AdrastusDarke's page

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

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.

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

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.

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.