Lycar's page

375 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just as an aside, StD may be a 15th level skill feat, but most people only get skill feats at even levels, so effectively lv. 16 for non-Rogues/investigators.

Castilliano wrote:

So you're afraid the monster is you?! :-O

Kind of goes along with some of the others where the monster controls your self or changes your self. Dying is scary, torture is scarier, but losing your identity, perhaps while experiencing it from the inside, that's both torture and dying combined. :-)
Now add a touch of dread...

That's still a monster doing things to you. That's on them. An outside influence.

But telling yourself that the curse isn't so bad, or that is now your duty to put it to good use, that you are doing to yourself. That is on you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, the idea of being a true Lycanthrope in that world. Because of the Curse, no matter what else you do, you will go insane and try to kill and eat people (at least those who don't share the curse).

So you either try to fight the curse, but you will never be able to get rid of it as long as you live, no matter what you do, and if you screw up locking yourself up on the nights of a full moon, people will die. If you are lucky, a slayer gets to you first.

Then again, hey, wolves gonna hunt, no matter what. Could as well make the most of it. After all, when you can do something (violently permanent) about that corrupt guard/sheriff/judge/whatever and you don't, well that would make you the a+$#+$$~.

Why, you'd basically be doing people a favour! Get your kill, society gets rid of an a#$~%&!!, it's win-win! Just don't look too hard at what these people were actually doing, wouldn't want to muddy the waters with them having reasons and whatnot...

In other words, how easy and seductive it would be to lean into the curse and willingly become a total monster. At least even murder-hobo PCs usally have the good graces not to pretend to be particularly good guys.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
My dice have been with me for 20 plus years. They worship me and roll the way I tell them.

Oh yeah, mine too. Except, they give me the rolls I Need, not the rolls I Want.

Apparently, I need to roll just 2 shy of the target number fairly frequently. It must teach humility or something.

In PF2, if those 2 points would have been covered by the target being flat-footed or otherwise de-buffed, they may be trying to teach teamwork.

As for dice, the d20 I have must pull double-duty both for D&D style games where higher is better, and another system where you try to roll at or below the target number to succeed. So far they have been rolling pretty balanced, so I can't complain.

But yes, sometimes just throwing a handful of dice at the enemy is soo satisfactory.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.

You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.

Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.

The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'

Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I suppose that these aren't as open-ended or subject to interpretation as that which is discussed in the Wish spell, but most mundane options don't behave that way, by design. Most of the time, if they are, they are usually glaring anomalies that need more specifics behind them, not unlike pre-errata Battle Medicine.

But that's the thing, isn't it. Feats and class features have very strict definitions about what they do and what they do not allow a character to do.

Wish doesn't.

So as it stands, casters with access to Wish can break reality in a way martials can't. That is, try to bend the rules, because they are not strictly defined for that spell. So the more Wish gets allowed to bend the rules, the further casters with Wish deviate from the norm all other characters have to adhere to. Which then should inform any GMs decision about just how much leeway they are willing to give a player in bending the rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...

This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*

Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?

*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a lot of the things Wizards can do, Martials can already do but better at the appropriate levels. Deal damage? Martials outpace them in spades. Debuff enemies? Trip, Intimidate, etc. are more reliable than spells are, and are far more likely to succeed. Plus, spells can't provide Flanking or Flat-footed as reliably, either, whereas martials can do this with relative ease in most combats. Out of Combat benefits? Again, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a Martial can have the same amount of Out of Combat utilities as Wizards, if not more if they are Rogues or Investigators.

As for how Rogues or Barbarians do this, it's largely in the way of feats and other mundane combinations. For example, a Rogue can take feats like Dread Striker or Gang Up to expand the amount of available targets they can utilize Sneak Attack on beyond their norm. Bonus points for feats like Opportune Backstab to get a reaction that works when an ally attacks with you while benefitting from the previously mentioned feats. As for Barbarians, a Barbarian that is Giant Instinct, for example, can take a reach weapon (or utilize the Giant's Lunge feat for D12 weapon damage dice) and the Giant's/Titan's Stature feats, combined with Whirlwind Attack, to affect all enemies within 30 feet with a very powerful attack. And those are just a couple examples for each class being able to use their primary class features beyond their usual means.

That's not what I mean. If a character can take a feat to do a thing, then that is by definition within their 'usual means'. The question was about the Wish spell, and how much leeway a caster has/should have at trying to bend the rules there.

So what would be an example of a non-caster trying to get past their 'usual means' in a matter mirroring the caster wanting to change damage type on a spell (outside of his means) instead of just casting a spell with the right damage type (inside of his means)?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Good GM: OK, sounds reasonable. Do it!

Bad GM: No! I won't allow you to change a spell on the fly! Just chose one already existent spell and use it or give up the idea of use wish.

Obs.: I'm using Good and Bad GM as a fun way to show the possibilities. Please try to understand this as a fun joke to separate the both option. You aren't a bad GM just to not allow something that you don't want to happen in the game or that you are afraid that can be too problematic.

Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...

This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*

Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?

*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it seems that the most sane interpretation is that Beastkin, Kitsune, Anandi etc. have a default/birth form, another form (usually human) they can assume via Change Shape, but once they have assumed any one form, they stay in it indefinitely, until they actively Change Shape back again.

So no form is an active Polymorph effect, other Polymorph effects do not need to counteract anything, benign or otherwise, but the Change Shape ability can be used to try and counteract an ongoing Polymorph effect, as long as the shapeshifter in question can perform the necessary Concentrate action.

Does that sound about right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if I understand the arguments so far correctly, while a Bestkin changing between human(oid) and hybrid forms is an active Polymorph effect, actually maintaining either form is not.

So it does not matter what form they are in, Polymorph effects affect them normally.

They just have an innate ability to 'shake off' a detrimental Polymorph effect, thanks to their innate Change Shape ability. At least if said Polymorph effect still allows them the mental wherewithal to actually use their ability.

I suppose that is the interpretation that both makes most sense and is the easiest to actually play with. It also means, a Beastkin in human(oid) form does not trigger Detect Magic.

Thank you all for your input.

So Beastkin, the rare versatile heritage, are stated as having their hybrid form as their 'default' form. Which means, if they use their innate Change Shape ability to assume their human(oid) form, they are under a constant Polymorph effect, correct?

Because any other Polymorph effect, for instance from Baleful Polymorph, would have to pass a counteract check to actually affect the 'disguised' Beastkin.

If so, what is the spell level of that effect? Counteracting says:
"If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level."

So for Beastkin in human(oid) form, it would be a 'character level divided by 2, round up' then?

Also, even a beneficial spell like Enlarge would fight with a Beastkin's human(oid) form then. Interesting.

Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I easily see how it is complex to build a caster that aims to be good at attacking single opponents.

Likewise, it is also complex to build a Martial that aims to be good at attacking several opponents and targeting AC or saves.

I'm not sure complex is the right word. In both case, the issue is more a matter of limited options and some of the solutions being high level.

Building a whirlwind strike barbarian isn't hard, it's just something you can't do until level 14.

Especially if you also want to be a Dragon while doing it. Before lv. 16, only with Dragon Disciple + Free Archetype.

Of course, a Fighter MCing Wizard gets a 6th level spell slot at lv. 16 too.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Why would I ever help the fighter? Their +2 has them covered. I'd sooner help myself

If it's just about hitting, then yes.

When it comes to 'who has the right elemental rune on their beatstick to deal with resistance/vulnerability', it might turn out that a hit/crit from the Fighter is worth more then a hit from you. A lot more in corner cases.

Also, this cuts both ways: If you are a ranged Rogue... would you rather roll for Stealth every round, or would it be helpful if the Fighter sacrificed one of his own actions to trip or grab a foe, enabling your ranged Sneak Attack? Or, if your Rogue has the right feat(s), just keeping the enemy frightened?

Because a Sneak Attack from a Rogue can easily be worth more then a Fighter's 2nd strike, and it will be worth more then their 3rd.

So yeah, you will help the party if your action is worth less then whatever the one you are enabling is doing with theirs.

Incidentally, that is also why buff spells are worth so much more on the martials now. No more CoD-Zilla. No more divine metamagic and Nightsticks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Then there is the fact that 80% of people straigth up ignore actual use case when talking about casters and jump straight to white room where the caster somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just doing 2 strikes.

Then there is the fact that 80 % of people straight up ignore actual use cases when talking about martials and jump straight to the white room where the martial somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just getting 10th level spell slots, 3 or 4 slot per spell level in all but 10th level instead of 2 up to 6th, and legendary casting instead of master.

... Sounds stupid when you put it like that, doesn't it?

Yeah, the classes who get master or legendary weapon proficiencies, get to max out their attack stat, class features that boost weapon damage and class feats that make them better at hitting things with other things are better at hitting things with other things then the caster classes.

And what do the casters get instead? Just the measly ability to rewrite reality. What a rip-off... /s

Yes, a 'simple' caster class that just works out of the box like a Fighter would be nice. But how, pray tell, do you figure you can handle such a complex theme as magic? How much would you (have to) dumb it down to make the class 'simple'?

What would 'opt-in complexity' even look like for a caster? Spell access? Sorcerors are simple then. They get their spells locked in, and then you just fire off your slots.

A Warlock-equivalent maybe, one that gets a 'blasting spell' roughly on par with a ranged martial and is supposed to be the 'blaster caster'? Wouldn't get any other spells though. But hey, as long as you get to blast at-will/all day long, that may be just enough?

Or how much reality-altering power would the casters need to pay in exchange for trying to compete with the martials? All of it? Because otherwise, they would still obsolete martials? Some? But then they must still be inferior to martials at martial things.

I just don't see a non-complex caster class, not in this edition or any other. Magic is complex, and if you try to make it simple, you will just end up making it mundane.

But yes, it means the caster classes are the least rookie-friendly ones.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Funny how I didn't mention any of those terms, nor said they were good. So, no idea why you are responding to me about those. Also, funny how you try to spin my post to "all those team games are built to work against each other" when that part of my post was in reference to PvP games where it doesn't matter how you get to the end "winning" is "winning" doesn't matter how you got there. Its why my example was Chess (one of the oldest games in the world).

*Shrug* You are the one who dragged PvP games into this. If you don't know why you did that, *I* certainly can't help you with that. My point was that roleplaying games are supposed to be cooperative, and that things that foster adversarial competitions are bad for that.

Also, for RPGs the idea is usually 'the way is the goal', so it absolutely does matter how you get to the end.

And that is why there needs to be classes of different complexity. Players wanting complex classes are catered to, but at the same time, those not wanting complexity are not left behind either.

That does require both classes to still perform roughly the same though. That's all there is to it.

Temperans wrote:
People wanting easy mode and people wanting challenge could always coexist, the issue was not that they couldn't coexist. The issue has always been mismatched expectations as to what type of character is appropriate, which has nothing to do with "easy vs complex" or "low power vs high power" but bad communication and people not compromising.

... You do realise though, that 'people no compromising' was

a) a problem almost solely because of the mismatched power levels of classes in previous editions and

b) that an experienced player can 'tone it down', but an inexperienced one can not 'tone it up', or at least not without losing control of their own character.

Which is exactly why, no, they really could not coexist at the same table.

Temperans wrote:
Enabling both simple and complex classes to give the exact result just makes the people playing the complex classes feel bad. Telling players "Oh, you don't play those unless you want to play a hard class" is textbook ivory tower design. The very same thing you decried at the start of your post.

That's the problem of the players expecting more power. PF2 just isn't the right game for them I'm afraid.

And yes, if the game doesn't come clean about the fact that the classes are supposed to perform roughly the same, that is not ideal. Still, PF2 is better about it then previous iterations. For example, most classes are perfectly functional just with their base features, and class feats are basically side-grades and extra options. Therefore, there are not so much 'trap' options, but rather feat combinations that work better then others. And that's why the retraining rules explicitly allow retraining them, if a player find he made ill-informed choices in the past.

Temperans wrote:
Finally, the whole "experienced and inexperienced players can play together at the same table is a great achievement", is literally ignoring all other games. You are literally congratulating PF2 for doing the bare minimum of any TRPG, that's not a great an achievement it's the base standard.

I still feel like congratulating PF2 for doing it after D&D 3.x failed so spectacularly, and even PF1 could not fix what WotC had broken.

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Are you really going to argue that a game being complicated for the sake of being complicated is good and anyone that opposes it is a power gamer?

You are literally responding to a person saying, "the base difficulty should be based around a slightly below average player" due to most people not wanting to think too hard for a game. So you respond, "the system doesn't reward mastery despite being incredibly fiddly to play more than half the classes". Congrats you are arguing that half or more of the classes are just hamster wheels and players should just like it.

Do you know the only time that games increase the difficulty while keeping the same result? Single player games that are giving the player a challenge, or multiplayer games that pit you agains each other. Very few of those games start you off at above average difficulty and those that do are built to reward system mastery (ex: chess).

'Ivory Tower' game design, trap options, gating... all toxic things for a game that is supposed to be played together instead of against one another, things that the PF2 devs tried to get rid of.

Some people like to play in 'easy' mode, some people prefer 'hard' mode. But in other editions, these people could not peacefully coexist at the same table.

Edit: Also what Mathmuse said about classes based on story archetypes. That.
In PF2, they can, with caveats. But the price is that, yes, if you want to 'challenge yourself', you do it by playing something with more complicated mechanics, and no, you don't get to lord it over the 'filthy casuals'.

Because at the end of the day, for all its mechanical glory and combat focus, Pathfinder is still very much a role-playing game. And if anything, enabling both the simple and complex classes to contribute roughly equally (martials still don't get to rewrite reality like casters, but whatever) to both the co-operative storytelling and tactical combat parts of the game, and thus both experienced and inexperienced players to play together at the same table, is an amazing achievement.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
Tldr - I feel the game should be easier with the option to ramp up difficulty instead of the other way around. The players who don't want complexity should be catered to before the ones who do - the people who want challenge can make it for themselves easier than newbs who might get turned off if they have to do a bunch of research to tweak the game and such

There is something to this that I can only offer personal/anecdotal experience on, for what it's worth.

Former iterations of the game created an expectation that 'system mastery' will allow you to outperform other players. In PF2, this is not really possible. Just want to hit things with other things? Take a Fighter, get +2 to to-hit, how easy is that!

Barbarians are just slightly more complicated, Rage away and go to town. Rogues' sneak attacks need to be set up, but with some experience, it is fairly easy to do regularly. Still screwed by immunity to precision damage though.

Are a Barbarian or a Rogue a better fighter then the Fighter? Hardly, but they are not supposed to be.

And on the other end, we have fiddly classes like the Magus or Swashbuckler. You need to learn how they work. And what is your reward? Do you get to out-fight the Fighter? Still no. You get to play a fiddly class. That is your reward. No more, no less.

In other words, the game design does no longer reward system mastery with (much) more power. For some people, that is the turn-off.

SuperBidi wrote:
From the answers, it looks like this proposition was not really a good one. Sorry about that.

Sorry about being so harsh, but you did ask about opinions. And yeah, I do happen to have pretty strong ones about that (sore) subject.

But why not go the other way around? PF2 has some good things that can improve PF1 play, even for the 'optimisation enthusiasts'. Mostly things that shore up martial's ability to not-suck in the face of spells doing unkind things to their ability to still be relevant.

My gut-feeling would be, give martials abilities that help casters land their spells and make casters need them. Which is, of course, one of the main gripes with PF2.

Perpdepog wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Like the old Gauntlets of Ogre power that set your ability score to 18 unless it was over that. Something that sets the ability score to 16 or so. Valuable for people looking for a boost to a tertiary stat but if its one they're investing in, probably useless.
A niche for lower-level apex items, perhaps?

Apex items as they exist now either up a score by +2 or set it to 18. But you can only have one of those.

Possibly there is a niche for something less potent. Only becoming available at high(er) levels still, people would eventually be able to shore up their tertiary stats, but they would have to live through the lower levels first.

That way, those who make sacrifices at the start reap the benefits right from the beginning, those who endure with low tertiaries can eventually get them up. For a price, as that still is gold not spent on other options. That way, it would not make it a no-brainer option.

Lucas Yew wrote:

While I agree wih most of your points, do remember that this quote is from a twisted, eliticist villain.

BTW such toxic mentality from caster supremacists (or as I call them, "Magocrats") eventually won over my love with PF1's more elaborate "simulationism" and urged me to jump ship...

Because in 3.x/PF1 only casters got to be super. One can argue that PF2 hit them with the nerf hammer too hard, but the gist is, casters favour their mental stats, martials the physical ones. That also means, casters will favour skills that require mental stats, martials will go for skills that play to their strengths. And as magic can no longer replace skills, casters can no longer form 1-man-parties. Which is of course the point.

Nobody gets to be Angel-Summoner, and nobody is stuck being BMX-Bandit.

Stat replacement would only mean that having to favour one set of stats over the other would lose its meaning. Curiously enough, it would be a martial class, Rogue (and Investigator maybe), that would benefit the most. But that would make Rogues so superior at skills that having a Rogue in the party would be all but mandatory. Not good.

So I have a question about the interaction between the Fighter's Bravery feature and the Resounding Bravery feat.

Bravery makes a rolled success on a Will save vs a Fear affect count as a critical success:"When you roll a success at a Will save against a fear effect, you get a critical success instead."

Resounding Bravery says, "When you critically succeed at a Will save against a foe's ability,... These benefits are doubled if you critically succeed against a fear effect."

So, if I parse this correctly, if a Fighter rolls a normal success on a Will save, nothing happens. If he crits, he gets the benefits from Resounding Bravery. So far, so good.

But if the save is triggered by a Fear effect, a success gets upgraded to a critical success. And Resounding Bravery refers to just critically succeeding (which you do automatically on a success) and not to 'rolling a critical success'.

Would it therefore mean that a Fighter who succeeds on a Fear save gets a +2 status bonus to saves and a number of temporary Hit Points equal to their level for 1 minute?

Seems like intimidating a Fighter with a decent WIS and Resounding Bravery is potentially self-defeating.

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Dryades wrote:
The existence of triggers that say “you are about to roll initiative” in contrast to “you roll initiative” makes me inclined to think Battle Cry wouldn’t affect initiative. Most of those triggers alter initiative rolls or results so it would make sense why they would clearly need to happen before the initiative roll instead of after. It seems like a deliberate difference.
Uhm, wouldn't 'you are about to' indicate that the Battle Cry does indeed happen before initiative is actually rolled? In that case, surprise wouldn't even matter. Imagine a bunch of bandits jumping the party, and the Barbarian or whoever letting loose their Battle Cry, giving the bandits second thoughts about that ambush (and thus a penalty to their initiative)...
Uhm... that's what they were saying. Battle Cry says "When you roll initiative", not "you are about to roll initiative". Their point was that the existence of different abilities that say "you are about to roll initiative" makes them inclined to think that "when you roll initiative", which is what Battle Cry says, should be treated differently. I personally don't necessarily agree with this reasoning given that the same thing is said in different ways many places throughout pf2 sourcebooks, but it is definitely a relevant piece of evidence.

Oh okay, my bad. But yes, when it happens while the roll happens, it should not retroactively affect the outcome. I suppose it also makes the game easier to run that way.

Dryades wrote:
The existence of triggers that say “you are about to roll initiative” in contrast to “you roll initiative” makes me inclined to think Battle Cry wouldn’t affect initiative. Most of those triggers alter initiative rolls or results so it would make sense why they would clearly need to happen before the initiative roll instead of after. It seems like a deliberate difference.

Uhm, wouldn't 'you are about to' indicate that the Battle Cry does indeed happen before initiative is actually rolled? In that case, surprise wouldn't even matter. Imagine a bunch of bandits jumping the party, and the Barbarian or whoever letting loose their Battle Cry, giving the bandits second thoughts about that ambush (and thus a penalty to their initiative)...

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Actually, Fighters are not better at combat as a design niche, they just happen to lead the very tight pack because in any game with asymmetrical mechanics, someone has to, and the accuracy is just really potent mathematically, so it worked out that way.

Their 'thing' is that they do the fighting in the most direct way possible, e.g. the fighter is just that good, the rogue has to use sneak attack, the barbarian has to use rage, the Magus has to use Spellstrike, Champions and Monks defend themselves better-- but those things are all special techniques buying back the value of a fighter's raw prowess with a weapon.

Like, the Investigator can make the best case for having an off combat focus, but even then I'm not sure that's true-- I think they designed every class around the idea that combat is too core to the game to be bad at.

Uhm... yes. Fighters get 'hit gud' as their class feature basically. That's the point. It is always on (if only for one weapon type starting lv. 5, oh and they also only get crit effects with that one weapon before lv. 13), while other classes have to work for their damage boosts.

They will not always succeed at getting their damage boosts to work though. In return, they get things Fighters don't. Usually more out-of-combat utility. As usual, it is a trade-off.

Fighters just work, nothing to it. Some people love this simplicity, others hate it. People who want a more 'fiddly' class get to play other martials that do have 'fiddly' mechanics. They just don't get to complain about that, even if their damage boosters work, they don't get to out-damage the Fighter. No reward for system mastery at chargen.

But if you feel that a certain class gets unfairly hampered by this or that class mechanic (and a Magus needing be mindful of AoOs might fall under that for your table), house rule it away at your table. Again, nothing to it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
So, what's stopping folks from house ruling the changes themselves?

*Ding ding ding* And we have a winner!

The Devs try hard to keep the game balanced, because once the Power Creep Genie is out of its bottle, it won't get back inside ever.

Fighters set the Gold Standard for, you guessed it, fighting, and no class that gets to do anything in addition to fighting gets to get to fight as well as that guy. Get over it.

But if there are things that make things 'unfun' for you, the first thing you need to ask yourself is: 'Which niche is this rule protecting?'

If you have that figured out, the next question is: 'Is this particular niche represented at our table?'

If, for example, you have a Fighter and Magus in the same party, do not let the Magus Spellstrike without provoking. If, on the other hand, the Magus is the chief martial in the party, no toes are being stepped on when you handwave AoOs for Spellstriking away.

So instead of complaining about a class having certain limitations, ask yourself what these limitations are meant to protect. If the thing supposed to be protected is absent from your table, houserule away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, 'feeling powerful' is a rather subjective term. You gotta remember one thing: Your party may have struggled with your victories, but you were victorious, on the flip side, everything that ever challenged you suffered a TPK.

This reminds me a bit about D&D 3.X/PF 1 supposedly being balanced around a 15 point buy, everybody playing with 20 or even 25 point buy and then complaining that the encounters are not challenging. Like, well duh, you did this to yourself!

Remember: If the fight is 'fair', it is also fair for your enemy. You do not really want 'fair' fights, even if you're not the Rogue. But it is like with band-aids:

'There are only two kinds of band-aids: One doesn't stick, the other doesn't come off.'

With combat balance, it is similar: Either you get to feel 'powerful' because you can roflstomp every encounter, but that gets boring fast, or you really have to work for every victory, and people dropping happens regularly.* That may not be as 'powerful', but it is a lot more heroic then vanquishing foes whose demise was all but a foregone conclusion.

But seriously, what the others said: If your attack bonus is +11, I am assuming you are playing at 4th level. The average/moderate AC for monsters is about 20, so you should be hitting with a 9+, or about 60%. Get a flank going and that goes up to 70%. If your Monk does not score these success rates, the opponents are over-levelled. And that is something to talk to your GM about.

*Or, you know, some encounters are harder then others, depending on lots of variables. Hyperbole and all that. But the principle stands.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I see it, since the spell in question is a curse, and a curse is, by definition, meant to inflict misery and suffering, trying to use that spell to speed-grow a living being should end in misery and suffering.

All GM fiat of course, but trying to 'game' a spell like that ought to get the 'Evil Genie granting a Wish' treatment.

Gortle wrote:

Is there a way to get doubling rings to work with two ranged weapons, or an alternative item that does the same job?

I'm thinking of a Pistolero with two hand crossbows or two Dueling Pistols

Would adding a Reinforced Stock help at all?

Blazons of Power would work for a set-up of 1 melee weapon as the 'main' weapon sharing the runes and 1 one-handed ranged weapon in your other hand as the beneficiary. If your main weapon happens to be gauntlets, well, the Free Hand trait means you have a free hand for reloading, so there is that.

In the Age of Ashes campaign we are playing in, our GM allowed my Fighter guy to use the Blazons on his shortbow in conjunction with the Cinderclaw Gauntlet. Yes, bows are Hands: 1+ rather then Hands: 1, but since we are neither using firearms or ABP, this helps saving on runes. After all, it means he is stuck with a 1d4 weapon on his main hand (Doubling Rings for when he switches to melee with shield or sword).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe that is because 3.x and, frankly, PF 1 kinda actively discouraged the use of maneuvers. 1 feat to just not eat an AoO, potentially ruining even a good roll and 2 feats just to maybe do a maneuver instead of damage... not cool.

But that is just the thing: Combat Grab is a Strike and a potential grab. That is great!

On the other hand, Knockdown is... not so great. If your Strike doesn't hit, you don't get your Trip attempt. Sure, you get to make your Trip without MAP if your Strike hits. But... if you Trip first you still get to make a Strike, even if at a penalty. So, yeah...

So while PF2 does allow Fighters to be 'martial debuffers', people who were soured at combat maneuvers by 3.x and PF1 will not look kindly at those feats. Personally I think Knockdown is suboptimal and it *only* is worth taking for Improved Knockdown. But hey, once you get there? Guaranteed Trip + damage for 2 actions? Sign me up!


Note how, when the question of 'do grabbed Archers need to make flat checks' isn't on the table, people do not seem to have a problem with just slapping all the tags on the activity and taking it from there?

Honi soit qui mal y pense...

SuperBidi wrote:

Considering Fighter as a class for team players is in opposition to my experience. I've seen numerous Fighters with Power Attack and Sudden Charge, some went for Barbarian Dedication or casters one to grab True Strike. But free hand Fighters? I'd still love to play with one of them.

On the other hand, Monk players in my games have been more supportive than Fighters. For multiple reasons and clearly the action economy + free hands advantage give them way more options to help their party.

Anyway, I dislike categorizing players because of their class, it often falls short as there are so many reasons to play a class.

Yes, class choice alone is not an indication of a 'lone wolf' play style vs. a more, err, 'pack oriented' style. Fighters can be built as lone wolves, and Monks can be played in a totally cooperative way (having the option to keep your hands free for maneuvers certainly enables that), even if their feat choices don't offer direct support for it.

AlastarOG just seemed to be unimpressed by the features that make Monk good for that 'lone wolf'/'behind enemy lines' play style, so I figured he's just not a fan of that style of play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also see the "Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?" thread.

Shooting a crossbow is an activity composed of 2 distinct actions: Loading the crossbow and shooting it. I costs a total of 2 or 3 actions, depending on the reload statistic of the crossbow in question.

Shooting a bow on the other hand is still 2 distinct actions, loading and shooting, but it happens to cost only 1 action, the Interaction to load being a free action basically.

So shooting a bow would be a 1-action activity for example.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.

Maneuver-based monk has quite a lot of party-friendly options, and some nice feats to back them up.

Certainly, but if they are behind enemy lines performing interdiction strikes on the other side's glass cannons, they are not helping their own front-liners.

Not that monks have to be played that way, but they are the class best suited for that sort of thing because of their high mobility. So the assumption is, people are drawn to monks to enable that play style.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why people like Monks so much? Hmm...

Fighters have things like Snagging Strike, Assisting Shot, Combat Grab, Intimidating Strike, (Improved) Knockdown and even things like Revealing Stab and Shatter Defences, all things that can aid the other party members in landing their own attacks, spell or otherwise.

So Fighters excel at being at the front line, keeping the enemy engaged in melee and off the other party members (yeah yeah, I know, no such thing as a 'draw aggro' ability, but still). But they absolutely must coordinate both the feats they take and the actions they use in combat with the rest of the party for best effect. They are co-dependent on the fighting styles of their fellow party members.

Monks on the other hand, are more self-centred and self-reliant. They lack class feats that outright help other party members (although Stunning Fist helps everybody). They seem to do best 'doing their own thing' behind the enemy front line, messing up the other side's squishies.

Some people just like that play style better then having to coordinate with the rest of the party.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thezzaruz wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Shooting a reload 0 weapon is the same deal: We get to do 2 things for the price of 1 action: Reload and Shoot. And both things happen, both things can draw attacks of opportunity and both things can be interrupted.
While I agree that we certainly are reloading our bow the thing to remember is that Reload is not an action, it is a weapon statistic. Reload does not have an action cost nor does it have any traits. What it does do is tell us how many Interact actions reloading our weapon takes (and that it can be a Interact activity if the DM so chooses).

Ah, I see that is where you are tripping up: The reloading is always just 1 (one) Interaction, same as moving up to your speed is only 1 Stride and casting a spell with 2 or 3 components is still only 1 Cast-a-Spell activity, albeit at a cost of 2 (or 3) 'actions'.

It is just that that 1 action/activity/thing has a different price in 'actions', as in how many of your usually 3 'actions' per turn it costs to do that thing. For crossbows that can be 2 actions, but it is still only 1 reload, and thus draws attacks of opportunities only once. Like a single Stride leaving multiple threatened squares also only draws AoOs once.

But even if the action cost of the reload is 0, that does not mean that no interaction happens. Else, the bow would not get loaded, could not be shot, and that is patently absurd.

Think of it as a 'buy one, get on free' deal. You only pay an action cost for the Strike, the reload is 'free'. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, doesn't mean it doesn't provoke, doesn't mean it can't be interrupted.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Sudden Charge of course works just as it says, it is an activity that costs 2 actions and includes 3 subordinate actions (if we end up within reach for an attack).

This is a function of the basic principles of the Action rules and I don't claim anything differently, the problem is that your argument (well most everyone elses at least) does not follow those same principles when handling the attack from a Reload 0 weapon.

Shooting a bow of course works just as it says, it is an activity that costs 1 action and includes 2 subordinate actions (Interaction to load, Strike to attack).

That is a function of the basic principles of the Action rules and applies to both 'Sudden Charge' and 'Strike with a bow (or any ranged weapon with a numerical Reload statistic for that matter)'.

Thezzaruz wrote:
I'm not denying anything, I'm simply saying that to attack with a Reload 0 weapon you take the Strike action (cost of 1 action) and when doing that it is narratively described as "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action". There is however no additional action taking place (as there are for a Reload 1 or 2 weapon).

But that's the point: The only way for there to be 'no additional action' is for the thing not actually happening, yet you yourself describe shooting a bow as "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action". You are contradicting yourself here.

Again: Just because the action cost of performing a Strike with a Reload 0 weapon is a total of 1 does not mean that only 1 action happens. Same as Sudden Charge only costing 2 actions does not mean that only 2 things happen.

Reload 0 tells us that the cost of performing an Interact activity to load the bow for striking is 0 additional actions on top of the 1 action we pay for the Strike. But the reload does still happen obviously.

Thezzaruz wrote:
graystone wrote:
"An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s required actions. (See Subordinate Actions on page 462.)" Not having to "spend additional actions" on an activity on no way means you don't process the subordinate action.

But there are no subordinate actions to process, you aren't even arguing for one to be added to the process.

All that is taking place is the basic strike action, nothing else, and that doesn't have the manipulate trait.

Oh come on now, that is patently absurd. You are denying that the bow weapon gets loaded with an arrow, which is what the interact action represents. Just because that interact action does not cost an additional action on top of the action you spend to Strike, does not mean it does not happen.

Else, there would be no Strike as there would be no arrow to shoot.

If we use your argument, then what happens to, say, Sudden Charge? You pay 2 actions to do3 things: Stride, Stride, Strike. But by our argumentation, since we only pay the cost for 2 actions, one of these things doesn't actually happen.

So... which of these things then gets omitted? Do we not get to move twice or do we not get to Strike at the end of the Strides?

Obviously, the whole point of the feat is to allow us to do 3 things for the price of 2 actions. But all these things happen, and all of them can draw attacks of opportunity, and thus can be interrupted.

Shooting a reload 0 weapon is the same deal: We get to do 2 things for the price of 1 action: Reload and Shoot. And both things happen, both things can draw attacks of opportunity and both things can be interrupted.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Bringing this back to archery: reloading a bow takes 0 Interact actions. This means processing 0 subordinate actions with the Manipulate trait.


Reloading a bow takes an Interact action.

Performing that Interact action has a cost of 0 of your usual complement of 3 actions per turn, if performed as part of a Strike action with that bow.

The point is that 0 is a number.

Reloading the bow does not have no cost. It does have an action cost, this cost just happens to be 0, coming part and parcel with the Strike action, with cost 1 of your usually 3 actions in and of itself.

This is what 'Reload: 0' means instead of 'Reload: -', or omitting the entry entirely. The action does get performed, with all the potential reactions and interruptions it may trigger.

You do realise that Create Water and Create Food are 1st and 2nd level spells respectively on all spell lists but occult?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lawful Evil: Lord Havelock Vetinari of Discworld fame. Emphasis on the Lawful part though. His evil is strictly of the necessary kind.

Well, except that mime thing of course...

In the AoA campaign I'm in, my toon took the Dragon Scholar background, giving him Dragon Lore. Upon reaching level 2, I asked the GM if I could take the Additional Lore feat and use that for Dragon Lore (because that is the lore he cares about), and use the background training to get trained in Hellknight Lore.

Honestly, I wonder if it would be too much to just have the lore skill from your background scale automatically, what with that representing a thing the character is actually interested in getting better at.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
In a perfect Lawful world, everything has been discovered. In a perfect Chaotic world nothing is ever truly discovered. We live somewhere in the middle.

Welcome to the Prime Material Plane, citizen.

Where energy both positive and negative, all the elements and all the alignments mix together in an inherently chaotic mess, from which springs order incessantly, to thrive and die again, just to be replaced by 'The Next Big Thing'.

beowulf99 wrote:

On a successful Sneak action, you are Undetected during the movement and after said movement. When you are undetected:

Undetected wrote:
When you are undetected by a creature, that creature cannot see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can't target you, though you still can be affected by abilities that target an area. When you're undetected by a creature, that creature is flat-footed to you.

But that's the point: Unless the Rogue starts out Undetected, they are a valid target for an AoO, and an AoO triggered by leaving a threatened square gets resolved before the move action occurs.

The Rogue may well be Undetected during and after they sneak, but not before. And before is when the AoO resolves.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I, too, was skeptical about the argument that you simply don't inform the Fighter that the trigger was met, but subsequent arguments have convinced me that an Undetected creature is simply not a valid target for an AoO, even if they were detected before they started Sneaking.

Uhm... if they were detected before starting to sneak, that would mean they were no longer Undetected, now wouldn't it? And Hidden creatures are valid targets. Or do you mean the creature started out as Unnoticed and then became Undetected before sneaking away?

Blake's Tiger wrote:

On the table it would look like this:
Rogue is Hidden from the Fighter.
The player declares the Rogue is going to Sneak away.

AoO from the Fighter triggers:

"Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.

Oh and I just realised I overlooked something:

"Hide: Success: If the creature could see you, you’re now hidden from it instead of observed. If you were hidden from or undetected by the creature, you retain that condition."

So the Rogue actually can't even upgrade from Hidden to Unobserved. Oops.

So yeah. If the Rogue is Hidden at the start of their turn and leave their starting square within reach of the Fighter with anything but a Step action, they get whacked. Can't hide, can't sneak.

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Furthermore, attacking someone while Hidden does not make you Observed unless whatever gave you the Hidden status is removed in the process of making the attack. If you're in a lightless room and don't have darkvision but you succeeded your Perception check to locate the square than an enemy is occupying, them attacking you in the dark does not make them Observed. If a supernatural fog is applied across an area that gives everyone within the Hidden condition from everyone outside their own square, someone attacking from within the fog does not make them Observed.

RAW is such:

"Hide: You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise."

Also, even the Obscuring Mist spell merely provides Concealment:
"You call forth a cloud of mist. All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it. You can Dismiss the cloud."

Concealed does not equal hidden:
"This condition protects a creature if it’s in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures sight but does not provide a physical barrier to effects. An effect or type of terrain that describes an area of concealment makes all creatures within it concealed.
The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it’s concealed."

Only Invisibility makes a mention of remaining undetected:
"A creature with the invisible condition (by way of an invisibility spell or invisibility potion, for example) is automatically undetected to any creatures relying on sight as their only precise sense. Precise senses other than sight ignore the invisible condition."

Okay, so... we have a conundrum here. A Hidden/Unobserved creature that attempts a strike becomes Observed. But it's invisible! So it can't be observed!

Well, there is that:
"If you’re already observing a creature when it becomes invisible, it starts out hidden, since you know where it was when it became invisible, though it can then Sneak to become undetected."

So in other words, the striking creature reveals its presence and position by striking, downgrading its status from Undetected to Hidden. Even if it is invisible!

And yes, that means if the creature merely was Hidden to begin with, it becoming Observed within a bank of fog makes it indeed Observed, albeit still Concealed. Either way, its position is now know and it can be targeted with strikes.

Think of it that way: If an adjacent creature strikes, the target will know where/what square that attack came from. Even if the attacker is invisible, they can retaliate by attacking the square the attack came from. With the usual DC 11 flat check of course.

A ranged attack usually involves a missile of some kind, arrow, spear, sling stone etc., that can presumably be tracked back to its point of origin. No seek check required. " If you attempt to Strike a creature,... you then become observed."

I'm not aware of any spell or effect actually giving the Hidden condition rather then Concealed, but even if Hidden, any move but a Step provokes an AoO.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Lycar, I'm afraid you may be conflating the Hide and Sneak actions. I haven't yet read your whole post yet but you cannot move when you Hide, so the crux of the issue does not involve that action except as a set-up. I must review OP to be sure because I only entered thus discussion after discussion had been ongoing a while, but I feel that may explain a thing or two.

So even better. If the Rogue is Observed, they can't hide and can only Step + Stride to get away, and then are out of actions to actually hide.

Bottom line: The only way for the Rogue to prevent an AoO for trying to get away is to take a Step. If that is enough to get cover or concealment, they can indeed try to hide without provoking.

Unless the Fighter has a reach weapon of course..

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Addendum: Awareness may not be a mechanical term, but it is entirely possible to be Observed by some creatures and Hidden to others. It is not true that an Observed creature has the same level of stealth against every creature in the fight. If you Hide and roll below on creature's Perception DC but above another, they would have different levels if awareness to you, in lay terminology.

Irrelevant. We are only concerned with the Rogue's status towards the Fighter, since that is the only thing that matters for the Fighter getting or not getting an AoO, with or without a flat check miss chance.

Besides, upon breaking stealth the Rogue become Observed, which means they are indeed being observed by all combatants. Being invisible only changes that to being Hidden from all combatants, but still having their grid square revealed to everyone.

Only once a Stealth check gets involved could different states of observation result form different Perception scores of other combatants vs. the stealth check. But since we only care about the stealth status of the Rogue vs the Fighter, that distinction is irrelevant.

So there are two arguments against Fighter getting his AoO vs. Rogue:

1) AoO doesn't trigger because non-moving move actions only trigger after their execution

2) Rogue is not a legal target for AoO because Fighter is not 'aware'

Perhaps it helps to look at the Stealth rules again:

You huddle behind cover or greater cover or deeper into concealment to become hidden, rather than observed. The GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you’re observed by but that you have cover or greater cover against or are concealed from. You gain the circumstance bonus from cover or greater cover to your check.

Also, remember that OPs scenario is a non-invisible Rogue moving away.


1) Move actions trigger AoOs. That is not contested. Moving out of a threatened square triggers an AoO before the move action resolves. That also is uncontested. (Step being the exception not withstanding.)

Explain then, if you can, how a Rogue adjacent to a Fighter is supposed to hide from the Fighter without moving behind cover or somehow getting concealment. Otherwise, no dice, Rogue can't even attempt stealth to begin with.

Only if the Rogue starts invisible, and thus Hidden, can he even attempt to hide without moving away. In this scenario, the Rogue could indeed hide before the AoO triggers and, on a successful stealth check, evade the AoO. If the (secret) stealth check fails however, Rogue either tries to move with another stealth check, eating an AoO, or he stays put, eating a full round of retaliation from the Fighter.

2) There is no such thing as 'awareness' in PF2. Stop inventing things that don't exist in RAW!

If a creature is either Observed or Hidden, every combatant is automatically 'aware' of both their presence and position. A seek check can reduce Hidden to Observed, but even a Hidden creature is a perfectly viable target for strikes, whether from an AoO or otherwise.

Even an 'undetected' creature is one the presence of which every combatant is automatically 'aware' of. Just not their exact location:

"If a creature is undetected, you don’t know what space it occupies, you’re flat-footed to it, and you can’t easily target it. Using the Seek basic action can help you find an undetected creature, usually making it hidden from you instead of undetected. If a creature is undetected, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re unaware of its presence—you might suspect an undetected creature is in the room with you, even though you’re unable to find its space. The unnoticed condition covers creatures you’re entirely unaware of."

So, to summarise:

In the OP's scenario, the Rogue became Observed after attacking, thus if they try to vacate their square with anything but the Step action, they draw an AoO.

They can step and the sneak, or they can try to hide without moving if they can somehow provide cover and/or concealment from the Fighter.

If they happen to be invisible, and thus Hidden, they are still eating an AoO if they vacate their starting square with anything but a Step action. Stepping and sneaking are fine, as above.

Additionally, an invisible/Hidden Rogue can try to hide without moving, and does not draw an AoO until after they complete their action.

But if that check fails, they are still Hidden adjacent to an angry Fighter and liable to being stabbed/cut/pummelled.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm mostly just not convinced the fighter is aware the rogue is moving from their space at all. That's part of why we have the GM rolling secret checks for attack rolls and such.

'Awareness' doesn't figure into it.

By strict RAW,

- the Rogue is not undetected, and thus a legal target
" If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed."
Even if the Rogue is invisible, he will still be merely hidden, and the rules are clear on the Hidden condition:
"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in..."

- he does attempt a move action, which triggers an AoO
"Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."

- an AoO does get resolved before the triggering action
"You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs."

Therefore, once the Rogue breaks stealth, he is vulnerable to AoOs.

I would have to ask why you hate Fighters so much that you try to steal their Attack of Opportunity from them.

It's the +2 isn't it...

Seriously, AoOs are rare in this edition, they are supposed to be something special. In this particular case, it gives a PC a chance to retaliate against an invisible attacker even without magic.

PF2 tries to do away with caster supremacy, and part of that effort is giving martial classes non-magical counters vs. things they were absolutely helpless against without magic in previous editions. Take 'Felling Strike' for dealing with flyers without having access to a Fly spell, or 'Revealing Stab' to have a non-magical means for dealing with invisible foes for example.

I'm of the opinion that the 'order of operation' argument is the deciding part here. The Rogue broke stealth by attacking, so is at this point no longer undetected.

BY RAW, the Rogue's mere attempt to regain stealth triggers the Fighter's AoO, which happens before the Rogue even has a chance to regain undetected status. So strike with flat check it is.

Just goes to show that Attack of Opportunity is a useful class feature and why few monsters or PCs have it.

But different classes have different ways of going about it.

Fighters just hit, even if they don't (see Certain Strike). So they are best at constantly dealing damage.

Barbarians just hit hardest, if they hit. So they are best at doing most damage in a single strike.

Rogues are best at messing up their opponents, so they are best at dragging their foes down.

Swashbucklers are best at at messing with their opponents, mercilessly punishing their errors (ripostes).

Heck, even Monks can do impressive things if built for sword fighting.

So yeah, define 'Best Swordsman'. Because PVP arena fights helps little to determine who is best in actual PVE.

SuperBidi wrote:
By doesn't work, I mean that you should not grab Double Slice if you intend to use a shield (before level 19). You'll deal similar damage by grabbing a d8 one handed weapon and just Strike twice with it. So you should just don't bother taking a useless feat.

Taking a shield as an off-hand weapon is about trading damage for the AC boost and damage mitigation via Shield Block. It's a trade-off. Because Twin Parry doesn't happen before lv. 4. Fighter weapon proficiency only advancing one weapon type does not happen before level 5, and retraining is a thing.

Besides, if the damage is comparable, you do not exactly lose out there, now do you.

Yes, there are other feats intended for shield users, but hey are incompatible with dual-wielding. So either you go with the sword being a pure defensive weapon, or you go for dual-wielding. And if you do go for dual-wielding, Double Slice is the feat for it, and a shield as your off-hand weapon is decent until you unlock other defensive options.

So calling something slightly less-then-optimal 'it does not work' is utterly disingenuous.

SuperBidi wrote:
Lycar wrote:

Double Slice Fighter comes together at lv. 1 though.

(Start with a shield as your off-hand weapon and take it from there.)

Double Slice doesn't work with a shield for a Fighter. You need to use the same weapon types in both hands if you want to benefit from the Fighter proficiency.

What do you mean 'it does not work'? It does work, just not at full attack bonus.

1st strike shield bash is at -2, 2nd strike with your agile Fighter weapon (short sword for example) is at full attack bonus.

And what if you Double Slice with a non-agile main weapon? Then you are either at -2/-2 or +0/-4 for your attacks. Gee, looks a lot like a normal 2-strike routine with an agile weapon, doesn't it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Nothing about the spell says that it cannot be used for shield bashing.

This is not how this works.

The spell tells you what you can do with it. Shield bashing is not one of the things it tells you you can do with it, so you can't.

1 to 50 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>