Ninijo's page

Slashing Grace requires weapon focus (weapon) which in turn requires weapon proficiency (weapon), so that informs the order you must do it in.

Omg thank you. I feel so newbie having forgotten that XD

I want to build a two-weapon fighting, swashbuckling, sawtoothed sabreing, badass, but I need help with figuring out how some feats and rules interact at lower levels before all four of my needed feats come online.

Slashing Grace has to be applied to a specific weapon, and if I apply it to a sawtoothed Sabre, does it still work if I don't have exotic weapon proficiency with it. The reason I ask is because of this line: A sawtoothed sabre may be used as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions as a longsword)

I'm trying to figure out what order I should get my feats, and I was putting slashing grace before exotic weapon prof but then I saw that and wasn't sure how it interacted. Does this mean it's a longsword so I don't get the benefits from Slashing Grace (and by proxy swashbuckler's finesse)?

See that doesn't work for me personally. Power Girl looks like a sexy badass who kicks ass and takes names. The male version looks like a weirdo and isn't sexy at all. What makes men sexy != what makes women sexy so just transplanting the outfits is obviously going to look weird.

As a *sexuality* *gender*, I would rather all people in my fantasy, male, female, goat demon, and drider be either incredibly badass and sexy (that's an and for a reason) or incredibly nightmarish and disturbing. I would rather have no one of the sensible middle ground because that's not fantasy. I want my women to all be Femme Fatales and I want my men to all be Don Juans. I would want them to look as sexy and badass as possible. All dialed up to 11. I don't want armor on my men unless they can look like a rugged and sexy hunk while wearing it, and likewise (although I'd replace rugged and hunk with something else to describe them) for the women. Who cares about sensibility, this is a fantasy about being badasses and my badasses are all incredibly hot and wear whatever they want and look sexy while doing it.

Where do I fall on this conversation? It's interesting and my first foray into this specific topic and I want to contribute my seemingly rare point of view.

wraithstrike wrote:

My focus was on "same narrative power".

So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.

What I meant to imply is that every person who shows up at the table has a tremendous amount of narrative agency, regardless of what class they choose to play. Indeed, even the most singularly-focused martial class has enough narrative agency to wreck any plot the GM has concocted.

This should be enough for anybody, but yes magical classes have options that martial classes do not. The bulk of their narrative power, however, is in the hands of the individual making choices for them.

I mean, sure you can teleport across the mountain ridge if you have that spell, but you could also construct a hot air balloon (make those ranks in knowledge: engineering come in handy) or walk around the base and climb up the other side with ropes. The important issue is that "any class has an option to get to the other side of the mountain ridge without walking across it. Plus, let's be honest, "teleporting" is probably the least entertaining solution to that problem.

So magical classes have more options, sure, but all classes always have a bunch of options anyway. It just seems greedy to say "I don't want to play a martial class since I want all the narrative agency I can possibly get."

I would argue against the bulk of their narrative power being in the hands of the individual making choices for them. I will never come close to the same level of narrative power as my wizard buddy when I'm playing a fighter because I can't just decide to make a separate plane of existence, I can't charm/dominate/geas (and no diplomacy/intimidation aren't substitutes for those), I can't turn metal to wood, I can't turn mud to rock, I can't f$~$ing fly (I am very sour about this). Oh and the a&!@+*~ can make it storm so loud we get deafened, pour down acid from the sky, summon lightning bolts down to strike his foes, AND THEN BURY THEM IN HAIL when he gets a bit stronger all with one spell (We're almost at 9th level spells). I can't do anything nearly as fantastic or narratively powerful as these things. It's a failing of the class imho. I could challenge any warrior and most likely best them in solo combat, but the wizard could just mass charm their entire platoon.

SUP GUYS. It's your crazy gnome friend Ninijo who wants to know...

My terrible reading skills is making it so that i can't tell the difference between those two Mythic abilities. So besides the fact that you need to have a spell prepared for Arcane Surge if you're a prepared caster and you don't for Wild Arcana.

So what else is different between the two? Because Wild Arcana just seems better.

So I just noticed since you add 1.5*str modifier to your weapon when you two hand it compared to when you just one hand it...

If you have 7 str you go from -2 for you bonus to damage with a longsword in one hand, to -3 bonus to damage with a longsword in both hands. I'm confused. Is your swing less powerful because you used two hands to try and support the weight of the weapon?

So I just noticed since you add 1.5*str modifier to your weapon when you two hand it compared to when you just one hand it...

If you have 7 str you go from -2 for you bonus to damage with a longsword in one hand, to -3 bonus to damage with a longsword in both hands. I'm confused. Is your swing less powerful because you used two hands to try and support the weight of the weapon?

Kthulhu wrote:

Cockatrice Strike - The fighter can punch an enemy so hard it turns to stone.

It's also a long enough feat chain where fighters are really the only class that can do it without that being the absolute core concept of the character.

This feat is really relevant in a thread about how Pathfinder doesn't allow martials nice things:

d20pfsrd wrote:

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon’s Fist, Medusa’s Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can make a single unarmed strike against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe. If that attack is a critical hit, the target is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect.

Seriously, this feat is just awful. It makes the nerfed version of Crane Wing look like Natural Spell in comparison.

I'm new so I just wanted clarification because that looks like an awesome feat to me...

Why is that terrible?

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

*Citation needed.

You need a rule to have allies of the NPCs you've murdered come after you for revenge?

That's a very strange campaign to me.

When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously? Do your Fireballs not require reflex saves?

The spell literally says "The creature might later seek revenge"

If I was a guy who was just forced against my will to do something and I was planning revenge I'd bring all my buddies and jump the dude in a dark alley. Why would I try to solo someone who just trapped me and forced me to do things against my will? That is the creature seeking revenge. He's getting revenge by bringing his friends and murderizing you.

That looks pretty good actually

Literally what the title says. I want to run an encounter with a wyrmling red dragon and well since it's small it'll have a 20' cone. I've looked everywhere and can't figure out what that's supposed to look like. Thanks for your help guys!

I have a question about the exotic weapon fauchard. It isn't listed under any weapon training groups (the fighter class ability), and I was wondering if this is a mistake or on purpose? The reason I ask this is as many other weapons listed are exotic, and it has a bunch of already listed weapons that would be similar (it even has the one pointed out to be nearly the exact same, the glaive. So is it specifically the fauchard that's being left out?

Sorry for bumping but I need clarification, and I'm the DM for the game so I can't just defer to anyone else. I'm not sure if a Suli who wildshaped would lose the ability to use elemental assault. I was thinking yes, but I need a second opinion.