Emergent's page

So you can prepare 5 cantrips - am I to understand you can cast any of those 5 as often as you like?

Which is completely different than the leveled spells, whre you can prepare a number of spells and can cast each prepared spell once (meaning you might want to prepare the same spell more than once)?

At first I hated it, but now I'm not so sure. I've noticed some people here like it. If anyone of them read this, help me understand.

See, for me the wizard is good at spells. A level 13 wizard has tremendous magic powers, but they don't beat a beefy level 3 barbarian in an arm wrestling match. Classes get better at what their class does, but not at what they don't.

What's the advantage of breaking that mold? My guess is that it opens up interesting class combinations. I also think someone pointed out that it allows the group combined to do things like sneak that they couldn't before. But that just seems to make all the classes run together.

It also bothers me because it means that the encounters must be tuned very carefully not to make everyone equally likely to succeed - those couple of points you get from Legendary better pay off. But a single d20 has a high variance that the sum of multiple die rolls doesn't have. This seems like it would result in a lot of misses, even for those who are most likely to hit.

Is there anyone here who didn't like this, but has come around? How did you do it?

For those of you who do like it, why is it?

Thanks Radiarch, some great ideas there.

I think I'm starting to see what's up here. My problem with going with TWF sword/shield is that you have to increase dex and spend a bunch of feats so that you get one extra attack with a shield. That didn't seem worth it.

But I wasn't including the free bull rush with every slam. . .

Little things like that could make a big difference.

if you go TWF you can use the shieldbash-chain to deal good damage (and bullrushes) with your shield.

Can you explain what you mean by "shieldbash-chain"?

Also, I like your point buy a lot.

I dunno about Ice walker. How about Veteran of Battle or Fortified Drinker or Armor Expert;

I love Veteran of Battle and Fortified Drinker. I'll see if I can work one or both in.

Vikings didn’t use scimitars or even anything close.

It's true. And yes, Wasum, I considered a rapier hah. They don't fit his theme well, but I could see a feat path with them that makes sense to me (improved crit, crit focus, etc.). I'm not sure which feats are best for the Battleaxe, but I'll keep looking.

Thank you everyone for your replies.

First, sorry about the "two handed fighting" error. I meant two weapon fighting. It's corrected in the OP.

There are guides suggesting go with sword/board and two weapon fighting, but they don't make sense to me. This isn't surprising since I don't know anything, but I thought it could be clarified.

Also, to be clear, I'm a fighter with the Viking archetype. I could take a second archetype, but probably won't.

I'm about to start a Reign of Winter campaign, and I find myself having difficulty getting my character built - I'm essentially a newbie. I played a little 3.5, but really the last time I gamed regularly 2nd ed was in its prime.

I'm not that interested in super optimization, but I'm in danger of gimping myself without some help (you should see the magus build I tried first. . .). Party has a druid (whom I hope will be healing some) and a couple of rangers.

I've decided on Fighter with the Viking archetype.

Here's what I've got (20pt buy, Human(Ulfen)):

STR 18
DEX 12
CON 15
INT 10
WIS 8
CHA 13

Skills: Animal Handling, Intimidate, Swim

Feats: Power Attack, Toughness(?), (?)

Traits: Shield Bearer, Ice Walker

I can't decide between Battleaxe, Longsword or Scimitar (the last leading to critical feats).

I'm short on a philosophy behind him, but I think it comes down to using a shield, but still seeking as much damage as I can. I went with low dex because I don't see much value in it besides AC. A bit higher CHA in hopes of taking a level or two of Savage Skald.

I see online guides suggesting getting two handed fighting (edit: I meant two weapon fighting sword/board), but that seems like a lot of investment to get one extra attack with a shield. If you think it's a good idea, can you explain why? I don't get it.

I have some backstory for him and he's a reasonably bright guy who (gleefully) makes poor choices, so I'd rather have lower WIS than INT, though I know that has some drawbacks.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to your constructive and destructive criticism.

That's awesome , thanks so much for your thoughtful reply , Turin the Mad. I'm making him for Reign of Winter and I'm real excited. Ill post my first attempt later for your consideration.

Also you might be giving up heavy armor, but doesnt the shield AC bonus make up for that?

the archtype seems pretty meh to me. it would seem to me you would be much better off just takeng a level or two of barbarian and extra rage , and keep your armor and weapon training.

Do others generally agree with this? I'm relatively new to Pathfinder, but it looks like a Barbarian gets 2 additional rounds per level. In just three levels of the Viking archetype (level 7) you'd have the equivalent of the Extra Rage feat, without actually expending the feat, and then it continues to grow from there.

Are none of the higher rage powers worth getting? They'd be another advantage to using the archetype, I think.