Darwin's page

Doesn't look like it's been brought up yet, but Opportune Parry and Riposte can no longer benefit from the Signature Deed feat. That changes up a lot of builds, since that one was a gimme. Dunno if the OP updates his guide any more.

Just for clarification, this is for an NPC that I'm sure she's limiting for gameplay reasons and to not step on the (3-character) party roles.

The wife has a question on metamagic, sorcerors, and how they learn spells.

hypothetical:

Sorceror has the Enlarge Spell metamagic feat, which adds 1 to the spell level. Magic missile is 1st level, enlarged is 2nd. Could a sorcerer 'learn' Enlarged Magic Missile for a 2nd level spell? Thus it would be a standard casting action instead of full round.

I don't see any problem with this, learning a metamagic'd spell as the standard version to cast. Obviously, the sorceror can't use the standard version of the spell, and it's a higher level, balancing it out. What do folks think about this?

Nope, not yet and I doubt there will be one generated by paizo. There are board members saying they are doing it. So stay tuned.

This would be VERY helpful, as I'm sure I'm not the only one converting from PFBeta to PFFinal.

The sorcerer wielding the glaive as mentioned in the original post has now reached level 5 an has barely used his glaive in about two levels. It's a nice bonus at lower levels but soon outgrows its usefulness. I don't think removing this particular ability will make humans less of an option. The bonus feat and extra skill point is pretty good already.

Pretty well as expected there. that's about the time the 3/4 BAB characters start feeling the pain vs fighters and the like in melee, unless they're specialized melee-locks.

...If this is still too complicated somehow, I think the simplest solution is separating out the "Good Save 1st Level Bonus" from the Save Progression, and making it function like Class Skills or Weapon Proficiencies: You don't gain any further benefit by taking ANOTHER Class with "Good Save X". Someone else mentioned this option also, though I don't think we really need to worry about the "Bonus Type": Class Skills don't seem to bother with that - It's just explicitly defined to not stack. The reason why I don't like this as much as "Like Stacking" is it only adjusts DOWN for multiple High Save Classes, not UP for multiple Poor Save Classes. That said, it's obviously the easiest solution to implement.

Simplest (for those who can't understand fractions) might be to just change the way saving throw totals are listed. instead of:

level fort reflex will
1 +2 0 +2
2 +3 0 +3
3 +3 +1 +3
4 +4 +1 +4
5 +4 +1 +4
6 +5 +2 +2

it could be listed like this:

Upon gaining a level in cleric, the saving throws increase by the below amount:
level fort reflex will
1 +2 0 +2
2 +1 0 +1
3 0 +1 0
4 +1 0 +1
5 0 0 0
6 +1 +1 +1

I'm sorry it's big, but the fighter needs options akin to that of the wizard. Maneuvers that scale with level and can be used offensively, defensively, or as battlefield control. Much as the Wizard/Sorceror gets a large section of the book dedicated to his spells, the Fighter (and to a lesser extend other warrior classes) should have the same. The feats system was a good idea, but they just don't scale well. An 18th level feat slot is totally different from a 1st level feat slot, yet they're the same. special 'fighter only' feats that are better than normal might be something for this, or perhaps a mechanic that allows a fighter to get lower level slots back when he upgrades a feat chain.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

Kaisoku wrote:

It's no different than an Elf Fighter not benefitting from his sword/bow bonus proficiencies.

I don't think there will be any changes for the Human's bonus proficiency unless a complete change is done to racial proficiencies.

ah, but the elf gets access to any exotic weapon that has "elf" in the name as a martial weapon prof. so most other races get something out of being a warrior type (still trying to find a paizo weapon that has "halfling" in the name...)

anything? any refutes?

humans are already a very very strong race in comparison, bonus skill point, bonus feat, and now bonus WP. It may be more of an argument for an Elf Nerf as opposed to more buffs for humans.

I feel that the Armor Training AC benefit should apply separately to the Shield, but only @50% (minimum +1), when using both Armor and Shield. I tend to think the ACP reduction should not stack. Perhaps one of the Shield Feats could be required to activate this feature.

...Then again, I'm really more interested in seeing unique (besides +X AC) benefits to both Medium & Heavy Armor AND Shields, which would make them more "worth" both their penalties, and the Feats necessary to use them (either paid for as Feats, or as "Free" Proficiency Feats granted by Classes). DR would work.

something like: (just off the top of my head, with no regard for balance)

Iron Fortress Prereq: BAB+8, shield prof, heavy armor prof
Having trained extensively in defense and using his shield to actively cover the vulnerabilities of his armor, when equipped with heavy armor and a large shield, the character gains an additional +2 shield bonus to AC on top of his current shield bonus. In addition his AC is considered a n additional +2 points higher for the purpose of an enemy confirming critical hits. If the character is ever flat-footed or otherwise unable to use his dex bonus to AC, this feat has no effect.

Another option to fix Mending as a reasonable 0-level:
Has no effect unless it would fix the target item to full hit points.

it'll take dings out of your longsword and re-join cut rope, but it won't fix that axe that's been snapped in two.

May be a bit off-topic, but only a bit.

I came into contact with the Pathfinder sunder rules, such as they are, in my last game session where my character tried to cut an opponent's sword belt before he could get his falchion drawn.

Am I right in interpreting that the opposed roll for sunder attempts no longer applies, and I'm just attacking his AC modified by size of the target? that seems.. off. See P151, I think this rule needs to be cleaned up.

Sorry, but I don't think this is right.

Page 27:
"Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter gains added protection from the armor he is wearing. Whenever he is wearing armor, he gains an additional +1 armor bonus to his armor class, reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0), and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1."
So, Armor Training gives an Armor bonus to the armor the Fighter is wearing. But a shield is not mentioned (plus, a shield is not an armor, by game terms, and doesn't give an armor bonus either; the rules specifically say that you use a shield, not wear a shield).

Just my 2c.

Thanks for the cite. I still think extending Armor Training bonuses to armor and shields will go a bit toward making up the gap that a sword&board fighter faces vs two-handed and two-weapon styles. And again, as long as he isn't getting the bonus twice, it would only apply if for some reason he's using a shield and no armor, or if his armor has no ACP. That's fair, I say.

Darwin wrote:

Adventurers are already a league apart from "everybody else", due to from their stats and abilities. Otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.

That's entirely different. That's a handicap, to speak in sports terms. Having adventurers arbitrarily get stat bonuses is applying two entirely different sets of rules. One of the beautiful things about 3.5/PRPG is that everything uses the same set of rules. Monsters, players, and Joe the Pig Farmer are all built exactly the same way. Changing that for arbitrariness's sake isn't exactly a hot idea, IMO.

But it's already different. NPCs and adversaries don't usually get adventurers equipment last I checked. They also have fairly generic stats unless otherwise noted.

Personally, I´d leave magic arms and armor out of what he is doing, just give stat bonuses, resistance bonuses and some sort of AC bonus, which replace the ability enhancers, resistance cloaks, deflection rings and natural armor amulets.

Magic arms and armor are iconic, IMO. The next thing which gets iconic status for all the other stuff is a belt of giant strength... and that cow is not sacred enough for me to spare it.

you make a good point. The intent of this system isn't to replace magic arms and armor though, but to supplement them. one CAN take enhancement bonuses to weapons and armor with this, but they're probably much better off taking the stat and save and deflection bonuses instead, by design. I leave them to help out characters like monks and versatile fighters, who may not have one weapon (or even one set of weapons) that they regularly use, but want to stay viable in combat, or the defensive character who really needs to be hard to hurt regardless of what armor they're wearing. I honestly don't expect the basic armor and weapon enhancements to be used much. Thanks for the comment!

What about NPCs? Does a fifth level commoner get these enhancements too? If not we suddenly have two tiers of people: Adventurers and everyone else, it creates a rift in the continuity of the game... if so then I'm still not really impressed.

Adventurers are already a league apart from "everybody else", due to from their stats and abilities. Otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.

Lessening the gold would mean less gold to buy the "interesting" items with which means less interesting items in play.

More actually, because you aren't spending almost the entirety of your gold on enhancement and ability bonuses, like you normally would.

If he keeps the arms and armor what happens when a character dies? Does the sword suddenly become unmagical (and easier to break)?

I haven't decided if the character's enhancement bonus will apply to item hardness and HP. I'm thinking yes, and it's a valid thing to discuss the pros and cons of on a houserules forum. (we're getting really off-topic on this thread!) It will revert to its base properties when wielded by someone with an inherent enhancement bonus lesser than it is though.

Magic items should be a little less 'liquid' using this system, you can't just go to the store and order up +4 mithril ghost touch heavy fortification fullplate of ease. It helps PCs use the 'junk' magic items, get the bonuses they want, and lets them spend their money on something other than enhancement bonuses.

Bumping this, because I did have a serious question -- would a fighter get the armor mastery bonus with just a shield? I can't be the only one who has (more than once) taken PC's captive and had them have to figure out a way to escape without their gear? An improvised shield isn't hard to come up with, and I'd be inclined to give the fighter his armor mastery bonus if he did that.

I would allow it. I wouldn't allow the bonus twice with armor+shield, but as long as he has at least a buckler, the skilled fighter has something to work with and should get his mastery bonus.

As far as officially goes, 'Armor and Shields' is a single equipment category. Read into that what you will.

I believe Hugo Solis had an interesting house-rule, where he basically halved the gold/treasure granted to the party, and basic +X weapon/armor/stat enhancements were NOT available thru items, but were gained 'automatically' as characters levelled... But only 'special qualities' were available thru item enhancements (the +1 minimum for weapons/armor was waived, since it didn't exist anymore) Players could choose what kind of 'basic enhancement' they wanted (+stat, +att/dmg, +AC, etc) whenever they levelled up and their 'enhancement quota' raised in 'value'.

Definitely not going into Pathfinder as a Core rule, but a very interesting solution for sure.

The system I came up with to counter the problem is this: (copypasta from game webpage)

# I want magic items to be cool again. I want magic items to be nifty and unique, instead of everyone carrying the same 6 basic items: Weapons, armor&shield, and various protection & statboosts. To that end, I am implementing the following system. You get a "pool" of bonus points each level, that you can allocate to various things: Weapon enhancement bonus
# Armor enhancement bonus
# Shield enhancement bonus
# Natural armor AC bonus
# Deflection AC bonus
# Resistance save bonus (applies to all saves)
# Enhancement bonus to stats (per stat)
# Competence bonus to skills (per skill)

Costs:
# Enhancement Bonus to Armor, Enhancement Bonus to Shield: 1:1
# Enhancement Bonus to an attribute, Resistance Bonus to Saves: 1:1
# Enhancement Bonus to Natural AC, Deflection Bonus to AC: 2:1
# Enhancement Bonus to Melee attacks, Enhancement Bonus to Ranged attacks: 2:1
# Competence Bonus to an individual Skill: 2:5

If you pay 4 points, you get +4 breastplate, or +4 to Intelligence, or a +2 sword, or +10 bonus to one skill.

Max cap: 1/3 your character level, rounded down, save for skills which is 1/2 rounded up to the nearest +5. This means you can't get +5 armor/weapons/etc until 15th level, and no +6 stat boosts until 18th, and you can get a +10 skill booster from 11th level onwards, and nothing higher until epic.

Bonuses obtained in this way don't take up magic item spaces. If you get a +5 Enhancement bonus to AC, that applies to any armor that you wear. Ditto melee and ranged weapons, although you must buy those seperately.

Rearranging points: At every levelup, you re-arrange as many points as you're gaining before applying your newly gained points.

Points Gained at each New Level
1 0
2 0
3 1
4 1
5 2
6 2
7 2
8 2
9 2
10 3
11 3
12 3
13 3
14 4
15 4
16 4
17 4
18 4
19 4
20 4

This lets you have "interesting" magic items, as your base magical equipment bonuses and magical stat boosts aren't linked to any specific item. The categories were picked because all of these boosts (armor bonus, shield bonus, deflection bonus, resistance bonus, stat and skill bonuses, weapon enhancement bonuses) are all of the sort that every PC goes for first. If we take that out of the items and put them on the characters themselves, this allows a lot of room for flavor. Note that if the PC has say, a +1 enhancement bonus to melee and picks up a +2 sword, he'll still be using the greater bonus. This is meant to enhance existing magical equipment, not replace it, which is why the points are a little low all told. You're still expected to seek out better magical equipment than what you can generate yourself, but the basics are covered, and this de-emphasizes equipment somewhat, as I Feel D&D just pays Too Much Attention to magical equipment.

Actually, I like this. It addresses my concern about all monks flurrying with greatswords instead of fists or numchucks; only higher-level monks can do it (and I have no problem with high-level monks doing all sorts of whacky and crazy things).

Personally I don't seen any problem with monks flurrying with greatswords, halberds, and 6 foot bronze statues of Happy Buddah.

JoelF847 wrote:

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)

I agree with you it needs some sort of adjustment and I like option 1.

For that matter, are 3 levels of fortification really necessary? 25% doesn't seem very useful at all.

Spring attack allows you to make a single melee attack while moving. Can you use cleave attack while sping attacking? I thought that it might be possible since cleave attack is only a standart action and is indeed only a single attack that simply hits more than one foe...

What do you guyes think?

Cleave requires a full round action in pathfinder.

If there had only been the choice of chain shirt, breast plate and full plate.

It would have crippled us.

Sure, at low level, these are the fallback armors.

I think the OPs point is that the armors that aren't top tier for each weight class are clearly inferior, and that characters who can afford better will.

The question you need to ask is if this is okay or not. It is the nature of armor (even in real life) that those who live by the quality of their armor will buy the best that they can afford with the mobility they require.

If you want characters over 3rd level to wear armor other than chain shirt, breastplate and fullplate, there's about 2 ways to do it:

1: exotic armors that are competitive with the big 3, either through craftsmanship or special materials. Personally I'd like to see more non-magic, non-expensive armors that give small combat maneuver or skill bonuses, like some weapons and equipment do.

2: setting restrictions. availability, weather, or stigma prevents certain armor types from being desirable. This is admittedly a bit artificial, but very flavorful if done right.

I can't seem to find a pic online of an actual bich'hwa. Anyone have one?

Thanks.

Searching on 'bichwa' seems to give some useful results.

http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2089

http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=658

actually what would the chain alone do to some one in full plate? (other than trip/entangle) The spikes would be necessary for damaging such an opponent.

I'd wager that a full wound up swing delivered to the helmet could knock said opponent out cold, possibly cause head trauma and secondary damage to the neck. You're basically looking at an exceptionally long, flexible flail here afterall.

The spikes certainly help against tough armor though, I'll give you that.

There for a spiked chain doing 1/2 the damage of a sword? Easy. No problem.

But it would have extremely limited uses (tight fighting conditions, opponent has a shield, two weapon fighters could easily entangle chain, etc etc)

-3^v^vooooooooOooooooooo^v^vE-

Indeed. an 8-foot long heavy chain could be devastating. My vision of the spiked chain is basically a generous length of 1 inch steel chain with what amounts to a bladed flail on either end, and perhaps a foot of links on either end are actually spiked (See horrible ascii art above). When it comes down to it, the spikes are really just there to give it a little more bite for engangling and tripping opponents. The weight of the chain alone would cause horrific damage, spikes of the size employed would just be secondary lacerations.

To be honest, it's very rare to find weapon illustrations that are faithful representations of real life weapons. For instance, long swords and even rapiers are often depicted as too slim compared to real life versions. Historical warhammer doesn't look like a hammer at all - it was piercing weapon, used against plate armor wearing knights for one thing. There are even more examples.

I disagree that long swords and rapiers are depicted as too slim. The other way, in fact, as most fantasy long blades seem way too broad to me.

dagger: should be simpler, a straight, stilletto-style dagger, not this curved knife
short sword: decent, but should stick with the straight, double-edged style of the gladius
long sword: Someone shrunk a two-hander. Let's get nice basic cruciform arming sword in there please.
Rapier: What is that made of? Ice? Crystal?
bastard sword: good!
morning star: So it's a spiked flail? Just making sure.
Warhammer: Oh gods no
try this instead

Mace: Excellent.
Battleaxe: Single-headed, please? Save the double for the greataxe.
like this!

The weapons illustrations on page 107 are all just fine. Still Needed IMO: Flail, Falchion, Halberd

Exotic weapons may need their own page of illustrations to help folks make sense of them. I'd like to see a semi-realistic spiked chain (starknife at either end of a lightweight chain) and war-scythe.

I think all armors need to be re-examined, right now the list that is actually used is tiny compared to the choices available. The reality is that everyone wears studded leather,chainshirt,breastplate, or full plate as soon as they can get them. It would be cool if there was a good reason to wear all of the armors, not just that it was the best thing you could get on the way to the armor you really want.

The reality of armor is that everyone wears the best armor they can get hold of, given the limits of technology, mobility, budget and availability. Adventurers and their like will never be limited by budget like guard and armies are, and will naturally choose whatever type provides the best protection while sacrificing the least mobility (if mobility is a concern/if you aren't a dwarf) Basically the adventurer is going to ignore (with a few notable exceptions) all but the pinnacle armor in each weight class, regardless of what you do. The other armors are for 2 kinds of characters: Newbs and NPCs.

Yes what I was saying is people don't understand how the weapons really function or how lethal they can be.

Also (again) the picture provided in the PHB isn't very good and doesn't represent what the weapon might actually look like.

I'd be happy to submit realistic illustrations for all PHB weapons. ^.^ I for one am tired of warhammers looking like giant sledgehammers.

Hello all,

I'm of the opinion that with the maul and earthbreaker around that the great club is now not all that useful of a martial weapon. Thematically it seems to be just a big stick (club) or with proper function a large morningstar. With these other two weapons now usurping its bludgeoning prowess it seems to have fallen by the way-side except by ogres.

My question is: should we make the great club a simple weapon?

Absolutely. for those crap stats (1d10 20/x2) its only utility is as a simple weapon.

Check out the Earth Breaker (can't remember if its in the Beta or not, but its definitely in the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide). Its a 2d6 x3 critical bludgeoning hammer. Its what I think you're looking for.

thank goodness it's not worthless (by stats) like the Maul was.

or possibly with 1d6 damage with expanded critical range (18-20) which would be equivalent to a rapier but able to dual wield.

This way the weapon could be dual wielded and feats such as weapon focus would apply to both weapons.

That's basically an Elven Lightblade.

So, a little bit of expansion on these ideas.

1. Mithral weapons - I am all for this because of the lore behind mithral as True Silver. I agree that not all materials need to be good as weapons and armor, but this is one case where it should be both.

Sounds good to me. nobody takes mithral weapons otherwise, and is a superior (though of course much more expensive) solution to alchemical silvering.

2. Mithral armor - There are a couple roads I can take with this... listed from least nerf, to most nerf.

A - Leave it the way it is...
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

A: Mithral (mithril?) is just a bit overwhelming as is, pushing away all other armor special material types unless you have a specific kind of character (the low-dex tank). Definitely could use a nerf.

In my experience it's used:
1: Mithral Breastplate, to allow a well-armored individual to move without speed penalty, and it can be slept in without issue.
2: Mithral chain shirt, so anyone can wear decent light armor effectively without penalty, regardless of prof. Granted this does have some literary precedence.

I don't see the 'using it to get around class restrictions re:barb', but there's an easy fix for that anyway.

This said, the way I would *like* to see Mithral changed:
Mithral counts as one category lighter with respect for movement speed. It counts as its true weight category for proficiency and class special abilities.

If you want slightly buffer Mithral, it only counts as its true weight category for class special abilities, and one step lighter for all else.

Cause barbarians in mithral full plate are just *wrong*.

Now, Elven Chain. Because it's a suboptimal armor type for its class (not breastplate) feel free to make it count as light armor in all ways and give additional bonuses (0% or 5% ASF? Sure!) due to its meticulous craftsmanship. I'm all for that. Elven Chain has really been shortsticked for 3.x D&D.

Really the only thing that needs to be done is the HP and BAB on this class. the jack of all trades master of non thing is really what it captured which is why it did not have any higher level abilities that were completely on par with some other classes. The sheer number of abilities is what made the class viable but it is a support class not a main line character.

Isn't his HP and BAB in-line with Pathfinder characters as it is?

As far as I can tell, there's no way of assuming the shape of a monstrous humanoid with the Pathfinder rules. Polymorph covers animal, humanoid, or elemental. Greater Polymorph adds dragon and plant. Beast Shape gets animal and magical beast forms. Alter Self just gets humanoid.

I also find it weird that druids don't get Beast Shape. I was thinking that Monstrous Humanoid would make a decent Wild Shape ability, but there's no possibility of that anywhere in the roles that I can see. (Why
restrict druids from becoming centaurs, for example?) While druids do get, essentially, Beast Shape in their wild shape ability, I don't see any particular reason to restrict the spell from them--or even from rangers.

What do folks here think?

Our new druid/barbarian has a lot of good questions:

As far as I can tell, there's no way of assuming the shape of a monstrous humanoid with the Pathfinder rules. Polymorph covers animal, humanoid, or elemental. Greater Polymorph adds dragon and plant. Beast Shape gets animal and magical beast forms. Alter Self just gets humanoid.

I also find it weird that druids don't get Beast Shape. I was thinking that Monstrous Humanoid would make a decent Wild Shape ability, but there's no possibility of that anywhere in the roles that I can see. (Why
restrict druids from becoming centaurs, for example?) While druids do get, essentially, Beast Shape in their wild shape ability, I don't see any particular reason to restrict the spell from them--or even from rangers.

Historically, a trained longbowman could release 2 arrows in six seconds. Legendary archers could do more. That's the bit with D&D -- it's heroic fantasy. If we limit the number of attacks to what could be historically done by a typical combatant... it gets kind of tame.

The way I understand D&D, and would like to see it run, is that levels 1-10 are what one normally understands as 'heroic'. 11-20, you're in the legendary, superheroic range, and the fighters and archers and rogues can and should be able to do impressive, impossible things, just like the wizards and clerics. put into that perspective, the rapid-firing bowman should be getting his third arrow in the air/round around 9th level. As it stands it's at 6th, (rapid shot +4,+4,-1) so we're not too far off here when you look at it.

What I have never understood is that we can infuse a weapon with all the energies of the mutliverse, but something a simple as a magical auto-cocking crossbow seems rare in the game?

In the Movie Hawk the Slayer, one of the heroes has a magical crossbow, it reloads automatically allowing for full auto-fire and has a clip of bolts that acts like a bag of holding. But I don't think I have ever seen a similar item in D&D.

Hawk the Slayer is full of awesome crack. :D

range and penetrating power are the reasons archer did better than use of slings. a skilled sling wielder could let those shot fly pretty darn fast (imagine them grabbing a hand full of shots with their off hand and loading shot after slung shot.)

how is drawing an arrow from a quiver a free action?? i cant imagine it is much faster than drawing daggers from sheaths. (prolly actually slower)

stop putting your longbow on a pedestal. (even IF longbows are THAT great, lets get some variety up in this piece by making other ranged weapons an option.

A round is still 6 seconds, right? on to a little pet peeve of mine. I just can't see a bowman getting off more than about 2 shots in that time, without hundreds of years of experience like Legolas the Prettiest. Bows have been getting a free ride since 3.0, and only mechanisms like the repeating crossbow and fast-drawing weapons like throwing knives/darts and shruiken should allow a missile-using combatant to utilize his full attacks. proficient? 1 attack. rapid shot? 2 attacks (At a -2 for both) and it stops there until you get in the legendary hero BAB+16 range. I can deal with making bows a little stronger (and crossbows too!) to compensate, cause what's wrong with an Arbalest that does 2d10 18-20/x2 damage and takes a full round to reload, really?

however if it states a greatsword is 6' long, and you are in a 8' diameter tunnel and trying to fight, can you swing the sword over your head? no, around to the side? no.

Obviously the space is confining, you should either swtich weapons or talk with the dm about how to use it at present and how it will limit you.

Obviously you half-sword it and use it as a very dangerous and sharp quarterstaff. Fortunately for the Fighter, this is all part of the training regimen and among the fundamental techniques for the greatsword. ;)

This isn't so easy to do with a longbow though, which really only has one function.

Basically it's such a simple and crude and inaccurate weapon that no amount of training or lack therof helps. You load it, you point it at the enemy, you rack the handle back and forth as quickly as you can, and when it's empty you hide.

Fine by me for the historical version, and seems to fit. I may even downgrade the damage: it was usually used with some sort of poison, and barely had enough power to pierce the skin. Certainly an annoyance though.

Then you have the exotic, as written version for the sort that was shown in the movie Van Helsing, a fast firing, powerful, accurate doom-chucker.

Archade wrote:

I've always liked the class (although hated the name), and it's interesting to watch what the class can do up to 8th level ...

If I recall correctly, the class went through at least one name change.

Every so often, I've wondered about the idea of a Changeling (from Eberron) Factotem going into the Chameleon prestige class (from Races of Destiny).

it's one of the foundations of the Factotum Handbook over on the wizards boards.

MerrikCale wrote:

where was the Factotum from again?

was that Dungeonscape? Never bought that book

Yes, it is from Dungeonscape. The very same book that was authored by Paizo's very own Jason Bulmahn.

I happen to believe that the changes to the Barbarian, Bard and Monk in Pathfinder came directly from the mechanics of the Factotem class. I have looked at it a bit and it seems to me that the Factotem would fit nicely in Pathfinder.

that said, are the number of Inspiration Points received by the Factotum in line with class power levels? (keeping in mind that they refresh quickly and easily)

You know, on one hand, I really want Pathfinder to be able to easily use 3.5 materials, and on the other hand, there were somethings from 3.5 that didn't work well even within the structure of 3.5. I never warmed up to the Factotum, and I'm not sure when all is said and done and I start adding in other classes after the PFRPG is out for my campaign, that I'm going to give this class a second thought.

On the "all skills are class skills" front, I noticed this with the Savant class from the Dragon Magazine Compendium Volume One as well. Its an enormous deal at first level, but I do think that over the course of the campaign, it evens out a lot more.

Right, I like the idea of the class, and it pulls off 'jack of all trades' better than anything else so far. It also was obviously an attempt to make a more 4E like class within the constraints of 3.5.

All that said, I'm about to play one in a campaign that's been imported from Forgotten Realms 3.5, and am kind of in love with the idea of the class. It IS troublesome otherwise, and I don't blame you at all for considering a skip. ;)

you're probably right about the class skills, The Rogue gets over half the available skills as class, so I won't worry about that.

I'm changing Arcane Dilettante in how it applies to 0 level spells to more match Pathfinder's 'at will' 0's, any 0 level spells selected can be used once/combat with the expenditure of an inspiration point, and works as normal otherwise.

So importing some 3.5 classes here, and I want to see how the Factotum will slot in. Has anyone else looked at this? It's also a great opportunity to fix anything that was wonly with the Factotum as it was originally written.

Okay well first thing, the Factotum has all skills as class skills. With Pathfinder's change to class skills this may be overkill. I'm not sure how to fix this.

obviously channeling positive energy will be the same as a cleric doing that, which is a bit of a buff any way you look at it.

So importing some 3.5 classes here, and I want to see how the Factotum will slot in. Has anyone else looked at this? It's also a great opportunity to fix anything that was wonly with the Factotum as it was originally written.

TreeLynx wrote:

How do you use a quarterstaff as a double weapon? Use of both ends of the pole is certainly part of spear martial use.

It was the word "greatspear" that threw me. I was automatically picturing a longspear, which would be entirely too unweildy to be an effective double weapon, or whirled about like a quarterstaff.

I would call a 'Greatspear' a spear with an unusually large head, like a bastard sword on the end of a pole. :D

But, yes, this should wait until the Equipment Chapter...
(I WAS waiting, but when I saw this topic, that I had already written myself a note on for when the Equipment Chapter comes up, I couldn't resist :-)

I wondered, After seeing the thread on Shields though, I decided to go for it. ;)

Well, the way I see it, the advantage of a spear for the individual user is its defensive abilities. There are basically only two ways to fight a spearman: attack the spear or get inside his range. This is valid for both the longspear and the standard 6ft spear.

And of course if the spearman is skilled, you're looking at all the problems of fighting a quarterstaff, except that one end is very very pointy.

I don't know how to do this without getting overly complex within the rules though, and I think that's the problem: spears are too versatile to be covered under just one simple rule.

Spears and other polearms were the kings of the battlefield up until there were practical battle firearms. The sword was a trusty sidearm for those who could afford it, but the primary implement of war for all, from peasant to king has been the spear. Why are they always so poorly represented in RPGs?

So I ask, how can the spear be improved, without overcomplicating its use? 3.5 and previous editions have always given the spear it a lackluster back seat to other more glamorous weapons like the sword and the axe, when it should really be the first choice of anyone who takes up arms for a living.

There's precedent for class training bypassing the ability requirements for feats. (The ranger's TWF). I don't see much wrong with allowing fighters to ignore the ability requirements of Combat Feats, (or at least the entry level feats, perhaps limit their ability to go further up the tree) due to their training.