Search Posts
Does PF2E have an official dragon person race? Because one of the obstacles right now to my D&D5E campaign transitioning to PF2E is that one of my players (my husband as it happens) is playing a Dragonborn.hey, so the player core 2 has the dragon blood ancestry which I think would work
Way b ack in 3.X, there was the Book of Exalted Deeds, which had the Vow of Poverty feat, which granted a bunch of bonuses in exchange for not carrying magic items. In PF2e, do you think giving the Automatic Bonus Progression, in an otherwise standard campaign, would be workable for a “Vow of Poverty” character? If so, how would you implement it? I suspect you might've already been aware of this, but there was an optional rule which went by the same name in PF1E; I preferred this version over Vow of Poverty because it was more flexible (there's a low magic item version and a no magic item version) and it isn't laden with pre-existing RP (you don't need to be an exalted character to take advantage of it).
I was aware of the daikyu as an option; I was more wondering what people thought about using conventional longbows while mounted. In recent years, various historians/entertainers have come out with evidence of historical use of the English longbow from horseback, and it troubled me that this wasn't something that could be represented in game. Supposedly, said horse archers circumvented their inability to properly pull their longbows not through an asymmetric grip but rather by simply not properly pulling their longbows; given that it's effectively using their longbows in an improvised manner, I figured the improvised weapon penalty (-2 in PF2E) would be appropriate. (I was going to add I'd make the same allowance for firing a daikyu on the righthand side while mounted, but it would seem that's a "legacy problem".) o.O
As it stands right now, PF2E doesn't allow you to fire longbows (and composite longbows) while mounted; how imbalancing would it be to allow this but with a -2 penalty instead?
Speaking of telescoping canes, this is very similar to the nightstick.
But maybe you don't want to deal with the uncommon and nonlethal tags.
One thing I don't like is that, since demoralize makes them immune for 10 minutes, you might demoralize two targets, focus one down, and then the other's frightened conditions wears off before you can fully capitalize. This also occurred to me, though I feel it's a choice you make when choosing to intimidate multiple targets at once. I recall a D&D 3rd Edition session when a character with an oathbow made an absentminded oath to kill a group of 15 mooks. Because it was a 3.0 game, the verbage on the oathbow specifying that you can only swear to kill one individual at a time wasn't there. He was pretty upset when the other players didn't let him get killshots on all 15 of them (thus triggering the 1 week shutdown on his bow), but he also didn't need to make an oath to kill all 15, so that was on him. Even if I don't expect to kill all targets intimidated within the debuff window, however, I could still see benefit to debuffing them so they're less lethal, especially if I don't have enough actions/allies to deal with them right at that moment.
The war lance gives up extra reach for the parry and shove traits; if I apply lunge to all jousting weapons (which is just the lance and war lance), the war lance gets the same charging reach as the regular lance. Granted, that's already the case now (at least on a large-or-bigger-sized mount), so I suppose you'd be correct in pointing out that it doesn't really change anything for the war lance vs the regular lance. On an unrelated note, I should add on a caveat that you don't get the added reach if you're already getting the regular lance's extended reach. (I don't want to incentivize people getting on smaller mounts just to get extra reach.) The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon. Also, if your reach is not already increased, increase your reach by five feet for that attack as well. (edited for clarity)
Is there a way to demoralize multiple targets in the same action? I was looking at Group Coercion, but that only works on coerce (the noncombat action). I'm suspecting the ability to AoE demoralize might have been considered too strong to give as a combat ability, but I wanted to see if anybody else knew better before making this assumption.
So my proposed change would end up strongly encouraging people to use lances from horseback to create mobile control points (not intended) over actually charging with it (my intended goal). What if I instead went with jousting weapons giving a lunge effect during a charge? Something like this: The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon and also increase your reach by five feet for that attack as well. There'd be a bit of a windfall for the war lance over the normal lance, but I consider that negligible.
Right now, there's not much point to using a lance riding a large-sized mount like a standard horse; the reach is the same as any non-reach weapon. One could get around this by simply riding a medium-sized mount, something akin to historical light cavalry riding pony-sized horses. However, would it be imbalancing if lances simply offered their full reach on large mounts? In a normal game, I feel this would mostly just effect monsters that can take reactive strikes but don't have reach. (I'll admit my exposure to PF2e is still limited at this point such that I don't know if that encompasses most monsters, so I'm wondering what other people's experiences are.)
I'd like to see a universal black blade archetype, one that can be taken by people who aren't arcane casters. (Or failing that, one that's simply available for characters in PF2E.)
I'm not the author of this guide, but the "Definitive Champion Build Guide" was last updated as of 12/5/2024 for the release of Divine Mysteries. (It's already listed and linked among the other 2e guides, just the current as of date in the listing hasn't been updated yet.) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UQ8Eaa7NVDPwTTj4fZMnUP-EfKFFYJ82/edit
Really really hoping that the final Remastered version of the Champion will be open to all deities. I might be late returning to the discussion, but I feel there's value to Tenets of Neutrality (rather than balance), with the idea being that the Champion's cause transcends conventional concepts of good and evil, at least in the eyes of the Champion. The cause in question would require the destruction (or protection) of some specific foe or entity. Their code would require them to never put any sort of "lesser morality" over this cause. (To make sure this wouldn't be too loose, they may be required to check in with a superior every week or something like that for duties to perform.) In lieu of doing extra spirit damage, they'd do some other kind of extra damage (probably bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing by default to represent hitting extra hard, but could be subbed out for an elemental type if their patron offered a domain of that element). This would be more generally applicable than spirit damage, but that would be balanced out by the Champion being unable to sanctify holy or unholy.
While I know the official remaster of Champion won't be coming out until later, it's still in the game now, so for the mean time, I pose this question: can I now have a rules-legal liberator of Gorum or a desecrator of Abadar? (I've long wanted to execute certain concepts in PF2E, and the 2E alignment restrictions on certain deities proved to be something of a straightjacket on some of my character ideas.)
Damerrich is primarily associated with executions, but his portolio covers all aspects of final justice and responsibility; morticians are among his most noteworthy worshiper groups. He's lawful good and his favored weapon is the greataxe, though I imagine you could talk your GM into allowing greatsword to count as your favored weapon instead if it's an issue. (Pretty sure the greataxe thing is only because it's associated with executions, which a sword would be equally legiimate for.)
Given that there was once a comparable feat for this back in 3.5, I don't really see any problem with this. http://dnd.arkalseif.info/feats/heroes-of-horror--70/deformity-teeth--569/i ndex.html
Normally, redundant class features don't stack, but Fast Movement specifically stacks with all other bonuses to speed. While it does say it specifically stacks with other bonuses, is this Fast Movement from one class really an entirely different ability than Fast Movement from another class? They both share the same name and have the exact same function; while you could argue they're identical (yet different) abilities that just happen to share the same name, I suspect most DMs would treat them as the same ability (and as such would not qualify as a "other bonus").
Precise strike, bonus feats, swashbuckler weapon training, evasion (and uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge) at 11th level, ability damage as a bleed at 11th level, fight defensively as a swift action at 15th level, cheat death at 19th. I think a lot of people often overlook the bonuses you get for staying swashbuckler - it actually compares pretty favorably to other martial classes. Even from the standpoint of saving throws, it was once pointed out to me that you'll probably have enough uses of charmed life to apply to every save you might have to take in a single day, so it's not that different from divine grace. (Of course, your millage may vary depending on how many spellcasters your DM throws at you.)
Wrong. Off-hand is a game term meaning not an actual hand, but the secondary attack(s) used in two-weapon fighting. I will accept this correction. In this particular context, I had meant to use "off-hand" in a colloquial sense, but it is better not to mixup terminology, particularly when "off-hand attack" is a specific thing. Per what Neal said, let's look at the rule in question. Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn’t multiplied on a critical hit. As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to double her precise strike’s damage bonus on the next attack. This benefit must be used before the end of her turn, or it is lost. This deed’s cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the amount of panache points a deed costs (such as the Signature Deed feat). (Bolding mine to emphasize the portion of interest.) The text seems pretty clear to me - if there is a weapon in your other hand, you can't attack with it while benefitting from the Precise Strike deed. By the letter of what was written, this would include a weapon held by both hands, since the weapon would still be in your "other hand", even while it's in your main hand. (Bear in mind I am using the term "main hand" here for lack of a better term, referring to your "other other hand" on a individual with two hands and not a form of attack.) In her other hand implies a secondary attack, and I wish there was just a line of text that said, "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand, or with a single weapon held in both hands..." to solve the issue for me. There's no need to, though, since the existing wording already includes both of those instances. Consider - if they simply wanted to deny off-hand attacks (and only off-hand attacks), they could have just said "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot make any off-hand attacks or use a shield other than a buckler." If the idea was only to deny off-hand attacks, this would've been a far more intuitive way to go. instead, they went with a broader statement, which demonstrates intent towards a broader restriction.
If you are using both hands to make an attack, you would be, by definition, using your off-hand to make an attack with a weapon. The main hand's involvement is irrelevant to the wording of the Precise Strike - if you've got your off-hand on the weapon and are making an attack with it, then you run afoul of the ability's restrictions. (The off-hand is still making an attack, even if the main hand is also involved.) There's nothing specifically disallowing two-handing a one-handed weapon in the verbage, but there really isn't any need to since two-handing anything, one-handed or otherwise, is already prevented. (It would be like asking for an official ruling stating that rogue evasion doesn't work with full plate when it already says light or no armor.) And, as an aside, you can't get 1.5x your strength bonus if you use a short sword in two hands; it's a light weapon, which doesn't allow for that. (A spear or morning star would be kosher, since they're not light weapons.)
On reach: By the strictest letter of the rules, you can't hit anything outside of your reach. Ergo, if you can't reach this dude's square, you can't sunder, disarm, or otherwise interact with him with any melee options, even if he's reaching into your own square. Reach is a VERY powerful ability - you can grapple, disarm, sunder, or otherwise interact against your targets with impunity if they can't reach you. There's a series of houserules I often insist upon in any game I play: (1) anything that provokes an attack of opportunity for trying to do it cannot be used as an attack of opportunity, and (2) doing something that provokes an attack of opportunity over reach will still offer your target an attack of opportunity if they can do so without running afoul of rule 1. To qualify for rule 2, you need to either have something like Improved Sunder or Improved Disarm vs. manufactured weapons, even if it's something like a large longsword being used by an ogre. (If it was an attack of opportunity provoked with natural weapons or unarmed attacks, like a grapple attempt, you can take your attack of opportunity without any special feats, since you're just hitting the guy, not his gear.) This takes some of the power away from reach, but I feel it is more fair. (Again, this is all houserule material.) If you want an in-game way of dealing with this problem without resorting to houserules, I might suggest the Strike Back feat. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/strike-back-combat-final/ On nodachi double damage vs. charge:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/#wpn-quality-brace (Note that you can use Strike Back in combination with the Brace ability - that way, you'd be hitting him first and be doing double damage with your attack. Which could be a sunder attempt if you so desired.)
Convert to Ragathiel, as this sort of thing is right up his alley. For Ragathiel, killing your prisoner wouldn't be an act of evil - it would be the path to heaven.
You could do it, though what one level of samurai would offer you is arguably limited value: the potency of both challenge and mount are dependent on your class level. (I'd be tempted to take Order of the Flame on such a character, just so I could get more millage out of the challenge ability.) On the flipside, though, you could use that as a springboard to early access to other feats; power attack at 1st level is a possibility now (since you're starting with +1 base attack). And maybe having access to the resolve ability could save your butt at a later date - who knows. You could also just treat the katana as a two-handed weapon and not use spellbattle until you actually get proficiency. (If 3rd level is too long a wait, retrain your 1st level feat to exotic weapon proficiency when you hit 2nd level.)
Also check out the kensai archetype (which would net you katana proficiency for free). There's a dedicated guide specifically for this archetype, though Galain's guide is already pretty comprehensive and covers things fairly well (to include the archetype in question).
You Tarzan. Family come from Sandpoint. Maybe rich merchant family who do sea trade. Lost in shipwreck on deserted island with dinosaurs. Rescued many years later by passing sailors - by then, dinosaurs your friend. Maybe festival also to celebrate your homecoming? When I ran Rise of the Runelords, my fighter/cavalier left home to train in the arts of war (with some limited degree of sponsorship from Sheriff Hemlock in the process). He became a knight and returned to Sandpoint to visit old friends and enjoy the festival. Even if nothing at home appeals to you, it's very common for adventurers to leave home and it's also not unheard of for them to sometimes visit said places long after they've already established themselves elsewhere. Sorta like someone who leaves their hometown after high school and comes back for the 10 year reunion. (The above "Tarzan" idea is merely a suggestion - there's other ways to become a druid from Sandpoint without completely leaving behind the trappings of civilization.)
Traditionally, it's been interpreted that you can only put agile on weapons that are considered finesseable independent of any special ability (which the phrasing of the restriction would seem to suggest). So, if we were to stick to this reading of things, aldori dueling sword would be eligible for the agile enchantment and even function in the hands of someone without exotic weapon proficiency. If you wanted to get super pendantic with this, I suppose one could argue that, since the restriction only talks about placing the enchant, then it's actually a restriction on the maker: so long as the melee weapon in question is considered finesseable to the maker, then it's okay - and then, after being placed, the enchant works for everyone, even if it's not finesseable to them. (I'd say this falls within the letter of the law, though may earn you the suspicion of others.) Personally, if the above doesn't fly, I'm totally cool with anyone putting the agile enchant on any weapon and it only working for you if it's finesseable (to you), albeit this is contrary to how things are written. (This ignores the restriction on placing the enchant and puts that restriction on using it instead.)
Edit: Azoriel you totally changed what you posted before. Are you saying you agree now that you have seen Melkiador's post? I disagree that the post was completely changed - note the initial statement is still the same. ;) (I reread you earlier statement and realized you may have been talking about the weapon bond ability and not crafting feats. My first edit came across before I saw someone else had already responded, and so I put in another edit so Melkiador's post wouldn't seem out of place.) If there is no argument that crafting feats can be preapplied to a black blade (and still work), then we are in accordance.
If you're talking about a pre-existing enhancement bonus, the FAQ explicitly states you can't use crafting feats on black blades; any possible outcomes that isn't a houserule must adhere to that. If you're only talking about the bonded weapon ability (no enhancement bonuses or anything else), that lies outside the scope of what the FAQ says (as well as any of my previous statements). Edit: response from Melkiador came in before I was done answering. If you're only talking about the weapon bond ability remaining after the weapon becomes a black blade, then we have no disagreement.
We can agree to disagree if there is clarity. I think you're refusing to acknowledge what's been written. It is true to say that the FAQ entry in question predates the blade adept archetype. However, the intention of the entry seems quite clear: Paizo doesn't want the black blade ability mixing with magic item crafting feats. If Paizo states you aren't allowed to use craft feats on a black blade, why do you think there would be any wiggle room to argue that you can now do so so long as it occurs prior to it acquiring black blade status? Suppose a 1st level blade adept has a 5th level cleric friend, and said cleric uses Craft Magic Arms and Armor to turn the blade adept's bonded longsword into a +2 weapon. When the blade adept later reaches 3rd level (and the aforementioned longsword becomes a black blade), are you saying that this doesn't count as having "used Craft Magic Arms and armor to increase (that) blade's enhancement bonus" simply because it ocurred earlier? An increase has most certainly ocurred (legal), even if it was at 1st level (also legal), and it becomes an increase to a black blade the moment that weapon becomes a black blade (no longer legal). Note that I've never said "Well, clearly X happens per the rules", as I think we are in agreement the rules never lay out a specific outcome. However, there is one thing the rules do specify here, and that is that crafting feats will not modify a black blade. That particular outcome is expressly verboten.
By this logic, a weapon that is enchanted, by virtue of being a bonded object, should keep those enchantments when it becomes a blackblade. It is likely the blackblade over writes the enchantment, but I can see a GM ruling the other way. I fail to see how this differs from what was stated in my first post. My point (and a point that has been raised repeatedly by others) was that Paizo states on their website that you can't use Craft Magic Arms and Armor to add to a black blade; whether you do so before or after it becomes a black blade is irrelevant. Drawing from the earlier analogy, a chaotic good fighter who takes levels in paladin must now be lawful good. The fact that it was perfectly legal for him to be chaotic good prior to taking those levels is completely beside the point. If you enchant a bonded weapon before it becomes a black blade, that's all fine and dandy - it just can't "increase (your) blade's enhancement bonus" or "add other properties" without a DM's fiat per the FAQ.
A bonded weapon can have additional abilities added to it by the user as if the user had CMAaA. If the bonded item is improved prior becoming a black blade, either the change to black blade overwrites all magic properties, or it doesn't. And by that logic, if a fighter takes levels in paladin, he must therefore lose all of his fighter abilities, because fighters can be of any alignment whereas paladins are only lawful good. Just because you lose the freedom to enchant your bonded weapon doesn't mean it's no longer a bonded weapon.
The bottom line question is: Does a magic weapon I select as my bonded item lose all special properties it had and stop being whatever it was before it became a black blade? The special properties your bonded weapon had are not necessarily lost outright. However-
-said properties (pre-existing or not) cannot add to the abilities of your black blade in any way once it becomes a black blade. You could argue that said abilities are merely suppressed while your weapon is a black blade, ergo they would return if at any point your bonded item became not a black blade without being destroyed outright. However, falling short of convincing your DM to overrule the FAQ (via house rule), there is no way to have those abilities concurrent with your weapon being a black blade. This means those pre-existing abilities are either lost or otherwise rendered unusable.
My apologies to Dragon then, as well as to Darren for the misread.
Could you provide evidence for this? I can't find a specific rule that backs up that statement. Here's the SRD quote (click for link - it's the 2nd paragraph): The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source. Edit: Ninjaed by the Fuzzy-Wuzzy ninja.
It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely. The topic, however, was not "Tell me how I should run my game." It was "Do these things stack?" Racial bonuses stack (as well as Dodge and Circumstance bonuses), so you wouldn't be running afoul of any stacking rules here. Whether or not you close to exercise your "GM's remit" in this matter is your own choice to make.
I'm asking whether "may interfere with finer actions" prevents me from using the buckler effectively. Given that you can't wield a weapon in the same hand, I suppose it would be reasonable to deny you the shield bonus, but only if that same weapon cord would also deny spell casting with somatic components (which I suppose it would). If you had the gun firmly in hand (i.e. wasn't making use of the weapon cord), I wouldn't deny you the bonus. On land this is less of an issue. If you were regularly fighting over water, would you not worry about your expensive stuff? Do you another way to recover things dropped in the sea? From a game mechanics standpoint, this is unnecessary unless you think you might get stunned or disarmed while swimming. If you're fighting on the deck of a large ship (as opposed to a raft or something), a dropped gun will naturally fall to usually onto (and usually stay on) the deck, and can easily be recovered later. If you mean thematically... Large objects were seldom tied to the wrist due to the fact that your arm would be unusable for anything else with something so large dangling from it. In a fight, someone could take advantage of the long dangly part hanging off of you much like they could a cape or long hair (and arguably even moreso than either of those normally would). I could see someone doing it if they were very concerned over possibly losing their investment, and I wouldn't fault them for doing so, but I wouldn't fault them for not wanting to do so either.
Benefit: You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler. If you only lose your shield bonus when you're actually using the weapon; if it's not in use, you get the shield bonus. A weapon cord is unnecessary, IMO, but you're free to use one as well if you so desire.
I don't think you can have two separate animal companions unless one class has a more restrictive list. That FAQ entry only says you can have separate ACs for Mounts and AC. Divine Hunter and Animal domain both have the full AC list, right? You know, I was going to point out that the FAQ entry implies that it's possible to have multiple companion animals and it doesn't stipulate that one must be a mount (or otherwise restricted). However, I then took a look at the description of animal companion for both druid and hunter: If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. This would imply stacking your animal companion levels is indeed mandatory whenever possible (at least when using an animal companion ability that somehow references the druid class ability, which I believe every single instance of the animal companion ability does). Good catch!
Would the character receive the double ability score increase for her animal companion, or could she add her cleric level -3 to her hunter level for the purpose of determinating her animal companion's abilities? The latter - this has been pre-established in the FAQ. You can total your effective AC levels together, or you can have two separate animal companions for your divine hunter and cleric levels respectively. There is no reason why you would ever apply the stat bonuses for a single animal companion twice. Would she add her domain spells to both her spell lists? If you took the animal domain for both Divine Hunter as well as Cleric, then yes, but only insofar as it's detailed under the description of Divine Hunter. In addition, the divine hunter adds the 1st-level domain spell from her domain to her list of spells known. She adds the 2nd-level domain spell at 6th level, the 3rd-level domain spell at 9th level, the 4th-level domain spell at 12th level, the 5th-level domain spell at 15th level, and the 6th-level domain spell at 18th level.
Precise Strike (Ex) : At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit. As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to double her precise strike's damage bonus on the next attack. This benefit must be used before the end of her turn, or it is lost. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the amount of panache points a deed costs (such as the Signature Deed feat). Not related to crits, but I'm guessing it was this.
One of those links was posted earlier, too. =P Sacred servant and temple champion are both paladin archetypes that offer domain powers without any need to multiclass - but the domain powers won't come online until 4th level, and I get the feeling you want this now.
That's no different than Pathfinder. The rules exist for a reason, to keep the game balanced and interesting. You may think it's "fun" for your brown-haired, green-eyed, toothless character to slay dragons with a mere sneeze, but "cheesy" rules like that would ruin the game. Your analogy is invalid, as monkey grip isn't anything close to dragon-killing sneezes nor even manual ball-handling in soccer. A better analogy would be: "brown-haired, green-eyed, toothless players may play barefooted (despite safety regulations which state otherwise)." I'm sure that there are some who'd love the idea of playing barefooted, either from the standpoint of aesthetics and/or comfort (at least without putting further thought into it). And in a very casual game, it will probably be okay, at least most of the time. However, in more serious, less forgiving circumstances, such players will only be a liability, more prone to injury and not as effective as any other kind of player overall. Certainly, no "competitive" team would be interested in fielding such a player. Foolhardy and ill-advised? Most certainly. I could even see the other player's in said individual's team/party not wanting said individual to be a part of their efforts, as that person would only serve to handicap them. (And, from an aesthetics standpoint, I for one don't like the idea of one-handing greatswords, even with superhuman strength, even if physically plausible. I suppose I'd put it up there with knocking my teeth out, dying my hair, and wearing contacts just to play soccer barefooted - a fail idea all around, IMO.) But it's not overpowered in the slightest. A being a new rule (or rehashing an old rule in this case) does not automatically make something equivalent to dragonslaying sneezes or playing soccer with your hands - it only makes it new. If you want to call something an exploit, evaluate it for its own merits before making such assumptions.
Some things I'll point out... It's generally agreed that daring champion is better than swashbuckler - challenge, tactician, and the order bonuses are REALLY good. There are benefits to sticking with swashbuckler, however. They are: *Earlier access to class abilities (having something now is a lot more useful than having something a few levels from now) *Counts as a fighter for the fighter feats (very big if you want to focus on crits) *More bonus feats (which makes the previous point all the stronger) *Better to-hit bonus via weapon training (which also makes you better at parries) *Charmed Life (might seem piddly, but will usually cover all of your saves for the entire day) *Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and Improved Evasion *Access to the Inspired Blade archetype (only matters if you've got a high Int score and want to use a rapier) That's not to say these things will top challenge, tactician, and order bonuses. Tactician and Order bonuses can be extremely potent if properly utilized (and if you're willing to play a character able to take advantage of them). Similarly, extra feats are only as useful as you make them. But you do have reasons to stay swashbuckler, especially if you wanted to focus on crits and parries - presuming that's what you want. Edit: one more thing - the favored class bonus for human swashbucklers undoubtably more useful than the (literal) non-option you get for a human daring champion.
just use your Dueling Sword as a Long Sword, all the flavour without any of the Exotic Weapon Proficentcys ^This. The dueling sword feats are largely sub-optimal, as are the benefits for Exotic Weapon proficiency if you're already going to take Slashing Grace. Instead, I would take advantage of the extra +1 to attack you'll be getting from Sword Scion and trying to optimize for accuracy and parries. Consider the following:
1: Weapon Focus, Slashing Grace, ???
Options for the open spots:
You might also consider Bodyguard to get extra millage out of Combat Reflexes, but, if you do that, you might as well go Daring Champion for Order of the Dragon. You can focus more on crits by taking Improved Critical instead of Greater Weapon Focus at 8th level (or you could just get a keen dueling sword and get the best of both worlds).
How much difficult terrain are we talking about? Is it so little that one round per day would completely resolve the issue? If you're willing to blow a class level over this, a level of buccaneer (gunslinger archetype) will let you ignore difficult terrain for 1+ your charisma bonus times per day (more if you're willing to shoot a gun). Alternately, you could blow a class level in unarmed fighter (fighter archetype) and pick up the dragon style feat to let you ignore difficult terrain whenever you run or charge (no limit). Or you could just pay two feats and keep your class level. Or, if the difficult terrain is just a problem here and there (such that ignoring only 5' of difficult terrain per round will solve your problems), you could pay just one feat for nimble moves. That being said, none of these things will help you with web or grease. The liberation domain, which offers rounds of Freedom of Movement from level 1, will arguably be even more useful to you than the travel domain, at least as far as web spells are concerned (still won't do you any good against grease). Sacred servant and temple champion are both paladin archetypes that offer domain powers without any need to multiclass - but the domain powers won't come online until 4th level, and I get the feeling you want this now. Just some other ideas for you.
Spade-headed or not, I see nothing wrong with making it a greataxe. It certainly wouldn't be the first time there was a D&D greataxe with a nonstandard appearance; the equicephs in 3.0 used greataxes that looked like short-handled glaives. (Link to the original picture that went with their stats.) What the lion-man is holding looks very similar in appearance to the "fan axe" which sometimes appears in ancient Egyptian art. (Another link for you - you'll need to scroll down a ways to find it. They suggest that it's more of a halberd, but I think they mean more in the sense that it's a two-handed affair rather than any kind of D&D equivalency.)
Edit: Couldn't find it. But the feat is horribly worded and non-functional if you are following strict RAW. You lose the benefit of a feat if you no longer meet its prerequisites, and Animal Ally's benefit invalidates its own prerequisites. You would need a "Special: " text block exemption to override this, and it doesn't exist, throwing the feat into an infinite on/off loop, which is obviously broken. The simplest fix is just make your non-EDL granting levels-4 give you an AC that stacks with your EDL granting levels. The fix you purpose isn't really a fix, as doesn't fix anything other than people getting more than their character level in EDL - and that's presuming you wish to treat this as a problem. I personally see no problem with having more than your character level in EDL, especially when the excess EDL is going to get put into another creature anyway (as opposed to someone trying to make one super-powered animal companion with extra hit dice). If you were to simply run with the assumption that the feat continues to work after you've gained an animal companion - an assumption that the writers apparently made as well - then the pre-existing text about stacking is already adequate. As an aside, if you really wanted to fix the problem you pointed out, simply change the prerequisite to say: "must not have an animal companion or mount that advances as an animal companion prior to acquiring this feat". (I might be missing something, but I don't see how the fix posited earlier corrects this problem.) o.O
Regardless of how it would be received, the fact of the matter is that your total EDL is still capped at your character level, at least via the methods you've already mentioned. (The "why" has already been fleshed out by others, so I see no further need to address it.) Alternatively, you could take the animal ally feat prior to acquiring a mount; the extra EDL would be independent of your cavalier EDL progression (unlike Horse Master and other "catch up" methods), thus giving you extra hit dice to allot to another animal companion. For this method to work, though, you'll need to either take your first 4 levels in some other class (probably fighter), thus delaying your build by that many levels, or taking the Standard Bearer archetype (which doesn't mix with Huntmaster if memory serves right).
You mean like a graft? A guy with a hook for a hand is still "wearing" the hook, even if it's now a part of his body.
Intelligent items self-activating:
Unlike most magic items, intelligent items can activate their own powers without waiting for a command word from their owner. Intelligent items act during their owner's turn in the initiative order. A character wearing this helm may teleport three times per day, instantly transporting himself and objects he might be carrying on his person to a designated destination, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name. (Emphasis mine.) An intelligent helm is capable of activating itself, but that doesn't make it the target of its own abilities - the teleportation effect still originates on the one wearing the helm. I suppose the helm could choose whether or not it would come along for the ride, but the wearer is going for sure. (Even if it didn't specify the wearer, though, as a rule of thumb, I'd still make it so any effect being used by a self-activated magic item would go on the wearer by default - otherwise, you'd end up with nonsensical situations, like boots of haste hasting themselves.)
|
