Cydeth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Dread Knight wrote:Alright here is a question I don't think has been asked or answered. Have they 'fixed' the Monk weapon proficiency with the Unchained Monk?I've heard they're proficient with Monk Weapons.
Confirmed. At the end of the proficiencies it states: "and any weapon with the monk special weapon quality."
Sebastian Hirsch |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is utterly nit picky, but I might as well just mention it:
Flurry of blows requires and unarmed strike or a monk weapon.
Unarmed strike lists the following options: fists, elbows, knees, and feet.
Style Strike, can be used when using flurry of blows, and the monk has to designate an unarmed strike to use as a style strike.
Most style strikes mention elbows, feet or kicks, but Head-Butt requires the use of a head-butt.... but a monk can't actually deal unarmed strike damage with his head. The Style strike description mentions "resolve the attack as normal" so this head-butt should do damage.
--
I know it is incredibly stupid, and I would not want monks to deliver their unarmed strikes exclusively through head butts... but on the same token, I just want to avoid debates with PFS GMs whether or not that attack only does 1d3 damage and provokes..
Dread Knight |
Insain Dragoon wrote:Confirmed. At the end of the proficiencies it states: "and any weapon with the monk special weapon quality."Dread Knight wrote:Alright here is a question I don't think has been asked or answered. Have they 'fixed' the Monk weapon proficiency with the Unchained Monk?I've heard they're proficient with Monk Weapons.
Thank God finally a Monk can now use a MONK'S Spade right off the bat.
christos gurd |
@ John Lynch 106: But the book does NOT have something that's "fighter only". The book has a set of optional rules that, as written, can be applied to any class, and THEN they SUGGEST the GM should CONSIDER giving them to the fighter only. That's not "giving...
This entire book is optional rules, and even has systems within itself that are not compatible with one another.
Mark Seifter Designer |
Kudaku wrote:Mark Seifter wrote:Great! I didn't know you could edit reviews after they've been published, that makes my life a lot easier. My write-up of Chapter 1 should be done today. :)Kudaku wrote:Does the "please don't quote preview text" rule also extend to reviews? I'm writing a review of Unchained at the moment, but I describing and referring to the various systems rather extensively and I'd hate for the review to be deleted.I highly doubt we will remove any reviews. We'd prefer that it didn't directly quote all the rules in its body yet (perhaps edit that in on the 29th?), but even so, you should be OK.My chapter 1 review is up! Follow me in the coming days, as I add the next chapters, then repeatedly butt heads with the word count limit, and then inevitably give up by chapter ~4.
=D
Cool review so far!
John Lynch 106 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the book does NOT have something that's "fighter only".
Yes it does. The book has a rule that, when implemented, will give something unique to fighters. The book also has a rule that allows tables to give the unique fighter ability to other classes if they so desire. You're not after a rule that gives something unique to fighters. You're after the removal of optional rules to restrict what tables who want to use those optional rules can do. Paizo chose not to cater for you to the exclusion of everyone else, which is effectively what you want them to do.
Kudaku |
Kudaku wrote:Cool review so far!Kudaku wrote:Mark Seifter wrote:Great! I didn't know you could edit reviews after they've been published, that makes my life a lot easier. My write-up of Chapter 1 should be done today. :)Kudaku wrote:Does the "please don't quote preview text" rule also extend to reviews? I'm writing a review of Unchained at the moment, but I describing and referring to the various systems rather extensively and I'd hate for the review to be deleted.I highly doubt we will remove any reviews. We'd prefer that it didn't directly quote all the rules in its body yet (perhaps edit that in on the 29th?), but even so, you should be OK.My chapter 1 review is up! Follow me in the coming days, as I add the next chapters, then repeatedly butt heads with the word count limit, and then inevitably give up by chapter ~4.
=D
Thanks! Had a lot of fun writing it. :)
BigP4nda |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
...first the rogue, then the monk, now the fighter...
What is wrong with these people, this is an RPG, where you are supposed to fill a role, play it out, and watch your idea grow and evolve. Not a FPS, not a RTS, not a MOBA, and most definitely not a Fighting game. Why is everybody so damn frantic about what class deals more damage and what class has more skills and what class has what another class doesn't or what classes have what this class does.
Every time I see these petty arguments about classes being underpowered, poorly designed, outranked, useless, low-tier, etc. I get really bummed out.
Let's put this on the table, since nobody has seemed to mention this important fact: What does the fighter do?
Well, it simplys 'fights'. Hence why it's called the Fighter how do you make a class good at fighting? Give them proficiency with almost all weapons and all armors and shields, give them a permanent scaling bonus to all attack and damage rolls, lower the Armor check and raise the Dex bonus for all armor, also let them move at full speed in heavy armor. Group up the weapon bonuses so that they can still be flexible but still show a certain mastery over types of weapons, and lastly, give them the one most powerful aspect to any single class that ever wants to pull off any sort of combat prowess: Feats, give them twice as many feats as the would normally get, and then add one more.
There is and never will be a class that does what the fighter does. You will never, ever, under any circumstance be able to get as many feats as a fighter would, you would never be able to get as high attack and damage rolls as a fighter would, and sure as hell would not effectively use as many weapons as a fighter would. Oh yeah, and have fun moving 10 feet slower all the time.
Most people will argue that the use of magic and supernatural or spell-like abilities nullify the point I made by equalizing the factors against the Fighter, but seriously, you are playing in a party, instead of boosting your mediocre stats and wasting your spells, gives those buffs to the fighter who already has amazing stats and make them even BETTER. It's a team effort, but too many people seem to have their minds fixated on the idea of "beating" pathfinder that they forget the true reason for playing it in the first place, to have fun with friends.
Rant over, sorry for the wall of text/derailing.
Insain Dragoon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the one most powerful aspect to any single class that ever wants to pull off any sort of combat prowess..
Rage Powers?
Martial Maneuvers?
you would never be able to get as high attack and damage rolls as a fighter would, and sure as hell would not effectively use as many weapons as a fighter would. Oh yeah, and have fun moving 10 feet slower all the time.
John Lynch 106 |
Why is everybody so damn frantic about what class deals more damage and what class has more skills and what class has what another class doesn't or what classes have what this class does.
I've played in games where some characters had no combat abilities whatsoever and those were my favourite characters. D&D (and Pathfinder) is not that game. With how much of a character's resources are dedicated to combat, the length of time combats take and the amount of combats that happen during a typical game (as demonstrated through Paizo's adventures which is almost always what I've played through when playing Pathfinder), combat is a very important part of the game. There are other important aspects, but combat is very important. D&D has Dungeons (places you explore filled with monsters) and Dragons (monsters you typically fight and kill) in it's name. That alone shows you the default emphasise on gameplay. In my experience Paizo's Pathfinder adventure paths do not break away from the mold established by D&D in any significant way.
When another class is JUST as good at you (if not better) at combat and they're better than you at situations outside of combat, you're going to have an unhappy player.
Every time I see these petty arguments about classes being underpowered, poorly designed, outranked, useless, low-tier, etc. I get really bummed out.
If it's impacting someone's enjoyment of the game, I would not characterise it as petty.
Sebastian Hirsch |
Page 34 says all biped eidolons geet claw attacks, however this clashes with the subtype and evolution descriptions, that say that only a number of subtypes can take that evolution.
Either I am thick, or I am missing something.
Oh and the improved damage evolution works with improved natural attack again.
Mark Seifter Designer |
Page 34 says all biped eidolons geet claw attacks, however this clashes with the subtype and evolution descriptions, that say that only a number of subtypes can take that evolution.
Either I am thick, or I am missing something.
Oh and the improved damage evolution works with improved natural attack again.
It's a listing of the default in that short statblock, though some outsider types don't follow it (see Lord Fyre's post here), and please keep 'em coming in that thread! This is looking like it has a lot fewer errata than usual so far; we'll see how it fares when it goes out to everyone!
Eltacolibre |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eltacolibre wrote:That is a pretty big exaggeration. Do you really really, like honestly believe what you wrote is even remotely close to what anyone believes?So what do people wants out of fighter? Like seriously? Do people wants fighter to have all good saves + Evasion+ Still Mind+ Full Bab + Self-buffs special ability + rogue talents + ranger combat styles + Studied target + 8+int skills per level+ being good at social and intellectual situations all at the same time?
I mean, I do understand all the complaints but like do people really want to not rely on anybody and be good at everything? is that the end goal?
That's pretty much what they are saying right now. It's always the same things:
We want more damage (or whatever that means for people!) so we can better at combat than rangers, barbarians, paladins ALL THE TIME, no exception! At all levels of play!.
We want more utility! I feel like being a fighter, I want to be better at doing other things outside of combat! (usually involve more skills, ignoring DR, create magical items out of thin air, take your pick...)
We want to make sure fighter has no weaknesses during combat and should be able to slash someone flying 300 ft away from us and kill them in one hit! Who needs party buff or someone shooting spells?
But anyway, this discussion is going in circle, since nobody knows what they want out of the fighter.
Forrestfire |
Maybe if you combine the entire discussion into one hypothetical "they," then exaggerate them a bit to paint them as more ridiculous than they sound (but honestly, if you take all the things that people want and put them into a class, you get something ridiculous, so that's fairly fair). Overall, the feelings I've generally seen in the social circles I frequent (both online forums, various groups, and offline gaming groups) is one or more of these:
"The fighter's damage is pretty good if well-built, but only if well-built, so it could stand to many have less trap options."
"The fighter doesn't have much to do out of combat, and it'd be nice to be able to do things. Having more skills, or skills that are actually useful, would go far."
"The fighter has issues dealing with things that can't be solved by hitting it really hard, so some way to fight in ways other than either hit point damage or investing yourself entirely in a combat maneuver that might not even work against many enemies (and will not work against just as many) isn't very fun."
"In a party of well-built characters, with all else equal, the Fighter (or Rogue, or Monk) will often fall a bit behind in usefulness, making it harder on the GM to balance encounters, and sometimes making the player feel bad."
Personally? What I want out of the Fighter I can get from the Barbarian (if I'm in a simple point and click mood), the Ranger (if I want more skills and some utility spells) or third-party classes (DSP's Path of War, specifically). I think that the ideal balance point for classes, both in power and versatility, is around Tier 3 and high Tier 4, where the Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Bard sit. The Fighter fights just fine, but it just doesn't compare in the ability to do things, and overall, it's doing things that is fun for many people, including myself.
(Also, and this is a very a minor nitpick, placed at the end because it's really not the point, but "ignoring DR" is pretty in-combat focused, and shouldn't be in the list of out of combat things).
Insain Dragoon |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nicos wrote:Eltacolibre wrote:That is a pretty big exaggeration. Do you really really, like honestly believe what you wrote is even remotely close to what anyone believes?So what do people wants out of fighter? Like seriously? Do people wants fighter to have all good saves + Evasion+ Still Mind+ Full Bab + Self-buffs special ability + rogue talents + ranger combat styles + Studied target + 8+int skills per level+ being good at social and intellectual situations all at the same time?
I mean, I do understand all the complaints but like do people really want to not rely on anybody and be good at everything? is that the end goal?
That's pretty much what they are saying right now. It's always the same things:
We want more damage (or whatever that means for people!) so we can better at combat than rangers, barbarians, paladins ALL THE TIME, no exception! At all levels of play!.
We want more utility! I feel like being a fighter, I want to be better at doing other things outside of combat! (usually involve more skills, ignoring DR, create magical items out of thin air, take your pick...)
We want to make sure fighter has no weaknesses during combat and should be able to slash someone flying 300 ft away from us and kill them in one hit! Who needs party buff or someone shooting spells?
But anyway, this discussion is going in circle, since nobody knows what they want out of the fighter.
Really? Because most commonly the things I hear are stuff that's pretty fair and far from greedy.
Stuff like
1. We want weapon focus and weapon specialization to apply to weapon groups when fighters take it.
2. We want Armor Training to do stuff to Light and Medium armor too instead of just being useful for Full Plate.
3. We want to be as educated as Barbarians and get 4 skill points a level.
4. We want Perception as a class skill because it makes no sense for the class most likely to be a bodyguard, town guardsman, or soldier to suck at keeping watch.
5. We want our feats to stop getting handed out like candy since "Fighter Feat" seems to mean nothing these days since Magus, Barbarians, Bards, Warpriests, Brawlers, ect all have methods of taking them.
6. We want some method of dealing with common combat problems.
Dragon78 |
Has anyone else noticed that on the UC summoner spell list has multiple spells that are in found in different spell levels? examples are ant haul and protection from evil are both 1st and 2nd level spells.
The only thing I think the fighter needs in 4+int skills and perception as a class skill. Though now that I think about it I think all adventurers should have at least 4+Int skill points and perception as a class skill.
Maybe if bravery also grant immunity to fear at level 10 or so that wouldn't be bad.
Deadmanwalking |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I give Fighters 4 skill points per level (as well as Perception and Knowledge - Local on their list) and Good Will Saves. This is a simple, easy, fix for their non-combat capabilities and rep for poor Saves that I highly recommend. It's worked out so far for my group, including not notably overpowering a Lore Warden (as compared to the other PCs).
I'm not sure I agree that they need too much of an in-combat boost though. They rely on full attacks...but so does everyone. So, before actually reading Unchained I'm leaning towards either not using Stamina or letting anyone Feat into it (though in the latter case, I'd give Fighters the Feat free of charge).
EDIT: More 'great minds think alike' than 'ninja'd' there...
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with these people
They have a stronger grasp of the game's mechanics—and those mechanics' impact on the gameplay experience—than you do? Probably something along those lines.
But really, that's not the important part. The important part is that I'd rather share a table with people who have differing ideas than to share a table with people who respond to differing ideas by assuming there must be something wrong with those people.
Mechalibur |
So it sounds like the new rogue class kind of forced to use dexterity-based builds? One thing I liked about rogue was that you could pretty easily make a strength-based one, since sneak attack worked fine for any weapon. With all the new class features that benefit off of dexterity, is there really any reason to build a strength rogue any more?
Shisumo |
So it sounds like the new rogue class kind of forced to use dexterity-based builds? One thing I liked about rogue was that you could pretty easily make a strength-based one, since sneak attack worked fine for any weapon. With all the new class features that benefit off of dexterity, is there really any reason to build a strength rogue any more?
I would say that, in general, such builds are better handled as slayers than rogues. That said, though, just because you have a class feature doesn't mean you have to use it. Any rogue build that worked before should work now.
Luthorne |
So it sounds like the new rogue class kind of forced to use dexterity-based builds? One thing I liked about rogue was that you could pretty easily make a strength-based one, since sneak attack worked fine for any weapon. With all the new class features that benefit off of dexterity, is there really any reason to build a strength rogue any more?
Well, I don't have my copy yet, but based on what people have said, it seems that getting weapon finesse for free at 1st and Dexterity to damage at 3rd with a specific weapon really just makes Strength and Dexterity about equal...and Strength still comes out a bit ahead in some ways, since Strength to attack rolls and damage comes online at 1st, works with all weapons, etc. Sure, you're not getting any use out of those class features, but all it really does is make Dexterity-based rogues more viable, rather than making Strength-based ones less viable...though, someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Ultimately, though...as far as I can see, swapping a Strength-based rogue to the Unchained Rogue isn't going to make them any weaker, and will make them stronger with the debuffs they can apply via stabbing, the skill unlocks, and better rogue talents. It's just that Dexterity is going to be just as viable. Certainly, in some ways, this makes it more attractive, since Dexterity applies to AC, initiative, and to some of the more iconic rogue skills...but Strength certainly still seems like a viable option.
Malwing |
So it sounds like the new rogue class kind of forced to use dexterity-based builds? One thing I liked about rogue was that you could pretty easily make a strength-based one, since sneak attack worked fine for any weapon. With all the new class features that benefit off of dexterity, is there really any reason to build a strength rogue any more?
If the Slayer didn't exist I would care more. To me the only real concept in my head for a STR Rogue would be an assassin, a bandit or a mugger and I could easily pull those concepts off better with a Slayer, Figher, or Brawler respectively.
BigNorseWolf |
a FPS, not a RTS, not a MOBA, and most definitely not a Fighting game. Why is everybody so damn frantic about what class deals more damage and what class has more skills and what class has what another class doesn't or what classes have what this class does.
Because its about making what happens fit the theme and narrative. If you say that the rogue is the sneaky underhanded and tricksy person thats versatile and good at srtiking from the shadows and problem solving then you have to SHOW that once the dice start rolling or your rpg is doing something wrong.
Every time I see these petty arguments about classes being underpowered, poorly designed, outranked, useless, low-tier, etc. I get really bummed out.
Well it seems to have thankfully lead to some improvements.
Let's put this on the table, since nobody has seemed to mention this important fact: What does the fighter do?
There is and never will be a class that does what the fighter does. You will never, ever, under any circumstance be able to get as many feats as a fighter would, you would never be able to get as high attack and damage rolls as a fighter would, and sure as hell would not effectively use as many weapons as a fighter would. Oh yeah, and have fun moving 10 feet slower all the time.
One ingredient missing there is you need to make all of those feats matter together, at the same time. If you need 10 feats then 10 feats are good to have. If you only need 5 feats then 10 feats kind of loose their luster. If your feats are "good with sword I, good with sword II good with sword III...IV V" and then you run out, picking up the skills Good with bow I has some serious diminishing returns because you don't use that bow that often. If you run THAT out and have to pick up "Good with dagger I II III...." your feats are practically worthless at that point.
The rogue has that same problem with skills. His 9th and 10th favorite choices for skills don't matter as much as his first and second.
The problem that the plethora of options have opened up for the fighter is that while no class can do everything the fighter does Some class/archtype/ thing does what you want your fighter to do better. Archer fighter? There's the zen archer and ranger style archer, the latter of which gets your feats sooner. Sword and board? Sword and board ranger gets your shield style 5 levels earlier. Mobile fighter with kinda pounce? Sorry, the dragon style pouncing druid in velociraptor form is running past you at 120 feet per round to make better attacks.
Tangent101 |
Tangent101 wrote:Why do some players choose Fighter?
Because they don't want the added complexity of spellcasting. Because having a list of a dozen plus spells that they must choose one from can cause less experienced players to freeze up. Classes like the Rogue and Fighter have an easier learning curve in some ways, especially with a GM who takes time to work with the less experienced players in leveling up and the like.
I do not presume to know you or your players, that may very well be the case for your gaming group but let me point out that:
1. The "added complexity" we are talking about hardly matters for other martials who get to cast spells at some point during their progression, as their spells are all fairly simple.
2. A lot of people choose barbarians over fighters and barbs don't have access to spells. They generally feel barbs are as good as fighters or even better at fighting while having a wider scope and more thematical focus. To a lesser extent this is also true for cavaliers in my experience.
3. There are a lot of experienced players, who don't feel inconvenienced at all by complexity that do not choose fighters instead of other martials because they feel them to be less focused/generally less useful than other martial classes.
4. I suppose you are talking about other martials here and not divine or arcane casters for those cover other team roles and all clerics and all wizards teams are exceptions and not the norm in most gaming groups.
1) - A 4th level Ranger has between 12 to 20+ spells the player has to choose from. Each day, their character has to memorize another spell, and has to decide which spell they want to memorize and what situation this is best suited for. While you CAN ignore this and just not bother memorizing the spell, or choosing the same one over and over again... and once the spell is memorized, then there is also WHEN the spell should be used lest it be squandered on a situation where it was less than useful.
2) - Barbarians have abilities that can be considered spell-like, where they have to choose when to use an ability. I had one new player run a Barbarian and have several Barbarian Rage abilities she never used because she never thought of it, or didn't want to waste that shot at that point. Fighters don't have that problem.
3) - That's the decision of those players. There are novice players who jump into playing spellcasters immediately. I had one player who from 1st to 3rd edition, always played a Fighter. Not even a fighter/whatever. Just a fighter. That's all she was interested in.
4) - I'm not sure what you're talking about here. We are talking about reasons why players may want to choose to run a Fighter. What does someone running a Divine Caster or a Wizardly Caster matter in this? (For that matter, this is an interesting bit - outside of the Magus, there aren't any warrior/casters that use Wizard spells. Even the Bard is more of a Sorcerer crossbreed.)
Crimlock NL |
Crimlock NL wrote:Beorn is literally what the Werebear is based off of and why it is usually Lawful Good.I was busy looking into a beorn inspired pc (man/bear:. Druid/ranger? Druid/barb? Werebear?)..
Anything in unchained that could make a build? New multiclass rules perhaps?
I know, but the werebear pc is complicated... Therefor i was wondering if there is anything with wildshape rules or something simulair in the book.
Deadkitten |
I made this thread if anyone wants to talk about the Unchained Barbarian specifically, I don't personally have the book but someone who feels that it has not gotten much attention might be willing to chime in.
Mechalibur |
Mechalibur wrote:So it sounds like the new rogue class kind of forced to use dexterity-based builds? One thing I liked about rogue was that you could pretty easily make a strength-based one, since sneak attack worked fine for any weapon. With all the new class features that benefit off of dexterity, is there really any reason to build a strength rogue any more?Well, I don't have my copy yet, but based on what people have said, it seems that getting weapon finesse for free at 1st and Dexterity to damage at 3rd with a specific weapon really just makes Strength and Dexterity about equal...and Strength still comes out a bit ahead in some ways, since Strength to attack rolls and damage comes online at 1st, works with all weapons, etc. Sure, you're not getting any use out of those class features, but all it really does is make Dexterity-based rogues more viable, rather than making Strength-based ones less viable...though, someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Ultimately, though...as far as I can see, swapping a Strength-based rogue to the Unchained Rogue isn't going to make them any weaker, and will make them stronger with the debuffs they can apply via stabbing, the skill unlocks, and better rogue talents. It's just that Dexterity is going to be just as viable. Certainly, in some ways, this makes it more attractive, since Dexterity applies to AC, initiative, and to some of the more iconic rogue skills...but Strength certainly still seems like a viable option.
Well I think if all else is equal, dex based builds are usually better because their primary stat affects AC, initiative, reflex, hit, and damage, while strength is just hit and damage. I guess what I'm saying is, if you get all that for free, is there really any reason to go strength based? Maybe some two-hander build, since that still gets 1.5 strength modifier.
knightnday |
I give Fighters 4 skill points per level (as well as Perception and Knowledge - Local on their list) and Good Will Saves. This is a simple, easy, fix for their non-combat capabilities and rep for poor Saves that I highly recommend. It's worked out so far for my group, including not notably overpowering a Lore Warden (as compared to the other PCs).
I'm not sure I agree that they need too much of an in-combat boost though. They rely on full attacks...but so does everyone. So, before actually reading Unchained I'm leaning towards either not using Stamina or letting anyone Feat into it (though in the latter case, I'd give Fighters the Feat free of charge).
EDIT: More 'great minds think alike' than 'ninja'd' there...
I've done something similar in my own games.
I think ideas like this are the whole idea of the Unchained book and concept -- that you are not hidebound to RAW. You are encouraged to take from the book or your own house rules to personalize the game, in effect giving you "permission" to change things.
To echo off TOZ and Jiggy and others to an extent, there is nothing wrong with these people. There is no One True Way; if someone thinks fighters didn't get enough love and want to change it, then that is where they are coming from. Tastes in gaming are wide and varied.
Unchained is a wonderful tool for the home gamer, but they are not going to scratch every itch nor appeal to everyone's view of a good fix. They may go too far for some, not far enough for others. There will be concerns about PFS (as we have seen) and how they will interact with these rules. To that I say "And?"
It helps me to look at PFS like this: they are a big set of house rules. The price for admission in that game, or any game you go to play, is to abide by the house rules there or not play in the game. Given that people here play (or have played) any number of games, often at the same time, I believe that people have enough room in their heads to have fighters get Perception on their list at home and not at PFS.
Would it be nice if Paizo made changes to X that satisfied every single person's desire or worry or irritation? Sure. But their ideas of design may not always correspond with mine, or yours, or even other people in the same building.
Adjust the game to your liking for your table, and if you go to another bite your tongue and play the game happily. Playing is more important than any of the other issues in the end, or at least it should be.
Wei Ji the Learner |
The big problem I had with Fighter when I sat down to play a TWF fighter at GenCon PFS was this:
The pre-reqs to get things like TWF are just... not viable for a fighter build. The extra points spent to get the Dex up to the point where you can qualify for it could be spent better on things like CON or STR.
Now, add in the lack of skill points, and you're at *best* a 'one-trick pony' at a table. God help your table if you need skills from every player.
Ranger, Slayer? They can bypass the prereqs, which is why there is talk of Slayer as the route to go.
But that doesn't change the fact that the base class needs some signficant assistance that will be *accepted* by PFS. All of Unchained could be fighter 'help' but if the campaign says 'Nope, none of it works', then...
BigNorseWolf |
TWF just isn't viable at higher levels. The more optimized your party gets for the realities of combat, the faster they kill the foes, the more you need to move from one foe to the other and the less optimal it becomes. I played through curse of the riven sky with a dual wielding sword eidolon, velociraptor pet, and a two weapon falcata user.
On a spreadsheet the amount of damage the falcata user could do was absolutely terrifying. In practice the pouncers launched ahead and killed things, he had to move up and swing once. The poncers moved even further ahead he double moved. he hit something with 2 out of his 12 attacks... and it was dead.