DetectiveKatana's page

Rules as written it seems pretty clear that it works with all weapons.

I would argue that rules as intended was that it would be used for flurry, and that it was clearly meant to be used in that fashion rather than with, say, a greataxe. This isn't from the "punch" text, this is from the pre-reqs as well as the flavor of the ability as a whole. I don't think using it with, say, a big weapon will prove to be broken and I might even allow it, but I think it will get most of it's effectiveness with a flurry.

So it looks like this has become less about what you'd like martials to do and more about some sort of argument. In any case, here are some things I'd like high level martials to be able to do...

*Be less gear dependent. For example, I'd like for a level 16 fighter with 18 Dexterity and no gear to default to being better at dodging an enemy's sword than a level 2 fighter with the same stats. I'd prefer for it to be significantly better, but at this point I'd settle for just a little better.

*Be able to deal with magic users on a one-on-one basis. This means things like better saves or spell resistance.

*Be able to do realistically impressive stuff. Not leap from city to city, but jumping rooftops even in heavy armor.

*Be able to put their skill to really good use in combat somehow.

So yeah, that's what I've got as far as ideas. I know that at least right now there aren't a lot o rules to support that first one.

This is true. On the whole, I believe players should be reasonably cautious. However, if my players reach a point where they feel a need to hold up the game checking every five foot square for traps then I, as a DM, have done something wrong*.

*The exception, I suppose, would be if the point of the dungeon was to make them feel paranoid and perhaps trapped themselves. But that would be a rare case if only because f how difficult that would be to do without it affecting their attitude for the rest of the game.

I will say this, of all the whining that has come up one thing is relevant here. Spells and such could use some standardized rules language for spells and what makes a spell simultaneous. I would say multiple attack rolls in a single standard action would probably count as simultaneous effects, but I shouldn't have to interpret that.

Also, since you don't aim the javelins with Holy Ice (They launch themselves, rather than you throwing them, which sounds a lot like Clenched Fists and Spiritual Weapon to me) do you even get SA with that?

You are write, weapon-like is based on it either being a ray (Specifically clarified as weapon-like in the FAQ) or described as functioning like a weapon. Not looking like a weapon, mind you, but functioning as a type of weapon and being wielded as that weapon. I.E. It's being weaponlike is dependent on it being like a weapon. Again, this argument has no real functional purpose, since I do not think there is a weapon where your character makes the attack roll that is not weapon-like in some way.

On a side note, greater invisibility is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I used the example to clarify ways in which all of the rays firing at once is, again, mechanical and not fluff based. The fact that you could get a similar effect with a different spell by that time, regardless of which way the spell works, has no consequence for the subject of how the spell works.

Ok, wait a second. Mr. SKR... I would like to politely suggest that you might be mistaken about produce flame.

"Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon." (PRD entry for Produce Flame, emphasis mine.)

Seems to me that this would make produce flame weapon-like. Specifically, it is treated as a thrown weapon.

Edit: Also MTD, the distinction is important. Flame Blade doesn't say it "looks like a scimitar" it says you WIELD it as a scimitar. This means that it functions with feats that apply to scimitars and, I assume, has the crit range of a scimitar.

Thanks for all the advice guys, the session kicks off soon and I've decided to let the dice fall where they may. I'll post results tomorrow.

Two points:
1. Hold a character design session where everyone rolls together. Improbably high becomes a lot less probable with some players. You also discuss your PARTY as a balanced entity and your role in it, not as a sidekick, but as a key component.
2. It is up to the DM to ensure 'equity of story' prominence and time, that isn't about stats, its about your character narrative.

1. That's how we've always done it. I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, or saying it's prone to abuse, I'm saying that when you introduce an element of randomness you can end up with a completely lopsided party. It's rare in the world as a whole, but I've seen it enough for me to just not want to deal with it.

2. That's fine, theoretically. But I don't want to play a character where the DM has to hand-craft a situation where my character is more useful than the guy who's better at everything than everyone. And yes, if a guy rolls that well at character, it is VERY easy for him to be better at everything than everyone.

Of course, some people also really don't mind that style of play and that's fine. Some people appreciate the fact that there's a Hercules and Ieolus vibe to their adventures. It just doesn't work for me.

And it's not about being top dog, it's about making sure no one is overshadowed due to something they had no control over before the game even started.

The Katana shatters because it is being wielded by a Paladin, and not a true Samurai warrior.

(On a serious note, I would have issues with my Paladin using a weapon that specifically got bonuses to killing a helpless opponent, which the katana has with it's "Deadly" weapon quality.)