrote:

To be accurate, fighting with a weapon in your offhand doesn't actually impose any penalty unless you attempt to swing with both weapons simultaneously. If you have iterative attacks you may even switch with which weapon you make each attack with no penalty. But it doesn't grant any benefit.

So the important question is should you gain a mechanical benefit for wielding a weapon in two hands / wielding a weapon in each hand?

The important fact is that the present rules for Two Weapon Fighting suck. They're barely on par with fighting with a two-handed weapon.

Or the flip side, should a player be mechanically punished for chosing to fight in an iconic rapier style, with a weapon in one hand and a free spare hand? On the one hand yes because verisimilitude, but on the other hand no because a player shouldn't be at a mechanical disadvantage for trying to play a stylized character.

The problem here is the Combat Maneuvers. If Grapple were an Attack rather than a Standard Action you could actually have traditional one-handed combat.

As it stands the closest one can come is having Improved Unarmed Strike and using Two Weapon Fighting, in which case integrating Two Weapon Fighting into the Core Rules still drastically helps someone using that style.

dysartes wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Two-Weapon Fighting strikes me as something you would probably need the training represented by a feat to do noticeably better than a normal person picking up two weapons and trying to fight with them. My problem with it is that TWF/ITWF/GTWF means that you are buying what is essentially the same feat three times to make it scale properly with your increasing battle prowess. A similar problem exists for Vital Strike, where Improved Vital Strike makes Vital Strike entirely useless to you but unable to be retrained and Greater Vital Strike means you have what are essentially two dead feat slots.

You'd prefer to see TWF as something akin to this?

Two-Weapon Fighting

Pre-requisite: Dex 15

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

When your BAB reaches +6, in addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

When your BAB reaches +11, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

If you made this [perhaps including the Dex Requirement] a simple facet of the combat rules rather than a feat, we'd be about right.

Depends on the tone of the game. Games with spell levels 1 and 2 are pretty much a different game from 3 and 4, or 5 and 6, or 7 and 8, or 9.

Pretty rare I'd start a game below level 5 if I intended to run it past PFS levels. [Not that I play PFS, too restrictive for my tastes.]

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Or the trip specialist who's only effective if they can repeatedly trip and Aoo an enemy... facing a gelatinous cube. Or a dragon. Or anything else you can't really trip.

Granted it's pretty ridiculous that you can't trip a dragon. Or a Titan. Or anything that's flying. Oozes and serpents are really the only legitimate 'cannot trip' that come to mind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The real trouble with grasping the two together is that martial adventurers defy the very concept of natural selection.

They survive the same way many parasites do, by latching onto something that can keep them alive.

BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.

Heck there are plenty of people who deny evolution that comprehend the Martial Caster Disparity.

Zoolimar wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
You need flight as a form of terrain movement (or jump good/swim good) as well. Just being able to fight fliers is a stop gap measure, but which requires melees to either a) change to a less-favored weapon or b) go animish with having windblades and stuff.
Less-favored is okay.

Respectfully disagree.

A martial character has one of three approaches here [without extending into weird supernatural stuff.]

A: Generalist who is equally awesome with all weapons and has no favored weapons.

B: Ranged Specialist

C: Melee Specialist with some reasonable means of reaching flying opponents [a flying mount, sky dancing, Jump Good, whatever.]

C2: Going into the supernatural stuff, something that can force a flier to come to you is a good alternative for a Melee Specialist

EDIT For Clarity: less-favored weapon is a fine alternative for a Melee Specialist at low levels, but by level 9 that's no longer appropriate In My Opinion.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not joining your Party, Donner.

Nor will I accompany you to dinner.

Devilkiller wrote:
@Glord - Why should CR10 monsters be "easy fodder" for level 9 PCs? I mean, CR10 would be APL+1, which is supposed to be "Challenging"

You're both wrong [Devilkiller on a technicality]

APL+1 is supposed to be "moderately challenging." Pretty easy but with a slight chance things might go wrong.

Entryhazard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:

Defeats the whole point of Divine magic, that are BESTOWED powers.

They should all be arcane and psychic casters at this point.

To each his own I suppose, Entryhazard.

For me I LIKE the idea of Faith Magic being distinct, being something powered not by one's inner magic [sorcerers] nor one's scientific study of arcane forces [wizards and magi] nor the guidance of a patron [witch.]

Faith Magic is Faith. It's the power of one's belief in something made manifest as miracles.

if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move.

And all.

That doesn't really counter my point, as this is exactly how the Psychic with the Faith Discipline works

Who said I was countering your point? I was just highlighting that this is my way for my games.

You don't like it you don't have to play that way. Doesn't stop me from running my own games my own way.

Incidentally I get kind of sick of people assuming that just because a new class comes out that overlaps with a theme an old class filled suddenly that old class is no longer allowed to fill that theme.

For what it's worth as an observer...

I can't imagine a pirate crew that WOULDN'T welcome such... companionship... for those long journeys at sea :P

thunderbeard wrote:
david barker wrote:
a lawful good pirate for example would only target evil ships and follow the pirate code to the letter. lawful neutral would enforce the code and a lawful evil would follow the code but find ways to use it for his selfish goals
It's pretty hard to "target evil ships," though; often by the time you can tell who's sailing the thing, you're already when you're in a fight.

yeah, I'm of the opinion that a lawful good pirate is... wait for it... still a pirate. He never kills anyone that legitimately surrenders [and never personally attacks a non-combatant.] And in general his primary objective is other pirate ships, though if he's not the captain all he can do is plead his case and do his best as part of the crew.

What's the point buy/roll, etc., for this campaign?
David said 20 point buy upthread.Could I play an aasimar?

David says he's open minded, post your character and he'll give it an open minded look [his words paraphrased.]

In any case, my plan would be a charisma-over-wis-focused hangover cleric of Besmara (so good face skills, etc). If we have a higher starting level or an expected accelerated start, I'll go with the Evangelist archetype, otherwise waiting until level 3 to channel is brutal.

This would be competing with the Cleric of Calista face that's been proposed, but competition always happens in these recruitment threads anyway.

Best of luck.

EDIT: also, David has stated that there shall be no levels skipped. You guys are starting at level 1.

Elannaris Darantholar wrote:
What you guys think about we define what roles wound be desired?

This is strongly advised IMO


IMO, we could work with something like this:

1 - The Face/Support - focused in interaction/support casting - middle line
2 - The Guide - focused in survival/hazards detection - middle line
3 - The Heavy Hitter - focused on heavy melee damage - front line
4 - The Ranged Support - focused in ranged damage - back line
5 - The Sage - focused in knowledge - back line
6 - The Tank - focused in taking the blows - front line

Looks like a good starting point, I imagine others may have ideas for tweaking it.

One idea might be trading the tank for a support/healer type, one who specializes in magic that allows him to mitigate incoming damage, take some of it on himself, all that sort of stuff.

David Barker wrote:
it is only clerics with archetypes, feats and domains clerics can be diverse

And in reference to a discussion earlier...

Cuàn wrote:
As for setting ships on fire, clerics with the fire domain or it's subdomains are quite ok at that as well.

There's also burning arrows/crossbows/catapults with pitch. Not 100% sure where the gamerules for it are, but people in the real world did plenty of burning enemy ships without magic.

Also Greek Fire [Alchemist Fire?] is kind of a big thing in the mythology of ship battles.

And Traits! Traits can notably alter things.

Heck in my wizard experiment one of my characters took Extra Traits ontop of the default traits for that very reason.

I am of the same mind Archlich, though since I'm not actually participating and basically spectating, I don't really have a say anymore.

I do hope David keeps it pure cleric, but that's up to him and you guys.

Edit: thus this post is also serving as a headsup to David that I won't be playing. Having one additional player beyond the normal slots [Sam] is throwing enough of a monkey wrench into it, having two extra would pretty significantly alter the experiment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck even I agree this scenario is silly and pointless, and I agree with his basic premise.

Can you elaborate on why a wolf doesn't fit the setting? Giant wolf riding pirates sounds awesome to me personally.

thunderbeard wrote:
Arcane: Gnome/Wayang Cleric of Shelyn, Veiled Illusionist PrC. By level 10 you're memorizing nothing but Shadow Spells, and their DC is INSANE, letting you fireball/web at will.

If one of you guys wants to do this go for it. I'm just posting on this to highlight the lack of need for it so nobody feels required to pursue it.

I just want to point out that an Arcane caster isn't exactly necessary. Sure there are things arcane magic does better/easier than Divine magic, but a party where everybody has divine magic isn't one that MUST have arcane magic.

The Archlich wrote:
I think our worst issues will be with trapfinding and skills... Not sure if any archetypes cover this.

Assuming David permits it, there's a trait for Trapfinding and disabling magical traps.

Your trapmonkey should at least have Perception and Disable Device at least, anything else is gravy.

On the skills note, a cleric party won't have anybody with a huge number of them so specializing on skills is really important for the low levels. You've got a survivalist tracker type, either a dedicated face [A human spending his favored class bonus on skills has 4+int or even 3 if Int was dumped to 7 because stat penalties don't impact Race and Favored Class granted skill points] or good cop bad cop [one takes Diplomacy, one takes Intimidate and one of the two takes bluff] and a trap monkey [If he squeezes 3 skill points per level trap monkey could BE the survivalist as well, opening up an extra slot]

One thing that helps stretch skill points is remembering not everyone needs perception at level one. It helps that this is a cleric party so everyone is going to have a positive wisdom modifier and at least half [perhaps more] are likely to have a very good one.

The ability to cast a spell results in a caster level.

The dev who wrote that discovery already explicitly noted it was made in part to enable an Alchemist to take Item crafting feats.

Just for clarity David, when you say Average plus one each additional level, do you mean....

Rotating low-high average plus one [so d8 results in 5 at level 2, 6 at level 3, 5 at level 4 and so on]

Rotating high-low average plus one [so d8 results in 6 at level 2, 5 at level 3, 6 at level 4 and so on]

Average round down plus one [so d8 results in 5 at all levels]

Average round up plus one [so d8 results in 6 at all levels]

I already gave my word to play in Sam's game so I won't be participating here, but since I sort of initiated this movement I figured I'd watch it and go ahead and ask for this clarification early.

HWalsh wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
nemophles wrote:
I'm not suggesting combat isn't a big part of the game. The question being asked and the rhetoric being used is about characters "staying competitive in combat". Are you going to deny that GMs plan encounters with the PCs combat capacities in mind?


It's far too much work for me to bother referencing the party beyond their level and number of members when planning encounters.

I'm just going to say GM'ing is an art form.

We're 100% in agreement on this point.

The difference- it seems- is I view my responsibility as a GM is to roleplay the world. My job is to be the player who handles the world and what it does [both Active progress towards the myriad of things of meaning going on in the world with or without the party, and Reactions to the party], not to spend hours customizing the nature of the encounters characters come into contact with.

Rynjin wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
No high horse - it's just that not everyone sees things as 'mandatory' as you do. You can play characters without a single combat related feat if you choose to, and you can still have fun doing so. The only time a feat you may not want would be mandatory is if it is a prerequisite to a feat you DO want. The key word here is want.

Roll with an entire party where nobody takea any combat related Feats or options. Run them through a Paizo AP.

See how long they survive.

A Caster party could manage :P [Though in this particular case at least two somewhat martially oriented casters who don't need to spend feats to patch their ability to mix it up will be required at low levels. In particular I recommend a druid. Heck 'Natural Spell' isn't even a Combat Feat.]

nemophles wrote:
I'm not suggesting combat isn't a big part of the game. The question being asked and the rhetoric being used is about characters "staying competitive in combat". Are you going to deny that GMs plan encounters with the PCs combat capacities in mind?


It's far too much work for me to bother referencing the party beyond their level and number of members when planning encounters.

Barring a special campaign requested and agreed on in advance- my parties receive 70% roleplay and 30% combat without regard for their individual capabilities.

While the RP/Combat ratio might differ for other GMs I surmise many GMs take the same 'you're level X with Y people so I'm running a campaign for Y people at level X' outlook.

As far as this arms race you speak of? In my own games the only time it ever happens is if the Players explicitly request a greater challenge. I could care less if you wipe the floor with most of my enemies in 4-6 rounds while taking minimal damage and healing much of it off.

My own perspective on this? Build the character you want for the experience you want!

If you want a character who has it easy, build optimized badasses who only struggle a little against the most difficult encounters.

If you want a character who struggles against the odds and risks death at every turn, then deliberately build something underpowered and lacking synergy.

memorax wrote:
Retraining it's one of the few things I dislike in the system. I don't see why I need to spend money to retrain something that is not working for my character. Not only that it guarantees myself at least to use online guides to build a character. To avoid taking something that one may have to retrain at later levels. It

Indeed, the price is there for the players who deliberately build with retraining in mind, taking something that's better now and retraining it for something that's better later or is a prerequisite for a feat they can only take later or something like that.

The retraining rules should have included a note to GMs that if a player made a mistake with a character choice they should be able to retrain for free [and that the GM should make sure to provide sufficient downtime without penalizing the party via plot.]

If you're looking to me for a build I've been swamped with IRL issues the past day or two but I am pecking away at it.

As a note to anybody else in this thread with experience with Wizards, by all means please feel free to participate as well.

DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Usually I am the GM, and I'd be totally fine with something like this. Perhaps adding an additional -1 penalty to all attack rolls for having the third weapon.

EDIT: also I take issue with the thematic claim that Monk schools are founded by Fighters. Fighters and Monks are so far divorced thematically [somewhat less so with certain archetypes] that this is freaking ridiculous.

A monk is a warrior philosopher seeking enlightenment and the mastery of his body and soul. This does not preclude experimentation and development of new arts.

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

That strikes me as more normal [as in, what anybody should be able to do with martial weapon proficiency in a shield] than coolness.

The Throwing Shield is just so much more interesting when it gives a bonus attack [and until the Blinkback belt comes online-IF it comes online, many builds won't go for it- that's only a single attack per combat whatsoever.]

The dynamic of 'should I throw my shield or keep it' is one I enjoy, made a bit more interesting by the fact that I'm playing a level 1 wizard who wears one right now. Said Wizard definitely appreciates the extra 2 points of AC and is built to mix it up in melee a bit, but who would suffer ASF if he cast while wearing it.

Nah, normal one-handers should be allowed as well. This whole theme is frequently used with Katanas for example.

Pretty lame if they clarify it like that. The whole coolness of the Throwing Shield is that it's a free action throw.

Now I totally agree this bonus attack should be restricted to once per round, any other attacks would have to come off a normal attack routine.

It's not exactly crippling but it is a huge deviation from standard practices that has a meaningful impact on the character's power.

Particularly because this is a Wizard, and Wizards often do best investing a great deal of wealth into tiny parts in the form of scrolls for contingency options.

You did say there was 1,000 gold worth of 'other stuff' available to each character? That would cover the expenses of learning a few additional spells per spell level available, scribing a few scrolls and perhaps purchasing one or two 3rd level scrolls 'just in case.'

Paulicus wrote:
You want ridiculous? :P

He's a Hunter bonded to an Octopus-Chimera who somehow acquired 8 tentacle attacks and traded them in for the ability to swing 8 swords in a natural attack routine.

SlimGauge wrote:
Don't ask the wizard to cast Mad Monkeys because they might come from here.

Like So

1 to 50 of 12,016 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.