Destiney007's page

I say you did the best thing you could, referenced other forms of fantasy. All these people crying for death are forgetting all the times Superman got into it with Batman over MO. That's the joy of roleplaying. Or how about Watchmen? Or Avengers? There is no right or wrong way to handle anything that is purely roleplaying.
If everyone followed an eye for an eye, the world would be blind.

As a GM and a player, I can honestly say mistakes get made, that's the joys of our being human. Good job in talking to your DM, that truly is the hardest part.
It sounds like he very much so underestimated the class (let's not crap on a guy who in this day and age made an assumption and was wrong) and has since tried several ways to balance things out, through extensive trial and error. Kudos to him, too bad it didn't work out well, but at least in the end he decided to just look at YOUR character, in an effort to keep everyone happy (b~&!%ing fighter).
It blows me away how people can play a certain way, and think any other play style is wrong, when having fun is the ONLY right thing to do.

+1 Ulmaxes.

I also have played a few classes in Pathfinder, not just Summoning spellcasters, but others, and shockingly, to be good with something EVERYONE has to put stuff into what they want to do. Anyone can pick up a dagger, but the character who put feats and class abilities into it is much better. Any spell that has 9 (yes NINE) level variations of it IMO isn't a spell the designers intended to be on par with fireball. There are 2 fireball spells.

Summoning is a decision people make. It has never (for myself) been a way to deal damage, its about options. My current 4th level summoner most certainly has ranks in handle animal, because in older editions I used many of my summoned monsters for various tasks. They are tools, not just spells.

Hell, in 3rd edition I had a halfling wizard (on Harn) named Oz, whose life was SAVED, because he had a brown bag of tricks, and they were distracting long enough merely being extra targets. Several times. Mirror Image does the same thing, but at least this way, it can hurt back.

The difference with all the above comments in regards to folks getting their pets to do something just showcases the difference between companions and all other animals. If an animal is trained to do something, it doesn't matter who issues the command, UNLESS there is some kind of a bond with the owner. Guard dogs take commands from anyone who knows them (and I mean guard dogs, not pets) a riding horse will follow whoever has the reigns until the person on it issues another command.
Yes, someone next to a horse can make a handle animal to get the animal to do something the rider doesn't want, until the rider issues another command that over rides it. If we wanted to rules lawyer it, you can issue all the commands you want, on your turn, but the animal is not going to do anything until its turn, and in the case of a horse, odds are the rider and horse go at the same time, so the rider's commands will ALMOST always override all other commands.
If someone wants to waste their round timing things and calling commands to screw up an opposing rider, why can't they do it? What is the reasoning not to (how does it unbalance things)?

This may be a silly question, but can you counterspell say a Darkness spell with an Aasimar's Daylight spell-like ability?

But I guess my question is WHY doesn't a longsword qualify for the returning property? I didn't want to go this route, but if you want to "rules lawyer" it, ANY item can be thrown, and the wording for the returning property reads:

Correct me if I am wrong, or point me to the errata, but this does not say that it has to have the "thrown" property, so wouldn't that mean that it can be used on any weapon, even if you wanted to "throw" your crossbow at someone? I just figured it was a common sense thing (I know, common sense can't exist in forums! lol) that you probably shouldn't use the special ability on certain things, but I am failing to see why a blanket statement that you can't do it would be implemented in particular campaigns? Just based on a cost versus reward system.

Also, isn't it possible that the intent for the wording was so people can't apply "returning" to say a longbow, or a crossbow and never run out of ammo, rather than make people fight over what can be thrown and what can't?

Again, I get that some GM's don't want it in their campaigns, and I am not trying to impose my will on anyone, I just don't see why it matters, so I am trying to understand.

Again I find myself late to the party, but I just had an idea featuring Improvised Thrown Weapons. What about applying both an encumbrance penalty AND a non proficiency penalty to heavy thrown objects, similar to the way armor works.
Basically, a medium person with a 17 strength has the following loads:
Light 86 lbs. or less (no penalties)
Medium 87–173 lbs. (+3 max dex, –3 check penalty x4 run speed)
Heavy 174–260 lbs. (+1 max dex, –6 check penalty x3 run speed)

If such a character picks up an item like the above table (253lbs) why not apply a max dex (or strength, depending on what the character uses to attack with at range) based on the weight of the weapon. As well, due to a lack of proficiency the check penalty applies to the attack roll, but you take either the -4 for improvised weapon or the load penalty to checks, whichever is higher. As well, since it takes so much effort to throw something, anything that falls under medium or heavy obviously takes a full round action to throw. As for the run speed being included, use it as a "max range increments" such an item can be thrown. This introduces so many variables that take care of itself, such as the hulk being able to throw heavier stuff easier and farther, since his carrying capacity is much higher, but also puts realistic limits. The aforementioned table could thus be thrown, but no farther than 30ft for a medium sized person, and without proper training (but seriously, who trains to throw a TABLE?)the person throwing can still only get +1 from their dex or str to throw it, and even then still have a -6 on the attack roll. Yes, it makes it hard to hit, but even then, wouldn't it BE hard to hit a person with a table?

I know people have not talked about this for a while, at least in this thread, but has anyone considered that a weapon without the throwing property, but has the returning property, already has its own costs/penalties factored in, meaning its possible without the "throwing" enhancement, but not exactly the best use of the weapon?
If we look at the aforementioned returning longsword, and a character doesn't have the throwing ability on it but wants the opportunity to throw it once in a while without switching weapons, its not exactly optimal. There are so many issues to work around I can't see how it could be abused to the point of just not allowing it?
I ask because even with the returning property, a longsword isn't meant to be thrown, so its going to take a standard action to throw, and a free action to catch on the return, regardless of abilities it possesses other than "throwing". The weapon is still going to suffer a -4 on the attack roll, since its not what it was meant for. Not to mention that if you throw it at anything further than 10ft away, you are looking at range increment penalties. Throwing this longsword at someone 15ft away not only provokes AoO, but suffers a -6 penalty. With a FEAT yes this can be cut down to only -2 (still taking the standard action to throw and provoking), but if the GM still isn't comfortable with a character whipping his sword 6 times in a round at someone 30ft away, it is up to the GM to determine how many free actions, based on what the free actions are, that can be done in a round. You could easily say, in 6 seconds, its unreasonable for the longsword to come back more than once. Even Quick Draw can't change that, since it is referencing something that is already on you, and it doesn't matter how fast a person is if they have to wait for a magic item to reappear.
Sorry if this post seems unnecessary, I'm just trying to understand how other GMs make decisions and whatnot.

I just wanted to pop on here and say a HUGE thank you to Kyle. Every single person I run into who plays PF I tell to get your program. Sorry to hear it's stressing you out. I have no requests, every time you upgrade it the damn thing just gets better and better. So seriously, thank you for doing a damn fine Professional job.

Alchemist would at least compliment the Intelligence, but has anyone considered going barbarian instead of monk? In reality he is in armor, thus voiding most of what compliments the monk.

Barbarian
-gives good weapon proficiencies and base attack bonus, as well as a good Fort (lets face it, the other BIG thing Bats needs is good saves, honestly they kept him alive the most over all these years) and reactionary bonuses.
-Batman is pissed. All the time. Sometimes he lets out his frustration on bad guys. I give you: Rage. Next.
-Skills that compliment a ranger so well

Ranger
-Shares many barbarian skills.
-As OP originally stated, the aforementioned Track, Favored Enemy and Terrain, but also the Combat style feats, which can come in as a handy bonus you pick up on the way to Favored Terrain.

Fighter (Unarmed Fighter Archetype)
-Gives several bonus feats as well as opening up options like Weapon Specialization, as well as allowing feat options so you can let your unarmed strikes do nifty stuff, or take improved throw etc. Throw on a cestus or two, maybe some two weapon fighting, and you could have a decent non-monk unarmed fighter.

Make him an Alchemist as well and you have one independent dude who can kick some serious ass.

I am actually debating a Batman build with a 25 point buy, and now think I am closer than I first realized, but it won't be easy!
Don't get me wrong, I know my character will lack most of the awesomeness that is Batman, but what the hell, it may be a very fun thing to at least try.