I want a swashbuckler subclass that lets me use my class abilities with a katana, scimitar, or any other non-finesse/non-agile weapon of my choice. (On a tangential note, I find it strange that Pathfinder went out of its way to offer ways to finesse fight with a scimitar in the first edition, to offering no avenue to do so now.)
Not sure if this constitutes thread necromancy, but something suddenly dawned on me. I want rules for having unicorn, pegasus, and wyvern animal companions. Having fantastical mounts and pets are a pretty basic fantasy trope; I remember it being one of the first things I looked into when I started playing OD&D (as in "elf is a character class" D&D), and I'm a bit surprised it's not something that's been more regularly fleshed out as part of the basic rules.
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).
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I'd normally presume "mounted combat feats" refers to any feat with mounted combat in the prerequisites. However, given that monk feats don't require you to meet any of the prerequisites, this would seem to be a bit strong (even if technically what the rules say). o.O (Mounted Skirmisher at 1st level anyone? Maybe not good if you started out as a 1st level monk, but definitely useful if you're a character dipping into monk at a later level.) If you wanted a more restrictive list, you could go with the mounted combat feats for ranger you referenced earlier. Much like the ranger, monks get a pool of bonus feats initially available (at levels 2 and 1 respectively), and then expand that pool at 6th and 10th levels. By applying similar restrictions, that would prevent situations like the one you mention. I imagine this latter approach would probably be more palatable to most DMs. I'd also note this would be house rule deviation - without any references to ranger bonus feats in the sohei archetype, the most literal reading of "mounted combat feats" would be what I outlined in the previous paragraph.
From Tome and Blood, a 3.0 "splatbook":
To my knowledge, the matter hasn't been revisited since, so whether or not your games run it this way will be up to what the DM thinks.
From http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Aiming-a-Spell: A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won't go around corners. Cones always originate from the caster - the range of the cone merely determines how long the cone is. Under 3.5, cone AoE's were as wide as their length at the end of the cone (where it's presumably widest); in PF, with all cone vertices being right angles, it would seem the width towards the end is actually now 1.4x the length.
For the original poster: some things I want to call out... (1) In your guide, you mark rhoka, urumi, katana, and wakizashi as all **** weapons, whereas cutlass, scimitar, and rapier are only *** weapons. Why do you value these weapons more? They're all exotics - any non-tengu swashbuckler who wants to use them will need to waste a feat to get proficiency first. (If you tell me half-elf doesn't waste a feat for this, you'd be incorrect, because they needing to chose this over a pseudo-Iron Will effect that stacks with the real Iron Will.) The only advantage katana has over scimitar is +1 to average damage per swing and the Deadly ability; not exactly bang for your buck when it comes to feat usage. If anything, cutlass/scimitar/rapier should be the **** weapons, and katana/urumi/rhoka only *** (if that). Note that even if your group doesn't allow Fencing Grace yet, you can still get the Agile enchantment on rapiers, so you won't be falling behind scimitar users at the higher levels. (2) Given that developer commentary confirms that Slashing Grace doesn't currently apply to light weapons, I wouldn't up the rank of light weapons with the presumption that this is the case (especially the wakizashi, which is another exotic weapon by the way, making it an inferior option to the kukri). Again, however, you can still apply the Agile enchantment to these weapons, meaning they can be viable options at the higher levels. (3) I would consider aldori dueling sword and longsword for *** status simply because of the sword scion trait. They may not be high crit weapons like the rapier, but they both qualify for Slashing Grace, don't require exotic weapon proficiency for use (one-handed or otherwise), and (with the above trait) can ensure a higher attack bonus than any other weapon available (especially good for parry and riposte). (4) Why is Power Attack only ** whereas Piranha Strike is a full ****? Both feats provide the exact same bonus and penalty; the only difference is that piranha strike only applies to light weapons and doesn't halve its benefit to weapons held in the off-hand. Anyone who doesn't invest in two-weapon fighting will find power attack more useful - you can Power Attack with a light weapon in your main hand just fine, as the bonus will be no less than with Piranha Strike. If you want to rank Power Attack down because it requires strength 13, I would cite that, not the penalty to attacks (which Piranha Strike also has, in the exact same amount). (Obviously, it's your guide, to do with as you will, but that's my two cents.)
On the question of spellcasting animals, SKR and James Jacobs weighed in on another thread, stating that creatures lacking hands can substitute other natural body movements for their somatic components. While neither deals directly with FAQ inputs, the first post on the thread indicates that the FAQ writers deemed the response from these two satisfactory enough to not make an FAQ entry. It's important to note, however, that polymorphing into a form lacking hands when you naturally have them still prevents you from casting spells with somatic components by default. One might point out this is discriminatory to all those spellcasters who were born with hands but lost them after the fact. The answer: So what? Awakened dog and whale paladins can't use swords and shields - is this some great travesty of justice? Without making additional addendums to the rules, those same paladin's can't make use of magical rings made for humanoids - the fact that those exceptions will only exist by DM fiat doesn't keep me awake at night. In my opinion, however, all this is neither here nor there. Even if you had a paladin character who was born with arms and lost them later in life, I don't see any problem with making allowances for that character to "lay on hands" using other gestures (whether by DM fiat or even the gods interceding in game to give special powers to a favored servant). But this has nothing to do with a paladin who has two perfectly functional arms to use their lay on hands ability with. Some years ago, a former coworker of mine lost both of his (perfectly functional) legs due to a horrible medical mishap. Among other things, he now uses a motorized wheelchair, which was undoubtedly covered by his health insurance. Should I therefore, with my body largely intact, feel entitled to a motorized wheelchair of my own? I mean, he didn't have to pay for his wheelchair at all, and I'm pretty sure he probably didn't even want to be using one, so I should be able to get one too, right? Why should I be required to walk around with my own two legs when he doesn't have to? After all, we both have the same health coverage. You want an exception for a paladin who has hooks for hands? If I were your DM, that's fine by me. While it's not explicitly stated anywhere, I'll grant you that the game designers don't intend for paladins in such a predicament to be denied the ability to lay on hands. And the same would apply to his blink dog paladin cohort, who was never born with any hands to begin with. But that wouldn't be grounds for the dual-wielding paladin in the same party to suddenly throw down his swords and start complaining, "Wait a minute, you'll let both of them do this without any hands at all, but I've got to clear up one of mine?" PS: As an aside, the rules in Pathfinder are clear regarding whether or not you need a free hand for lay on hands - for you to continue claiming that this is not the case is extremely disingenuous (in addition to being outright inaccurate). Should you want to say something is inconsistent or doesn't make sense, then say that. Don't misrepresent the facts.
Seriously, you're making up rules that don't exist, and you're changing your story around frequently. Where do you expect to get in a conversation acting like that? I've made nothing up - this is what is in the books. Melee +1 longsword +16/+16/+11 (1d8+9/19–20) or slam +14/+14 (1d4+8 plus energy drain) Melee mwk silver longsword +12/+7 (1d8+5/19–20) or slam +11 (1d4+7 plus energy drain) You are correct to say that this does not match my original position - but I already pointed this out myself two posts ago, which you had quoted. I did my research and determined that the facts didn't support my original hypothesis; without grounds to challenge the precedent which I discovered, I was forced to forfeit my original position. This is what a reasonable person normally does when confronted with irrefutable facts contrary to their position. EDIT: Further, the ability to release a 2 hander as a free action is one of the main reasons that Paladins use 2 handers and/or light shields frequently. To be able to keep a free hand for casting and/or lay on hands. Nobody here has challenged the ability to let go of (and then rewield) two-handed weapons. Edit: specificity
Another one: Boar Resilience
Take adopted to get around the prereqs, and you can circumvent the feat tax on Diehard, presuming you didn't want to sleep in armor. Plus, even if you wanted Endurance for other reasons, the trait is still useful on its own.
Azoriel, you're doing it wrong. You can't agree with me, forum etiquette requires we spiral down into an exchange of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments until a moderator locks the thread or someone brings up Hitler. It is how the internet works. We're going to get in trouble for peaceably resolving a debate. The point I highlighted wasn't made by you, though I avoided naming the person who did as a matter of courtesy as I did not intend for this to be a personal attack against the individual in question. If this resulted in an apparent strawman argument, my apologies - it certainly wasn't my intent to put words in your mouth, or make others believe you had said things you did not. Edit: Blah - subtext is not my friend. =( Got it. ;)
Fog cutting lenses are your friend. There's also the cloud gazer feat but that's less useful, doubly so if you're not already a sylph or something that counts as a sylph via racial heritage.
You swing your earthbreaker/club/other-blunt-instrument in such a manner as to better facilitate skin tearing, either by fracturing open bones or making such deep impacts into the fleshy parts of the body that they result in open wounds; that would be enough explanation for me. This would be more easily done on a blunt weapon with sharp corners/edges, like a flanged mace, or already long and narrow, like a sai, but the game doesn't differentiate there, and I don't care to either. (I'd accept Arachnofiend's tinkering solution as well, though I consider it perfectly plausable that someone who's paid two feats into specializing with a weapon would be skilled enough to use their weapon that way without needing to modify it.)
The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement. Actually, among people who study historical weapons, it's commonly understood that most pommels and crossguards on swords were designed for use as weapons. (I have no articles laying out this clause, and the books I have which would address this issue are out of hand right at this moment, but I will state that resources of a more scholastic nature also disagree with you.) Any sword not so designed would be the exception, not the rule. In that case, you'd probably be talking about a wall-hanger or other non-weapon that was never intended for actual use anyway, and then it would be an improvised weapon even if wielded from the hilt. Per Apocryphile's request, I will leave my correction at that - my stance on this matter was already stated above, and remains unchanged.
Do you have any idea what pommel strikes and half-swording are? A pommel strike was historically referred to as a "murder stroke", mechanically equivalent to hitting someone with a mace or a warhammer (depending on whether or not you went with the pommel or the crossguard). Half-swording consists of placing a hand on the blade to use the point like a short spear - the thrusts generated can be notably stronger than a two-handed swing and are generally used to penetrate the weak points in heavy armor. Neither are anything like using the flat of the blade at least from a mechanical standpoint (what you were probably thinking of), and both would most certainly produce lethal damage by default. (You could try to do subdual damage with these methods, but only insofar as the fact that you could do subdual damage with a mace or spear if you went out of your way to do so, i.e. ate an additional -4 penalty.)
Any time you use a melee weapon without a range increment as a missile weapon, or a missile weapon as a melee weapon, you have turned an actual weapon into an improvised one. But, really, what you want is the Weapon Versatility mentioned by blackbloodtroll. (IMO, half-swording and pommel strikes wouldn't be turning your sword into an improvised weapon - many longswords had their pommels and crossguards designed with that sort of thing in mind.)
Comparable pre-existing feat: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/fortified-armor-training-combat
|
