Throwing Builds are practically impossible!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Fromper wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Ricochet Toss makes sense, not because it's something that would actually work in the real world, but because it's a trope that shows up in fantasy fiction often enough to be worth including in the game. Xena did it all the time with her chakram, for instance. I'm blanking on other examples off the top of my head, but I know there are plenty more.

Captain America's shield

D'oh!!! I knew there was a stupidly obvious example I was missing.

My first experience with that feat was when the GM threw javelin tossers at us... no matter how I try I just can't picture this.

Xena throws a weapon that 1 was meant to be thrown 2 did not go back to her hands between 5 times within a 6 second time frame. If the feat put some restrictions on weapon types and how far targets must be from each other it wouldn't be as cheesy, but as it is now...

As for balance, "breaks even at best" is as good as it should get as far as I'm concerned. Archery is already borderline ridiculous, but the cheese of a high level thrower is beyond any possible suspense of disbelief. I also always thought captain america was a pretty stupid concept, but a boucing shield has the benefit of beig much more believable than a returning piercing weapon.


The problem with 'breaks even at best' is we run into scenarios like two weapon fighting where you only 'break even' after investing far more resources into the style as the standard.

Investing more resources into a style SHOULD make you more powerful than someone investing fewer resources.

It's the same reason two weapon fighting isn't feats in my games, it's a simple option anyone can use.


Goblin_Priest wrote:


As for balance, "breaks even at best" is as good as it should get as far as I'm concerned.

Really? Spending twice as many feats to maybe end up right back where you started is what your idea of good design is?


Unless you are a two hander, in which case you mostly just need power attack, many styles are easily feat heavy and thus one should be a fighter to go through with the concept.

The problem with not being satisfied with breaks even is that you open the door for min maxing cheese that will make the ludicrous concept even stronger than standard builds.

I can't remember a single fantasy character doing what ricochet toss, as written, allows. Xena and Captain America don't have abilities that compare, their version being much weaker than what the feat allows.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
min maxing cheese

"I had to spend nine feats to get my combat style going maybe I should be slightly better than someone who spent one" doesn't really sound like cheese to me. At all.

In fact reading your posts this has nothing to do with cheese and everything to do with you just not liking how one feat acts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:

Unless you are a two hander, in which case you mostly just need power attack, many styles are easily feat heavy and thus one should be a fighter to go through with the concept.

The problem with not being satisfied with breaks even is that you open the door for min maxing cheese that will make the ludicrous concept even stronger than standard builds.

I can't remember a single fantasy character doing what ricochet toss, as written, allows. Xena and Captain America don't have abilities that compare, their version being much weaker than what the feat allows.

Eh, it doesn't seem too ridiculous to me. It seems kinda silly, especially with spears, but no moreso than many other tricks in PF. Like punching someone so hard they turn into a puppy. Or reloading a flintlock musket every second. Or even just grappling kaiju (which is something a gnome is capable of). This is before we get into the ridiculousness that is spellcasting.


Bear in mind that by the time a fighter can take ricochet toss he's already reached the absolute pinnacle of what a mundane real human being is theoretically capable of. In my own interpretation of the game he's already stepped out of the realistic tier and into the heroic tier for 2 levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:
(...)the cheese of a high level thrower is beyond any possible suspense of disbelief.

You know what is also beyond any possible suspension of disbelief? EVERY SINGLE F~*~ING THING CASTERS DO!!!

If you don't want fantasy stuff, don't play a fantasy game. "Martials must abide by the rules of physics but casters must not" is the biggest plague in all of pathfinder.


For what its worth, a simpler no prereqs version of ricochet toss that excludes piercing weapons would be a bit better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
so hard they turn into a puppy

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Falcon Punch!"


Startoss Style is pretty great with a returning weapon. My warpriest of Pharasma used it quite well until something finally managed to kill him.

Contributor

Sundakan wrote:

Something something water balloons something something.

Kidding aside, Ricochet Toss is a decent fix...if your game starts at level 6-7+ and you're fine with eating 3 Feats (or playing a Fighter and only using two) to do what should have been possible from day 1.

Here was my rational when I designed the feat:

1) Before Level 6, there's less of a need to invest heavily in a single bad-ass weapon. That becomes more important as you get higher level level—say around Level 6/7.

2) Before Level 6, you're less likely to have a bunch of attacks, so buying 4–5 of a given ranged weapon is more likely to tide you over for a few rounds, and most combats don't last more than a few rounds.

3) You're less likely to have multiple attacks as a throwing weapon specialist before Level 6 unless you're a fighter or slayer (the far strike monk didn't exist when I wrote the Weapon Mastery feats). Most characters are going to have three feats by level 4 feats by Level, and non-fighters will need one of them to be Martial Focus. This means that you'll have Quick Draw,, Martial Focus, and Ricochet Toss, plus one feat of your choice (this is REALLY painful, because you don't have the space for Precise Shot).

If you're a slayer, you'll have 1, RCS, 3, Combat Trick, 5, RCS, and 7. #5 will likely be Martial Focus, #7 will likely be Ricochet Toss (it was given BAB +6 as a specific advantage to the fighter, much like how Weapon Specialization has fighter level 4 as a prereq for the same reason). You also need Quick Draw, and you're probably going to try and grab Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and possibly Point-Blank Shot (this last one depends upon your RCS). That's 6 of 7 feats. The fighter's progression is identical, except he (likely) doesn't need Martial Focus. Instead, he's probably going to be picking up Advanced Fighter Training at 5th level for trained throw.

So, let's talk about the feat's prerequisites. It has a BAB prerequisite of +6 because that's when you get your iterative attack and as I mentioned, there is less of a need for the weapon to come back to you before DR/magic (and DR/hardness in general) becomes prevalent. Not everyone has the feats for Rapid Shot, after all. Second, this feat has Quick Draw because you can't even make iterative attacks with thrown weapons without it—it is absolutely mandatory. Really the only feat that is a tax is Martial Focus, but even that gives a +1 bonus on damage rolls—something that non-fighter classes cannot normally "feat" into, so its not like it has no relevance to what you're trying to do. (Unlike, say, Combat Expertise into Improved Trip, where the only "connecting thread" is the fact that CE protects you with an AC bonus and Improved Trip protects you when making a trip attempt.)

In short, I think the prerequisites are quite rational.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Number 3 is an odd justification since the only reason you don't have the Feats to get extra attacks (via Rapid Shot or TWFing) is because you're planning to get this Feat.

Otherwise you'd be kitted out just like a normal archer. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, etc. So your hypothetical Human Slayer would look like this: 1 Precise Shot, 3 Rapid Shot, 5 Deadly Aim (?), 7 Ricochet Toss (assuming no prereqs besides BaB +6). Now you also need to toss in other stuff to effectively fight in melee to become this supposed "best of both worlds" weapon master.

And now you're tacking on Martial Focus (a Feat you admit is pure tax), Weapon Focus (a Feat most non-Fighters don't take because it's not worth a precious Feat slot) and Quick Draw, which you say is necessary to attack repeatedly with thrown weapons...except the Feat you're taking after it completely negates its need.

Mind you, I don't think the Feat is bad (it is, for once, better than the Dreamscarred Press equivalent), I just think that within the system that's already holding you back the A.) Need for the feat in the first place and B.) hoops you need to jump through to get it are bad.


Derklord wrote:
Goblin_Priest wrote:
(...)the cheese of a high level thrower is beyond any possible suspense of disbelief.

You know what is also beyond any possible suspension of disbelief? EVERY SINGLE F@&%ING THING CASTERS DO!!!

If you don't want fantasy stuff, don't play a fantasy game. "Martials must abide by the rules of physics but casters must not" is the biggest plague in all of pathfinder.

Silly Derklord. Don't you know? Magic is limitless, and mundane must always be bounded in absolute reality... except when they aren't (But we don't talk about that since that brings consistency and logic into an argument that would benefit martials).

Liberty's Edge

If you toss the laws of physics then GM whim just has to fill in the gap... Ricochet Toss with a net? Physics says impossible. No physics? Ok, RAW says it can be done... but how would it work? GM fiat... the net 'bounces' off the target harmlessly... and entangles the original thrower. Yay for no physics!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Goblin_Priest wrote:
(...)the cheese of a high level thrower is beyond any possible suspense of disbelief.

You know what is also beyond any possible suspension of disbelief? EVERY SINGLE F+%%ING THING CASTERS DO!!!

If you don't want fantasy stuff, don't play a fantasy game. "Martials must abide by the rules of physics but casters must not" is the biggest plague in all of pathfinder.

Ah, the "martials can't have good things" fallacy. A myth that's a greater plague than what it denounces.

First of all, magic is pretty much by definition the act of breaking the laws of physics. They should be considered to be the same thing: I use magic to defy the laws of physics / I defy the laws of physics thanks to magic.

If by "good things", you mean defying the laws of physics (really, that's the "good things" martials need?), in other words you are saying "martials can't have magic". Except that they can. Even without magical items, there are a bunch of full BAB and two-third BAB classes that combine martial might and magic. If you want to defy the laws of physics, play one of those. But then, expect it so that if you enter a region where the laws of physics are too strong to be violated (read: anti-magic zone), don't expect your gimmicks to work. Just as the wizard won't be doing any of his shenanigans you seek to create a pale imitation of.

And that's without talking about the use of magical items, which are accessible to everyone. That way, even your plain fighter can defy the laws of physics with his gizmo, such as a +1 returning throwing axe.

I love martials, I love them even more than casters. The "martials can't have good things" argument is stupid and depends on 1) those playing martials not actually wanting to play martials, but really wanting to play tanky casters and 2) the GMs presenting challenges that require casters and don't allow martials to shine.

With 5 attacks and a javelin, your throwing speed is, *on average*, 170 miles per hour (athletes do around 90). The 5 attacks per say is stretching the limit, but is well within the bounds of reasonable suspense of disbelief. But then that assumes that you hold the weapon for 0 seconds to aim and actually throw it, and that its velocity is not affected by its impact on the target, nor by flying back with the blunt non-weighed end first. There's really no way to calculate the energy that would absorb a body to bounce a javelin back 30ft, because it's an utterly stupid idea and would require that the target is both unbreakable and immovable and that the javelin itself is also unbreakable, but it's fair to assume that the throwing speed would be much higher than the returning speed. Maybe even breaking the speed of sound barrier fast...

Ricochet toss is just a disgusting feat as written. Throwing builds could have been made viable a number of other ways, such as maybe buffing the returning weapon quality and making it a flat gp improvement (instead of a +1 bonus). The feat could have been made much less ridiculous by only allowing it on bludgeoning weapons and having it actually ricochet between targets instead of non-magically teleporting back to your hand, for example.

Paradozen wrote:
Eh, it doesn't seem too ridiculous to me. It seems kinda silly, especially with spears, but no moreso than many other tricks in PF. Like punching someone so hard they turn into a puppy. Or reloading a flintlock musket every second. Or even just grappling kaiju (which is something a gnome is capable of). This is before we get into the ridiculousness that is spellcasting.

I think most tables don't use material from adventure paths, unless playing that specific AP, so the monk archetype would be excluded. And many don't use gunpowder/gunslingers...

Ricochet Toss certainly isn't the only ridiculous feat in this game, but it feels like one of the flashier ones to me. It just screams of "we don't give a s~%@ about flavor anymore, people asked for throwing builds to be viable so we'll just make a feat that allows you to throw a weapon without actually throwing it".


CBDunkerson wrote:
If you toss the laws of physics then GM whim just has to fill in the gap... Ricochet Toss with a net? Physics says impossible. No physics? Ok, RAW says it can be done... but how would it work? GM fiat... the net 'bounces' off the target harmlessly... and entangles the original thrower. Yay for no physics!

Who says there aren't still rules of physics in place? There's still a range limit, meaning, yeah, physics and limitations still exist. Also, is that an argument in opposition to Ricochet Toss? Cause I can't help but feels it's a bit of a strawman. Any build that involves a net isn't a thrown weapons build, and a net can scantly even be used as a weapon. You full round attack with a net... tangling and untangling a target several times. Good job...?

I'm sure there something dumb that can be done with it, but at that point, you'd need such a ridiculous feat investment to make it work, let it work. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, a Halfling can suplex a Skyscraper sized creature. Heroes can do fantastical things. This is not a bad thing. Sorry if there's fantasy in your fantasy tabletop games.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
It has a BAB prerequisite of +6 because that's when you get your iterative attack and as I mentioned, there is less of a need for the weapon to come back to you before DR/magic (and DR/hardness in general) becomes prevalent

I'm sorry, but there isn't actually any reasoning in the text I just quoted. If the feat is useless below level 6, then there is be no need for the prereq. As you said, most classes don't have the feats to pull it off prior to level 7 anyway, so the only thing that the BAB requirement really does is peventing fighters from getting it early.

Quicken Spell is normally useless before you get 5th level spell slots (in practice, more like 6th or 7th). And yet the feat does not have any prereqs - so you can totally combine it with Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter to make it work earlier than normal. Why should martials not be able to do something like that?

Alexander Augunas wrote:
(the far strike monk didn't exist when I wrote the Weapon Mastery feats).

And this is a perfect example of why one should not put prereqs in that aren't 100% necessary. Pathfinder has enough problems with upwards compatibility as it is.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Second, this feat has Quick Draw because you can't even make iterative attacks with thrown weapons without it—it is absolutely mandatory.

Well, I'd put the "you can attack normally with a thrown weapon" text (for one-handed thrown weapons only) into the feat because both thrown weapons and fighters are in need of improvement. The whole freaking book was about buffing fighters!

You once argumented that making Ricochet Toss without prereqs would be power creep, but that is not correct. Power creep is per definition new material making older material obsolete due to a higher power level. But that would only occur when thrown weapons would be so good that they would take the "best martial" crown from archery, which I really don't see happening. Remember that the best thrown weapons still have a much shorter range than bows (30 is maximum without special stuff), and are also bad in melee: Javelin has a -4 penalty and Chakram has a -1 penalty and chance to damage the wielder.

@Frosty Ace: Silly me, I forgot, that that martials no matter what level should never be allowed to do a single thing not seen in Lord of the Rings. Anything beyond that instantanously means that Pathfinder has become an anime game!

@CBDunkerson: Xena's chakram, Cap's shield and boomerangs hitting anything and still returning don't work under the laws of physics, either. No matter what weapon, Ricochet Toss breaks the laws of physics. Refluff the feat to not bounce the weapon back but to return like a lightsaber, if you want.

@Goblin_Priest: Martials that don't break the laws of physics have no reason to exist in a world of widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. If you don't like that, don't play Pathfinder.


CBDunkerson wrote:
If you toss the laws of physics then GM whim just has to fill in the gap... Ricochet Toss with a net? Physics says impossible. No physics? Ok, RAW says it can be done... but how would it work? GM fiat... the net 'bounces' off the target harmlessly... and entangles the original thrower. Yay for no physics!

Eh, physics just get in the way of awesomeness and fun anyways, let's just toss them into the wood chipper.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Number 3 is an odd justification since the only reason you don't have the Feats to get extra attacks (via Rapid Shot or TWFing) is because you're planning to get this Feat.
Quote:
And now you're tacking on Martial Focus (a Feat you admit is pure tax),

Actually, I said the opposite. "Tax" implies that the base feat doesn't help the build or effect you're going for. Combat Expertise is a tax for Improved Feint because the benefit of Combat Expertise (atk penalty for AC bonus) has nothing to do with Improved Feint. Martial Focus gives you a small damage bonus on top of allowing you to qualify for feats that you wouldn't normally qualify for.

As another example, it would be like if a theoretical, "Psychic Stare" feat existed that allowed you to product an effect that was a significantly weaker version of the mesmerist's hypnotic stare, but in turn that allowed you to take Stare Feats even though you wouldn't normally be able to.

Quote:
Quick Draw, which you say is necessary to attack repeatedly with thrown weapons...except the Feat you're taking after it completely negates its need.

Untrue. Ricochet Toss allows the weapon to return to you after you throw it. Technically the rules don't allow you to make iterative attacks with thrown weapons without Quick Draw. Ricochet Toss is directly upgrading the benefit of Quick Draw, not making it irrelevant. (Its not like Ricochet Toss causes you to loose the ability to draw things as a free action.)


I'm going to regret getting involved, but here goes nothing:

Derklord wrote:
@Goblin_Priest: Martials that don't break the laws of physics have no reason to exist in a world of widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. If you don't like that, don't play Pathfinder.

Magic in Golarion is neither widely available, nor is it altogether safe.

If you want non-magical martial characters to have quasi-magical abilities, there are games for that. Pathfinder is not one of them (if you count out certain 3pp books).

And yes, Ricochet Toss is pretty silly.


In Golarion magic in widely available and safe.
Any town of X people is going to have at least 1 spellcaster of Y level.
If you cast a spell, it will work. Wild magic and the like are far from the listed norms for spellcasting.


No sillier than "Grrr I'm mad so I'll fly now and eat magic," but no one's up in a tizzy about that. I'm sooner told make ragelancepounce Barb #15,267 than I am a thrown weapons Fighter, despite the former being a bajiion times more ridiculous about 99% of the time, and having existed far longer. But oh wait, bringing up the Barb/Monk/Cavalier/whatever being able to be fantastical is bringing up consistency. Can't have that in this debate.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fabius Maximus wrote:


If you want non-magical martial characters to have quasi-magical abilities, there are games for that. Pathfinder is not one of them (if you count out certain 3pp books).

But that's clearly not true. You cite an example of that being incorrect literally in your next line. Throw in other examples (like HP and saves and evasion and so on) and it's very obviously not the case even by default. Martials, past low levels, exist far beyond the realm of realism. If you want to call that quasi-magical, that's fine, but it is what it is.

It's like some people think "extraordinary" is supposed to mean extra ordinary.

Goblin_Priest wrote:
Ricochet Toss certainly isn't the only ridiculous feat in this game, but it feels like one of the flashier ones to me. It just screams of "we don't give a s#@# about flavor anymore, people asked for throwing builds to be viable so we'll just make a feat that allows you to throw a weapon without actually throwing it".

I don't know why you keep assigning malicious intent here. You call the feat 'disgusting' and you accuse Paizo of 'not giving a s#@# about flavor anymore' and people who like the feat as promoting fallacies or not actually wanting to do what they say they want and... why? Because there's a feat you don't like?

That seems both disingenuous and pretentious. Why can't you just say "This isn't how I like my game" rather than trying to make things grandiose and act like people who don't share your opinion are somehow lying or beneath you?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Build character.
Pick up rock.
Throw rock.

Practically impossible throwing build successfully implemented. :]

After that, it is all just quibling about whether the build is 'good enough' compared to other builds/standards.


Squiggit wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:


If you want non-magical martial characters to have quasi-magical abilities, there are games for that. Pathfinder is not one of them (if you count out certain 3pp books).

But that's clearly not true. You cite an example of that being incorrect literally in your next line. Throw in other examples (like HP and saves and evasion and so on) and it's very obviously not the case even by default. Martials, past low levels, exist far beyond the realm of realism. If you want to call that quasi-magical, that's fine, but it is what it is.

It's like some people think "extraordinary" is supposed to mean extra ordinary.

There is a difference between abstractions like HP and abilities that enable non-magical classes to do the same things as magic-users. A certain level of reality-bending is expected in heroic fantasy. Putting magic-users and non-magic characters on the same level, however, has been tried and it was a failure.


HP isn't an abstraction. See lava and falling damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fabius Maximus wrote:
There is a difference between abstractions like HP

Abstraction or not, a mid or high level fighter can skinny dip in lava or leap off mountains without serious concern. With a decent con score and a will sve, she can also take cyanide capsules by the bucketful and use arsenic as food seasoning and rarely suffer any meaningful problems from it.

Quote:
and abilities that enable non-magical classes to do the same things as magic-users.

No one said they need to do the same thing, but standards of 'realism' aren't particularly helpful in a game that fails to be realistic on any level whatsoever. Especially when they're entirely arbitrarily placed.

Quote:
Putting magic-users and non-magic characters on the same level, however, has been tried and it was a failure.

So now you're arguing certain classes should just be intrinsically worse as a design goal? To use your own words, there are games for that and Pathfinder (at least claims) to not be one of them.

Contributor

Derklord wrote:
Quicken Spell is normally useless before you get 5th level spell slots (in practice, more like 6th or 7th). And yet the feat does not have any prereqs - so you can totally combine it with Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter to make it work earlier than normal. Why should martials not be able to do something like that?

Comparing spellcasting options to mundane options isn't an entirely even road. There are comparatively fewer feats for spellcasters at low-levels then there are at higher levels, so a spellcaster might be okay with droping a feat now for a reward later.

But that isn't how martial characters work. With only a few exceptions, feats are pivotal to how martial classes operate. If Ricochet Toss had been designed in a way where it did nothing for until 6th or 7th level, you wouldn't have been okay with that—you'd be calling my design a "trap option" instead of a tax.

Also, the BAB +6 requirement makes plenty of sense when you figure that fighters get weapon training at 5th level. Since they're weapon mastery feats and all of them require the fighter to have weapon training as a core mechanic of the feat set, BAB +6 is a reasonable requirement—anything less doesn't make sense because weapon mastery feats were designed with a fighter-first mentality (something I mentioned in my previous post). Sure, I could have made it BAB +5 (the level you get weapon training), but BAB +6 made more sense for the reasons I've already listed. And since Martial Focus needs BAB +5 anyway, it wouldn't matter whether Ricochet Toss needed +5 or +6 for anyone but the fighter—other classes would still have to wait until Level 6 (if they got a bonus feat at 6th, like the warpriest) or Level 7 (if they didn't get a bonus feat at 6th).

You don't have to like my choices, but those are the reasons and whether you like them or not, they're valid points.

Quote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
(the far strike monk didn't exist when I wrote the Weapon Mastery feats).
And this is a perfect example of why one should not put prereqs in that aren't 100% necessary. Pathfinder has enough problems with upwards compatibility as it is.

I disagree. Prerequisites that keep abilities gained where we want them to be gained is how we keep the game balanced. Its a primary reason why the far strike monk isn't another zen archer.

Quote:
You once argumented that making Ricochet Toss without prereqs would be power creep, but that is not correct.

I actually don't think I said that, and I'm certainly not trying to argue. I wrote the feat we're talking about—I don't need to argue.

But if you (or others) feel as though I'm being argumentative, then by all means tell me so and I'll leave the conversation and use my time somewhere else so as not to detract from this conversation. I'm currently doing a 3PP project involving a corruption that transforms you into a kaiju that I should be doing more with....


Hi, you said quick draw is absolutely necessary for an iterative attack.

What if u held a weapon in your left hand, and held a weapon in your right hand?


Alexander Augunas wrote:


Actually, I said the opposite. "Tax" implies that the base feat doesn't help the build or effect you're going for. Combat Expertise is a tax for Improved Feint because the benefit of Combat Expertise (atk penalty for AC bonus) has nothing to do with Improved Feint. Martial Focus gives you a small damage bonus on top of allowing you to qualify for feats that you wouldn't normally qualify for.

Feats you would qualify for if they didn't require an unrelated class feature in the first place. Whether they have an added (minuscule, in this case) benefit isn't the point. The point is that they are necessary and have little to do with what you need them for.

Power Attack is a great Feat. That doesn't mean needing it to take Improved Bull Rush isn't a tax.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Quote:
Quick Draw, which you say is necessary to attack repeatedly with thrown weapons...except the Feat you're taking after it completely negates its need.

Untrue. Ricochet Toss allows the weapon to return to you after you throw it. Technically the rules don't allow you to make iterative attacks with thrown weapons without Quick Draw. Ricochet Toss is directly upgrading the benefit of Quick Draw, not making it irrelevant. (Its not like Ricochet Toss causes you to loose the ability to draw things as a free action.)

Mind giving me a rules quote on that? You need Quick Draw to full attack normally because you can only attack with weapons you have drawn.

Ricochet Toss: When you make a ranged attack with an appropriate thrown weapon, the weapon returns to your hand immediately after the attack is resolved.

No need to draw.

Again, the point is not whether or not the Feat is useful in and of itself. It's that it's an arbitrary requirement that doesn't make much sense as a prereq. Precise Shot, for example, would have been better both thematically and as a sensible Feat that goes with the line you're trying to do.

To take an example from the same book, this would be like tacking on Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite to Cut From The Air. Certainly, the feat is good, and helpful for what you're doing (which still makes it better than Quick Draw for a Feat that returns a weapon to your hand), but it's an unnecessary extra step to getting the Feat.


Fabius Maximus wrote:


Magic in Golarion is neither widely available, nor is it altogether safe.

What happen in golarion is irrelevant for setting neutral elements of hte game.


That's also very false just looking at the rules for cities and towns. A Thorpe of 20 people has 1st level spellcasting.


Sundakan wrote:
Mind giving me a rules quote on that? You need Quick Draw to full attack normally because you can only attack with weapons you have drawn.

"Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action." CRB p141

And yes, that means you can't RAW use stuff like Vital Strike with thrown weapons without Quick Draw.

@Fabius Maximus: Alexander Augunas actually made some very good points about that exact topic on his site that I could not possibly say batter than he did. I'd like you to read that blog post.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Comparing spellcasting options to mundane options isn't an entirely even road. (...) a spellcaster might be okay with droping a feat now for a reward later.

First, why not? Second, martials are actually expected to take feats that don't do anything right now (e.g. Combat Expertise) for a reward later.

If there really is "less of a need for the weapon to come back to you before DR/magic (and DR/hardness in general) becomes prevalent", why not give the players the choice when they want to pick it up? I see no harm in allowing fighters to pick up the feat at 5th level (or even Weapon Master picking it up at 3rd level), so all your prereq does is take away player choice. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the harm would be in having RT without the BAB prereq!

Alexander Augunas wrote:
I disagree. Prerequisites that keep abilities gained where we want them to be gained is how we keep the game balanced. Its a primary reason why the far strike monk isn't another zen archer.

You use the word "balanced". Per the very definition of the word, if Far Strike is (significantly) weaker than Zen Archer, than the two archetypes can not possibly be "balanced". Also, are you really suggesting that a Far Strike Monk that could pick up Ricochet Toss at early levels would be as strong as (or even stronger than) a Zen Archer?

Alexander Augunas wrote:
I actually don't think I said that

You said "Having Quick Draw as a prerequisite is the only thing that keeps Ricochet Toss from being power creep" and then later "You're incorrect; power creep means increasing in general power, and Ricochet Toss without Quick Draw as a prerequisite would be a creep on Quick Draw."

I do enjoy having you in this thread, and want to take the chance to thank you for your work on the WHM and especially Ascetic Style (especially as written). I love Startoss Style and Ricochet Toss! It's just that I think the book could have been even greater if you had gone a little lighter on the prereqs. I feel that you were a bit too worried about power creep, which I consider to be unfounded for the reasons I gave in my last post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Mind giving me a rules quote on that? You need Quick Draw to full attack normally because you can only attack with weapons you have drawn.

"Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action." CRB p141

And yes, that means you can't RAW use stuff like Vital Strike with thrown weapons without Quick Draw.

Actually, RAW that means you can only ever make a single attack with Thrown weapons per round. So we can all go home guys, thread title is accurate.


Sundakan wrote:
Actually, RAW that means you can only ever make a single attack with Thrown weapons per round. So we can all go home guys, thread title is accurate.

Without Quick Draw, yes. With Quick Draw, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Mind giving me a rules quote on that? You need Quick Draw to full attack normally because you can only attack with weapons you have drawn.

"Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action." CRB p141

And yes, that means you can't RAW use stuff like Vital Strike with thrown weapons without Quick Draw.

Actually, RAW that means you can only ever make a single attack with Thrown weapons per round. So we can all go home guys, thread title is accurate.

I'm 90% sure that rules text is intended as a reference for throwing non 'throwing quality' weapons (hence the reference to 2-handed weapons) and therefore not relevant to a discussion regarding most throwing builds.

Then again I wouldn't put such an oversight past paizo and its predecessor.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Mind giving me a rules quote on that? You need Quick Draw to full attack normally because you can only attack with weapons you have drawn.

"Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action." CRB p141

And yes, that means you can't RAW use stuff like Vital Strike with thrown weapons without Quick Draw.

Actually, RAW that means you can only ever make a single attack with Thrown weapons per round. So we can all go home guys, thread title is accurate.

I'm 90% sure that rules text is intended as a reference for throwing non 'throwing quality' weapons (hence the reference to 2-handed weapons) and therefore not relevant to a discussion regarding most throwing builds.

Then again I wouldn't put such an oversight past paizo and its predecessor.

PRD wrote:
It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on the following weapon tables), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Just improvised assuming i'm reading the PRD correctly

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:

Build character.

Pick up rock.
Throw rock.

Practically impossible throwing build successfully implemented. :]

After that, it is all just quibling about whether the build is 'good enough' compared to other builds/standards.

Here you go.

Also, thanks CWheezy for remembering my thread on the first page. =)


Derklord wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Actually, RAW that means you can only ever make a single attack with Thrown weapons per round. So we can all go home guys, thread title is accurate.
Without Quick Draw, yes. With Quick Draw, no.

Quick Draw does not give you extra Standard actions. If you have a weapon in hand, throw it as a Standard, and draw another as a free, you still can't throw it. You're out of Standard actions.

Edit: But I now see where this is coming from. Quick Draw text is weird. Might wanna lead with that next time.


I just confirmed. This nonsense about requiring a standard action only applys to weapons without the throwing trait. So long as you're already holding them you can keep throwing actual throwing weapons all day long until you run out if held throwing weapons.


Where'd you confirm it?


In the book. That text only shows up in the context of throwing weapons that do not have a range increment.


Sundakan wrote:
Where'd you confirm it?

It's how it appears to read on the PRD

Quote:


Thrown Weapons: Daggers, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, and nets are examples of thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on the following weapon tables), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.


CRB PDF wrote:

Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears,

darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents,
shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder
applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown
weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw
a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee
weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range
column on Table 6–4), and a character who does so takes
a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or onehanded
weapon is a standard action, while throwing a twohanded
weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the
type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a
natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit.
Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

I did not change formatting, this is the way it is in my PDF

Since each and every throwing weapon is also a light, onehanded or twohanded weapon I see no reason why the 'Throwing a light... full-round action." would only apply to weapons that do not have a numeric entry in the Range column.

On the other hand: the part after that (Regardless of the type.... 10 feet) is obviously for weapons that are not designed to be thrown. Otherwise a dagger would have a threat range of only 20 when thrown and a shortspear could only be thrown 10 feet, regardless of the range column.

My opinion: it is not 100% clear whether regular throwing weapons can be thrown as part of a full-attack without taking into account quick-draw.


Allow me to make a quick syntax adjustment to make it more clear.

Magabeus wrote:
CRB PDF wrote:

Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears,

darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents,
shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder
applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown
weapons (except for splash weapons).

It is possible to throw
a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee
weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range
column on Table 6–4), and a character who does so takes
a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or onehanded
weapon is a standard action, while throwing a twohanded
weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the
type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a
natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit.
Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.[

Liberty's Edge

The 'standard action' and 'full round action' in that text are clearly referring to the preceding "weapon that isn't designed to be thrown"... not ALL thrown weapons.

Shadow Lodge

Magabeus wrote:

I did not change formatting, this is the way it is in my PDF

Since each and every throwing weapon is also a light, onehanded or twohanded weapon I see no reason why the 'Throwing a light... full-round action." would only apply to weapons that do not have a numeric entry in the Range column.

Context.

Liberty's Edge

Fun with Harrow decks and Arcane Strike;

A 3 level dip in Cartomancer Witch grants Deadly Dealer, makes the cards NOT destroyed when used, gives them the Returning ability, and allows them to be used to deliver touch spells.

A 2 level dip in Card Caster Magus grants Deadly Dealer and allows cards to deliver touch or ranged spells. At 5th level they can apply their Arcane Pool to add enchantments to an entire harrow deck.

Deck of Silvering Fate doubles Arcane Strike damage.

Gloves of Arcane Striking cause all enemies adjacent to target hit to ALSO take Arcane Strike damage.

Belt of Mighty Hurling (lesser or greater) allows Str for attack on thrown weapons.

Lots of ways to put those components together with other options to build an effective thrower because the 'attacks per round' and 'weapon cost' issues are essentially eliminated.


Hm... I was considering whether that part aplies only to thrown melee weapons. The sentence immediately afterwards definitly does (as does the one before), so the sandwiched one should too. Apologies for the confusion.

In that case, Quick Draw is not necessary for Ricochet Toss and is indeed a tax feat (albeit one that can help against type DR).

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Throwing Builds are practically impossible! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.