glass's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 576 posts (577 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 576 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Alchemist 23 wrote:
See you say Grim Dark but this is just the kind of fantasy we all grew up on. Wheel Of Time, Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian, Starship Troopers. We like our monster to be monstrous and our villains to be more than black mustaches.

I am not overly familiar with the others, but I have read the Wheel of Time and I do not recall any occasions where the heroes murder children. And neither of the mortal races (humans and ogier) are born evil.

Shadowspawn, being somewhere between demons and constructs, do not appear to be born at all. At least, we never encounter myrdraal babies as far as I recall.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
I...disagree. And the game disagrees with you too since you can unwillingly perform an act and lose all your Cleric/Paladin/Druid abilities. So it seems the metaphysical forces of good and evil do not give a damn about free will(which is more a law/chaos angle anyways

If demons are evil for killing you, but crocodiles and falling-block traps are not, then alignments really are just meaningless team shirts. I prefer good and evil to actually be different. EDIT: And I disagree that the game disagrees with me....

avr wrote:
Yeah but paladins. They're like walking moral quandary beacons. You couldn't ever have a paladin at a switching yard, it'd all but ensure a trolley problem.

They are a class included right there in the core rules, as suitable as any other for adventuring. As such, any interpretation of the paladin's code that makes them unsuitable for typical adventuring activities is incorrect, IMO. That said...

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Are my games the only ones where Good characters don't act like crazed murderers, and intentionally killing innocents will cause you to lose any divine powers, paladin or no?

No, murdering children is not a "typical adventuring activity" in any game I run or would wish to play in.

_
glass.


Scavion wrote:
Detect Evil wrote:


Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
So the goblins likely were plotting to murder them!

Plotting to kill someone who is invading your home and just killed your parents is probably not evil, even if the home invaders were somewhat justified in their actions. And even if it did, unless the goblin babies somehow had several more hit dice than the typical adult they still would not have pinged.

Scavion wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Actually say every demon is evil and they'll trot out a spoiler from an adventure path, and then another module and nocticula the redeemed, never minding the direct divine intervention in basically all of these examples.
It still annoys me. Outsiders being literally made up of a concept of evil being redeemed is dumb.

The way I see it, for something to be "evil", they actually have to have a choice to have been good. So for demons to be evil, even (especially) if they are made of evil, redemption has to be possible. It can, and should, be vanishingly unlikely, but not impossible.

_
glass.


Dave Justus wrote:
I would go for CLW anyway. Biggest reason, if someone goes down you want to move to them and heal to stabilize. If you have to pull out a wand or a scroll, that will take at least a move action meaning unless they are within 5 feet it will take you 2 rounds.

Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath makes it a swift action to draw the wand, and costs 5 gp. If you can aford the wand, you can afford an extra 5 gp to avoid that concern.

EDIT: Nevermind, that has already been brought up. Sorry, the thread was longer than I realised. EDIT2: And older.

_
glass.


blahpers wrote:
It applies to any Knowledge: Local check before which the reader spends 1d4 full rounds searching the text. It's a pretty decent item, especially since it will usually stack with other bonuses.

FWIW, I agree with blahpers.

"Specific" in this context means two things: One, a knowledge (local) book will not help with konwledge (dungeoneering). And two, if you want the bonus on another check with the appropriate skill, you have to take the 1d4 rounds of study again. You do not have to throw away the book and get another one.

_
glass.


No, that is not the rule in PF1. It is the rule in D&D 4e, and is close to the rule in PF2 and D&D 5e (you don't go negative in the first place, but the effect is very similar in practice).

EDIT: To be precise, I am talking about the general rule. There may be a spell or ability somewhere in PF1 that works that way. I am not aware of one, but there is a lot of stuff for Pathfnder just from Paizo, and an even greater amount if you count all the third-party stuff.

EDIT2: And LordKailas demonstrates that there is...

_
glass.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Don't.

Is that aimed at me? If so. "don't" what?

(I am assuming you do not mean don't mess up quote tages and then not notice until the edit window is closed. Ship's sailed on that one.)

_
glass.


Kasoh wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
I've seen table variation on whether or not bane's extra enhancement bonus allows the weapon to overcome DR. Ask your GM.
There is a FAQ that says it does. Specifically it says that a +4 weapon with bane will beat DR/epic, but if that is a +6 weapon for overcoming DR then a +1 bane weapon should be a +3 weapon for overcoming DR.
FAQs only answer the question posed to them, and with regards to DR/Epic, you are correct. But that doesn't mean anything about other kinds of DR.

The FAQ is not necesary, anyway.

Bane weapons increase the enhancement bonuses against suitable targets, and do not list any exceptions to what that can effect. So it does what any normal enhancement bonus would do, and that includes overcoming DR of the appropriate types.

But by all means check with the GM; communication is never a bad idea.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Bees arent magic and we havent explained how that works very well either.

They figured our how bumblebees fly 15 years ago.

EDIT: Even prior to that, while it was popular to say that "bumblebee flight was impossible", that was obviously not true, since they do fly. And therefore it is obviously possible by definition.

_
glass.


MidsouthGuy wrote:
My ideal PF1.5 would still be very similar to PF1e. I would use a scalpel rather than a machete to make the changes I want. Most of the mechanics would stay exactly as they are in PF1e. I would do some slight tweaking to martial and casting classes to keep their power levels more evenly balanced. There would be a short bestiary in the corebook so the entire game came in one volume. I would remove alignment restrictions for Clerics and emphasize obedience to the rules of their God instead. Archetypes would be put in the corebook to allow even more customization. Oracle would be a core class instead of Alchemist and Tengu would become a core race instead of Goblins. So I guess that would make it more of a PF1.25.

Based on that desciption, I'd suggest that the changes are in the same ballpark as the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 or 3.5 to PF1, so I'd say PF1.5 is still appropriate. Two questions:

Can you go into a bit more detail about how you envisage rebalancing vasters and martials?

Are you are cutting anything to add a bestiary and archetypes to the (already huge) core rulebook?

_
glass.


Java Man wrote:
In American English slang "to get knocked up" is to become pregnant. Just to clear that up for anyone.

British English too. Seems to be near universal.

_
glass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
On the mechanics side you're simply adding a "special material" tag to the weapon, and you can add multiple of those to the same weapon. You could even make an equivalent for masterwork, allowing you to keep your 1st-level rusty sword by running it through a process to "masterwork" it.

Masterwork Transformation is a thing. It wouldn't be too much of a a stretch to expand it to a line of spells that can infuse special materials into preexisting objects. Keeps the flavour, but enhances the practicality.

_
glass.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Others have suggested using a spell, but if the retreater fails their Concentration check (easy to do since most enemies have lower casting stats than PCs at the same level) then there's an AoO when they cast.

No, if you cast defesively, then there is no AoO whether you succeed or fail. OTOH, you do lose the spell and presumably have to wait another round in the situation you were trying to get out of, so it's probably not great news either way.

But the broader point stands: It is easy to say that most fights should not be to the death, but as both a player and a GM it is hard to implement that in practice.

_
glass.


When you say "stack", do you mean allow weapons to be made of more than one special material? Like a sword could be adamantine and silver?

I had a similar but distinct idea that there could be new special materials that count as more than one other material (as well as having their own benefits). These would obviously be more expensive and higher level, but so is the golf bag, and it gives people the option as to which way they go (I do not consider the option of a golf bag of weapons to be an issue, but I do not like its being mandatory).

I am broadly in favour of anything that adds flexibility of this kind. Doubling rings from PF2 that Temperans mentioned upthread are another good example of that, and is similar to the idea I posted above as a feat possbility.

Another possibility is someting like an amulet of mighty fists, but that works for manufacturered weapons you weild. More expensive than enhancing a specific weapon, but probably cheaper than enhancing two. Obviously would not stack with the enhancement bonus actually on the weapon.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are your own ally, unless it would be "nonsensical". It would be a stretch to call this nonsensical, and you cannot help but be in the aura, so by RAW it works IMNSHO.

As GM, one could overrule that if it was overpowered, but I don't think it is really neccessary in this case. The feat is stronger for Grey Paladins, but Grey Paladins are pretty weak anyway, so this does not push them over the top.

_
glass.


Just to check, did the GM write down "demons", or did they say it verbally, and if the latter did you confirm that it was definitely "demons" and not "daemons"? It would be embarrassing if you got all tool up with cold iron, and then it didn't help (you need silver for daemons-with-an-A) due to Paizo (or rather TSR) deciding to have two monster names that are hompohones.

Having said that, you should just about be able to aford an +1 evil-outsider bane holy weapon. That will count as +3 against Evil outsiders, which means it counts as cold iron (and silver) for DR. Since it also counts as good, it will bypass most both demon and daemon DR in the vast majority of cases. You probably do not need to worry about an actual special material unless you are worried about the weapon getting supressed with dispell magic.

OTOH, if you are an archer, definitely get cold iron arrows as the extra cost is pretty trivial, and cold iron arrows do not affect how much it costs to add enhancements to your bow.

Aside from that, just get the usual stuff - the best cloak of resistance and stat boosters you can aford. Armour appropriate to your class.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arloro wrote:
I enjoy the martial/caster disparity, and enjoy seeing the parts of adventure paths where different characters shine.

This seems contradictory. The while issue with martial/caster disparity is that non-casters rarely get to shine.

This, on the other hand...

Arloro wrote:
Low Light Vision just ignores concealment in Dim light

...is brilliant. Simple, improves play, and does nothing to damage backward compatibility. I wish I had thought of it myself!

_
glass.


W E Ray wrote:

I would still use Savage Species from 3.0 (such a criminally bad decision to publish a rules-heavy Crunch book out a month before 3.5 made it practically obsolete!). Nonetheless, it’s still useful.

For those not familiar, monsters back then had Their CR as well as a “Level Adjustment” and you took the CR and added it to LA, and the sum was the total ‘Levels’ the monster has, in theoretical equilibrium with a Character Class. (And, hey, you’re playing a monster; it’s never gonna be perfectly balanced, dude.)

So if Monster is CR 9 and has LA +4, you take the sum, 13, and divide up all its abilities and powers and qualities and traits — as best you can — Into 13 Levels.

Small correction; LA added to hit dice, not CR.

The idea was pretty decent, although the implementation left a little to be desired. The level adjustments were almost universally too high (arguably for those species with a lot of racial HD in something crappy like Humanoid should have had a negative LA, but that would have generated its own issues.

There is also the issue of how exactly a hypothetical 1st-level Rakshasa comes to exist in the first place, in in-world terms. What exactly it is and how it comes to be. One can come up with explanations, but they get strained after a while. Usually better IMO to start at higher level if you are going to feature more powerful species.

_
glass.


To directly answer the question in the OP" There is no such thing as "An Empyreal" in Pathfinder; it is used as an adjective not a noun.

An Empyreal Lord is Set says: Celestial demigods. The top dogs amongst the angels, archons, etc.

_
glass.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
I just assume that that is the case. Tweeking, it definitely needs. But I'm more wondering if something along these lines is more or less being considered core.

I voted for "I like it, but it should remain optional", with the same caveat that it needs some tweaking. I also agree with Melkiador that VMC should get a redesign (which it probably could get without hurting anything, since very little uses it anyway).

Anyway, to expand on what I was sayng the other day, with a few specific examples:

glass wrote:
2. Look at feat consolidation, but do it sparingly so as to minimise the effect on backward compatibility. Rather than collapsing existing chains into a single feat, keep (for example) TWF, ITWF, & GTWF but give them something else to make them interesting (not sure on what exactly, but if this was easy we'd have done it already...). The principle is to make the same feats exist, and make them useful to the same kinds of characters, but not necesarily doing the exact same things.

TWF would reduce penalties as it currently does, and would not include the 2nd & 3rd attacks, but would also have some other benefit. Maybe also two attacks as a standard action (is there already a separate feat that does that?)

ITWF would have TWF and BAB+6 as prerequisites, and would give the second offhand attack, plus the third at the appropriate BAB (and Dex possibly).

GTWF would also have TWF and BAB+6 as prerequisites, and would not add the third attack as that has been given to ITFW. I have a few ideas about what it might do instead, so one or several of these:
1. Be able to nominate the light weapon as primary rather than the other way around, without jacking up the penalties.
2. Attack with both weapons on an attack of opportunity (is there already a separate feat that does that?)
3. Count the secondary weapon as having the same enhancent bonus as the primary. This probably should be something that you turn on somehow, rather than an always on effect, since it affects the maths and would break statblocks.
4. Pairs of attacks (one onhand/one offhand) can add their damage for DR purposes, similar to Clustered Shots.

Sword & Pistol would allow you to reload a gun with a weapon in the other hand, and/or allow you to count the offhand pistol as light. This latter would again be something that requires activation to avoid breaking statblocks.

Double Slice might allow characters to use Strength in place of Dex for TWF prerequisites.

Anyway, the idea is to keep existing builds and statblocks functional, while allowing others. Even though they do not do exacty the same things, the same sort of characters who had the old version would generally benefit from the new one. There will always be edge cases, like people who qualify for GTWF but did not take (while they did take ITWF) will suddenly take an extra attack, but I don't imagine that will be particularly common.

EDIT: Not sure what to do with Two Weapon Feint et al.

_
glass.


Shinoskay wrote:
Kailas, its not about money. I am running a game using downtime with a home rule where people earn experience based on the skill dc. It seems to be good so far, except I always thought DC was set before the roll. Another player has the same interpretation as java, it seems.

I fear I must still be misunderstanding something, but it seem like you are asking how a houserule that you wrote works. If not, could you further elaborate?

-
glass.


Meirril wrote:
Winter Witchcraft wrote:
Levels of the winter witch prestige class stack with witch levels for determining when a witch learns new hexes, the effect of her hexes and other witch class abilities (including archetype abilities), the abilities of her witch’s familiar, and the level at which she can select major hexes or grand hexes.
Who exactly hasn't read? All I see here is that you stack witch levels and Winter Witch levels for determining your ability with hexes. It even specifically calls out that you can gain major and grand hexes. But it says nothing about stacking winter witch and witch for class abilities other than hexes, and it says nothing about capstone abilities.

Is the Winter Witchcraft quote you included in you post inaccurate, becuase if not that then it absolutely does (see the bit I bolded above). But that is a bit of a red herring, because even if it did not say that, the witches capstone is a grand hex, which it explicitly provides. So they absolutely have the capstone that they need to swap out.

As you mention, the first sentance in Alternate Capstones is a bigger impediment. It is not entirely clear to me which takes presedence, so I could be persuaded either way, but currently I am leaning toward not allowing it.

_
glass.


My understanding is that bonus tricks can just be selected with no issue, but even with boon companion that is only true. But the base (2 x Int bonus) tricks need to be taught, which takes time.

It might be worth asking you GM if you can start without an animal companion and use the "while you animal companion is dead" alternative abilities until such time as you can get a bit of downtime and/or have enough hunter levels to have a more usable number of bonus tricks.

_
glass.


Artofregicide wrote:
Scrolls and wands have limited usage, but a +1 sword keeps hacking along until the owlbears come home.

+1 swords tend to stop hacking once once their owners have run out of hit points. Which tends to happen shortly after the casters have run out of healing magic.

_
glass.


Anyway, if I was making a retroclone of Pathfinder (which would be retro-retroclone, I guess), I would do some or all of the following:

1. Make background skills the standard rule (this technically breaks backward compatibility, but for I am not going to worry about a couple of skill ranks).

2. Look at feat consolidation, but do it sparingly so as to minimise the effect on backward compatibility. Rather than collapsing existing chains into a single feat, keep (for example) TWF, ITWF, & GTWF but give them something else to make them interesting (not sure on what exactly, but if this was easy we'd have done it already...). The principle is to make the same feats exist, and make them useful to the same kinds of characters, but not necesarily doing the exact same things. Combat Experties can have something actually interesting to do.

3. One area of feats that could easily be addressed without breaking anything is prerequisites; no feat should ever have another feat as a prerequisite unless it directly builds on it. Otherwise, nix it. Combat Expertise is a prereq for...pretty much nothing.

4. Re classes, make the unchained version of the Rogue and Monk core (or in the latter case try to merge the uMonk and cMonk together somehow). Fighter gets either AWT or Combat Stamina in core. Original-flavour Fighter and Rogue effectively become NPC classes.

5. Spells get another pass, clearing up the overpowered and the poorly worded. In particular, Simulacrum gets a lot of attention.

6. Call "races" something else. "Ancestry" is OK, but I think I prefer "species". Introduce a bit more flex in terms of stat bonuses. Make the popular houserule that point buy depends on race points an actual rule, and try to make the core races cost more-or-less the same.

_
glass.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
glass wrote:
The broader point about being able to turn gold into personal power without limit is a good one, though. It implies that spending money on things that do not do that (like opera tickets, or a nice house to live in) is a fools errand. Obviously playstyle dependant, but I suspect it negatively affects many campaigns.
The quite easy way to deal with that is to split mundane money and character power into two pools which you can't mix.

We have different definitions of the word "easy". Apart from being a bunch of extra effort for the GM, that has two issues that I can see:

1. What the hell does it look like in-universe? "Sorry, you're money's no good here. Oh wait, you got some of the other money; why didn't you say so?"

2. It creates the opposite problem. If you lug a dragons hoard back to town, but you cannot spend all that gold on magic items, what do you spend it all on? There are only so many operas to buy tickets for....

Rysky wrote:
The cap on money is the cap the GM institutes. If the GM is handing out too much loot that’s a GM problem, not a system one.

The problem isn't that the total look is uncapped, it is that there is no cap on the amount of total wealth that can be spent on personal power. Which has the problems already expounded upon.

_
glass.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
glass wrote:
OTOH, it also shoots backward compatibility in the head.
Could you explain this? I don't have the rules-savvy to figure it out myself.

Every extant statblock, every class with a bonus feat list, and probably a bunch of other things I am forgetting, would need to be rebuilt to suit the new feat paradigm, or you lose the main benefit of backward compatibility; being able to use the great masses of stuff that exists out there for PF1 (and D&D 3e).

I will admit my choise of language in describing that effect was perhaps a touch over-dramatic.

Melkiador wrote:
Keep in mind that the martial vs caster issue is level dependent. At first level, the martial is typically better off than the caster.

That's true for certain combinations. OTOH, it is very much not true for a Fighter or Rogue alongside a Druid, for example.

ETA:

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Like, the whole "Wizards can pay money to add new spells" feels like it should have some kind of limitation other than gp to make it commensurate with having to carry around bulky items.

Wizards' paying money to add new spell literally has a limitation of having to carry around bulky objects (your spellbooks). Which is admittedly not much of a limitation thanks to handy haversacks and bags of holding, but it isn't for anyone else either.

The broader point about being able to turn gold into personal power without limit is a good one, though. It implies that spending money on things that do not do that (like opera tickets, or a nice house to live in) is a fools errand. Obviously playstyle dependant, but I suspect it negatively affects many campaigns.

_
glass.


ckdragons wrote:
It does not mention that weight allowance is affected by ability damage.

The bit that was wrong was saying that penalties did. Ability penalties affact exactly the same things as ability damage, except that they cannot kill you or known you unconcious.

BTW, the bit about not being able to reduce your ability score below 1 is a bit of a red herring; no ability damage or penalty ever reduces your score at all, so of course they cannot reduce it below 1.

The key line is that they cannot cause unconciousness or death. So you only die, or fall unconcious, is you have actual damage equal to or greater than actual score. Penalties are ignored for that purpose, but stack with actual damage for all others.

_
glass.


I have mixed feeling on feat consolidation. On the one hand, it would greatly improve the game. OTOH, it also shoots backward compatibility in the head.

_
glass.


Artofregicide wrote:
Oh, you weren't being facetious? My apologies. [...] All the same, I appreciate the laugh you gave me, intentional or not.

Now I am really confused. When was I being or not being facetious? How did I give you a laugh?

Derklord wrote:
glass wrote:
Regarding it's not working very well in Pathfinder: Probably true (afterall, it is not a caster).
Is that what you take from this? That's it doesn't work well simply because it's not a caster? Seriously?

No, obviously there was more to it than that, otherwise a) All the issues that had been gone over at length in this thread already would not have been, and b) I would not have needed to start the thread in the first place.

_
glass.


avr wrote:
Either skill focus or the 2-skill bonus feats are things I'd only take as prereqs. A skill heavy game uses a lot of skills not just one or two, and a combat-heavy game wants combat-time feats. Which aren't the same as combat feats, true.

Usually, this.

There are occasional exceptions, when a character gets specific additional benefits from a particular spell. For example, I have an Artificer (adapted from 3.5) in my RotRL game, and a lot of their features (including their ability to make items) are based on Use Magic Device. So he has Skill Focus (UMD).

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adding more spells to your spell list never hurts, and both of these feats do that, but the OP seems to be implying a strong synergy between them and I am not seeing it. Am I reading in, or am I missing something?

_
glass.


Artofregicide wrote:
Scavion wrote:
glass wrote:


Third-party stuff would most-likely be OK, BTW.
Spheres of Might is super balanced.
Lol.

Care to elabrorate on this comment?

Regarding it's not working very well in Pathfinder: Probably true (afterall, it is not a caster). I still want to find the best way of working I can.

Regarding what the character already has: I am pretty sure was gunslinger 5. Not sure what he took at level 6. But he is getting a full rebuild, so whatever works. Probably prefer to keep his race (half-elf) the same, though.

Regarding just houseruling it: TBH, the GM will probably implement any houserules I recommend, as he tends to trust my judgement on such matters, but I would rather not implement a bunch of extra housrules just to enable one character concept. Especially in a game like Pathfinder, where there is so much stuff alreay out there. Case in point...

Scavion wrote:
Because I thought it would be a fun thought experiment a 6 level Conscript from Spheres of Might has 11 talents. They can get Grit, Quick Clear and get to add half the bonus of a mental stat of your choice to damage for guns. Martial Tradition is Weapon Master which gives you all the proficiencies you need and 2 extra talents in the spheres you want for a total of 13....

...it looks like we might have a winner.

_
glass.


Lelomenia wrote:
two weapon fighting is really bad if you have a mainhand iterative and don’t have Improved Two Weapon Fighting. When TWF with 2 mainhand attacks, your first offhand attack mostly only compensates for extra misses on your mainhand, and the offhand iterative is what gets your real payoff.

I'm sure he will grab it as soon as he can, but between TWF and all the feats shooters need, he's going to be severely feat starved. Plus, as mentioned upthread, he has a normal (single barrel pistol) and no way to reload it, so he cannot do iteratives with it anyway until he gets that pepperbox he is saving up for.

EDIT: And now I realise that a pepperbox still requires a free hand to switch barrels, so that's not good to a TWFer either. I keep having to rain on this player's parade.

EDIT2: Now I wonder if it is possible to get a familar and have them load the pistol for you?

_
glass.


vonFiedler wrote:
So you are attempting to do anything in the game, such as roll to hit, or perform a skill check, etc. You put your hand in your dice bag and pull out a d10 as explained by your GM.

I would not automatically object to a system that used d10s rather than d20s, but I would obviously need to see the details of the system and the rationale behind the changes.

What I would not accept is changes of that magnitude being introduced at the point when I reach for the die, which the OP seems to be implying, but I assume that bit is a joke.

_
glass.


I agree it comes down to exactly what is meant by "used" in this context. If it came up in my game, I would rule thusly:

Martial Weapon Proficiency (Battleaxe) would allow you to use the axe part. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) would allow you to use the gun part. You could also take EWP (Axe Musket) which would allow you to use both (but not any other guns or axes).

Weapon Focus (Battleaxe) would apply to attacks with the axe part. Weapon Focus (Musket) would apply to attacks with the gun part. You could also take Weapon Focus (Axe Musket) which would apply to both (but not any other guns or axes). They would not stack.

But I could not say that anyone who ruled otherwise would be wrong.

_
glass.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
With two weapon fighting there is no real difference between the primary and secondary weapon other than the secondary weapon needs to be a light weapon to minimize penalties.

There is a huge difference. The primary hand gets iterative attacks, the secondary hand does not (without further feats that the chaarcter in question probably cannot afford yet, and capping out earlier).

Although we are 6th level, the nature of the AP we are playing ties up a lot of our wealth in plot-significant items, so we are somewhat cash poor. Until the character can afford a pepperbox he is not going to be making multiple attacks with a pistol, so the sword needs to be primary.

_
glass.


Thanks everyone, although I am not sure how Savage Technologist or Picaroon actually help the issue at hand.

Oversize 2 Weapon Fighting definitely does though, so it looks like we might have a winner.

_
glass.


Lelomenia wrote:
You can make rapier a light weapon various ways, e.g., effortless lace, and call that your offhand when TWF.

He could also just use a shortsword or something. But would be better both practically and thematically if the pistol could be light, so I was hoping there was a way to make that happen. Seems like there isn't.

Third-party stuff would most-likely be OK, BTW.

_
glass.


Hi all,

Unfortunately in last night's game, I rather rain on one of the players' parade by pointing out that his build did not work the way he wanted it to. So now I feel a bit guilty, and woul like ot help him fix it (I am a fellow player in this game, not the GM, so I cannot fix it by fiat even if I wanted to). I did search, but I only found a thread from 2012, and hopefully things have moved on a bit since then.

The crux of it is, is there any feat/archetype/other ability that allows a pistol to count as a light weapon for TWF?

EDIT: Or any other way to make TWF with a pistol and sword work. Preferably a rapier.

_
glass.


avr wrote:
You are pretty much wrong about class feats vs. powers BTW. D&D 4e powers have a much wider design space and greater effects allowed, I can't see how you'd think otherwise.

4e class powers cover more ground than PF2 class feats do currently (which kinda shoots the "4e classes are all the same" argument in the head), but nonetheless, PF2 class feats map more closely to 4e powers than 4e (general) feats. So I am not wrong.

_
glass.


I don't think it is ever made explicit, but I have always played it that they include those things, but you can substitute different gaultlets, helm, etc if you want without compromising the magic of either.

_
glass.


I'd say gestalt usually improves balance rather than harming it. So mythic by default.

_
glass.


avr wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The 4E thing is because of the homogenization. The classes gain class feats at the same levels. It feels very plug and play. Like 4E.
Also +level to everything, and 3 bonus types. OTOH D&D 4e powers did more (if less than PF1/D&D 3.x) and PF2 feels more mobile with the 3 actions thing.

Except neither D&D 4e nor PF2 add level to everything. PF2 adds level, but not to everything. 4e adds to everything, but it is only half-level.

The feats thing is more-or-less true of 4e (I can't be bothered to check if it is actually true of PF2), but disingenuous because 4e feats really only map general feats in PF2. Class feats map more closely to powers, about which it is completely untrue.

_
glass.


Mostly just bumping this back to the front page, but while I am here I may as well roll up another set of PC species:

69. Thriae (bee people)
55. Gargoyle
76. Shae (shadow people)
25. Vanara (monkey folk)
42. Satyr

Or how about:

35. Nagaji
36. Samsaran
13. Aasimar
45. Sprite
17. Sylph

Not sure if I will do anything with either of those, but I will have a think. In the meantime, anyone else up for another go around.

_
glass.


Maybe an archetype for the Kobold Press's Theurge class would go down better?

_
glass.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Kineticist, as it's the only one that didn't disappoint me by being a vancian caster.

None of them are vancian casters.

_
glass.


Paladins and Druids are two of my three favourite classes (along with Wizard which does not fit in this thread). I might have a different attitude if I had regularly run into GMs like those in the horror stories, but I haven't.

Actually that's not quite true, I did have one GM (one whole table actually) at a PFS con that had some really weird ideas about Paladins. I won't name the adventure, since what I am about to say constittes spoilers (albeit vague ones). The gist is that we had some kill some bad guys within a certain time limit, or the proverbial would hit the fan and a bunch of innocent people would die.

The table (including the GM) decided I needed to be protected from having to kill them. No way that I should have been, but it was made clear that if I killed I'd get end up as an ex-Paladin. So I had to go along with taking them alive, handing them over to the watch, and letting the watch push them down the stairs.

No way Iomedae would have had a problem with killing those guys. Ironically, she would have had a problem with not taking adequate care of them once they had been taken alive, so my character should have fallen for that. But like I said, I had to go along with the table. (I am not a Paladin in real life!)

At least I got a story out of it.

_
glass.


Melkiador wrote:
I mostly wonder why they don't just fall to the center/bottom of the world? They seem to sit on the ground, but do they not annihilate the ground?

Don't they float?

Although that does not explain why they have not anhiliated the atmoshpere by now...

_
glass.


The only one I have played so far is the Kineticist, but one of the players in my Rise of the Runeords campaign is playing a Psychic and they look like fun.

Like AVR, I love the idea of the Medium, but the implementation does not work for me. My issue with it is that, at low levels at least, the bonuses are not enough to make you actually good at anything.

_
glass.

1 to 50 of 576 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>