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

magnuskn's page

7,072 posts (7,074 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,072 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why, thank you! :) Although I've not stopped checking out the board, I am currently investing my time more in other things. Also, since Mikaze stopped posting, it has been a bit of a de-motivator on that account, too. :(


To be honest, not very interested in most of these things. Giantslayer was a "traditional AP" and it wasn't well received. This sounds like more of the same.

The three hardcovers don't speak to me, either, unless the Encounter Codex is more of an encounter design book, instead of just a bunch of sample encounters. Horror encounters are iffy with the Pathfinder PC power scale, since monsters you can just smash are not very terrifying.

Strange Aeons is something I *will* get, though. I have the same concerns there, too, though, as with the Horror Adventures book.


Huh. Wasn't expecting that. At all.

Well, it remains to be seen how it will turn out. But I'm interested!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very much later in the campaign, the party starts to find ancestral weapons of the other families and, in the last module, they find the other family seals. Maybe just leave the new character as a non-Amatatsu scion, and instead make him a scion of the Shojinawa, Teikoku, Sugimatu or Higashiyama family? Making scions for the other families is actually an after-the-campaign goal described in book six, so it would fit to start already in the campaign.

Just as an example: You find the naginata of the Sugimatu family at the end of module four, so that would be a good moment to describe a "strange resonance" between it and the character in question.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

They ruined Iron Man even harder in the movie than they ever did the comics.

The Civil War comics ruined Stark for me too. It's been years since I read any of it, but his actions and dialogue were so off from what I loved as a kid that I've never picked up an IM comic since.

That's unfortunate because Matt Fraction and Salvador Larroca's run on Iron Man was one of the best in a very long time and it hasn't been as good since they left the title years ago.

I agree though, Millar's Iron Man in Civil War was NOT Tony Stark. He was a fascist dickbag in a Tony Stark suit.

Eeeh, I'd say that Bendis recent work on Iron Man is fantastic, but of course with Bendis it is the complete run which will have to be judged. He has a rather bad tendency of dropped plotlines and meandering.


Thanks for the box office info, archmagi1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one thing which bugs me is that Tony Stark is the one pushing the registration thing on everybody and nobody thinks to mention that he is the one responsible for Ultron and so maybe is emotionally compromised when making this decision.

@Bjorn: That guy is Thunderbolt Ross. "Needlessly vindictive" is kind of is defining character trait.

I personally don't feel that the final showdown felt forced. Tony has been shown to have issues with his parents death for some time now. Seeing their death of the hand of the guy who did it (even though he was mindcontrolled), together with the recent stress of seeing his best friend get paralyzed and all the other crap going down... I can see how he snapped. Stress accumulates, after all and this was a film about human reactions to bad s$$& happening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For ironic reasons I'd support a SD remake. Because I want to see how they improve the s!&$ty elves everybody is still complaining about. ^^


Yep, high recommendation from me, too. Already saw it twice.


I'd second that. A lot of sections in those two books (and Ultimate Campaign) already were very helpful. Still, a more GM focused book, as James Jacobs envisions, would be very helpful. As to make it comercially viable, it should probably still include topics of interest to players.

Maybe the sections in such a book could describe solutions for problems for both sides, i.e. GMs *and* players?


Thank you for speaking up! Combat Manager has been incredibly helpful over the years, so thank you for working on it.


As the other said, RotRL AE is the best. Kingmaker is okay, because of the extensive sandbox component, but suffers from some pretty serious design flaws, i.e. the kingdom administration rules (as written in the AP, though there is an update to them in Ultimate Campaign which is better) are unbalanced, the early modules suffer from "one encounter per day" syndrome really badly and the last module is almost completely disconnected from the earlier modules (but would have made an awesome last module for a fey centered campaign).


QuidEst wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I can't believe the vigilante doesn't have Knowledge (Nobility) as a class skill, but they have Engineering and Dungeoneering.... that's just ridiculous when social identity is assumed to be something like nobility and even the iconic is an aristocrat. Hope this get's errata'd
I'm looking into the possibility of launching the Ultimate Intrigue FAQ page with several FAQs like we did with Occult just after launch, and this is on my list of possibilities for that. No guarantees, but stay tuned!
Would it also be possible to look into getting Acrobatics on the Ranger class skill list via FAQ? It is ridiculous that Rangers don't know how to properly jump, but Barbarians sure do.
That doesn't have anything to do with Ultimate Intrigue, though, and this many years in is a little late.

Since Mark is obviously reading this thread and talked about the class skill list of the Vigilante, it seemed a good place to bring it up. After all, if nobody talks about it, the devs won't notice a demand for FAQ. Hell, Mark was surprised that people were confused about Mind Blank/True Seeing, because while there have been multiple threads about the topic in the past, nobody pressed the FAQ button.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I can't believe the vigilante doesn't have Knowledge (Nobility) as a class skill, but they have Engineering and Dungeoneering.... that's just ridiculous when social identity is assumed to be something like nobility and even the iconic is an aristocrat. Hope this get's errata'd
I'm looking into the possibility of launching the Ultimate Intrigue FAQ page with several FAQs like we did with Occult just after launch, and this is on my list of possibilities for that. No guarantees, but stay tuned!

Would it also be possible to look into getting Acrobatics on the Ranger class skill list via FAQ? It is ridiculous that Rangers don't know how to properly jump, but Barbarians sure do.


Yes, while the new classes, spells and feats are integrated quite well into the new material, sometimes they interact a bit oddly with the older material.


What Aranna said and SheepishEidolon said. Also, time and energy for preparation are important, since that will be a lot of your GM'ing duty. There are weeks where I only spend 15 minutes on preparation for the weekly session, but that is because I am investing two or more hours in other weeks. And since I GM two groups, that is two times of that preparation.

And I am using adventure paths. If you are doing a homebrewn campaign, expect your workload to at least triple.


shadram wrote:
A lot of this seems like it would fit in with an Unchained style book: shortcuts, tips, possibly tweaked rules for making this stuff easier. Where Unchained went to great lengths to detail building monsters in a simpler way, perhaps its sequel (if they consider doing one) could contain the advice for hacking adventures for different party sizes, power levels, etc, and an easier way of tracking the multitude of buffs at high level?

I agree, this could be part of an unchained book. Although the first one was mostly about rules variants, so maybe not, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I've had a lot of near misses turning into hits over the last half year, so I guess it's more of a topic with me.

Still, it's the kind of advice which should go into a GM help book. :)


Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Modifier juggling seems to be the thing which brings a lot of really experienced players to a screeching halt when playing their turn. If there are good tips to be had on that topic, it should go into a book like this.

My #1 trick for modifier juggling is based on a computer science principle called "lazy evaluation". It works like this.

Situation: We are at level 12, and everyone needs to make a DC 30 Fortitude saving throw against an evil screech or be stunned.

Fighter rolls an 18. We know his bonus is enough. He succeeds. Wizard rolls a 3. We know he won't have a +27. He fails. Cleric rolls a 12. With +8 base, +3 Con, and +4 cloak, that's 27, which is close, so now we start hunting other bonuses. Did you remember prayer? What about heroism? OK with both of those you made it.

Well, saves are less of a problem than attack roll modifiers. With three characters capable of buffing, the players in my Jade Regent group have to content each round with a mixture of Good Hope, Inspire Courage, Haste, Blessing of Fervor, other possible buffs and whatever else their own character can produce. My other group is much the same. The "lazy evaluation" method works half of the time, but the other half is really annoying, even to me, since if a miss sounds near enough to the players, they often begin to recalculate if they forgot a bonus or another.


Modifier juggling seems to be the thing which brings a lot of really experienced players to a screeching halt when playing their turn. If there are good tips to be had on that topic, it should go into a book like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also be open to a book which is 75% GM advice, but 25% player material, so that the book gets made and sells sufficiently. High-level player content seems something I've seen people ask for, so maybe two needs can be adressed at the same time.


I'll wait for my first read-through until I either got the physical copy or my new larger 27' monitor, which I can also rotate sideways 90 degrees. But what I am reading here sounds very, very good indeed.


Well, nothing to say against that. If we want a hardcover like Ultimate Campaign and the Gamemastery Guide, it will have to be filled with content. :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a magnificent work of art.

The... picture. I mean.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The gentleman on page four seems rather fascinated with Jirelles derriere. ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every GM knows the situation: Suddenly you have another player or two. Or maybe one of the player leaves, leaving your group understaffed. Or one of the players of your four player group has built a truly optimized character and suddenly the other three players feel useless.

How do you best adjust the adventure path or your homebrewn adventure with those and many of the other common problems cropping up? Some GM's are able to do this on the fly (and are not shy about pointing that out on this forum). Others struggle mightily and their campaigns suffer.

Some days ago, James Jacobs posted the following:

James Jacobs wrote:
Frankly, a "how to adapt adventures" product is a good idea. A product that helps GMs adjust adventures for more players or to account for new character build options is something I've wanted to do for a LONG LONG LONG time. It'd double down with a "How do you build adventures" handbook and perhaps even a book to help GMs run higher level content, with tips and suggestions for how to keep a game running smoothly at those levels. Unfortunately, I've had no luck (obviously) convincing management that such a book would be a wise idea to put on the schedule, and they are probably right, since a book like this would most likely sell a LOT less than another book filled with character options.

I would like to see this product published. I am quite an experienced gamemaster by now after 15 years of doing the job, but I still struggle to adapt pre-existing material to my six-player group. I feel high-level content has its constant problems and I'd love to see what Paizo's take on the issue is. I still think I can learn from others and get better at what I've been doing for years.

I also hope that a book like this will get more people into GM'ing and, hence, more people into Pathfinder. I think it is way more necessary than Paizo management thinks, because I still remember how many of my past campaigns smashed into hard obstacles because I didn't have good advice back then how to adjust for unusual circumstances of the many varieties we encounter in our job as gamemasters. Getting good advice on how to GM in unusual circumstances is a crucial part of getting through some of the harder parts of GM'ing. How many new gamemasters abandon their job because they did not know how to deal with these very common problems? How many new players left the game because their groups disbanded because of inexperienced gamemasters?

So, if you support the idea of this book getting published, voice your support and get managements attention.

If you don't want this book or think it is unnecessary, please refrain from threadcrapping. There are more than enough books for player options getting published each month, so one book of GM advice can't be such a detriment to your enjoyment, even if you think you already know better about everything that is going to be in this book or just personally never GM.


There are quite a few spells which are basically "too good" and most of them come from Ultimate Magic, like Ear-Piercing Scream.

But it's not the d6 which makes Ear-Piercing Scream so good but the secondary effect of dazing your target.

Most of those "too good" spells from UM either have a really good secondary effect or still screw over the target if it makes it save, like Terrible Remorse, Icy Prison or Prediction of Failure.


James Jacobs wrote:
Been doing that on and off for many, many years. What would REALLY help would be if the customer base were vocal about wanting a book.

Well, if it helps, I'd happily open a thread. Which forum would be the best for that? I'm not sure any developer even reads the suggestions forum, since it also is the houserules forum.


James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The book would be more of a GM book, that is for sure, and I'd be sure to get it ASAP. Given the niche books you guys are putting out sometimes (Arcane Anthology comes to mind), I wonder why writing a book like this would seem so daunting to management. The Gamemastery Guide was also mostly an advice book, after all.
Arcane Anthology is in the "niche" of a "book that provides players with more options." As far as our sales can tell, that niche appeals to a HUGE number of players, whereas a book about GM advice would appeal to a fraction of probably 1/5 of the total base (GMs who aren't too proud to learn more about GMing).

Okay, understandable. However, I still say you can pitch this to management as "a book to help new and experienced GM's". Especially since without GM's, there is no game. The Gamemastery Guide got made, too, after all.

Sometimes a book is simply needed, even if it ain't as economically feasible than a "big book of feats and spells".


James Jacobs wrote:

Frankly, a "how to adapt adventures" product is a good idea. A product that helps GMs adjust adventures for more players or to account for new character build options is something I've wanted to do for a LONG LONG LONG time. It'd double down with a "How do you build adventures" handbook and perhaps even a book to help GMs run higher level content, with tips and suggestions for how to keep a game running smoothly at those levels. Unfortunately, I've had no luck (obviously) convincing management that such a book would be a wise idea to put on the schedule, and they are probably right, since a book like this would most likely sell a LOT less than another book filled with character options.

ALL of that sort of advice is more or less "not feasible' to put into an adventure. We're able to build the adventures we do in the way we do BECAUSE we have a GM on team with the writer, developer, editor, artists, and art director. All of those roles are required to present an adventure to a group of players. We do what we can to make the GM's job easier, but it's still going to be tough and still going to require work on your part to customize to your game. Adding in customized "here's how" sidebars in adventures would crowd out pages and pages of content, and seeing how folks are already pretty eager to freak out whenever they imagine we're "robbing them" of content by doing something like running with a larger font size or putting ads in the book or including additional support articles... I'm confident that spending several pages overall on tips to adjust adventures for size or options would NOT be popular.

The book would be more of a GM book, that is for sure, and I'd be sure to get it ASAP. Given the niche books you guys are putting out sometimes (Arcane Anthology comes to mind), I wonder why writing a book like this would seem so daunting to management. The Gamemastery Guide was also mostly an advice book, after all.


Mark Seifter wrote:
In almost every case, a new spell, particularly a utility counter, "could" be on either the cleric or wizard spell list (particularly the wizard list if it isn't explicitly divine) because those two classes are generic enough spellcasters. However, I'm in agreement with you that sometimes, they shouldn't be. Having some number of spells found on only the more thematic lists for those spells makes those classes feel special and promotes teamwork (and potentially looking for NPC help), rather than just "the wizard handles everything". Cool things that work well with martial classes like the antipaladin and ranger make me happy. :)

Well, that's what UMD is for. ;)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Did this whole true seeing vs. mind blank thing get labeled as "No Response Required" some time in the past? It's not on the FAQ queue at all, and I wasn't aware it was considered in question. For what it's worth, as you predict with unerring tracker, we were operating under the assumption that mind blank's sweeping divination protections do cover spells like true seeing, though that's not an official FAQ. Please make a FAQ thread if you'd prefer something more official, though (or direct me to an older thread that was marked no response required, if there is one).

I just took a cursory look via the search engine and while the question has come up a few times, apparently nobody thought it necessary to FAQ it. Seems everybody thought it obvious enough.

I had remembered it being a bit different and the question just came up during conversation last week with my current GM, so I guess I just had the impression that a lot of people were unsure.


Well, I don't have that book, because I don't want to economically encourage books which promote evil alignment PC's, but too bad, then. I really miss the nice elf girl. Also Jolistina Susperio, because that illustration also was awesome.


The rings from the ACL already help a ton to expand the list. I recommend the one which gets you the Movanic and Monadic Deva, those are some of the best summons possible at SM VII and SM VIII.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Looking forward this. I hope that later in the AP any sanity mechanic will have Will saves appropiate to the level of the characters. That was kind of a problem in Wake of the Watcher, where the Will saves seemed way to low for the character level and I had to raise them substantially to even threaten the player characters with some sanity issues.
A "Sanity mechanic" is not really appropriate to Pathfinder and won't be part of the Adventure Path. Insanity will be handled as part of the story and as GameMastery Guide's rules as afflictions.
Or that. Although apparently it was appropiate to Wake of the Watcher, as layed out in the side bar of that volume of Carrion Crown on page 29.
In fact, feed back and how it worked out in Wake of the Watcher is what helped me decide it wasn't appropriate. AKA: Think of the inclusion of a sanity mechanic in that volume as an experiment, and the results of that experiment are that sanity mechanics don't work well for Pathfinder/fantasy games.

Thanks for the info. It was a bit wonky and also difficult to explain why just seeing certain monsters was a sanity crushing experience while others are the usual "Oh, look, the next XP piñata". ;)


Barachiel Shina wrote:

An interesting note, the spell Undetectable Trap is perfect for those pesky "I use Detect Magic and automatically find all magic traps" situation.

The problem is, just like the Mask Dweomer spell, is limited in who can cast it. (Mask Dweomer is Witch only...why it didn't go to Sor/Wiz and/or Bard is beyond me).

Undetectable Trap is only for Antipaladin, Occultist, and Ranger. I would have given this to Cleric and Sor/Wiz as well. Strange design choice.

Thanks, Barachiel. And, yes, strange choice for that Undetectable Trap spell. Oh, well, it isn't as if a GM can't pretend that the trap builder didn't have a high level Ranger friend.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
It has nothing to do with "realistic' and everything to do with being out of character and ridiculous for her to wear. She's still perky and all that but that has nothing to do with inappropriate armor.

Well, differing opinions and all that. For me personally her look helped me define how I presented her to the players. Although, looking back at it, I think the facial expression on that drawing had more to do with that than the armor. Oh, well, nostalgia and all that. CotCT is, after all, still my favorite AP.


So, any word if Mind Blank does work against True Seeing?


James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
toxycycline wrote:
This is amazing. I ran this a few years ago and had a blast. Will there be a Pathfinder Pawns set in the near future to go with it?

That'd be awesome. :)

I hope they manage for Laori to keep her chainmail swimsuit. :p

No. Laori's "swimsuit" is the piece of art I'm most eager to change/fix.

Well, dammit. :) I know it isn't physically realistic, but then again so aren't fireball spells. I hope the new illustration can at least keep the feeling of perkyness which informed a lot how I presented Laori during the campaign (that and of course Mikaze's excellent write-ups of Laori's interactions with his group of player characters).

James Jacobs wrote:


Nope; Hell's Rebels is the AP for a full on "PCs are rebels" itch. Adding too much rebellion stuff to Crimson Throne is too much change and addition and thus beyond the scope of the project.

Oh, I get that. But I still think that the time before the PC's are supposed to hit the next dungeons (i.e. Castle Korvosa and then the Sunken Queen) is a bit short after the very long crawl of Scarwall. Adding some more things to do in Korvosa would bring the urban campaign feel back, before it's off to storm two dungeons in a row.


James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Looking forward this. I hope that later in the AP any sanity mechanic will have Will saves appropiate to the level of the characters. That was kind of a problem in Wake of the Watcher, where the Will saves seemed way to low for the character level and I had to raise them substantially to even threaten the player characters with some sanity issues.
A "Sanity mechanic" is not really appropriate to Pathfinder and won't be part of the Adventure Path. Insanity will be handled as part of the story and as GameMastery Guide's rules as afflictions.

Or that. Although apparently it was appropiate to Wake of the Watcher, as layed out in the side bar of that volume of Carrion Crown on page 29.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking forward this. I hope that later in the AP any sanity mechanic will have Will saves appropiate to the level of the characters. That was kind of a problem in Wake of the Watcher, where the Will saves seemed way to low for the character level and I had to raise them substantially to even threaten the player characters with some sanity issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
toxycycline wrote:
This is amazing. I ran this a few years ago and had a blast. Will there be a Pathfinder Pawns set in the near future to go with it?

That'd be awesome. :)

I hope they manage for Laori to keep her chainmail swimsuit. :p

She will not.

Well, that is just terrible. I know it wasn't realistic, but it was kinda iconic to her perky self. Yeah, yeah, some people didn't like the anime look, but I thought it fit perfectly.


Gisher wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Yes, that is also my fear. Slashing Grace was vastly overnerfed. They should have just denied the DEX-to-damage bonus to the off-hand and bucklers should have been allowed, since they are (literally, in the case of Jirelle) iconic to the Swashbuckler class.
Huh? The current version of Slashing Grace allows bucklers. Bucklers don't occupy a hand.
I was pretty sure that someone of the devs had said that bucklers also count as something which "occupies the hand". If that isn't the case and I am wrong, half my objections are gone and I abjectly apologize for my wrongness. No, seriously.

This FAQ should reassure you on the buckler issue.

FAQ wrote:
Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. ...

Excellent, then I apologize for that part. I still think the FAQ should be amended to allow for weapons in the off-hand, only that they don't receive the DEX-to-damage benefit.


James Jacobs wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Any changes to History of Ashes? While a solid adventure on its own, it did feel a bit disjointed from the rest of the AP.

Yes.

** spoiler omitted **

OMG, YES! Basically I'm like this at the moment about this. Not so much about the Fencing Grace stuff in Ultimate Intrigue, but hey, mixed blessings.

Say, it's probably too late to suggest that you replace Scarwall with Citadel Vraid? That's what I did in my first run-though of CotCT, with Scarwall basically warping in due to activation of Kazavon's artifacts and replacing Citadel Vraid, because I thought moving the campaign too far from Korvosa was a mistake. It's not as if the Hell Knights are still a factor in the campaign at this point.

Ah, it's probably a bad idea, because it would allow the PC's to return to Korvosa when there should be a time-skip until their return.

A second suggestion: The last adventure should have a more active rebellion plot before it's off to storm the castle.


Stebehil wrote:
Flynn Greywalker wrote:
I hope Shattered Star, Second Darkness and one to two more of the older paths (I hope either Carrion Crown, Serpents Skull or Skulls and Shackles) go this way in a year or two. I love that you guys update them and add some new material. Great call!

Don´t hold your breath for other updates. James said as much in another thread. IF this happens at all, my guess would be that it would be the remaining two 3.5 APs, nothing newer.

EDIT: ninja´d by Gorbacz (where in Poland are you anyway?)

To be honest, I'd almost want to see what they would do to Second Darkness to make it less terrible in the second part. ^^


Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Yes, that is also my fear. Slashing Grace was vastly overnerfed. They should have just denied the DEX-to-damage bonus to the off-hand and bucklers should have been allowed, since they are (literally, in the case of Jirelle) iconic to the Swashbuckler class.
Huh? The current version of Slashing Grace allows bucklers. Bucklers don't occupy a hand.

I was pretty sure that someone of the devs had said that bucklers also count as something which "occupies the hand". If that isn't the case and I am wrong, half my objections are gone and I abjectly apologize for my wrongness. No, seriously.

However, I still think you could let characters use the other hand and just deny the off-hand DEX-to-damage and it would be totally fine.


Brew Bird wrote:
The absence of a core RPG line Dex to damage option for that weapon is criminal, in my opinion. I'm hoping the "agile" enchantment gets reprinted.

Hahaha, don't worry, if it ever does, I'm pretty sure that they will put overnerfed restrictions on that one, too, unless of course you are forced into a miniscule archetype which contains the words "dervish". :-/

Barachiel Shina wrote:
It'd be nice for them to explain WHY when they make such controversial decisions.

As if. If people question the inexplicable decisions they clam up and refuse to answer. :(

Ross Byers wrote:

Oh, by all means, voice your opinions. My point was that I don't see the point in arguing over the justification and the decision instead of just the decision itself.

This is the internet - where people are happy to pick apart an argument point-by-point, and attack the weakest, most-poorly-worded point, possibly out of context, as if it were the entire argument.

That is a terrible argument. Giving explanations to decisions gives context to them. The developers shouldn't clam up, like they often do, when their controversial decisions come up, but instead offer a rationale and accept feedback.

Slashing Grace was vastly overnerfed and doing the same to Fencing Grace makes Jirelle suddenly have a terrible build. Yes, full DEX-to-damage for TWF is too good, IMO. I get to see that first-hand in my RotRL campaign with our TWF Urban Barbarian. But not allowing anything in the off-hand, nor bucklers, kills so many possible iconic Swashbuckler builds.

The best solution would (pretty obviously, IMO) to allow off-hand weapons, but deny them the DEX-to-damage bonus. Also, allow bucklers, because they are so iconic to Swashbucklers. If the Magus is a concern, make an exception for it.


Protoman wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Does the reprint of Fencing grace have any changes?
The Fencing Grace feat has the same limitations as Slashing Grace: You must have a hand free, no TWF or flurry of blows, and no spell combat.

Oh, for... did they at least make it bit less restrictive, i.e. did they allow bucklers or that you can use a weapon in the off-hand, but it simply doesn't receive the DEX-to-damage bonus, instead of also denying that bonus to the main hand?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not if they used the same text as Slashing Grace, which would be my bet for how it works.

Yes, that is also my fear. Slashing Grace was vastly overnerfed. They should have just denied the DEX-to-damage bonus to the off-hand and bucklers should have been allowed, since they are (literally, in the case of Jirelle) iconic to the Swashbuckler class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxycycline wrote:
This is amazing. I ran this a few years ago and had a blast. Will there be a Pathfinder Pawns set in the near future to go with it?

That'd be awesome. :)

I hope they manage for Laori to keep her chainmail swimsuit. :p


Sold! :) Finally!

1 to 50 of 7,072 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.