AdrastusDarke's page

The success of shows like rollplay, critical role and roll 20's recorded campaigns show that there certainly is a market for it, those shows set the bar pretty high but if you are making good videos you may find success.

Good luck and more importantly have fun!

Adrastus

I will say - TWF with rapier/dagger is almost nothing like Pathfinder TWF assumes. Using rapier/dagger is mostly about using their different reach at different times rather than even threatening with both at once like kung fu TWF is. (Which is I think more like what Pathfinder TWF is trying to simulate.)

Also of note - in fencing you don't have to deal with armor, which is the biggest portion of most ACs. I could see an argument (or at least a rationalization) that a lot of the accuracy penalty for TWF is that trying to swing with both gives you less precision/leverage to punch through armor.

I would agree with you that the historical use of dual wielding and the use in movies and fantasy are two very different things.

Even if you take armour into account a -4 main hand penalty and -8 off hand penalty is way too much and realistically you probably shouldn't be using a sword against heavy armour if you can help it, you ideally want a polearm or a blunt weapon for that or you want to wrestle them to the ground and stab in the gaps which is not something the game represents (and rightly so because in the fantasy that the game is tryingto portray these things are not commononly taken into account). I think the lessened penalty normally associated with the two weapon fighting feat should be the default assumption of the game.

Adrastus

P.S sometimes in fencing we actually do take armour into account, this isn't something we do in rapier fencing usually because the rapier was primarily used by civilians in unarmoured combat (although it did also see battle and was used to good effect) but when fencing with other weapons that were more likely to face an armoured opponent or when specifically training for armoured combat we do take it into account.

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.

And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.

Adrastus

I'm pretty sure anyone whose ever fought with two weapons at the same time will vastly disagree with you.

I don't think they will, I for example have fought with two weapons at the same time and noticed an immediate increase in my effectiveness as opposed to fighting with a single sword (I fence rapier) and I had no specialised training at the time in using two weapons at once.

Here is an interesting video on the subject

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zqvwl6wv#/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw

Fighting with two weapons is somewhat difficult but it is not a special skill that requires intense training to have even a chance of hitting your opponent, a completely untrained person will fare somewhat better given two swords than they would if only given one. If two-weapon fighting normally worked as if you had the two-weapon fighting feat and the two-weapon fighting feat improved it further then I would not have a problem with it, my problem is that without this feat picking up a second weapon which would give you a second line of attack and defense would immediately make you completely useless whereas it should make you more effective.

Adrastus

You are human and Two-Weapon Fighting is your bonus feat. You got natural talent. Congrats.

And so is everyone I have ever trained with apparently, strange how we are all so gifted in the same thing among all of the other stuff that pathfinder makes you take feats for. With all the bonus feats we apparently have we must be pretty high level from a young age.

the idea of me being naturally talented in anything requiring coordination is pretty funny to me, multitasking has always been a weakness of mine and mild dyspraxia has made it so that anything requiring hand-eye coordination requires a huge effort on my part to be competent in and yet I can still gain a benefit from using a second weapon.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Have you ever watched someone who had never used two weapons before try to do so truly effectively against a trained opponent. I have. For years. I'm among other things a sword teacher.

Inevitably no matter how skilled, the first time someone starts working with two weapons their effectiveness goes down. There's an adjustment period to adapting the way you move your body, getting used to making certain movements with your non-dominant hand, and stringing together attacks in a cohesive sequence.

If you've found different for yourself personally, you're rare exception (which in game would be categorized by a trait that reduces the TWF penalty) but I can tell you by observing and training countless students, it definitely takes a period of focused training to be as good with two weapons at once as you are with one.

I have both watched and sparred with beginners using two weapons at the same time as well as having been in that situation myself, every time using a second weapon has been more effective than using one.

Your experience intrigues me though, which martial art do you teach? I study HEMA (historical European martial arts for those of you who are unaware of it) focusing mostly on rapier but I dabble in other European swords. I wonder if the difference between our experiences comes down to the weapons used or the style that we fight in.

Adrastus

*Edit I have had another potential thought of what could be causing the disparity in our experiences. When the people you teach and observe start working with two weapons have they had extensive experience with only one weapon beforehand? If the person trying out the use of two weapons has alot experience of fighting with one beforehand then I would expect their effectiveness to go down because they are trained to fight one way and are then expected to fight in another way that they have no experience with, this would not be an indicator that fighting with two weapons is inherently

...

Thanks for the reply, thats very interesting. I have not come across many practitioners of asian weapon based martial arts (although I have fought against katana users before on a couple of occasions) so I know relatively little about how those weapons are used, the katana seems to be used quite similarly to a longsword.

Adrastus

Have you ever watched someone who had never used two weapons before try to do so truly effectively against a trained opponent. I have. For years. I'm among other things a sword teacher.

Inevitably no matter how skilled, the first time someone starts working with two weapons their effectiveness goes down. There's an adjustment period to adapting the way you move your body, getting used to making certain movements with your non-dominant hand, and stringing together attacks in a cohesive sequence.

If you've found different for yourself personally, you're rare exception (which in game would be categorized by a trait that reduces the TWF penalty) but I can tell you by observing and training countless students, it definitely takes a period of focused training to be as good with two weapons at once as you are with one.

I have both watched and sparred with beginners using two weapons at the same time as well as having been in that situation myself, every time using a second weapon has been more effective than using one.

Your experience intrigues me though, which martial art do you teach? I study HEMA (historical European martial arts for those of you who are unaware of it) focusing mostly on rapier but I dabble in other European swords. I wonder if the difference between our experiences comes down to the weapons used or the style that we fight in.

Adrastus

*Edit I have had another potential thought of what could be causing the disparity in our experiences. When the people you teach and observe start working with two weapons have they had extensive experience with only one weapon beforehand? If the person trying out the use of two weapons has alot experience of fighting with one beforehand then I would expect their effectiveness to go down because they are trained to fight one way and are then expected to fight in another way that they have no experience with, this would not be an indicator that fighting with two weapons is inherently much more difficult but rather that that person has more skill with the other style. In gameplay terms that person would have invested all of their feats in using a single weapon and then upon switching to two found that those feats no longer applied and thus they were less effective. This would be similar to me switching from rapier to longsword, my effectiveness would go down immediately not because longsword fighting inherently is more difficult or requires more training than rapier but because I have experience with rapier fencing and no experience with longsword fencing so all I would have is a basic sense of distance and timing that I learned using other weapons.

AdrastusDarke wrote:

mourge40k wrote:

Claxon wrote:

So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?

That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.

And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!

Hope it works out for you, that would be more realistic than the current way it works (although as I said I am fine with the extra attacks thing as an abstraction) let me know how it works out for you! :)

If you want to see a really good example of realistic dual-wielding rules check out the two fisted fighting rules from burning wheel, that also falls into the trap of requiring special training to do but it is otherwise very similar to how it was done historically. In fact check out all of burning wheel because it's amazing!

Adrastus

Two fisted fight, well let's call it boxing.

A normal guy, say a farmer npc, will never be as good as a trained boxer. The trained boxer will win that fight almost 100% of the time. The farmer can fight with two fists but the guy who spent training time(feat) on it is much better.

Same for TWF, the one trained will be much better than the one not trained. Farmer dude CAN fight with two weapons. Trained fight can do it better, and the more he trains the better he gets.

What's the problem? Feats are training in pathfinder, you wanna do something better than average, then spend training (feats) on it.

The problem which you would know if you had read what I have posted carefully is that without the feat you are worse using a weapon in your off-hand than you are using nothing in your off-hand. If the feat simply made you better at using two weapons than you would be without the feat I would be fine with that but as it stands you need to take the feat in order to do something that anyone can do, that being fight better with two weapons than they can with one and no off-hand item at all.

Adrastus

*Edit I feel like I may have been too aggressive here and I would like to apologise for that. I am just frustrated that some people are misinterpreting the point that I am trying to make but that is my fault for not making it clear enough and it was wrong to take that out on you. I am sorry for my rudeness and I will endeavour to be less aggressive in future, everyone here deserves respect.

Oooh that's a good idea! Great damage, good stealth, lots of flashy spells. I like that alot, thank you.

Currently it's between sneaky magus and slayer, both are so good for their own reasons it's hard to pick one :).

Adrastus

@ AdrastusDarke

You make some excellent points. If you look up the common definition of: "feat" it will be something like: "a great achievement of skill or strength". Feats are poorly named if they only let you do things that ordinary people can do.

I have always said that when you select a character option like a feat in an rpg it should feel like you're breaking the rules a little bit, it should let you do something special that most people cannot do or let you do something in a particular way that is not usually available. That is alot more interesting than +1 to hit when doing something for example and it makes the characters feel more unique and like they have specialised skills.

I think powered by the apocalypse games like dungeon world and sagas of the icelanders do this well with moves, blades in the dark does it well too and the feats in 5e are usually pretty good because most of the time instead of giving you bonuses to something they give you new abilities that flesh out your character.

I hope that makes sense, I am starting to get very tired so I should probably stop posting and go to sleep.

Adrastus

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Any changes to two-weapon fighting are also likely to have a huge effect on the rogue as well so that's something to take into account. it would be a very large rewrite seeming as the way two-weapon fighting works is kind of baked into the core of the game. I wish mourge40k luck with it and I hope your game turns out well, it sounds interesting.

Adrastus

Yeah - I agree and that was kind of my point. It's hard to make house-rules which change such a core part of the system without making it an entirely different system.

I prefer TWF not giving extra attacks, (hence how it works in my system) but my system was designed with that in mind from the ground up - Pathfinder was designed with extra attacks.

TWF is so rarely good I'm not sure removing it would really hurt anything.

I'm not very experienced with character building in pathfinder because I usually focus on other games but if I'm not mistaken two-weapon fighting is the superior choice for rogues especially if they are unchained rogues because it allows them to get more attacks for more sneak attack and critical focused characters often use two-weapon fighting because more attacks means more potential criticals so changing two-weapon fighting is likely to change a lot for them. There are also multiple monsters that use two-weapon fighting and class features like flurry of blows that are based on two-weapon fighting and you never know what effect changing it will have on them. I think you would be surprised how many things changing it can affect either positively or negatively.

Adrastus

Generally if I'm running a game and a player asks me how hurt a monster is I will just tell them in somewhat vague terms like "he has taken a few scratches and is starting to appear tired but is not too injured" or "he has taken significant wounds and is bleeding profusely". I also start to describe them taking more significant injuries when at or below half hitpoints and they may start to limp or display obvious signs of pain while taking actions. If a player wanted to know more specifics about the type of wounds someone had taken then depending on how easy it is to tell I would either give that information out for free "he has been stabbed" or ask for a heal check for specific info such as identifying the type of weapon they were attacked with.

I would only ever call for a sense motive check if the enemy was attempting to disguise the fact that they are injured or the extent of it which is very unlikely in combat as they are busy fighting for their lives and it often would not even occur to someone to do that.

In this case I recommend talking to them about it and explaining your point of view, get the group together and discuss it. It may be that you are simply not compatible with the group or that specific GM but hopefully one of you can compromise one way or the other and you guys can have fun.

Good luck.

Adrastus

mourge40k wrote:

Claxon wrote:

So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?

That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.

And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!

I'm actually (slowly) designing an RPG which does that. If you use different weapons it gives you options (especially pistol/melee), and if you use a pair of the same weapon it gives you +1 to hit & damage. (modifiers are generally much lower than in Pathfinder - and melee is opposed attack rolls - so it's significant both offensively & defensively)

It seems to work pretty well thus far in play-testing.

Frankly though, I'm not sure how it would work in Pathfinder. What about magic swords? Does enchanting your off-hand get you more bonuses? What about Flurry? It's normally based upon TWF.

Any changes to two-weapon fighting are also likely to have a huge effect on the rogue as well so that's something to take into account. it would be a very large rewrite seeming as the way two-weapon fighting works is kind of baked into the core of the game. I wish mourge40k luck with it and I hope your game turns out well, it sounds interesting.

Adrastus

Claxon wrote:

So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?

That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.

And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!

Hope it works out for you, that would be more realistic than the current way it works (although as I said I am fine with the extra attacks thing as an abstraction) let me know how it works out for you! :)

If you want to see a really good example of realistic dual-wielding rules check out the two fisted fighting rules from burning wheel, that also falls into the trap of requiring special training to do but it is otherwise very similar to how it was done historically. In fact check out all of burning wheel because it's amazing!

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.

About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.

But the game doesn't support that, if I do not have the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalties applied to my attacks make me worse with two weapons than I am with one weapon with nothing in my off-hand, you should not need specialised training to have some kind of advantage from that.

I am aware that using two weapons is not about making extra attacks, the advantage is that you have two lines of attack and defense essentially so you can parry an incoming attack and strike with the other weapon in the same time and things like that. my argument is that this should always be advantageous over having no item in you other hand (unless you want to grapple of course) because taking advantage of this requires no training at all in real life.

In addition to off-hand daggers and bucklers, styles using two rapiers and two arming swords exist, there are also non European examples that I am not familiar with. They work on essentially the same principle as daggers and bucklers with some differences of course.

Adrastus

So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?

That's just...

I am fine with the extra attacks honestly, it's not realistic but it is a fantasy game and that's ok. What I really want and what the reason for me posting in this thread is, is for the game to not require you to take feats to do things that normal people can do anyway. Normal people are more effective with an off-hand weapon than they are with nothing in their off-hand without needing a special skill so why can't our character's do the same thing?

Adrastus

Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.

About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.

But the game doesn't support that, if I do not have the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalties applied to my attacks make me worse with two weapons than I am with one weapon with nothing in my off-hand, you should not need specialised training to have some kind of advantage from that.

I am aware that using two weapons is not about making extra attacks, the advantage is that you have two lines of attack and defense essentially so you can parry an incoming attack and strike with the other weapon in the same time and things like that. my argument is that this should always be advantageous over having no item in you other hand (unless you want to grapple of course) because taking advantage of this requires no training at all in real life.

In addition to off-hand daggers and bucklers, styles using two rapiers and two arming swords exist, there are also non European examples that I am not familiar with. They work on essentially the same principle as daggers and bucklers with some differences of course.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Two-weapon fighting is another example of a feat you need to take in order to achieve something that anyone can do. You do not need any special training to make fighting with two one-handed weapons more effective than fighting with a single one-handed weapon as anyone who has fought this way can attest to. I know that the feat is there for game balance purposes but it's just ridiculous, they might as well have a feat to eat with a knife and fork at the same time without taking a penalty.

Adrastus

If you want to talk about from a historical perspective, you would on the surface be quite wrong.

Almost no one ever used two weapons at once in battle, because it was much better to use a shield in your second hand. It gave you defense, and could still be used to bash. But what wielding two weapons didn't ever really do, was give you twice as many attacks. It actually limits your attacks, the directions they can come from and how much control and manipulation you have over them.

In short, thinking TWF is a real thing is ridiculous.

Of course this is a game, so it needn't be based on reality. But your argument doesn't hold water that attacking with 2 weapons is just as easy as attacking with 1.

Correct, no-one used two weapons in battle because it is not a style that is designed for battle and a shield would be far more appropriate for that. The use of two weapons was most common in duels and in melees where it would actually be useful and there are multiple treatises for it in those circumstances. I am not comparing two weapons to sword and board I am comparing it to one single handed weapon without a shield because without the two-weapon fighting feat you are more effective without anything in your other hand than you are using two weapons.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.

And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.

Adrastus

No.

No they aren't.

I've tried TWF before when I was in the SCA. I sucked at it despite being competent with sword & board.

Sword and shield is a more effective style of fighting than dual-wielding in most contexts so of course you were more effective when using a shield, try using a single weapon and no shield and then two weapons and tell me which is more effective.

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.

And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.

Adrastus

I'm pretty sure anyone whose ever fought with two weapons at the same time will vastly disagree with you.

I don't think they will, I for example have fought with two weapons at the same time and noticed an immediate increase in my effectiveness as opposed to fighting with a single sword (I fence rapier) and I had no specialised training at the time in using two weapons at once.

Here is an interesting video on the subject

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zqvwl6wv#/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw

Fighting with two weapons is somewhat difficult but it is not a special skill that requires intense training to have even a chance of hitting your opponent, a completely untrained person will fare somewhat better given two swords than they would if only given one. If two-weapon fighting normally worked as if you had the two-weapon fighting feat and the two-weapon fighting feat improved it further then I would not have a problem with it, my problem is that without this feat picking up a second weapon which would give you a second line of attack and defense would immediately make you completely useless whereas it should make you more effective.

Adrastus

.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.

And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.

Adrastus

Two-weapon fighting is another example of a feat you need to take in order to achieve something that anyone can do. You do not need any special training to make fighting with two one-handed weapons more effective than fighting with a single one-handed weapon as anyone who has fought this way can attest to. I know that the feat is there for game balance purposes but it's just ridiculous, they might as well have a feat to eat with a knife and fork at the same time without taking a penalty.

Adrastus

I'm personally a fan of the halfling ninja. I play one in our Hell's Rebels campaign. I made him to be a sneaky infiltrator. I went all in on stealth and sniping so mine is more made for killing things from a distance but with some different feat/trick choices you can just as easily make a melee assassin. The stats looks like this:

7
20
12
10
10
14

For melee feats you can go weapon finesse, two weapon fighting and things of that nature. Then pick up the vanishing trick and shadow clone trick for some cool flavor. The build works just as well for anything with racial bonuses to DEX and CHA, so catfolk, ifrit, and vishkanya if you want a slightly different flavor to the character. They'll obviously end up with slightly different stats after racial adjustments. But it's a good framework to go off of.

Ninjas are definitely cool, if I were to play one I would have to retheme it to something more western but that's easy enough to do. I like the vanishing trick ability. Good to hear that they can be effective I'll definitely add them to my list of things to check out :).

Adrastus

My GM has informed me that the pathfinder unchained rules for poisons and crafting will be in effect, do you guys think it would be worthwhile to invest in poisons as a slayer?

Adrastus

I'd go with Slayer - they're one of the best classes for assassin-type characters, sporting a high BAB, plenty of skills, very high damage, and thematic skills for tracking down and slaying your mark (pun intended). As far as weapons go, you can easily make a TWF character with good accuracy and damage using this class since it has a variety of damage boosting features (Studied Target and Sneak Attack) along with the ability to bypass that pesky Dex requirement for the TWF line using Ranger Combat Style: TWF.

For this build I go 15+2-14-14-10-13-10, perhaps dumping CHA to 8 and bringing WIS up to a 14 if I feel the Will bonus is worth it. I'd play a Human Slayer for the bonus feat and skill ranks. I'm going to be playing a Dagger-wielding Slayer worshiping Pharasma who believes that his assassin contracts are a necessary part of the cycle, ushering the living to the Boneyard for judgement. At Level 1 I take Iron Will and Seething Hatred (Human) and wield a Longsword 2-handed for a level, taking Studded Leather armor for AC 15 and putting my FCB into health. With a +5 attack bonus and 1d8+5 damage this character is a respectable combatant with decent AC, great Saves, and high HP.

At Level 2 I take Ranger Combat Style for Two-Weapon Fighting and start using 2 daggers against enemies with low AC, but stick with 2-handing a Longsword otherwise - the damage bonus for wielding 2 weapons isn't worth the drop in accuracy at this point. At Level 3 I take Deific Obedience: Pharasma for a +2 Profane bonus to Dagger attack rolls and gain 1d6 Sneak Attack, switching to Daggers for general damage purposes and only using the Longsword for punching through DR. At 4 I take Trapfinding to get Disable Device, Trapfinding, and Trap Sense - this helps me bypass any defenses my mark may have put in place. At 5 I grab Pirhanna Strike, which will be -2 attack / +4 damage.

By Level 5 I expect to have 2 +1 Daggers, a +2 Belt of Giant Strength, a +1 Cloak of Resistance, a +1 Agile Breastplate (ACP -2 or -0 on Acrobatics and...

That looks great, this will be really useful when it comes to making my own character. The Sczarni executioner archetype looks like it would go well with the seething hatred feat to get an even larger damage bonus against humans at the expense of one point of attack bonus and damage to other things. Thank you for sharing that I think it will help me alot.

Adrastus

I might just have missed it, as I'm distracted by children, but I didn't notice anything against home brew stuff.

Here is an assassin variant that I created based off of elements both Red Mantis Assassin and Assassin PrCs and the Investigator PrC.

The template is not a required part of the class - it's part of the flavor for that world.

Beyond that, the vigilante and slayer are your best options - Slayer for pure combat potential, while Vigilante allows more subtle skill and sneakiness via social talents and dual identities (as well as several special combat de-/buffs).

Homebrew stuff is fine so long as my GM agrees to it :). I will have a look at it in one sec and then run it by my GM if I like it.

Thankyou for your advice, slayer and vigilante both look like great potential options for me as does the warpriest if I want to go the divine assassin route.

Adrastus

What do you guys think about the red mantis assassin? It looks cool but I don't know how effective it would be.

Adrastus

I would actually recommend looking into some sort of grappler build with Bushwhack and Throat Slicer. I'm looking into that right now myself. Can make a pretty nice Assassin's Creed style character... I'm just trying to find the "Silent Takedown" class feature.

That's a very interesting idea, I quite like that. Monks are quite good at grappling right? They have that archetype that becomes amazing at it. I think I would rather go with the traditional route of stabbing them to death but that is a direction that I will think about too, thanks alot.

Adrastus

Depending on how the campaign is set up, I would look into a Vigilante with the stalker specialty. This would be for someone who is able to get close to his targets by making them think that he is not a threat. This would be more for social stealth then hiding in the shadows.

I'll definitely check that out, any method of getting close to my prey is good. Thanks for the insight mate.

Adrastus

*Edit The campaign will be very sandboxy with alot of variance on where the players can take it, we will most likely have a significant impact on the campaign world whatever we choose to do.

Slayer(Stygian Slayer) with a Glove of Storing and a adamantine chainsaw(chainsword) with Keen and Silent(new property from Ultimate Intrigue). That is what I play, to say he is nasty is a horrific understatement. Dresses in silken ceremonial armor made to look like plain silk robes, pops out of the shadows and rips into opponents with a previously concealed silent chainsaw leaving mangled corpses in his wake. He is terrifying and has begun having legends and stories of himself told as a sort of bogeyman figure even amongst the assassin community.

That sounds really cool, I will take a look at that archetype and weapon enchantment. Hopefully one day similar tales will be told of my character :).

Adrastus

I'd say that you should start out by looking at the Slayer class from the Advanced Class Guide. It's got stealthiness, sneak attacks, and since it can get access to Ranger Combat Styles, it does the dual-wield thing fairly well.

Thankyou for the insight, I did think the slayer would fit quite well but I wanted to explore my options. I will do some research on how they work :).

If anyone has other ideas I'm 100% open to them.

Adrastus

Hi guys

A friend of mine is planning on starting a pathfinder game soon and I have decided I want to play as an assassin because that's an archetype that I've always found interesting, the problem is I know relatively little about how to make characters in pathfinder (I focus on other games mostly) and don't know how to make one that is both interesting and effective in play.

So what is the best "build" you can think of for an assassin both in terms of effectiveness and theme?

Here are some guidelines.

1) it should fit with the classic archetype of an assassin at least loosely, I'm sure a wizard would assassinate people very effectively but it clearly does not fit the archetype.

2) all classes and archetypes are allowed except for gunslinger and archetypes that use guns. Prestige classes are also permitted as is multiclassing.

3) I would prefer it if the race wasn't too weird but all are permitted, a "build" with flexible race choice would be a bonus.

4) the character should be effective at their job of sneaking around, infiltrating places and efficiently murdering those who are not expecting an attack.

5) my friend has told me that he will be trying to make the game very challenging so the character should be able to fight very effectively, their primary role in combat should be dealing a huge amount of damage and perhaps some debuffing, offense is significantly more important than defense for this character.

6) it is fine if the character is a spellcaster but they should be primarily martial and any spells they do have should be both appropriate to the theme and helpful in their job as an assassin.

7) all alignments are permitted.

8) dual-wielding is cool and earns you bonus points but other weapons are also fine so long as they can be justified, a greatsword for example is not really appropriate as it is very obvious and near impossible to conceal.

I will most likely be changing whatever gets posted here to make the final character my own, the most important thing to me is having a character that is fun to roleplay but as a relatively new player to pathfinder I could use some help with the mechanics and I'm interested in seeing what you guys come up with.

Thanks in advance!

Adrastus

Current 5e game.

2 "fighters" in the form of a dex based rapier fighter and a barbarian with a greataxe.

3 rogues which actually feel very different, they are focused on a variety of different skills (one on medicine and perception, one on thieves tools and stealth and one on knowledge skills) and one of them has multiclassed into fighter.

1 spellcaster which is a bard focusing on necromancy and the violin.

So a very martial heavy group there

My friends upcoming pathfinder game (these are not set in stone yet).

1 tiefling investigator/swashbuckler played by me.

1 uncertain probably wizard of some sort.

1 cleric, hasn't told us about his deity yet but apparently has a very cool idea about it.

1 human magus.

More casters here, 2 partial casters and 2 full casters if things continue as expected.

Adrastus

I'm not sure if there are any pathfinder mechanics that I would want in 5e. I want better downtime rules in 5e but I don't think the pathfinder downtime mechanics and ultimate campaign stuff is what I really want for that, I have certainly been going a very different direction from them in my personal downtime and travel houserules.

I was inspired by the whetstone in pathfinder to create some interesting weapon and armour upkeep rules (in the form of short term buffs) so I suppose that is kind of a heavily altered pathfinder mechanic that I have included.

Adrastus

My top 3 pathfinder classes.

1) Unchained rogue- Because now I can actually play a rogue and not feel totally useless!

2) Investigator- By far the most fun class to play in my opinion.

3) Magus- I love gish style characters and spellstrike is awesome!

Adrastus

Organised play is a somewhat flawed way at looking at how popular a game is, pathfinder has significantly more emphasis on organised play than 5e and has had time to build up a larger community in it's organised play events so naturally pathfinder is going to appear more popular when you only look at organised play.

The majority of games are home games so home games would be the ideal metric to measure popularity by. Unfortunately it is also really difficult to measure how many home games of each game are taking place as opposed to counting tables at conventions which is relatively easy. I have seen more 5e home games recently than pathfinder but bear in mind that I play significantly more 5e than pathfinder so that may just be the circles that I run in. In terms of organised play (while I do not participate in any organized play I do see it in various game stores from time to time) I see both 5e and pathfinder in close to equal amounts, in cambridgeshire it's mostly 5e but I see abit more pathfinder elsewhere.

It is important to note that there is more than enough room for both and many people will play both games.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

I think the difficulty here is that you've removed all repercussions: My appearance is up to me, my alignment doesn't shift, etc. What, precisely, is the downside, if any?

It seems like you're asking, "Would you accept immortality, nigh-indestructibility, and the ability to cast spells in exchange for... nothing?"

In that particular case, I think it's impossible to say, "No," unless you feel that being a lich would be inherently anathema to your religion.

So perhaps you can clarify the downside. If my appearance isn't affected, and I can still pass for human in every way imaginable, and my alignment doesn't shift, so my soul isn't affected, either, it seems like this question is really, "Would you accept being far more powerful than you are right now with no repercussions whatsoever?"

The answer is an obvious, "Sure, why not?"

So perhaps you might clarify what's negative about this situation...

EDIT: I mean, seriously, even a, "You have no negative effects whatsoever for as long as you exist, but your soul would be damned once you were destroyed" would be enough for me to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
But as-written, I just don't see a downside.

Well, you're dead for starters. Some may consider that a downside.

no nerve endings or biology or any of the fun things that come with it (sex, food, etc).

The only downside I removed was the need to do something inherently evil to begin with and the part where you automatically kill people by touch or frighten them by your presence.

There's also the detail that anyone who is making a deal for your soul IS planning on collecting at some point.

It is specifically stated in the op that it is not a devils bargain and your soul will not be taken or expected, they just give you lichdom for free.

Adrastus

Someone giving away something like that for NOTHING? That is simply something I can't...

I dont understand what their motive would be but that is the premise.

I question who would possess an item capable of turning someone into an undead but who is generous enough to give it away and does not wish to use this item themself to benefit mankind. It's very odd but that's the way it goes apparently :).

Adrastus

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

I think the difficulty here is that you've removed all repercussions: My appearance is up to me, my alignment doesn't shift, etc. What, precisely, is the downside, if any?

It seems like you're asking, "Would you accept immortality, nigh-indestructibility, and the ability to cast spells in exchange for... nothing?"

In that particular case, I think it's impossible to say, "No," unless you feel that being a lich would be inherently anathema to your religion.

So perhaps you can clarify the downside. If my appearance isn't affected, and I can still pass for human in every way imaginable, and my alignment doesn't shift, so my soul isn't affected, either, it seems like this question is really, "Would you accept being far more powerful than you are right now with no repercussions whatsoever?"

The answer is an obvious, "Sure, why not?"

So perhaps you might clarify what's negative about this situation...

EDIT: I mean, seriously, even a, "You have no negative effects whatsoever for as long as you exist, but your soul would be damned once you were destroyed" would be enough for me to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
But as-written, I just don't see a downside.

Well, you're dead for starters. Some may consider that a downside.

no nerve endings or biology or any of the fun things that come with it (sex, food, etc).

The only downside I removed was the need to do something inherently evil to begin with and the part where you automatically kill people by touch or frighten them by your presence.

There's also the detail that anyone who is making a deal for your soul IS planning on collecting at some point.

It is specifically stated in the op that it is not a devils bargain and your soul will not be taken or expected, they just give you lichdom for free.

Adrastus

I do believe in an afterlife and I think it this is interesting to think about, let's take a look at the potential situations regarding the undead (particuarly a lich in this case) and the afterlife.

One important thing to note is that you are still good unless corrupted by the power of being a lich so here are the situations that come to mind.

1) the god in question wants to bring you into the afterlife because you are good but is not all powerful and thus cannot because you have no soul. In which case I would be sacrificing my enjoyment for the greater good which I have already established I personally would be willing to do.

2) the god in question wants to bring you into the afterlife because you are good and is all powerful so it does so despite you having no soul at the time and you get into the afterlife, awesome!

3) the god in question is all powerful and could allow you into the afterlife but does not because of some arbitrary no undead allowed b!@~@@@@ despite you being good. In this case I honestly don't want to be in that God's afterlife because he sounds like a t#%%.

4) you become evil and don't get in anyway.

However this all assumes that you have no soul, the op mentions that nobody is in possession of your soul other than you and I see no reason why a lich's soul would be unavailable after an event that destroys them (bearing in mind that I know very little about how liches and phylacteries work) so you might just be able to go in anyway.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Yes, so long as I would not become evil I would accept that deal 100%. I would give up, food, sex and the joy of a good sneeze in exchange for the power to fix 90% of the worlds problems.

Not inherently in the beginning. However, in your quest to fix the world you may become evil. That depends more on you. Some of histories greatest atrocities were committed with the best intentions.

Thats an interesting thought, they say absolute power corrupts absolutely after all. I would still do it but I would need to think of a way to keep myself in check and not go too far. A difficult task indeed if history is anything to judge by.

Adrastus

AdrastusDarke wrote:

Yes, so long as I would not become evil I would accept that deal 100%. I would give up, food, sex and the joy of a good sneeze in exchange for the power to fix 90% of the worlds problems.

90% might be a bit much on 11th level casting, at least unless you plan on a lot of Dominate Person to get stuff done.

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

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

Adrastus

Yes, so long as I would not become evil I would accept that deal 100%. I would give up, food, sex and the joy of a good sneeze in exchange for the power to fix 90% of the worlds problems.

Not only was your dm being a dick, he was also breaking the rules. The only falling mechanic in 5e is when a paladin "willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance". Clerics are under no such oath and have no falling mechanics associated with them. Even if your dm decided to apply the paladin rules to your character he was still breaking the rules and being unnecessarily harsh, your character would not only have had to break the tenants of their god but also do it on purpose and they would have to show no sign of repentance for that act. Even after all that they would not lose a level for this, they would either choose a new class or take whatever the cleric equivalent of an oathbreaker is (death cleric I would assume).

That kind of behaviour is not cool, you cannot just break the rules of the game and punish a player for something they had no idea they had to abide by beforehand just for the sake of previous edition legacy. If the dm wanted to bring in the whole divine classes falling thing he should have told anyone considering playing a divine character about that before the game so they could play around that, don't spring houserules on players without their knowledge or consent in general.

How is the game going now? Is he behaving himself as a player? I'm interested to find out.

Adrastus

Shout out to all the Brits!! :))

Is it just me or have you found that 5e had exploded in the last 12 months?

There are regions where friends live where you just cant get a PF game to save your life!

What do you think is happening?

It's not just you, 5e has really taken off here and I suspect that goes for a lot of the rest of the world too. There are quite a few reasons that I can think of for this to be the case.

1) 5e is an intuitive and accessible game: wizards did a great job making 5e very simple and intuitive to play while retaining a good deal of depth. This makes it easy for new players to get in to it (alot of people were too intimidated by the complexity of 3.5 to even get started) and also makes it simple to run for experienced players.

2) 5e is dungeons and dragons: the name carries weight, even people who have never played a roleplaying game before know about D&D. Many people left D&D in favour of pathfinder when 4e was released because the game did not feel like D&D to them, now a new dungeons and dragons has been released that is reminiscent of 2e and really feels like D&D so alot of those players have returned to dungeons and dragons although many will continue playing pathfinder as well.

3) 5e is really fun: that's all I really have to say but I will elaborate. 5e is fast paced, intuitive and has a really fun combat system that has been greatly streamlined. It has a cool old school feel while incorporating some slightly more modern design ideas into it, it's pretty cool.

4) 5e has mechanised character personality: 5e has the inspiration mechanic which mechanically encourages players to think about who their character is and roleplay that out at the table. These kind of mechanics have been used in alot of popular games, like the beliefs and instincts in burning wheel/torchbearer, the bonds in many powered by the apocalypse games like sagas of the icelanders, the fates in tenra bansho zero and many more and for good reason. Having mechanics to encourage roleplay goes a long way at the table although the inspiration mechanic is a flawed example as it puts to much emphasis on the dm remembering the characters details and it is either on or off so once you have it you are no longer really incentivised by the system to roleplay (until you spend it again) it is still the first iteration of this kind of mechanic in D&D and a great step in the right direction (inspiration can be made into something amazing with a few house rules).

5) pathfinder is based off of a very clunky chassis (please dont kill me!): pathfinder is based off of 3.5 D&D as I'm sure you are aware. 3.5 is full of feat taxes, over-complicated statistics and numbers and has a big problem with the power balance between casters and martial characters. When writing the core rulebook for pathfinder paizo was limited in what they could do if they wanted to stick to 3.5 as a base so many of those design problems were transferred to pathfinder. While for some people the bloated chassis of 3.5 is a paradise of options, for new players and those who are not inclined to learn all of that the complexity of pathfinder can be a big turn off and feat taxes are a big black mark on the system along with other 3.5 legacy additions. This is a shame honestly because when you look at paizo's later work where they were building off of that system it is clear that the design team is full of talented people who have done great work! I love the alternate systems in pathfinder unchained (the new action economy was a really cool piece of design, unfortunately due to the size and complexity of pathfinder the new system isn't really compatible with pathfinder as a whole as it interacts wierdly with some things and breaks stuff but a new game based off of that action economy would probably work great) and many of the new classes paizo has implemented have been really cool. I would love to see paizo make a new game "unchained" from 3.5 because it would most likely be awesome!

Yeah anyway tldr 5e is blowing up in the uk because it's pretty damn fun, it's easy to get into and it has the D&D name attatched to it. Hopefully people dont neglect other games too much because I want to play some burning wheel and world wide wrestling rpg :).

Greetings from cambridgeshire!
Adrastus

*Edited to correct grammar, will most likely edit 1000 more times because my grammar is awful especially when I'm tired.