Any chance of those favored few answering a couple of humble questions:
1) What does the Knife Master archetype for Rogue do?
2) Are the new weapons mostly exotic or martial? (an inkling of what the kerambit stats are like would be most welcome)
Edit - question answered in another thread! Thanks Cheapy!
Any chance of those favored few answering a couple of humble questions:
1) What does the Knife Master archetype for Rogue do?
2) Are the new weapons mostly exotic or martial? (an inkling of what the kerambit stats are like would be most welcome)
Better idea! Cheapy (or anyone with it) shouldstart a thread like they did with UM
The not-mount-focused cavalier archetypes are Honor Guard, Luring Cavalier, Musketeer (completely gets rid of the mount), and standard bearer (switches Banner with Mount).What's the Luring Cavalier do? kite foes?
Yes. They get something like Antagonize but with critted ranged attacks, and can ignore some range increments with all attacks that are at full BAB. They can also double the touch-ac range of firearms. They also can use up a use of the challenge-replacement before an attack roll to do double their level in bonus damage.
All I'm going to say, looking at the book, is that everyone ealier in the thread who was concerned about the art...stop. Just stop. It's really, really good.
Well, maybe that's not ALL I'm going to say, but...
The art for the chapter on variant rules? Awesome. Especially with the text :D
|
Any chance of those favored few answering a couple of humble questions:
1) What does the Knife Master archetype for Rogue do?
2) Are the new weapons mostly exotic or martial? (an inkling of what the kerambit stats are like would be most welcome)
1) It makes the rogue a better fighter with knives and knife-like weapons, improving their crit dice with those weapons at the expense of crit dice when using other weapons, and giving them an AC bonus to boot. They lose the trap-related stuff for this.
2) Equal parts martial and exotic, honestly. The kerambit is... well, it's an unarmed strike with a x3 crit mod and it's slashing. But it's not a monk weapon. Not sure what the deal is there, other than from a purely flavor perspective I'm not sure why anyone would use it. But I haven't looked too closely.
The flying blade is a 10' reach weapon that threatens and has a 20/x3 crit modifier. Also does 1d12 damage. No trip though!
Also, Improved Whip Master lets you threaten your natural reach +5' with a whip.
Any questions about the book, please direct here.
|
|
People focus waaaaay too much on DPR and I think it is a result of the MMO min max generation more than anything.Not the way I hear it. Fighters and paladins didn't dream of gauntlets of ogre power and holy avengers in 1E because of roleplay considerations.
C'mon, man. How can anyone say that anything up to and including 1E was anything like the way the game is now?
Players wanted magic items to be more badass, not because they were expected in order to feel mathematically adequate and on an even playing field at any given level.
The entire consciousness of the game has changed because the background practices of the gamers has changed, and those background practices include years of playing highly regimented computer RPGs.
C'mon, man. How can anyone say that anything up to and including 1E was anything like the way the game is now?
Players wanted magic items to be more badass, not because they were expected in order to feel mathematically adequate and on an even playing field at any given level.
The entire consciousness of the game has changed because the background practices of the gamers has changed, and those background practices include years of playing highly regimented computer RPGs.
Well the big difference is that in 1st edition it wasn't "can you succeed?" it was "How long can you not fail?" magic items were rare because you were intended to die (the level of the average adventurer was stated to be three) not because you didn't need them.
Well the big difference is that in 1st edition it wasn't "can you succeed?" it was "How long can you not fail?" magic items were rare because you were intended to die (the level of the average adventurer was stated to be three) not because you didn't need them.
C'mon, man. How can anyone say that anything up to and including 1E was anything like the way the game is now?
Players wanted magic items to be more badass, not because they were expected in order to feel mathematically adequate and on an even playing field at any given level.
The entire consciousness of the game has changed because the background practices of the gamers has changed, and those background practices include years of playing highly regimented computer RPGs.
In other words, it's not video games that are the problem, it's the fact that video games have gotten easier in the past decade or two. In the '90s, you expected to lose, suck, and die in almost every vidjagame. They took that out of most games, hence the mindset applying to other forms of entertainment.
In other words, it's not video games that are the problem, it's the fact that video games have gotten easier in the past decade or two. In the '90s, you expected to lose, suck, and die in almost every vidjagame. They took that out of most games, hence the mindset applying to other forms of entertainment.
they haven't gotten easier so much as the people playing them are the same ones that were playing them when they came out in the 90's. Sure we all sucked playing mario at first but now I can zip past half the game in the same time it takes me to beat half of halo on legendary (and mario has significantly more levels).
1st edition wasn't like videogames where you suck and die until you get the hang of how it is done, first edition was
Dm: roll a die
Player: 16
Dm: you live
Repeat until player stops rolling above ten. It was simulated as if you actually took you, gave you a rusty sword and threw a troll in front of you. You weren't a hero in the making you were either a soon to be dead commonfolk or a very lucky son of a bi**h.
That's true, but if you die on legendary Halo, you don't have to start from the beginning. On Mario, you die (although, you get a fair number of lives) enough, then you do.
And as a very lucky s.o.b. and proficient sword-user, I fancy my chances. Maybe not against a troll, though being that I don't have reliable access to fire.
:p
How good are firearms for anyone not of a specific archetype focused on them?
How good are firearms for anyone not of a specific archetype focused on them?
Well I can tell you anything like the blunderbuss is great for anything with sneak attack, go figure. Rogue AOE FTW
:)
I watched a playthrough of that once, completely unedited.
Great example of first edition.
|
|
kensai - Knowing Paizo, this will end up as something completely different than expected(remember oracles?), but it could as well be mix of bladebound/staff magus. Lightly armored weapon-buffing blademaster? Here's to hoping.
I'm hoping the same thing. A throwback to the old 2nd edition Kensai would be fantastic. It's moved so far away from one of my favorite kits in AD&D to whatever it is now ... usually some heavy armored warrior type.
I miss the no armored bad A T_T
kensai - Knowing Paizo, this will end up as something completely different than expected(remember oracles?), but it could as well be mix of bladebound/staff magus. Lightly armored weapon-buffing blademaster? Here's to hoping. I'm hoping the same thing. A throwback to the old 2nd edition Kensai would be fantastic. It's moved so far away from one of my favorite kits in AD&D to whatever it is now ... usually some heavy armored warrior type.
I miss the no armored bad A T_T
From the mouths of Cheapy and Dr.Candycane:
-No armor proficiencies, suffers arcane spell failure as normal.-No Spell Recall, Knowledge Pool.
-Diminished spellcasting (-1 spell slot per spell level).
-Canny Defense (as the Duelist class ability, meaning Int modifier to AC).
-Can deal maximum damage on critical hits.
-Fighter training.
-Adds Int modifier to several things, such as AC (mentioned above), Initiative and AoOs.
Since I am merely repeating what others have said in another thread or two, I cannot elaborate any further. Still, kinda reminds one of the 2nd Ed Kensai kit, methinks, only with spellcasting.
Amentum? It's just a shortspear!
Bo Staff? Meet the quarterstff!
Butterfly Sword? Easily represented by a punching dagger!
Cestus? Functionally just a gauntlet!
Dan Bong? Statistically a nunchaku!
Double Walking Stick Katana? Paired short swords in one sheath!
Emei Piercer? Represented by punching dagger stats!
Gladius? Just another short sword!
Kerambit? Sickle!
Katana? A bastard sword!
Madu? A fancy spiked shield!
Mattock? It's just a pick!
Mere Club? A club or mace!
Nine-ring Broadsword? Looks like a falchion to me!
Nodachi? Greatsword.
Pata? It's a spiked gauntlet!
Quadrens? What the hell is a quadren?
Sibat? Shortspear!
Taiaha? It's a spear!
Tekko-kagi? Spiked gauntlet!
Tetsubo? Great club!
Tiger Fork? It's a freakin' trident!
Tonfa? Club!
Tri-point Double-edged Sword? Represented by halberd stats!
Wahaika? Club!
Wakizashi? Yet another short sword!I am really disappointed in the new weapons. As you can clearly see, most already exist within the rules.
I know this is a post from many pages back, but I needed to say...
I agree. Wholeheartedly.
With RavingDork, even. ;)
If we start getting separate stats for all these weapons, why not different stats for a gladius and a xiphos and a smallsword? Why are THOSE shoehorned into "short sword" but "wakizashi" is somehow different? It opens a whole can of worms--I can see weapon freaks I've known now demanding separate stats for every weapon ever invented because Ultimate Combat establishes a precedent--and I agree it likely takes up a bunch of space in the gear section that could better been used for other things, like rules clarifications, more feats, more archetypes, etc.
I know it's too late to really complain as those will definitely be in the book, but I have to say it seems a poor call.
Maneuver Master looks cool though.
|
I know it's too late to really complain as those will definitely be in the book, but I have to say it seems a poor call.
This complaint is 11 years late, as it should be directed at people who wrote 3E so that there are profound mechanical differences between a straight piece of sharp metal (longsword) and a curved piece of sharp metal (scimitar).
Once this level of differentiation was introduced to weapons, Pathfinder had little choice but to follow suit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that a lot of different statistics exist for weapons. One has higher damage, one has higher crit range, one has higher crit multiplier etc.
However that one exact weapon is given to each statistic isn't necessary. If the short sword gets the Wakizashi statistics and vice versa, nothing would be lost.
The problem is that if you wield a katana it is branded in your fellow players head that you are wielding that "cool asian sword from all the movies" for better or worse.
It would probably have been better to have a group like "martial light slashing weapons" with 10 statistics and 15 names and you cherry pick what you want.
|
Weapons similarity has always been a 'problem' and always will. Some game systems don't even mess with it and just have generic categories and let you flavor the "Big Slashing Weapon" however you want. That's kind of my preference. You could have a table of about 12 weapon types and a chart showing what weapons fit in which type.
That kind of goes against the way the worlds most popular role-playing system has done things though.
And FWIW it goes back further than 11 years, more like 30.
Weapons similarity has always been a 'problem' and always will. Some game systems don't even mess with it and just have generic categories and let you flavor the "Big Slashing Weapon" however you want. That's kind of my preference. You could have a table of about 12 weapon types and a chart showing what weapons fit in which type.
That kind of goes against the way the worlds most popular role-playing system has done things though.
And FWIW it goes back further than 11 years, more like 30.
Yeah, 7th Sea (original, not d20) did it that way kinda. You had just a 'fencing weapon' or a 'heavy weapon' then you or your swordsman school might say rapier or saber, but in the end the stats are the same. It wasn't until later that they started defining weapons, but even then it was based on the standard. For example, a scimitar was a 'fencing weapon' but it had the extra ability that you could perform a 'draw cut' and draw and attack with one action. A cutlass was a fencing weapon, but it got -1 hit +1 dmg. The biggest change was when they added the Zweihander to the heavy weapons, they added that you needed an action to 'reset' the blade after every attack action.
I have never been a fan of the exotic weapon proficiency. Personally I tend to think the XWP was put in place so that players had to pay extra to play with tools that were deemed too powerful to just let them have without some reason. The bastard swrod falls into the category as does the falcata from the APG. Especially the falcata which is a brutal blade used by some of the Celts. I'm using Fursona to make up some characters now and for the concept I am having in my head I may use some of those rules to downgrade that weapon and maybe something I find especially neat in UC for him. Either that or use a warbrand from the one 4 Winds book which made a kind of martial bastard sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heavy amounts of detail and variety have always been a part of this game.
In OD&D every weapon deals 1d6 points of damage ... ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons similarity has always been a 'problem'Save that I don't see it as a problem as most characters are proficient with groups. Fighters can use about everything, monks can use simple and all monk weapons etc.. Heavy amounts of detail and variety have always been a part of this game. The only real problems were monsters like the badly designed spiked chain which slipped through the cracks. (although that one is fixed now)
I think you meant to say "that one is ruined now. It's mechanically inferior to the heavy flail, which is a martial weapon. It was a good weapon before, perhaps marginally more powerful than it needed to be, but certainly not the be-all and end-all of weapons. It was one where you were actually justified in taking the EWP feat, unlike just about any of the others.
I think you meant to say "that one is ruined now. It's mechanically inferior to the heavy flail, which is a martial weapon. It was a good weapon before, perhaps marginally more powerful than it needed to be, but certainly not the be-all and end-all of weapons. It was one where you were actually justified in taking the EWP feat, unlike just about any of the others.Weapons similarity has always been a 'problem'Save that I don't see it as a problem as most characters are proficient with groups. Fighters can use about everything, monks can use simple and all monk weapons etc.. Heavy amounts of detail and variety have always been a part of this game. The only real problems were monsters like the badly designed spiked chain which slipped through the cracks. (although that one is fixed now)
This. Spiked Chain was very good - FOR SPECIFIC THINGS.
This is another example of erratic design. First I nerf spiked chain and then introduce falcata. So exotic weapons must be very powerful or not? I don't get it.
And there are other examples of this (see "nerf metamagic and then have everybody and they grandmother forced to reroll saves").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heavy amounts of detail and variety have always been a part of this game.
In OD&D every weapon deals 1d6 points of damage ... ;-)
Originally they just used the Chainmail combat system. In the "optional" d20 based combat system in Men and Magic they dealt 1d6. Then the Greyhawk supplement came out in 1975 and varied weapon damage.