Randy Hurlburt's page

It would probably be neater if Ultimate Combat had lots of combat styles but had zero real-world combat styles as they come with so much cultural baggage and create too many opportunities for "you're doing it wrong" conflict.

We've got:
Scorpion Style
Gorgon Fist
Cornugun Style...

I would like to see more of this, for example
roper style (grappler)
bulette style (charges/headbutts)
Whirlwind style (flurry-master)
Scuttleback style (tripper/grappler)

etc. etc.

Of course, real world martial arts can make great inspiration for this but I don't want to feel (or be told) I'm playing my 'boxing-style' wrong: if I'm playing 'Brutal Fist' style then I will feel less constrained.

I completely agree. Create martial arts that belong in the game world, rather than placing real-world martial arts into it. Then again, I would probably just 're-skin' the Asian (or otherwise) versions to do this anyway.

Randy

My wife does game with me. Sometimes she knits while she plays. However, gaming all day wouldn't appeal to her, so having some other options available would be helpful.

I just showed my wife this picture. She sews and spins, so it is now slightly more likely I might make it to a future PaizoCon.

Please cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder Adventure Paths.

Thank you.

Rules:
Any off-hand shield attacks that you possess (through the two weapon fighting feat) may be foregone in order to block an attack on your opponent's turn. You must choose which offhand attack is foregone before you make your attack action for the round. This must be used along with a full attack action(you must actually take the attack just on the opponent's turn). When an opponent strikes you on their turn after yours you may make an attack roll, modifier equal to the foregone attack, against their attack roll. If you beat their attack roll... attack is negated, damage is halved, something along those lines.

I also feel that shields are underpowered, but I think trying to make up a rule for active defense might be a bit too complicated. After all, the Dodge feat doesn't give you an extra chance to avoid an attack, right? I also don't think you should need the Two Weapon Fighting feat to be able to do neat stuff with your shield. I'm terrible with a sword in my off hand, but with a shield I have no problem doing shield sweeps and weapon traps. Sure, I do a lot of active blocking with my shield, but for D&D/Pathfinder, I prefer the idea of "active" feats that give bonuses to your passive AC.

One change I made was to boost the AC bonus for light and heavy shields by +1. That way bucklers are +1, light shields are +2, heavy shields are +3, and tower shields are +4. I then designed a few feats that allow a character using a shield to do (what I consider) cool things with the shield. The feats generally add an AC bonus to the shield carrier or to one of his or her adjacent allies, depending on the action being taken. None of them are complicated, and none of them require additional rolls. Everything works inside the rules. It makes things much easier.

Randy

Not sure at this time. I'm kind of turned off by the Alpha rules, so I'll just have to wait and see if things change. I'm doing the same with D&D 4e. If I have to, I'll either stick with 3.5 with my house rules or I'll just play something else.

Randy

As someone who plays rangers to the exclusion of most other classes there is already one cause for alarm that I can see in the Alpha Release. Mainly in that the Track feat has been eliminated. Now it does make sense to shove the effects of tracking into Survival but what, if anything does a 1st level ranger get to replace that lost ability? Does he get a bonus to tracking? The ability to track has always been the one thing a ranger is supposed to be able to do better than anyone else.

I am very happy to see the Track feat gone. In my own games I dumped it, rolled it all into the Survival skill, and gave the ranger the option of either Skill Focus: Survival or Skill Focus: Knowledge (nature) at first level.

Next is combat styles, personally I prefer the archery style to the melee style but I still end up wanting my rangers to have this ability. Mainly because I give my rangers a quarterstaff and a pair of light slashing weapons as back up weapons to the bow. With the elimination of Improved Precise Shot this means the last feat has changed. What is going on with this? I really want to know.

I don't like the combat styles at all, or forcing all rangers to be two-weapon fighters. This can go away.

Finally we come to the subject of magic. I should hope with the fact the Ranger gets access to Spellcraft as a skill that his spell casting ability, small as it may be, has been retained. This is one of the reasons I like the class. He doesn't get much in the way of spell casting but he does get enough to justify his needing the spellcraft skill and most of his spells were designed to help out with the niche he has in a given campaign world. I partially hope he gets better access to healing spells but I see him as a rescuer among other things and spells like that will help him save lives out in the wilderness.

I can live with or without rangers having spells, but since they've always been a part of the class, I say keep them.

Randy

I already posted some opinions regarding the new shield feats in Jason's "New Combat Feats" thread, but I'll add a little here.

I don't particularly like that all the shield feats are geared toward offense. A shield is a great defense, and I would like to see a few feats that help to improve that defense. That said, a shield does have a few offensive uses that don't involve slamming it into your opponent. It can be used to pin an opponent's weapon, or to actively move the weapon out of the way, or even to move an opponent's shield in a direction that makes an opening for an attack. It can also be used to disguise some of your own attacks. These things are all a bit more subtle than the moves you normally see represented in D&D combat, but could still be done through feats.

As far as Deft Shield goes, I also believe it should not require the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. As a fighter in the SCA, I've got to say I'm a horrible two-weapon fighter. I cannot swing a sword with my left hand. About the only weapon I can use in that hand is a mace, because it doesn't really matter what part of it hits your opponent (it's a little like a shotgun in that respect). However, when I fight with a sword & shield, I can pull off those maneuvers I described above- pinning weapons, moving shields, and more. Being able to use my shield to manipulate my opponent's weapon or shield does not require me to be any good at fighting with two weapons. But we also aren't allowed to strike our opponent with our shield.

Randy

I don't like the various shield feats in the Alpha Pathfinder book. They all focus on using the shield offensively. I would rather see some shield feats that improve defense. Here are a couple that I use in my D&D 3.5 games.

Shieldman (General, Fighter)
You are trained to protect others in combat.
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, Improved Shield Bash.
Benefit: When using a small or large shield, you may use the Aid Another action to allow one adjacent ally to add your shield bonus to their AC, in addition to the normal +2. You retain your shield bonus to your own AC as well. This feat may not be used with a buckler or a tower shield.

Improved Shield Defense (General, Fighter)
You have learned to get the best use out of your shield.
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, BAB +5.
Benefit: When using a shield and fighting defensively, you get +4 to your AC instead of +2. When using a shield and using the Total Defense action, you get +6 to your AC instead of +4. The only movement allowed while using this feat is a 5’ step. This feat cannot be used with a buckler or a tower shield.

Randy

I would prefer to get rid of the Rapid Shot feat, for a couple of reasons:

1. Multiple attacks are already part of the rules (iterative attacks). The better you get, the more attacks you can make. Having a feat that allows you to make yet another attack, with another modifier, is an unnecessary complication.

2. Archers can be dangerous enough without it. They can get just as many attacks as any non-two-weapon close combat fighter can. They can get strength bonuses to damage, just as any close combat fighter can. But they don't have to put themselves in danger to dish out their damage the way a close combat fighter does. In my experience, giving them an additional attack through Rapid Shot makes them too powerful.

Randy

I'm still undecided, but I think I'm leaning toward staying with 3.5. That could change, of course.

Randy Hurlburt wrote:

They're somewhere in the store. Don't ask me where, I seem to have a difficult time finding my way around it

True20 Conversion Link

Thanks for the backup.

Randy

I love Pathfinder...but I will admit I would prefer that it were only bimonthly instead of monthly. This is in part because there's no way I'll run two campaigns a year (and probably not even two in two years). But it's also because if Pathfinder were bimonthly I could afford to purchase a GameMastery module in the "off" months. Because of some financial issues, Pathfinder is currently my only gaming expense. (But believe me when I say I would love to send you guys more money.)

Randy

And of course, now that I've said that, I have to call myself a liar....

Visited my FLGS today, during their winter sale. All gaming 20% off. Came home with the Rise of the Runelords Item Cards and Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale.

And to get this back to topic: Pathfinder rocks. Just keep doing what you're doing.

Randy

I haven't started it yet, but I was also considering True20 for Rise of the Runelords. You don't have to worry about converting anything; it's already being done for you. Conversions for the first two adventures are available for download right here on the Paizo site. They're somewhere in the store. Don't ask me where, I seem to have a difficult time finding my way around it.

I love WFRP, but I wouldn't use it as a replacement system. To me, it belongs in the Old World, and that's where I leave it.

Randy

I love Pathfinder...but I will admit I would prefer that it were only bimonthly instead of monthly. This is in part because there's no way I'll run two campaigns a year (and probably not even two in two years). But it's also because if Pathfinder were bimonthly I could afford to purchase a GameMastery module in the "off" months. Because of some financial issues, Pathfinder is currently my only gaming expense. (But believe me when I say I would love to send you guys more money.)

Randy

I'm not a big fan of extraplanar adventures. I prefer my fantasy to be "down to earth", so to speak. I wouldn't have a problem with a single volume of Pathfinder involving such an adventure, but I probably would not purchase an entire Adventure Path dedicated to that type of campaign.

But that's just me. I've found my tastes are not representative of the majority of D&D gamers, including those in my regular gaming group.

Randy

Hi Randy,

A replacement Pathfinder #4 will be sent with Volume #5.

As to what you can do to prevent this from happening again, usually the best way is to speak with your local post office. While it is true that mail can sometimes arrive damaged to their offices, they have a better idea than we do where the damage may have occurred. They may also have some idea on how to prevent the damage from happening again.

We definitely want everyone to enjoy their Pathfinder and GameMastery shipments every month, without the worry that their subscription materials will arrive damaged!

Whoa! That's awesome. I really appreciate that.

I love you guys. You really know how to make me want to give you more money.

Randy

My Pathfinder #4 came damaged as well. The envolope had ice on it, and was wet all the way through. The book has a ripple through it, the pages are stuck together and curling, the covers are curling, and the back cover is actually separating.

I understand this isn't really Paizo's fault; it just sucks to be looking forward to the book so much, to get it on Christmas Eve, and to have it be in that condition.

Randy

Put me in the "how can they make such awful miniatures" camp. I may purchase a few individual figs, but I certainly won't buy any boosters. I think D&D Minis hit their high point at War Drums and War of the Dragon Queen, and have been on a steep downhill slide ever since. The overall quality of the sculpts and the paint jobs has dropped enough that I've gone back to Reaper's unpainted stuff and their Legendary Encounters line.

We just finished The Bullywug Gambit, so this is perfect timing. When you have a chance, please send a copy of the sea charts to caelanoruairc<at>verizon<dot>net.

Thanks for making this available to everyone.