I’ve been having quite a bit of fun with the following build. She’s 8th level at the moment, and my goal was to have a smart, fast, mobile sword and board fighter. I did regret not taking the Exotic Weapon Feat for bastard sword, but the damage output has been OK so far.
AC = 30 (Dodge with Acrobatic Ranks, Breast Plate +2, Shield +2, Amulet of Natural AC+1, Fighter’s Armor Training +2, Dex = 18)
Attacks = Longsword +17/+12 (1d8+10)
Combat equipment includes a Longsword +2, and Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Feats = Improved Initiative, Quick Draw, Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, and Improved Critical
For future selections, I’m looking at the following (or some combination of such);
9. Critical Focus
10. Shield Focus
11. Bleeding Critical
12. Penetrating Strike
13. Powerful Critical
14. Critical Mastery
15. Greater Shield Focus
16. Greater Penetrating Strike
17. Stunning Critical
18. Iron Will
19. Greater Weapon Focus
20. Greater Specialization
By 15th level, that should be an AC of 34 without any increase in the character’s equipment.
Just thought I’d post that for consideration. She’s been interesting to play so far, and we’ll see if she’ll survive The Shackled City AP.
If you are going exotic weapon might as well do a Falcatta instead (pathfinder campaign setting book).
Absolutely. I don't like fighter-only feats.
IMO, there are too many Fighter-only feats. There were too many in 3.x. We should take all these feats and strike them from the feat list and turn them into class abilities, something like this:
Call them "fighter talents" and let them get them instead of a feat.
...
Finally, the whole 'Shield Bash' thing. The rules are not extremely clear on how this works. They say that you consider the Shield an off-hand weapon (light or one-handed) and you take the penalty to the hit roll. They do not mention the main, real weapon,...
Anyone dares to try a TWF-build using TWO shields?
You could call it a TSF (Two Shields Fighting) build... ;-)
|
I agree that the shield ones shouldn't be fighter only, and hopefully in the final version they won't be. Another way around it for rangers would be to add a sword and board combat style that had those feats on the list, and as class ability granted feats, they'd be able to ignore requirements.
Thanks for your answers!
Does anyone know whether the additional feats by Jason will be (in whichever altered form) part of the final rule book?
I'd appreciate inclusion of these feats - if possible w/o class restriction. After all the sheer number of feat slots enables fighters only to really make use of more than one feat tree.
Kr,
Günther
|
|
Call them "fighter talents" and let them get them instead of a feat.Absolutely. I don't like fighter-only feats.
IMO, there are too many Fighter-only feats. There were too many in 3.x. We should take all these feats and strike them from the feat list and turn them into class abilities, something like this:
I want them to be available to non-fighters, in this particular case.
I want them to be available to non-fighters, in this particular case.Call them "fighter talents" and let them get them instead of a feat.Absolutely. I don't like fighter-only feats.
IMO, there are too many Fighter-only feats. There were too many in 3.x. We should take all these feats and strike them from the feat list and turn them into class abilities, something like this:
Makes sense, too.
Maybe give fighters a special ability that lets them count any BAB requirement as 2 (or any other number) lower than what the feat says. Would make sense - no non-magical abilities that are somehow limited to some people (especially when they're not really class abilities). Just as no non-magical abilities should have a daily limitation.
Would make sense - no non-magical abilities that are somehow limited to some people (especially when they're not really class abilities). Just as no non-magical abilities should have a daily limitation.
Then we can make Evasion a feat, and Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge! And bleeding attack! And a feat chain for sneak attack! And one for favored enemies...
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
Would make sense - no non-magical abilities that are somehow limited to some people (especially when they're not really class abilities). Just as no non-magical abilities should have a daily limitation.Then we can make Evasion a feat, and Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge! And bleeding attack! And a feat chain for sneak attack! And one for favored enemies...
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
LoL, I've already done that for all those class abilities and many, many more.
About the only class abilities I haven't turned into feats are the big heavy hitters (like spellcasting, for example - wanna be a spellcaster play a class that lets you cast spells) or truly class defining abilities, like Bardic Music.
Dang near everything else is a feat, though some of them are stripped down into multiple feats if they were too strong to stand alone as a single feat.
Between splat books and home-grown feats, I have a spreadsheet with over 1500 feats listed, each citing their prereqs, their 1-line brief description, and their source for handy reference.
|
Would make sense - no non-magical abilities that are somehow limited to some people (especially when they're not really class abilities). Just as no non-magical abilities should have a daily limitation.Then we can make Evasion a feat, and Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge! And bleeding attack! And a feat chain for sneak attack! And one for favored enemies...
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
LoL, I've already done that for all those class abilities and many, many more.
About the only class abilities I haven't turned into feats are the big heavy hitters (like spellcasting, for example - wanna be a spellcaster play a class that lets you cast spells) or truly class defining abilities, like Bardic Music.
Dang near everything else is a feat, though some of them are stripped down into multiple feats if they were too strong to stand alone as a single feat.
Between splat books and home-grown feats, I have a spreadsheet with over 1500 feats listed, each citing their prereqs, their 1-line brief description, and their source for handy reference.
cool, let's see em... =D
cool, let's see em... =DWould make sense - no non-magical abilities that are somehow limited to some people (especially when they're not really class abilities). Just as no non-magical abilities should have a daily limitation.Then we can make Evasion a feat, and Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge! And bleeding attack! And a feat chain for sneak attack! And one for favored enemies...
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
LoL, I've already done that for all those class abilities and many, many more.
About the only class abilities I haven't turned into feats are the big heavy hitters (like spellcasting, for example - wanna be a spellcaster play a class that lets you cast spells) or truly class defining abilities, like Bardic Music.
Dang near everything else is a feat, though some of them are stripped down into multiple feats if they were too strong to stand alone as a single feat.
Between splat books and home-grown feats, I have a spreadsheet with over 1500 feats listed, each citing their prereqs, their 1-line brief description, and their source for handy reference.
All this technology stuff baffles me. How does one go about uploading a 30-page .xls spreadsheet so you can "see em"?
Depending on the size of the file, you could email it (Gmail will support up to 20MB or so I think--been a while since I checked). You can also stick it up on a site such as Hot Link Files or DropSend. These sites will spit out a URL once they're done that you can then send to folks.
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
Not quite - my idea would mean that you can be a lot better in stabbing people in the back if you're a rogue - you can get it as another character, but not nearly as early and as often as a rogue.
Not quite - my idea would mean that you can be a lot better in stabbing people in the back if you're a rogue - you can get it as another character, but not nearly as early and as often as a rogue.
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
I've actually done similar in my games in the past--so long as an ability is Extraordinary, anybody can learn it as a feat. Supernatural/Spell-like abilities might be available, but have heavier requirements and are not "automatically" available. I'm in the process of turning the Tome of Battle maneuvers into feats as well (again with an eye to the Extraordinary only) and it's producing some very nice feat chains for specialized combatants.
Not quite - my idea would mean that you can be a lot better in stabbing people in the back if you're a rogue - you can get it as another character, but not nearly as early and as often as a rogue.
Wait, now we're playing my classless system. Cool!
In the back?
Why, you old grognard you! Haven't you heard? These young whippersnapper rogues today, yeah, they call em rogues now, they stab people any old which way. Not like the thieves of your and my day, no sir. Any which way.
Who woulda thunk it?
Next they'll come up with some kinda new fangled magic user what don't carry a spell book...
Oh, in case it came across wrong (you never know with forums and emails), my last post was meant to be funny, not mean, and it wasn't a cheap shot at anyone.
I even included myself in the grognard category.
So please, no harm intended, no foul committed...
Oh, in case it came across wrong (you never know with forums and emails)
QFT. I've found my occasional attempts at irony fall so flat you can't see the bottom. Anyway, count 1 more grognard amused and unoffended!
Highly amusing. I like, now turn around and be surprised ok? ;D
Sorry, it's not broken...
you gain AC from a shield (and you can also two weapon fight with it. with 1 feat you can maintain the AC bonus from the shield)
you gain extra attacks at a penalty with two weapons. (with 1 feat, you can gain an AC bonus with them.
you gain a small amount of additional dmg from a two handed weapon. (+1 with a 14-17 STR, +2 with 18-21 STR, and a whopping +3 with a 22-25 STR) in reality that isn't that much extra dmg...is it? (with a FEAT, you can double your STR bonus...for a SINGLE attack)
Those are the balances.
The single weapon/no shield is the only combo that needs fixing.
|
...
Finally, the whole 'Shield Bash' thing. The rules are not extremely clear on how this works. They say that you consider the Shield an off-hand weapon (light or one-handed) and you take the penalty to the hit roll. They do not mention the main, real weapon,...Anyone dares to try a TWF-build using TWO shields?
You could call it a TSF (Two Shields Fighting) build... ;-)
Tried this a few years back using a dwarf wielding two Dwarven Axe Shields (Arms and Equipment Guide).
Could never quite get the build to work right - was looking for the mythical high AC two weapon fighter.
Ran into two major problems before the campaign ended:
1. Shield bonuses (and shield enhancement bonuses)don't stack. Since you aren't getting benefit from one of the shields, why not go with a more traditional weapon? My DM at the time was kind enough to hand wave this and allow two shield bonuses to stack (he thought the character concept was cool), but a second problem cropped up:
2. It is hella-expensive to enchant a shield for offense and defense, much less TWO shields.
The first problem is more than enough to kill the build outright, unless there is a serious hand wave...
You should still be AC 29 by my count... You can't have 10 ranks in Acrobatics until level 10. Even if as it seems you took a level in a class that might have acrobatscs as a class skill (since you are short a feat, two if human), the class skill bonus doesn't add to the ranks, just the skill bonus.
1 + 7 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 19 + 10 = 29
Thanks for pointing that out. Thankfully, I only recently added that extra point to the AC and it hasn't entered into play yet.
|
The Heavy shield gives a + 2 Shield bonus to AC. A +5 heavy shield gives a +7 Shield bonus to AC. Since the shield bonus is + 7, the bonus to hit and to damage is also +7.
I didn't think that enhancement bonuses stacked? And as it reads the "shield bonus" behaves for all purposes as an "enhancement bonus" and thus wouldn't stack with the magic +5 enhancement bonus the shield already has.
And we are talking a little over 54,000 gp to obtain. For a 2d6+5/7 once a round? And on the round you use it to attack you lose you AC benefit? I'm not completely sold.
Here is a question. To make this shield you need to first get a +1 (minimum) heavy spiked shield, then you add bashing, then you add +5 "weapon" enhancement. Because the first +1 shield is an "enhancement bonus" to my "shield bonus" does this still count for defense when enhancement bonus don't stack and I have to get a +5 weapon "enhancement bonus" to use the +'s in combat using the shield.
So is the shield AC +2 (shield) +1 (enchancement) = +3 in defense and
+5 to attack (due to the enhancement 'weapon based' bonus?
OR
does the enhancement bonus of the 'defense' get absorbed by the 'attack' enhancement bonus?
I've been wrong before,
S.
Why not say add half the strength bonus to AC when using a shield? It can represent actively pushing the shield to interfere with oppenent's blows... Reducing their angles, and making it hard to throw a decent shot.
But what about those who parry with their weapon? They could use their strength for their defense, too.
I think the fact that you get a better AC by the very fact that you have a shield (which grants a shield bonus to AC) is good enough as an inherent bonus.
And then, just as there are special feats for big weapon users, get feats that help only those with a shield. But only by increasing their defense further.
And then, just as there are special feats for big weapon users, get feats that help only those with a shield. But only by increasing their defense further.
Not to be facetious but isn't that where PFRPG pretty much stands with the feats Jason added? ;)
Increases to AC have to be kept in check, there aren't many ways to increase chances to hit via feats and "defensive feats" shouldn't provide any higher a bonus than you can get by feats before it becomes unbalanced. Removing a hit completely is a very different beast than partially reducing damage, even DR 4/- at 8th level usually means you are still taking a few points on average unless you are running some campaign where hordes of 2H barbarians, magic flinging artilery types, or equivalent are the norm.
And while I understand where people are coming from when they say "I want other classes to have access to X, Y, Z fighter feats." I think people fail to recognize (or ignore for that matter) the only thing Fighters get are feats, that is their schtick. It was bad enough in 3.5 but now in PFRPG basically everyone gets as many feats as the Fighter class did just for leveling up. Getting rid of "Fighter Feats" would really just be a slap in the face. They need to exist to give the Fighter some sort of identity (however "meh" it might be in comparison), you want these neat feats, take a few levels of fighter. It isn't like you have to deal with multiclass XP penalties now, though I bet some people out there are not wanting to give up the goodies of the new classes to get the feats and that is why they are clamoring to have them available as general feats.
Nor (because this is usually the other side) does it hurt the "role-playing" of the character to take a few levels of Fighter to gain access to these feats. You want access to abilities listed as fighter only, you are kinda taking a more martial attitude/feel with the character (even for the martial characters like Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian). Though as a paladin you might have to atone depending on when you take the classes (I forget if that restriction is still in play and too tired to look it up I admit to being lazy right about now lol), but that is a whole role-playing opportunity right there. A fighter 3/ paladin 2 can still call him/herself a paladin, it is all in the presentation.
I'll admit is has always been a pet peeve of mine that the mechanic that is supposed to be "unique" or cause the Fighter to "stand out" is basically given away to every character and, really from that POV, PFPRG only made it worse. Yeah, they get a good number of feats but... Feats as written so far don't scale well at higher levels, you run out of really useful things to take (which PFRPG has admittedly seemingly taken into account, or at least looks to be doing so with the post listing feats that Jason put up). Anyways, fighter feats need to stay around for that reason alone I would have to say, fighters need something of their "own." If the feats are good enough to make you consider giving up X levels of paladin (or any class for that matter) to take, chances are they are balanced.
I was picking on paladin because people keep bringing up the "iconic S&B Paladin" fyi.
The problem is feats that give shield users extra offensive strength: Feats that let you use the shield as weapon without losing its armour bonus, feats that eliminate two-weapon fighting penalties for shield users only, and also let you use the shield's AC bonus as an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, which means you're getting a magical weapon for free. Might as well have a dancing weapon that uses the owner's stats and keeps going indefinetlely.
Fighters gaining inherent bonuses to both armor/weapons and most especially giving them auto-crits with increased critical multipliers sets fighters apart from all the other melee combatants.
They don't need Fighter Only Feats, because even a barbarian with Weapon Specialization isn't going to be As good as the Fighter...
In my game, those feats lose their Fighter only requirements, and become BAB requirements.
And while I understand where people are coming from when they say "I want other classes to have access to X, Y, Z fighter feats." I think people fail to recognize (or ignore for that matter) the only thing Fighters get are feats, that is their schtick.
I'm not failing to recognize that, though Pathfinder gave them a few new things to add to their schtick.
But there's a difference between saying "my schtick is that I get lots of feats" and "my schtick is that I get special feats that nobody else can get". Two different schticks.
I, for one, would rather take all the fighter-only feats and erase them from the feat list and write them into the fighter class as abilities they get a specific levels (maybe instead of a free feat, or as an option to take the ability that level or take a feat instead).
And I even agree that a couple feats that are fignter-only probably should remain so. Such as Weapon Specialization. Every other class spends a lot of time doing other things. They don't have the time to specialize in a weapon like fighters do. OK, it's a bit weak, but I can buy it.
But then people jump on this fighter-only train and start creating feats willy-nilly and labeling them "fighter-only" without thinking about what that really means, and suddenly you have a whole bunch of feats limited to one class, many of which don't have the "intense fighter focus" flavor like Weapon Sepcialization.
It was bad enough in 3.5 but now in PFRPG basically everyone gets as many feats as the Fighter class did just for leveling up.
Fighters still get 10 more feats than anyone else. Most other classes don't get 10 class abilities, and many of the classes that do, their class abilities are often weaker than many good feats, or scattered and lacking focus. Fighters get to focus their feat selection on one thing (if they wish): being better and killing stuff with their weapons. Though, hopefully that doesn't mean they neglect spending a couple feats to compensate their weaknesses.
Getting rid of "Fighter Feats" would really just be a slap in the face.
I love that term. Really. It doesn't get used nearly enough on game forums.
They need to exist to give the Fighter some sort of identity (however "meh" it might be in comparison),
Not really.
The beauty of being a fighter, his schtick, is that he can learn stuff everyone else can, but he has the time and focus to learn a lot more of it.
The realy beauty of it is that a fighter can be just about any kind of combatant you can imagine. Robin Hood, Three Musketeer, Conan, Tarzan, Samurai, Viking, Roman Legionnaire, Spartan, Street Brawler, Pirate, etc.
No other class has that versatility. All the other classes have specific abilities handed to them.
Fighters, on the other hand, are handed a list of hundreds of feats and told to pick and choose what they want to meet their character's needs and goals.
Nobody else gets that.
you want these neat feats, take a few levels of fighter.
Only applicable, IMO, to feats that really cry out "hey, you have to be remarkably focused on combat to even consider being this good". All other feats that feel more like "spend a little time and learn a new trick" shouldn't, IMO, belong to just one class.
Anyways, fighter feats need to stay around for that reason alone I would have to say, fighters need something of their "own."
You mean like bravery?
You mean like armor training?
You mean like weapon training?
You mean like armor mastery?
You mean like weapon mastery?
You mean like the flexibility to define themselves any way they want?
If the feats are good enough to make you consider giving up X levels of paladin (or any class for that matter) to take, chances are they are balanced.
What is there about the concept of paladin that says "these guys should suck at using shields compared to a true fighter"?
Paladins, iconically, are nearly always depicted with sword and shield. They are the classical defenders, clanking around in heavy armor and fending off blows with their heavy shields.
Why should fighters at least 3 shield feats I can think of, off the top of my head, that paladins can't?
As I have said, maybe it works from a game mechics POV. If we say "well, fighters don't get much else, let's give them this because it balances the game", well, then maybe it adds to game balance.
But it's not entirely realistic.
We could also say "well, fighters don't get much else, let's add a rule that only fighters can learn how to swing swords. Anyone else wants to learn to use a sword, they should take levels in fighter."
That might also add to game balance, but it detracts from what makes sense.
So does limiting easy, ordinary feats to be just "fighter-only".
Exactly DM Blake
Here is the current list of fighter only feats. (and the minimum level)
Disruptive (6th)
-Spellbreaker (10th)
Shield Mastery (4th)
-Greater Shield Mastery (12th)
Greater Shield Focus (8th)
Penetrating Strike (12th)
-Greater Penetrating Strike (16th)
Greater Weapon Focus (8th)
Weapon Specialization (4th)
-Greater Weapon Specialization (12th)
NONE of those seem overwhelmingly "FIGHTER ONLY" to me. (except possibly...Weapon specialization, as a throw-back to 2e)
In fact The "Disruptive/Spellbreaker" Feats scream monk to me.
Why are fighters the only one who can learn Greater Shield Focus, or Greater Weapon Focus...
The other melee classes NEED access to these feats to attempt to keep up with the Pfighter.
a 20th level fighter has the following advantages...
+4 to hit/dmg with one class of weapons. then +3/+2/+1 with three other classes.
One chosen weapon becomes an auto-crit weapon, with an increased multiplier. (this stacks with improved critical as written)
+4 to armor class, with a –4 reduction to the armor check penalty and a +4 increase to the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.
(This puts Full plate at 12AC, +5 Max Dex, and -2 armor check penalty---Or a Breastplate at 9AC, +7 Max Dex, no armor check penalty)
and Damage resist 5/-
a total of 21(22 for a human) feats which ADD to those powers!!!
|
|
See, for these kind of feats to me, I agree that I would think anyone should be able to take them at a base attack bonus. I would want a fighter to still have an advantage in these things though since feats really are supposed to be their domain.
Perhaps something like the reverse of the warblade's ability from book of nine swords. Warblades are able to take fighter only feats as if they were a fighter two levels lower then their class level. Maybe take any fighter only feat and add a +2 to what the fighters base attack bonus would be at that level(so weapon spec would need a BaB of +6), and give fighters a special quality where their base attack bonus is treated as 2 higher for qualifying for any feats?
See, for these kind of feats to me, I agree that I would think anyone should be able to take them at a base attack bonus. I would want a fighter to still have an advantage in these things though since feats really are supposed to be their domain.
Perhaps something like the reverse of the warblade's ability from book of nine swords. Warblades are able to take fighter only feats as if they were a fighter two levels lower then their class level. Maybe take any fighter only feat and add a +2 to what the fighters base attack bonus would be at that level(so weapon spec would need a BaB of +6), and give fighters a special quality where their base attack bonus is treated as 2 higher for qualifying for any feats?
I disagree, the Pfighter is already the weapons master, he gains the equivalent of weapon focus/specialization for dozens of weapons...
He has the best armor now...just look at Grumble's statblock...
Let's have a rumble with a 20th level Barbarian now...heh
With the removal of SoD spells, he'll tear a wizard apart in seconds, he can stand toe to toe with a dragon...or the greatest of CR20 Demons and Devils...
Now now lets not get carried away but that is cute.
The wizard doesn't have too much to worry about from one fighter (even of even level) especially if the fighter hasn't looked into having a decent Will save.
Not to mention stuff like blink, greater invisibility, mirror image, flying, walls of force, web spells, cloudkill, rays of exhaustion, enervation, et al.
Dragons typically can hit anything, and demons can just keep teleporting away to send in more minions...
However the fighter does offer many more and new choices.
OK OK , The Grumble Grog got carried away...Since any spell resistance item wouldn't be enough... to save against a 20th level wizard, especially with Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. The Fighter would have to get the drop on the Wizard...and Blind-fighting tends to help against some of those spells...and whirlwind attack should take care of those silly images...heh
The Toe-to-Toe part with the dragon is discussed above, both having a 45% chance to hit versus a red wyrm.
Now, no dragon or devil in their right mind would actually stand toe-to-toe with a fully decked out fighter...
Dragons typically can hit anything
CR 20 Dragons have primary attacks with a bonus around 40.
A Fighter 20 has 10 (base) + 17 (+5 mithral full plate) + 5 (Dex, can be as much as +7 even, but let's stay with Dex 20 here), +5 (Natural) +5 (Deflection).
That's AC 49. And it's not quite the max: You can another +2 for dex, +2 for dodge, +7 (+5 heavy shield), plus a bit more for shield feats.
It's already not trivial for the dragon (meaning power attack is out of the question), and if he goes defensive rather than offensive (i.e. sword and board, and more dex at the cost of other attributes), the dragon will have to roll natural twenties.
demons can just keep teleporting away to send in more minions...
Yeah, that will work. Send minions, minions get slaughtered (and the fighter won't even break a sweat), meanwhile the demon has to call in all his favours, have to promise many of them of his own, and loses all his minions, thus weakening his position in the infernal power play. The demon can win that fight to death.
You can only hit the dragon if he stays in your range though, remember the flying part, spell casting and element breathing, plus much longer reach (in addition to considerable AC on his own behalf).
Depending on the demon/devil the tactics will of course vary. But anything with teleport can simply teleport away shoot some arrows hoping for a natural 20. Failing that mortals have to sleep sometime and outsiders don't... he can just wait until the fighter passes out then tie him up and have some fun. Spell like abilities could enter the picture depending on the outsider.
Yeah, that's why Grumble Grog has wings of flying...and back up potions of flying...of course during out level 18 playtest, the giant sundered his flimsy cloak and he was pretty much out of the fight, which is why he started carrying potions of flying....
And wow those are some whimpy demons/devils you GM there...I tend to think those types of demons/devils will stick around for at least a couple rounds, because they are overconfident...
Go toe to toe with a fighter all maxed out? Demons and Devils generally aren't stupid. Sure they'll send in a couple of waves of small things with a command to aid other to grapple and pin the fighter, but fight fairly? HA!
EVIL doesn't fight fairly.
Say that you do goad a devil into fighting you "on even ground"
Here is what he'll require to be "even"
No armor, since he doesn't have any
No shield, since he doesn't have any
No weapons, since he doesn't have any
Al naturale.
And when the fighter says no, the devil points out that just proves the devil's superiority and he has no need to even fight the fighter since he accepts the devil's superiority by not accepting an "even" fight.
Yes it's skewed logic, but that's a devil for you.
Ah then demon, ye think I'm stronger than ye with me gear, so just run away, I already won....
The devil doesn't want you dead anyways... he can't trick you into more evil if you are... sure just remember you're able to take him at anytime, that's a golden spot for him to work on corrupting you.
Where as the demon just blasts you with a dominate, blasphemy or some such, then ties you up and takes his dear sweet time torturing you and eating you alive.
Provided you live through that he passes you on down (or up) the line of demons.
Actually a demon might just send wave after wave of dretches or some such at you enjoying the show of pain suffering and unnecessary violence until you wear out.
Order of the Stick points out something important in this case: how many enemies can you take at once if they aid other, or even if they all swing individually one in twenty is going to hit, how many d6+4 can you take? 10 (200 creatures), 100 (2000), 1000 (20000)?
Seeing a 'hero' go down in chaos under wave after wave of unrelenting evil while fighting desperately for his life would make most demons I can think of laugh with glee.
|
|
Ah then demon, ye think I'm stronger than ye with me gear, so just run away, I already won....
Or the demon/devil just comes back when you are 93 years old and spits in your cereal and knocks over your walking frame. Of course over the intervening years it has killed most of your friends, family and pets. Problem with immortals is they are, er, immortal..
Seeing a 'hero' go down in chaos under wave after wave of unrelenting evil while fighting desperately for his life would make most demons I can think of laugh with glee.
I hesitate to ask...
Just how many demons do you know of?
That explains a lot, really...
:)
I hope you meant "most demons I can imagine".
That was what you meant, right?
Please tell us that that was what you meant?
Seeing a 'hero' go down in chaos under wave after wave of unrelenting evil while fighting desperately for his life would make most demons I can think of laugh with glee.I hesitate to ask...
Just how many demons do you know of?
That explains a lot, really...
:)
I hope you meant "most demons I can imagine".
That was what you meant, right?
Please tell us that that was what you meant?
I can think of =/= that I know
I can think up the stats for a demon and make a decision based on a general knowledge(planes) of what their 'typical' habits could be, if you want some gamerese.
(all in good fun dm_blake ;p)
Anyone dares to try a TWF-build using TWO shields?
You could call it a TSF (Two Shields Fighting) build... ;-)Tried this a few years back using a dwarf wielding two Dwarven Axe Shields (Arms and Equipment Guide).
Could never quite get the build to work right - was looking for the mythical high AC two weapon fighter.Ran into two major problems before the campaign ended:
1. Shield bonuses (and shield enhancement bonuses)don't stack. Since you aren't getting benefit from one of the shields, why not go with a more traditional weapon? My DM at the time was kind enough to hand wave this and allow two shield bonuses to stack (he thought the character concept was cool), but a second problem cropped up:2. It is hella-expensive to enchant a shield for offense and defense, much less TWO shields.
Search the Boards for "Benny Fighter". It starts out trying to pull some cheesy Weapon Swap with Shield thing, but ultimately it works as a 2 Shield Fighter.
One initial benefit from dual wielding the same weapon (Spiked Shield) is you get the max benefit from Weapon Training/Spec/Focus and Improved Critical Feats. So more or your attacks will hit all the time, while not needing to waste extra Feats.
You DON'T enchant the Shield for both Offence and Defence,
you take advantage of using it's Shield Enhancement for both Defence and Offence.
This is CHEAPER than getting Weapon Enhancements, and though you may want "special" attack enhancements (speed, holy, etc), the money you're saving by paying 1/2 price for Armor Enhancements vs. "real" Weapon Enhancements can be plowed into Special Weapon Enhancements (or utility magic items).
So it's true, you don't get any AC benefit from one of the Shields, but the benefits from Weapon Specialization and Shield Feats seem to make it just as worthwhile. It's not 100% clear if BOTH Shields can convert Shield Bonus to Attack Bonus, and I'd be inclined to say the Shield that doesn't grant effective AC bonus doesn't get to use that hypothetical number as an Attack/Damage bonus - which would mean you just Enchant the "Spike" on that Shield solely as a Weapon.
Realistically, such a build would be BETTER than Grumble Grog.
...But Grog DOES demonstrate a very effective Defense AND Offense Fighter build, without descending to ultra-cheese of "Dual Shields".