Sir Hexen Ineptus's page

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life.

Thats pretty absolute right there. I bolded it in case you missed the statement you are now trying to deny you made.

I'd also point out that the Mall 'code of conduct' is not a law, they are simply asking you not to carry a weapon. They have no way of knowing whether you have one or not, so it's still your choice to carry.

They weren't stopping people at the front gate and strip searching people, so I don't see how your point stands up.

Was she a registered gun owner?
Did she normally carry, except in this instance left her gun elsewhere because of the policy? Can you provide a source?

Yeah, I got a little emotional there; yes stating an absolute like that was a mistake. That being said fear of death is a strong one, and with the stated rules, which they can deny business to those on the premise, including banning from the location permanently. So there is a strong incentive to follow the rules if one feels they are safe enough there to be disarmed, which is an obvious mistake and lie.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

However they were safer with one there.

Were they? How can you prove such a statement?

Common sense? We protect everything important with guns. Would the president be more or less safe with armed guards please? Just because they are children and not a single individual makes little difference.

Maybe you overlooked it earlier in the thread. I commented that the Columbine High School had an armed guard the day of the shooting.

I made this point, because the presence of an armed guard is not a guarantee of preventing a shooting.

And that is supposed to mean what? Guns are not perfect, and nether are the one's wielding it. Nothing is perfect and that is clear. Just got to do the best you can. So yeah the guard didn't work. However they were safer with one there.

Fire Fighters don't save everyone caught in a fire all the time.

■ The fake gun used in the case was stolen from The Sports Authority at the mall minutes earlier, and the mall claimed it was done with the help of an employee who provided a device to remove the gun from its packaging, then high-fived Chandler and Baskerville before they left the store. The lawyer for The Sports Authority declined to comment.

See I can bold things too.

So yeah, moar guhnz REALLY HELPED poor Bobbie.

fake or otherwise, they had the drop on her regardless, all you would have done is give the guys a real gun when they took hers.

Stop with the straw-man argument.

1. I wasn't arguing that if she had a gun it would be different.
2. She didn't have one so we don't know what would have happened.
3. If she did we don't know would have happened.

To remind you, my argument that the ability to simply have guns at the location could have prevented the confrontation, as it would have no-longer seen as a point of opportunity.

Oh...

"Securitas argued that simply because they were the security guards for the mall they had no duty to protect Bosworth. And under Virginia law, they were right. They were dismissed as defendants. Twice. The Securitas lawyer declined to comment."

Can't trust anyone to take any responsibility for your safety other than for yourself.

Excluding the NRA's other statements. The statement of how guns in the hands of police officers on school grounds will make them safer and that we protect important things with armed guards. This idea of not protecting our most important aspects of our lives and civilizations, our children, with equal if not greater vigilance and method shows a lack of common sense and more of illogical idealism at its best.

I have experienced this first hand in my life.

Bobbie Bosworth

She was abducted from a mall that had banned guns, knives, and lead pipes, but also tasers, mace. She was abducted with a FAKE GUN. Now she is dead. She was caught at a moment of opportunity. Where she was seen as being elderly and week, leaving a place of money and disarmament. If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life. If there were no guns allowed in the US prior to this time, the story would have not had been much more different, other than perhaps the level of exploration they tried on my good friend but clearly in the verity of targets they would have had, but as guns do exist and even a ban will not keep guns out of the hands of those who are willing to break the law in our nation of freedom and world wide communication, the threat with a fake gun could have still been taken for a valid one.

So if you see the gun tool as some sort of evil (which I personally think is not only very simple, but unrealistically idealistic, as it implies that all killing of humans as evil) you must still accept the Pandora's box situation. Guns are out and about and there is nothing we can do but use these tools to try and counter itself.

If you're reading this thread, you no longer have an excuse. The NRA is sick, and it's full of disingenuous people willing to deceive the American public (poorly, I might add) in order to get what they want.

Going through the thread. What would you say their goal is?

I just got done watching the NRA conference in CNN.

My stance, this suggestion is a sane one, and in general the sanest suggestion I have ever heard from the NRA.

I am not a gun fanatic, and I am glad to see that this was address separately from all other issues. However the comments made on violence in video-games is saddening, but understanding. I personally stay away from overly realistic and violent games like GTO.

I am not for bringing political subject to Paizo forums but this one just caught my attention and I thought I should share.

American Detention Bill

If you hadn't guessed it, the usual phrase for something like this is "While you were sleeping" but in this case, it being new year, I thought the current title worked better.

I won't say anything about the upcoming elections or who I voted for last time, in ether way or side, but the ONE thing I was thrilled about was that I thought Oboma would strike down this part of the Patriot Act, low and behold he has made it permanent!

I am very sad about this and really don't know what to do. I just wonder how long it will take to get the supreme court involved as I don't think this is constitutional any more, especially with the fact that with the patriot act we can declare a state of war at the drop of a hat as terrorism will always be present. That makes this all but a constitutional amendment eliminating the 5th amendment.

Again, sorry to bring up my political views, but I don't see how anyone on ether side can be happy with this, so everyone should know.

-Hexen

Mulder Da Cultist: Human Alchemist 5th - discoveries: precise bombs, explosive bombs - his 9 fire bombs/day deal 3d6+5 fire damage with a 10' splash dealing 7 fire damage.

Really? Did I over look this?

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Sphen86 wrote:

I must say, as a DM and a player, gish takes the fun out of a campaign. I think if you could offer some more up here, you might get a better response as to what exactly the class should be like.

If your not going to be productive in actually helping him in his concept please take your "gish" hate else-where. Sorry you had a bad experiences with some power games, try playing a 3.5 hexblade that is really game breaking.... (That is how I got this name!) Not everyone agrees with you, and obviously he does not.

Anyway. I really like the idea of some blood line effects for a fighter type. To keep balanced with the fighter they definably should not qualify for fighter feats for starters.

Wow man, way to rant over nothing. Good job making things up to be self-righteous over.

So, you come into a gish class thread and say "gish takes the fun out of a campaign." I assume to are talking about it being overpowered, perhaps that was wrong. If I was not, look at the hexblade, it is a perfect example of a gish class being underpowered.

Still you are in a gish thread talking down about them. The least you could do is support your statement as to why "gish takes the fun out of a campaign." He didn't provide any target to hit other than it was basically a gish so you went on that, and asked for a bigger target.

I must say, as a DM and a player, gish takes the fun out of a campaign. I think if you could offer some more up here, you might get a better response as to what exactly the class should be like.

If your not going to be productive in actually helping him in his concept please take your "gish" hate else-where. Sorry you had a bad experiences with some power games, try playing a 3.5 hexblade that is really game breaking.... (That is how I got this name!) Not everyone agrees with you, and obviously he does not.

Anyway. I really like the idea of some blood line effects for a fighter type. To keep balanced with the fighter they definably should not qualify for fighter feats for starters.

Luminiere Solas wrote:

prestige classes should have gotten buffed a little

Most prestige classes were buffed, some of them by a lot.

Luminiere Solas wrote:

i beleive the arcane trickster should have had a d8 hit dice and 3/4 bab. and the shadow dancer needs a reason to continue past 2nd level. as it is, 2 levels mean hide in plain sight and darkvision. maybe a sneak attack progresion and a minor spell progression, maybe ripped from assassin.

Trickster is MUCH better than 3.5, it's easier to get into and has a bunch of useful abilities. Shadow Dancer is also MUCH better (but still kind of meh). I do like your idea of light spellcasting for shadowdancer.

Overall, the PrC changes are good, some like the Shadowdancer fall short but I think they felt somewhat limited by compatibility there.

They murdered the entire role of the dragon disciple for their own blood line specialist with phony enactment bonuses with their alternate form a few times a day. Sorry the point of the class was to be a melee one that got the half-dragon template.

P.S. Did the think that the +2 Cha was too powerful or something?

So all of you who say they still have this ability, and this wasn't a huge oversight on the writer's/editor's side, and that the elves now seem to have lost nothing but gained two new abilities.

If this were true, I think I would have lost faith in the abilities of the writers of this game. However, that said, I know this can't possibly be true.

I agree with mistwalker, specific exceptions preclude general statements.

+2

"Stuck" paying a feat to get better at Intimidate - which is arguably the single most effective fear effect (inducing the shaken condition, which according to page 563 of the PRPG Core Rules is in the Fear category of Special Abilities - and thus subject to the "becoming more fearful" part of that ability) in the game - is no different than being "stuck" paying a feat to use Heavy Armor when you're not a Fighter or Paladin, "stuck" paying an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to feat to use a bastard sword one-handed nor being "stuck" paying a feat as an arcane spell caster to get better at Use Magic Device.

The fact is that there are two feats (Skill Focus and, in the case of Intimidate, Persuasive) that stack with each other to add to provide an additional +5 bonus that increases to a +10 bonus once the 10th skill rank is assigned to the skill is also no different from most of the other skills in the game also having this same potential benefit. Intimidate is, as far as I can tell, the only skill as the PRPG rules are currently written that has its own feat permitting combining two attributes as a bonus to the skill. Assuming a 10 Charisma and an 18 Strength, a first level human fighter selecting Intimidating Prowess as his bonus combat feat starts with a total +14 Intimidate bonus (1 rank +3 trained +2 Persuasive +3 Skill Focus +0 Cha +4 Str). A +14 rolling a 6 on the d20 is enough to affect almost any foe encountered for the next several levels of play for at least one round. By 3rd level said Fighter tacks on Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display, unlocking an "area effect" mass demoralize / fear special ability. A Circlet of Persuasion is pretty cheap (+3 more) and a Headband of Alluring Charisma +2 is not much more AND can be worn along with said Circlet (+1 more) for a +20 Intimidate at - in theory - about 3rd level. At 10th level said Fighter has a staggering +31 Intimidate bonus (10 ranks +3 trained +0 Charisma +4 Strength +6 skill focus +4 Persuasive +3 competence...

OK that is fine. I just wanted to point out that there is bit more of a stat requirement for barbarians, but that this can be some what fixed by spending 1 or 2 feats, but that is still 2 less feats than a fighter class, that they don't get a lot of (unlike the fighter). Sense barbarians have less armor they need more dex than a fighter. The strength boost from rage simply brings things to par (maybe under) with fighters weapon focus/specialization feats.

I don't plan on Paizo changing things any time soon, but I thought this might make for a good counter argument. On a more personal note, I fully expect you not to change this rule in your games, or anyone who likes the change to ether. When people were talking about this subject in the beta I knew the way Jason seemed to jump all for this subject that it was done deal. So I just thought I suggest an apposing opinion to those open to home rules. Not really looking up for a debate, but I respect the apposing opinion.

nightflier wrote:

SmiloDan, why don't you start a thread dedicated to your conversions? Zou have a lot of them, and it would be easier for the DMs like me to search for them.

I'll see what I can do....

:-)

I would suggest Google doc. So you can edit it after posting.

Why not just play a spell blade from the Tomb of secrets? The duskblade was a decent class as is; I would leave it alone and perform a simple conversion. D10 HD, skill conversion.

LazarX wrote:

And a barbarian shouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to tin can himself anyway.

A dwarf barbarian in mithral full plate was arguably the strongest character in one of my games. That is, after I ruled that Drawmij's Instant Fortress had to be activated on a surface which could hold its weight and couldn't be used as an air strike from a flying carpet.

I agree, you are restricting the concept of a barbarian too much to your ideals.

They have the same requirements for stats, but just more of them, as a fighter, and maybe even add Cha to the mix with all the intimidate abilities.

So your stuck paying a feat ether way. 1 for heavy armor prof. or for the strength added to intimidate, if not both.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor.

The addition of the line about not lowering the proficiency is wonderful. The old way (where we had weekly arguments online over the meaning of the "other penalties") was not working. I'm glad they made the change to clarify it.

Only because people ignored official FAQ rulings, and clarifications in at least 2 printings.

Fatman Feedbag wrote:

Frogboy wrote:

...and an overwhelming majority cried out that they don't ever, in a million years, want to see a Pathfinder v2. They don't even want to entertain the idea. You probably just want this thread to quietly fall into the archives. I've still got burn marks on me.

Heh, I wasn't really looking for a discussion on what specific rules would be changed etc. but more along the lines of how might they go about introducing a new version of a game in general to a community without causing the kind of upset that *you know who* did twice with D&D.

Schedule it for no less than 10 years from the release of the current edition. Don't release supplements for the current edition right up to the release of the new edition, let there be a period of no new releases to the system line prior to the new edition. A lot of the upset was because the release was too soon and the last supplements were obsoleted months after they were released. Oh, and don't keep it a secret you are developing it until right before you release it at GENCON, especially if you are doing so to sell supplements to the current edition right up until the release. Most importantly, don't lie about how drastically you are changing the system and spring it as a surprise.

I think that covers the list of mistakes to avoid you are referring to.

+1

and I would like to add, make it compatible to the previous edition.

IMHO spiked chain was fine the way it was, with the exception of too many abilities. Losing the weapon finesse evens this out. I don't care that they have a large threat range. Personally I think all exotic weapons should have this sort of unique ability in one fashion or another.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

lostpike wrote:

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Jason, or some other offical ruling aside the feats work exactly how you think they work. You can trip all targets with-in your reach and trip them. Yes, the wip is the new spiked chain.

I thought the Bladed Scarf was?

I remember a comment that the bladed scarf will be re-made, most likely, to be brought to par with the spiked chain; this was covered in the bladed scarf vs. spiked chain thread (yes scream, scream like a little baby guys, here comes the nerf stick).

The other item i noticed was there was a scorpion whip I think it was called...it was a whip but had a tip to be able to do lethal...

All items made prior to Pathfinder will probably be re-made to be in proper balanced.

Sorry meant to give the light chain a weight of 6lbs

I personally do not agree with the horrific nerfing of the spiked chain. However I will concede that a lot of people felt it was.

So here is my quick thought to a, not critical hit, nerf attack.

Heavy Chain, Spiked

25 gp - 1d6 - 2d4 ×2 - 10 lbs. - P - disarm, trip

A heavy spiked chain has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

You can make trip attacks with the chain. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a spiked chain, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

Light Chain, Spiked

25 gp - 1d3 - 1D6 - ×2 - 10 lbs. - P - disarm, trip

A spiked chain has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

When using a spiked chain, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a spiked chain sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.
______________________________________________

Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor. The common argument about this is that it didn't make any sense; this got me thinking.

Sense the armor materiel is lighter, perhaps this allowed for light armor techniques to be used instead of the traditional heavy armor, such as straps and buckles which factor into movement in addition to it being 1/2 its normal weight on top of that.

People commonly look at the material more like a applied effect, but forget that this was how the armor was made.

So here is just an opposing thought.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Jason, or some other offical ruling aside the feats work exactly how you think they work. You can trip all targets with-in your reach and trip them. Yes, the wip is the new spiked chain.

I thought the Bladed Scarf was?

I remember a comment that the bladed scarf will be re-made, most likely, to be brought to par with the spiked chain; this was covered in the bladed scarf vs. spiked chain thread (yes scream, scream like a little baby guys, here comes the nerf stick).

Beckett wrote:

Does the Beholder Mage have to be a "Beholder" or a True Beholder"?

The "true beholder" requirement is explicitly singled out as opposed to beholderkin. You're not turning into beholderkin. You're turning into a beholder.

Any GM that does not slap you with both hit dice and LA for turning into anything permanently that normally would have those things is insane.

Stuff...

Wow! Thank you!

Jason, or some other offical ruling aside the feats work exactly how you think they work. You can trip all targets with-in your reach and trip them. Yes, the wip is the new spiked chain.

Quick First Step

A. Weapon Cost subtracted
B. Eliminating Alignment Discount.
C. +2 weapon effect

50,335
A. -335 (Weapon)
50000
B. *7/10 (Discount)
71428.5 (71428.571428571428571428571428571 rounded)
C. -8000 (+2 weapon)
63428.5

So next is on of these

+2 additional enhancement against bonus vs Evil Outsiders and x3 multiplier.

Sun Effect

Wielding Bastard Sword as Short Sword.

P.S. After a quick second thought, I turns out this total is exactly the same cost as a +5 weapon, 50,000 gold.

So then we have to figure out what the other +3 effects are what, but at this point, maybe +1 for each as they don't seem too off, but there is no wording as if this should be considered a +5 weapon.

Hello Paizo,
I was wondering, could I get some help breaking apart the cost per effect of the sun blade?

I am specifically looking at the effect allowing it to act as both the short sword and bastard sword at the same time.

I will start working on this on my end, but if anyone wants to pitch in or has done this already that would be great.

Thanks

Sun Blade

Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th

Slot none; Price 50,335 gp; Weight 2 lbs.

DESCRIPTION

This sword is the size of a bastard sword. However, a sun blade is wielded as if it were a short sword with respect to weight and ease of use. In other words, the weapon appears to all viewers to be a bastard sword, and deals bastard sword damage, but the wielder feels and reacts as if the weapon were a short sword. Any individual able to use either a bastard sword or a short sword with proficiency is proficient in the use of a sun blade. Likewise, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in short sword and bastard sword apply equally, but the benefits of those feats do not stack.

In normal combat, the glowing golden blade of the weapon is equal to a +2 bastard sword. Against evil creatures, its enhancement bonus is +4. Against Negative Energy Plane creatures or undead creatures, the sword deals double damage (and ×3 on a critical hit instead of the usual ×2).

The blade also has a special sunlight power. Once per day, the wielder can swing the blade vigorously above his head while speaking a command word. The sun blade then sheds a bright yellow radiance that acts like bright light and affects creatures susceptible to light as if it were natural sunlight. The radiance begins shining in a 10-foot radius around the sword wielder and extends outward at 5 feet per round for 10 rounds thereafter, to create a globe of light with a 60-foot radius. When the wielder stops swinging, the radiance fades to a dim glow that persists for another minute before disappearing entirely. All sun blades are of good alignment, and any evil creature attempting to wield one gains one negative level. The negative level remains as long as the sword is in hand and disappears when the sword is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including by restoration spells) while the sword is wielded.

Construction

Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, daylight, creator must be good; Cost 25,335 gp

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

others might think this is fine as is though.

It is fine as needed, especially since it has been that way for what? 10 years?

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Because dispite everyone saying this is a standard action

You misunderstand them.

You command the Lion's Shield to attack as a free action. It does so by using it's standard/fullround action to attack. If you command again it will reply "already did so boss."

Yes.... I got it.

cpt_machine wrote:

Simply changing the wording from free action to swift action fixes the issue and makes it work as intended.

The current wording fixes the issue, changing it to a swift action unduly limits the wielder as it percludes the use of OTHER swift actions.

+1

I have gotten a sheer hatred for swift actions for anything but magic items; now that they are in class and feat features, I know hate them all the time.

Well, my suggestions.

Skip the armor casting entirely, and give their spells the still spell effect continuous and for free.

Give them their total class level in bonus uses of hexes.

Make their caster level start at full at level 4, so it will be class level -3, well within range of a feat to fix.

Make bonus feats grant fighter feats as well.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

but with non magical melee types, they get to do their things all day long, while the caster has some sort of limit.

That's a common argument, but that fact is at high levels, melee guys will run out of hit points (and/or rounds of rage) long before the casters will ever run out of spells.

Not if the cleric is doing what they are supposed to as their part of party roles. Also rings of regeneration is a good idea at higher levels.

P.S. I agree that melee types can't do enough in the game, but sense they accentual do what they do far many more times than casters there has to be a lot less powerful. PRPG has though brought down key feats needlessly so the problem is by far more than a single PRC, but a key problem with the game itself.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

If I am reading this right, ammo for mithral should be 12 gp.

Depends on the ammunition - mithral costs 500 gp per pre-reduction pound excepting armors and shields. Arrows weigh differently from bolts weigh differently from sling bullets weight differently from shuriken weigh differently from ...

Hey Mad. I think your missing my point.

As it looks like in his chart for the new modified costs for mithral and weapons is that mithral is 1/5th the cost of adamantine. This is consistent till the ammo.

To many of us it just not fit the feel of the games we want to run. When I read ToB i think of something like Bleach. And yes thats kinda how it comes off as a DBZ super mystical powered secret sword technical fighter.

Now this word work fine for some games but it brakes the feel of most setting for me to have soulreaper like powers with there mystic fighting styles

I do not want magic using melee class.

Wow, no offense, but I never want to play in one of your games (and apparently nether does my wife), because that is my favorite character type. LOL

*Favorite Classes*
Duskblade
Hexblade
P.S. Looking to play the battle sorcerer soon too.

*Favorite PrCs* (haven't played these yet though)
Adjuration Champion
Swift Blade
Edrich Knight

P.P.S. You don't have a problem with a Paladin Class?

If I am reading this right, ammo for mithral should be 12 gp.

Sissyl wrote:

Make a level 20 wizard, and see what massive overpower that guy gains from taking 5 Abjurant Champion levels.

A 20th level wizard's power is so great that we're essentially playing a kids' game of comparing infinity to infinity. Instead, let's look at a wizard 10/AbjCh 5 or a wizard 15. To my mind, the AbjCh's free quickened defensive spells alone -- ignoring all the PrC's other abilities -- are worth a lot more than the one wizard bonus feat.

And, yes, IotSV is even more absurd, but that doesn't make AbjCh OK.

I have played to Barbarians to level 20+, once with DnD and once in Beta. So then your further problem is that non magical/melee types need more they can do; but with non magical melee types, they get to do their things all day long, while the caster has some sort of limit.

Please note that I am not trying to be sarcastic or insulting in my responses. If it comes across that way, please accept my apologies.

Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

1. Limiting the number of buffs active on a creature simultaneously. Keeping track of the 20 buffs on Kharzoug when I ran RotRL was painful. Too painful.

I dislike this idea. It penalizes players and NPCs. There are better ways of keeping track of buffs, as well, a lot of PCs and NPCs at high level have items that give them those buffs.

Not to mention while PCs might have Buffs, monster don't always, but are built to deal with the PCs as if they did have that many buffs, so this would very much hinder the PCs MORE.

So we are looking at a Alchemist, Cavalier, Summoner, Black Guard, Orical, and Witch?

I think I am missing one, please correct me if I am wrong.

We are also seeing 2 other variant Paladins; Templar and Anti Paladin.

Sounds cool, I just hop there is a melee caster type.

This is always a good question. Especially with other races and templates. Really, sense elves and other races can be tieflings as well, I always thought it should have been a template.

Considering devils, last I checked, are immortal, doubling or increasing by 25% of other parent race (not devil) would be good choices.

I would consider buying it.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

dulsin wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that most of the "broken" PRCs are the ones designed for arcane casters?

Or sometimes divine casters: Radiant Servant of Pelor was a clear case of "give up nothing, and get a big package of benefits for free." But, yeah, things like Initiate of the Seven Veils and the ever-popular Abjurant Cheesewhore top the list for overpowered abuse.

How was the Abjurant Champion overpowered?

+1, it is specialized, but it is far from broken.

You get a nice bonus for TWF too, and a boost to that shield spell for AC, which saves you the twf defense feats.

A good feat should be useful all the way up to 20th level.

Any feat that is good at 1st but is obsolete and you would not even bother taking after 10th is not a good feat.

OH good one guys.

First part, it should be almost always usable at any time. If it is not, then you should get some bonus to it, however there should be some restriction or drawback.

Examples,

Weapon Focus: Any time you attack you get a +1 to hit, but you need to be using that weapon.

Original Cleave: It had a very restrictive conditions, but was automatic, aka free and at any time, which made it work with anything. This one may have been too restricted though.

If the feat does take up an action for its use alone, it should be a powerful ability.

A feat should probably be worth about 1/3-1/2 the power of a class ability depending on their restrictions.

Guarded Stance/ Rolling Dodge/ Surprise Accuracy/ Powerful Blow: Due to their level-scaling, these really only come into their own at higher levels. That said, their effect clearly matches Weapon Training (but isn't limited to specific Weapon Groups), as well as compensating for the difference between Heavy/Medium Armor... Given Heavy Armor Proficiency is easily attainable (I'd recommend 1 Fighter level vs. spending a Feat for it), Barbarian AC at high levels should be HIGHER than Fighters when this is activated. I've seen criticism of the fact the AC-boosters need a Move Action to activate, but realistically, in many cases (when you expect the enemy to close anyways, when you are Readying an Action) it isn't a big deal to spare a Move Action, and with a good CON score they will last most of the average combat.

These abilities just seem too junky, and maybe worth less than a feat due to their limitations and limited use.

1. They are only usable in rage. (Not that big of a problem)

2. They are only usable once per rage.(Okay...)

3. Perpetual Small Bonus for their level. (+4 at level 18?)

4. They have a very limited effect. (Melee or Ranged, or one attack only)

Edit: 5. To make matters worse, they take swift actions, despite their small effect, which make for any possible useful combination with other rage powers often impossible.

These really seem like IMHO "Filler" powers.

Now if these abilities applied to all AC or all attacks for the round, considering the other limitations, it MIGHT have been worth it.

Hello,
With the barbarian thread going off on its own way I thought I would pose a question.

Mechanically, what niche does a barbarian have over a fighter, and vice-versa.

My main concern here is that fighters, with their weapon focus feats and weapons training, may have become too good and have taken the place of the barbarian in combat maneuvers masters. Other discussion on comparison also intrigues me.

So if you are interested, thanks.

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

OH don't get me started about this BS right now. You spend a feat and take a -4 to hit you should get SOMETHING more than one who spent only 1 feat and taking no minus to hit.

Is this part of the discussion for Power Attack or does it have to do with fighting styles? You throw out numbers without references, lazy much?

Don't be a jerk. I asked that you not get me started.

I was there during beta putting up the numbers. The fact still stays the same. Power attack now does absolutely nothing for TWF, and that was my point.

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.

Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

So you deal 1:2 ratio with primary, and 1:1 ratio with off hand, which is about the same as a two handed weapon at 1:3, and you take a -2 (or -4) to hit, and DR applies twice. Total horrible combination of a feats. In 3.5 you got a 1:2 ratio to start no matter what, but had to take a -4 to hit with TWF. Things though got better in most situations with ratio modifiers from splat books. Also add in the fact that full round attacks are the only situations in which you get any benefit from TWF, otherwise your stuck with a single attack that pails in comparison to THF.

Liquidsabre wrote:

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

One handed weapons still get the shaft as all off hand weapons power attack as light weapons no matter what.

Light weapons make no difference in Pathfinder any longer for Power Attack

Power Attack in Pathfinder is now balanced between Two-Handed fighters and Two-Weapon Fighters as they both receive the same total Power Attack bonus to damage (+150%). When someone is using a one-handed weapon and a shield, well they are gaining the benefit of their shield. So balanced there as well.

The only difficulties that might creep up on TWF is the split damage and DR on creatures.

so..... Power Attack is supposedly equal between two-weapon fighting and two-handed fighting, when the person using 2 weapon fighting is, just by using 2wf, taking a 10% cut in average damage (accuracy), and ontop of that, has DR applied twice?

Oh, and he has to take 3 feats, and still doesn't get to apply it on his charge attacks, standard action attacks, or attacks of opportunitie.

Granted the AoO part was fixed by the Miniatures Handbook with yet ANOTHER feat, but wait, most people in wouldn't even allow said feat because the bulk seem to automatically hate splats as broken monstrosities rather than useful tools for character design.

The first step to bringing two weapon fighting into parity, is to allow it any time a two-handed swing could happen. You determine how many feats that takes yourself, depending on what you feel is appropriate, but until that happens, two-weapon fighting is not equal.

Edit: Sorry for the rant, build parity is something important to me, and it really makes me sad to see problems like that. I mean come on, the twfers are thematically supposed to be the mobile agile ones, but they give up more by moving. They can't even get a full double-swing out of spring attack, and the feat screams 2wfing combat dancer.

I am totally with you here on this one. I have tried desperately for Jason to fix this in beta, but he apparently sees something we do not.