Maybe take a look at Rose Warden?
It is special because you not only get access to rogue talents, you also get advanced rogue talents at level 5. Your fighter or slayer can get advanced rogue talents at level 10 just like a full rogue.
Search Posts
Try 1 level of Bloodrager and Kensai Magus. Vital strike, Blooded Arcane Strike, Devastating Strike, Power Attack is not bad when using a large Bastard Sword enchanted by a Lead Blade wand when Huge. No spell combat and only spell striking with spells that last over a number of rounds. Using arcane pool to maximize the 6d8 damage you do with that bastard sword. If getting a weapon that big is too far off from your character image, maybe dip one level of Fighter. Still go Vital Strike but use a Great Sword. Pick up a Divine Fighting Technique and Felling Smash. This will allow you to Vital Strike a second time on a successful trip. Whatever 2 hand strength build you go with, remember that Siphon Might is one of your best friends. While these are not the 100% maximum damage builds, they are mobile and versatile because they keep their move and swift action open. Spells can be used for a more utility and buffing.
I don't understand why this looks unclear. Monastic Legacy has IUS as a feat requirement. Feral Combat Training opens up feats that have IUS as a feat requirement for use with 1 type of natural attack. Why do people think it is not supposed to function? The cost to make it work is also pretty high. 3 feats and 2 levels of monk or 6 feats with no levels of monk.
I was assuming he was just using Enlarge Person or something, but yes you do need a way to wield a large two-handed weapon if that's what you're trying to do. Bastard Sword should have 1 natural size increase over B.axe since it can naturally start as a 1h weapon. A character can start off with a Bastard sword that is large before any other size stacking. IMO apples to apples table would be: Med B.Axe 3d6 vs Large B.Sword: 2d8 -2tohit (10.5 vs 9), 21 vs 18 w/VS.Large B.Axe 4d6 vs Huge B.Sword: 3d8 -2tohit (14 vs 12.5), 28 vs 25 w/VS. Huge B.Axe 6d6 vs GargantuanB.Sword: 4d8 -2tohit (21 vs 18), 42 vs 36 w/VS. Gargantuan B.Axe 8d6 vs ColossalB.Sword: 6d8 -2tohit (28 vs 27), 36 vs 34 w/VS. So a large B.Sword will always lag behind B.Axe in based damage and be less accurate but have a far better chance to land a crit.
Got it. It only affects tohit and no other property. So the primary function is really just the extra "hand" so the rod doesn't need to be stowed or retrieved.
So Aroden's Spellsword says:
If you put a rod of lordly might into a plain wooden staff, would your monk flurry with a 1d8, x3 crit, +4 slashing weapon if the rod was stored as the battle axe? Would it be bludgeoning but keep the other stats or something in the middle?
It seems pretty clear that Shadow Weapons are being treated as a group. Shadow Weapons are not a Fighter Group so it is called out that you take Shadow Weapons in place of a current group. However they do not go so far as to create a Shadow Weapon group so it would seem to prevent AWT that affect entire groups from affecting all Shadow Weapons. It looks to me that the only AWT that can be taken with the feat are:
I think arguments could be made for others like Spirit Warrior as long as the Gloomblade kept the same weapon all day. Maybe focused weapon that only affected the weapons associated with the weapon focus skill. As stated above, this could have been written more clearly. Sill a cool archetype.
Mixing chemicals from an alchemical lab certainly sounds like alchemy to me. A class specific form of alchemy, but alchemy none the less. For some who see it as alchemy the color will be enough. For those that disagree it will not be enough. Ask your GM.
3 seems like the mostly likely reading.
Magus: Kensai - Int based gish fighter that doesn't need armor. How can it not be #1 Rogue: Swashbuckler - A 2h weapon wielding rogue that tumbles better than the rest... yes please. Archetype really should be called Blade Master. Monk: Sohei - Must flurry with 2 hand weapon Fighter: Learned Duelist - max damage vital strikes for the win. Maneuverable and so perfect to mix with Style feats Hunter: Forester - It is like someone knew exactly what I wanted from the Hunter class and gave me an early xmas present.
Brawler TWF can be used as prereq for all TWF feats. The only caveat is the feats built on it can only be used with qualifying weapons.
So for Pathfinder, is there an official definition of a hafted weapon? This is a good reference tool. I guess the GM and player can decide together if the weapon they are using is more of a large katana or a pole arm. The decision will affect it's hardness as well as materials that can be used to construct it.
So for Pathfinder, is there an official definition of a hafted weapon?
I never knew that there was any question about power attack applying to non-lethal damage. Wow!
Is nodachi a hafted weapon? I've seen some real world pictures of Nodachi that make them look like large katana and others that look more like long bladed pole arms. In Pathfinder they are both in the Heavy Blades Fighter Group as well as the Pole Arm Fighter Group. Pole arms are hafted in D&D while swords generally are not. *reason*
Looks great so far!! Thanks.
My hope is that Reactions do not always need to be called out. If you have a feat that allows a Reaction to a Trigger, then the character has the option to spend his action on the Reaction or save it for another Trigger. I think the only time a Reaction should need to be called out ahead of time is if there is no feat supporting it.
In terms of damage, daggers with the knife master archetype, and the river rat trait are generally the best way to go. At later levels I like to pick up lunge and ranged skills so the character can threaten for flanking from 5ft away for SA, and get extra damage and attacks from throwing.
Nice! I never noticed that before.
Well hell.....it's looking like a Phantom Blade/Spiritualist who just keeps their weapon harbored can do this concept a fair stretch better :P I don't see how a Phantom Blade could do this better. The Phantom Blade does not have: -access to scaling weapon damage-ability to enhance a weapon with Impact -a pool that can be interchanged with Ki -the ability to focus on int with two weapon fighting Phantom Blade can do some interesting things but in terms of damage output and skill utility, they are not on par with an Esoteric.
Brawler can be a good option for feat efficiency on a high level build that is not using Dragon Style. 2 levels of Brawler get the same number of needed feats as a fighter plus Martial Flexibility The main issue is the delay in receiving touch based attacks and powerful combat spells. Not really an issue in a higher level campaign, but a pain to bring all on line if starting from level 1.
There is a clear argument that question #2 should be a "yes" RAW. HOWEVER RAI it is likely that Bladed Brush is meant to have a second line that says "when using a glaive as a glaive. For example if one where using a glaive as an improvised weapon (see monk of the empty hand) then it is likely Bladed Brush would not apply. The butt of the staff is not an improvised weapon with Spear Dancing Style, but I think the concepts are similar. TLDR
Cool concept. Investigator seems to be closer to what you're looking for. A large amount of versatility you described doesn't come online for an Underground Chemist until after lvl 10. Also check out the Investigator archetypes:
Non-lethal without penalty is inherent to IUS. Neither Ascetic Style nor Strike confer this to ability. Weapon finesse is available to IUS solely because the weapon, your limbs, happens to be light. If a spell caused limbs to become heavier, like a 1h or 2h weapon, then the character wouldn't be able to use WF with IUS. Neither Ascetic Style nor Strike confer this to ability. Effects that apply to natural attacks is a very good question. I don't think transferal of affects works beyond the first step. My guess would be that even though a spell like Magic Fang would modify monk IUS damage, it would not affect an Ascetic Style weapon. Definitely not sure.
Even though Flurry and Spell Combat don't stack, a magus with a quickened spell could still get an extra attack via Spell Strike.
I thought this might be the case but wasn't sure if Kirin really applied to that FAQ.
The description calls out spells specifically so it isn't made to work with supernatural abilities.
Kirin strike allows you to add untyped damage to an attack as a swift action after you hit. The damage is x2 the character's int mod. Question 1
Crit with x2 weapon and use Kirin Strike. Is the damage
ALSO Question 2
Yes you can use the Ki pool for other ki fueled powers. Feats requiring ki pools, powers that come from other pools that are interchangeable with ki pools, and abilities that require ki pools that can be picked before having them (such as ninja talents taken by rogues), etc... all function with perfect style ki.
I think Gish is saying simply the ability to take bleeding attack is a new class feature. I think Empress is saying that Bleeding Attack is the feature and becomes a replacement feature if taken, as with Qinggong. Risner is then saying that Qinggong is an exception to the rule (but not supporting it with a citation). I have seen Archetypes ruled the way Empress is viewing them, but Gish's view also looks highly plausible. It would be great if someone found some dev comments on RAI. I can't find any but will look again tonight.
Assumed you would only be picking up a level or 2 of Vigilante. See the build now.
I have some unreasonable dislike to being beholden to some sentient being. Kind of keeps me away from the whole divine thing. Hunters and Shamans work best for me.
There is no way to avoid the damage without homebrew...except if you use throwing melee weapons. If the damage is changed to non-lethal there are many ways to avoid it. Non-lethal defenses do not differentiate between physical or energy.
Take the rogue talent Major Magic for the frostbite spell, Enforcer and Shatter defenses for full combat SA. Wanted to do this rogue/vigilante combo but GM isn't using Vigilante in this campaign.
The only way I see avoiding Vicious damage is to use it the Merciful enhancement. Then use something that reduces non-lethal damage like a bloodline, spell, or certain archetypes.
I am also a big fan of the unchained rogue/Uchained Monk combo. I personally went with spear dancing style on mine because nothing is cooler than flurrying with a Giant Katana (i.e. a Nodachi). Very expensive, but solid and the style I like. If you are going unarmed you may want to look at Jabbing Style as it rocks with Flurry's extra attacks. If you wanted Dragon Style for the movement over terrain, there are other options. The archetype WindStep Master gives you wind walk at level 4 which works perfectly with flying kick. Also allows you move back to Wisdom rather than Charisma.
Also look at Maneuver Master. It allows for an extra maneuver on top of your iteratives, twf and natural attacks. Great for trip builds (see vicious stomp, imp trip).
Yes. Dragon Ferocity on a Brawler does allow for Elemental Fist damage to scale up.
Renata, DR stands for Damage Reduction. ...also agree with Renata. Pummeling style had that extra language put in to stop it from working with things like Ascetic Style.
Check out this prestige class:
Toasted you may be right. There are three legitimate ways to read the rules. Reading 1. There is no need for an off hand to take advantage of TWF
Your interpretation could be the direction the devs want to go with in a future FAQ. However I continue to think Reading-1 is the strongest option and Reading-3 requires 2 actual changes rather than one (although still a real possible dev ruling).
Whether you can or not, awesome concept for a character! Exploding first to the face for the win!!!
We have gone over all of this. - Double weapons cannot be used in twf while being wielded two handed. When they are used in TWF they act as 2 weapons.
As I have mentioned before, without a special case, there is no way to 2 weapon fight with anything other than 2 weapons that are either light or 1 handed. Throughout this tread you have tried to pull whatever rule you can, even misapply them, to push your opinion. Your vision of Brawler's Flurry is not supported by the rules.
- offhand attack is terminology which merely refers to an extra attack, unrelated to hands used to wield. It is a historical term, which is now unfortunately obfuscatory. Even if flurry was -4/-4, this is simply wrong. However you have exhausted me. I leave you to your ideas... which are wholly unsupported by the rules.
Why? That is how it is defined in the general core rules for two weapon fighting. See the rules below. In the second half of the first sentence of the two weapon fighting rules, it says you can get an extra attack if you meet certain conditions. In the first half of the sentence the conditions are defined: wielding a second weapon in what becomes the off hand. (1)If you wield a second weapon in your off hand,... (2)you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. It is the designated second weapon, which must be a light or 1h weapon (or double which acts as 2 wpns), that becomes the off hand. Anything else is undefined without a specific rule to override this general one. Brawler allows TWF with one weapon, so if that one weapon is be both primary and off hand then it is acting as two weapons unless we are told otherwise. The more likely option is that BF simply allows TWF to work with no off hand, removing the need for a second weapon.
Double weapons act as two weapons. You continually bringing them up only weakens your argument. btw a Tiger Fork isn't a double weapon so your can't use it as a primary and an off hand weapon. Monks do not use an off hand attack when they flurry with a Tiger Fork but they get an extra attack. Again this is a tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion, but if it did, it would only weaken your argument.
No. That is specifically not what I said. I did not say, imply, or allude to the user designating any particular attack with any particular weapon being primary or off hand (secondary). What I did say is that the character designates which of two weapons being wielded, which can only be a light or 1 hand(medium effort) weapon, are the primary and the off hand (secondary) weapon. Tommy this isn't a high school debate. Your "any attack, any weapon" idea is not in the rules. You are simply wrong.
No Tommy. I am not wrong. The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons. One weapon is designated as primary and one is designated as off hand. There is nothing stopping a character from drawing another weapon (or using a foot or elbow) and re-designating that new weapon as the off hand weapon. So in a small way you are right that the designation doesn't reside with the weapon, nor does it reside with the attack. The character designates which of their two weapons is the primary weapon and which is the off hand for any set of attacks. In other words, you are making a logic leap that is not supported by the rules. game.set.match.champion of the universe for all infinity.no take backsies (really??)
No Tommy. It is not wrong. It is what the rules say. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. The thrower will need to identify which weapon is the primary and which is the off hand for each set of thrown weapons. There is no need to identify a tertiary weapon. This tangent has nothing to do with actual conversation because it still works just like regular two weapon fighting. There still needs to be a second weapon to define the off hand (secondary) weapon. At thus point, I think you should realize you are wrong, but I somehow doubt it.
This requires two steps away from the rules rather than 1 step. If you remove the need for a physical second weapon while two weapon fighting, then as per core rules you need a weapon that acts as two weapons, like a double weapon, to take an off hand attack. It would take a second modification to then also say that the one weapon continues to act as one weapon in all other regards, including other two weapon feats... except feats along the two weapon chain... except if it calls out a second weapon... except (some future feat or ability yet to come). If the weapon acts as 1 weapon, and can be allowed to two weapon fight, then it can take the additional attack from TWF without declaring an off hand: which is defined by a second weapon.
Your argument is that because the off hand weapon is not defined as an actual "hand" the off hand's sole defining quality is that it is the additional attack when two weapon fighting. We all agree that that both the primary and off hand weapon can be any legal weapon and does not need to be a hand. We can refer to them as the primary and secondary weapon if you prefer? However the off hand (or secondary weapon) is clearly defined in the rules. It is a second weapon - only defined as light or 1 handed (or medium effort weapon to avoid hand confusion) - that is used to make the off hand (or secondary weapon) attacks. This is clearly defined in the text bolded in the rules below. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. The bolded text is not flavor. It is a clear definition that a second weapon is required. As we discussed above, the off hand can be a foot, a weapon, or an elbow but that does not negate the need for a clearly defined second weapon as per the rules. The Brawler Flurry removes the need for an actual physical second weapon. That means the weapon used in the Flurry either acts as two weapons or doesn't require an off hand (or secondary weapon) attack.
|