OutlawJT's page

15 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I just wanted to post my frustration. Our group just completed the battle against Dragotha last night. We had a solid strategy going in but there was an inordinate amount of buffs stacked against us to prevent it from being possible. Basically, my character with every buff he can get going and a decent roll can turn a 47 HD undead (something he had kept a close guarded secret for a long time leading up to this fight, never using all his turn resources no matter how desperate a fight looked) and he can destroy anything he turns instantly. In the first round we even threw down a Consecrate to negate some of the penalties we anticipated I would be facing. STILL wasn't enough somehow!!!! I almost maxed my turn check (so I could turn the 47 HD without trouble) and made the turn damage for that without even rolling.

Our GM wouldn't break down HOW Dragotha managed to resist that, just saying that I had been unexpectedly close. Would've been nice to know how he stood up to it after the battle was over.

Anyways, we had to go on to win the battle the hard way. We ended up narrowly winning because Dragotha fled using plane shift and a Solar our favored soul gated in cast miracle to ask his deity (Kord thank goodness) to pull Dragotha back to finish the fight instead of letting him flee like a coward. A lucky percentile roll to let that work and a Con draining nova attack from one of us later and Dragotha was dusted. Still, Could've been an epic 2 round battle of 'I can't believe he just did that'. Instead we had to slug it out the hard way for 6 rounds, in spite of considerable investment and months of discreet research IC to specifically avoid that.

Skylancer4 wrote:

So because you want to get 12+ attacks you are going to take the word 'an' out of its given context in the feats where it is fully explained, and use your reasoning to get your way?

I've given you a loose interpretation and then the strict reading, neither of those get you what you want.

Talk your GM into making up Improved Multi Weapon Fighting and Greater Multi Weapon Fighting, maybe you should go to the suggestions/advice forums to get what you are looking for as it doesn't occur 'naturally' in the core rules. RAW the TWF feats don't interact with MWF at all.

I'm not using 'my reasoning' to get my way. I am using a basic and fundamental understanding of the use of the English language and the wording of the only thing in the two feats that applies mechanically to the game in the instance of my character, the benefit section. The feats say you get extra attacks with an off-hand weapon. My character just happens to wield three off-hand weapons. It's as simple as that. You're the one trying to infer or add meaning to the stated benefit. I understand why. You have it firmly ingrained in your mind that since the feat is named two-weapon that it is RAI to only be applied with TWF. It's so ingrained that you've started to interpret RAI as RAW even though the wording of the benefit of the feat doesn't support it. You also think it would make for too powerful a build. When you consider I won't have the funds for four awesome weapons at any point in the campaign and most of the things we fight down the line will have DR that laughs at what I will be able to do with weapons 3 & 4 outside of them potentially being the instigator of two-weapon rend should weapon 2 miss it's really not that bad. It's nickle and dime damage versus opponents that hit like mack trucks.

@skrlancer: I think the problem here is you are woefully misconstruing the use of the word 'an' in that feat as opposed to how it is actually being applied within the confines of the English language. The word 'an' in that sentence is being used as an indicator to direct reference to what is being discussed. It means it is referring to 'an' off-hand as opposed to a main hand, for instance. It is not being used as a limiter to indicate quantity. Also, as a reminder, the only thing that matters in a feat is the text in the prerequisites (subverted via the Ranger class in my case) and the text under the benefit (and in some cases the special section). The name and flavor text of the feat mean nothing for the actual function of the feat. Therefore, if RAW the feat allows for it to be applied to three off-hands it doesn't matter if the feat is called improved two-weapon fighting. The fact of the matter is, RAW the feats work with MWF for all off-hands (even though MWF doesn't legally satisfy the prereq). Now, if you want to argue that RAI they are not meant to I would be more than happy to listen to it. When I have this discussion with my GM I want to bring him both sides of the argument fully hashed out.

Prereq isn't an issue because my character is a Ranger and can thus ignore prereqs by selecting improved/greater TWF as style feats. There's that issue solved. To get to the RAW issue Skylancer disagrees with me about.

"In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty."

That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat improved two-weapon fighting. In what universe does that wording preclude the use of more than one off-hand weapon with the feat? It just says in addition to the extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it. It doesn't say your first off-hand weapon. It doesn't say the feat can only be applied once. Therefore, the feat can be applied to any off-hand weapon you are wielding. That is simply the way the feat is written. That may not be the way it was intended to be used but it is written so that it can be.

"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."

That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat greater two-weapon fighting. Mildly more ambiguous as the lack of the word an leaves reference to off-hand weapon slightly more specific. It is easier to infer the feat refers to a single off-hand weapon with this wording. However, there is still no clear definition within the benefit of the feat that prevents it from being applied to every off-hand weapon you happen to be wielding. The argument between RAW and RAI is just a little more open and in the air.

As to concerns over the character being too powerful...... We'll be fighting beefed up giants half the campaign, outsiders throughout, and our other melee character is a goblin feral gnasher so my character being powerful in melee might be very much needed. Consequentially, I'll also be handling scouting and trapfinding via the trapper archetype.

@Skylancer: Read the way the mechanical benefit of improved/greater two-weapon fighting is written. I copied them into an above post. Basically both feats just grant you an additional attack with an off-hand weapon at a penalty in line with iterative attack penalties. It doesn't say it only applies to your first off-hand weapon. As written, the feats can be applied to any off-hand weapon you are wielding. The feats tell me I get extra attacks with an off-hand weapon. My character just happens to wield three off-hand weapons so I can take more advantage of it than others. Now, RAI may differ on the subject and the feats may not be meant to be compatible with MWF but RAW they are.

@BBT: I am looking to maximize my attacks with the character but I am not looking to get silly with it by adding extraneous weapons via things like blade boots, the boulder helm, or armor spikes. Just looking to maximize the use of my main hand and three off-hands. Trying to do any cheese beyond that would be betraying the trust my GM is extending by letting me play a Kasatha in the first place.

For further reference for everyone else, my character's eventual intended fighting style will be to use Thunder and Fang to have an earthbreaker in his main hand, a klar in his first off-hand, and then an as yet undecided weapon in his remaining two off-hands. I am leaning towards short swords but haven't committed to anything yet.

Getting off topic here. While I find the subject curious and interesting I will not be using unarmed strikes with this character. I started this just to discuss the advancement of multi-weapon fighting as it applies directly to my impending character.

@Harita-Heema: While technically you are correct that multi-weapon fighting doesn't qualify as a prerequisite for improved/greater two-weapon fighting that is not necessary on my character for them to be acquired as I will be playing a Ranger. "The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites." So I can easily use the style feats to take improved/greater two weapon fighting without all of the appropriate prereqs. Also, 'an' does mean one but the wording of the feat isn't singular in reference to the off-hand attacks or weapons. I agree you could argue RAI the feat is incompatible with multi-weapon fighting. RAW, however, the benefit would apply to any off-hand weapon you are wielding.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Go with Master of Many Styles/Brawler.

With the new Unarmed Strike FAQ, you have a near endless amount of attacks.

What FAQ do you speak of and where can I find it?

I just re-read the text for improved and greater two-weapon fighting and I'm not sure they don't automatically apply to multi-weapon usage upon review.

" Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty."

This just refers to 'an' off-hand weapon. In the case of my character he happens to wield three off-hand weapons. The flavor text specifically refers to two-weapon fighting but the benefit only refers to the use of off-hand weapons. So, shouldn't the feat apply to all off-hand weapons being legally wielded?

" Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.

Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."

Again, flavor text mentions two-weapon fighting but the feat itself only references the use of an off-hand weapon. It doesn't specifically limit the number of off-hand weapons within the context of the benefit of the feat. As written, therefore, if you have three off-hand weapons it could be applied to all three.

So, what is the community consensus here? RAW the benefit of improved/greater two-weapon fighting extend to any off-hand weapon (regardless of how many you have). Does using it with multi-weapon fighting violate the RAI, though? Or were the improved/greater multi-weapon fighting feats left out because the wording of the two-weapon equivalent allowed for it?

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am fortunate enough that a GM is allowing me to play a Kasatha in an upcoming game starting next Saturday. I will be playing him as a Multi-weapon ranger eventually going for Thunder and Fang with short swords for his extra pair of arms. So far I have found there is indeed a multi-weapon fighting feat (which auto-replaces two-weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms via it's text). I have yet to find anything on improved or greater multi-weapon fighting. The issue won't come up for a while as we are starting at 1st level but I'd like to prepare in advance with my GM if these feats are available and I just can't find them. Every official Pathfinder source is allowed. So, can anyone help me find them? Or did Paizo just exclude them from existence to prevent excessive attacks in the event players found ways to garner extra limbs?

Our group is about to start Legacy of Fire on Saturday. I've settled on playing a Dragonfire Adept but am still up in the air over what race to go with. I've narrowed it down to Bhuka or Monrelfolk. Both present interesting roleplay options and both can easily be molded to fit my vision of the character's past and future development.

The Bhuka would have much more balanced stats and slightly more flexibility in the order in which I choose my invocations (both builds will be seeing extensive use of the extra invocation feat for utility). It'd be slightly easier to play him as the jack of all, master of none I envision.

The Mongrelfolk would allow for an insane breath weapon DC out of the gate. More focus on breath, less on skill versatility. Of course, there's only one breath oriented feat I can take that's any good (entangling exhalation) cleared by the GM. Wouldn't be as socially capable (or able to effectively use invocations that require a save) but breath weapon would always have a high save for my level.

So, what are your thoughts? Is that high save DC on my primary tool worth the sacrifice of some flexibility and social grace and maybe one (two at most) invocation choices?

Has anyone seen or done a Pathfinder conversion for the Tibbit from dragon magazine and the Dragon Compendium? I am in a 3.5/PRPG hybrid game and really want to play a Tibbit but I want it to stay on terms with other playable races. If anyone can point me in the right direction to find where this has already been done I'd greatly appreciate it.

DarienCR wrote:

He can do it with the aid of a party. And he IS an inexperienced player but then again, I already informed him it was a bad choice.

Yes I am using the psionics-magic transparency and we're using the XPH version of the PrC.
Character has very low Will and has fallen several times to mind control, so I suppose he did it because of that. In perspective is not such a bad choice after all.

Yeah, even if you never encounter another Mindflayer there are a few class features that make 9 levels of Illithid Slayer still worth it. Hmmm.... Why wouldn't I want immunity to just about all mind-affecting effects? Full BAB and almost full manifesting levels? Yes please!!! This class is really strong without facing any more mind flayers. I think it's worth it whether the DM adds mind flayers to the campaign or not.

Am I the only one who still has a problem with the monk's AC? Shouldn't the incredibly agile and fast warrior who is good at reading his opponent's intentions/attacks be HARDER to hit than Joe Schmo who lacks skill but can afford a quality set of magically enhanced armor. I had high hopes for a playable monk but this just isn't it. Not by a long shot. The new abilities are nice and everything but that isn't doing much to console me when everyone and their mother my party runs into is hitting me 75+% of the time. My biggest gripe with the monk has always been lack of AC and this update does absolutely nothing to address the issue!! My god! A halfway decent Wizard has a much better AC than the monk who is supposed to be on the front line. That's just crappy class design! If you want me or my friends to play the monk, fix their AC issues. Otherwise, it is just a waste of paper when you print it!!!!

This is a dark dark road you are discussing and I have yet to see the compromise that seems like a fair balance to me. As a frequent tumble user I will admit that the static DC becomes ridiculous at high levels. However, as skills only scale 3 points faster than BAB and the BAB of a lot of what you face through your career can readily match your tumble rolls this kind of opposed check can completely devalue the skill. Should I be able to automatically succeed at tumbling through a colossal red dragons space(s) at 13th level? No. Should I have a serious advantage for the effort given a colossal's relative dexterity versus the skillful mobility of my much smaller character? Absolutely. While a character who trains heavily in tumbling shouldn't be able to readily auto-succeed on all of their checks by the higher mid levels they should clearly have the advantage to their attempt in most situations. After all, most of the characters who actually maximize their training with acrobatics(tumbling) are likely to be at a severe disadvantage to the foes they actually have to use the skill against if they don't have a better than average chance of success.