Uh... I see NO mention of Rapiers until a third of the way down the page, and then it is only mentioned as "Favored Weapon: Rapier"... NO "fluff" reasons or background/ imagery explaining it. The entire thread was clearly focused on "crunch"... I agree that's pretty pathetic if that's your entire game, but that was clearly the premise from the start of this thread.
Uh... I see NO mention of Rapiers until a third of the way down the page, and then it is only mentioned as "Favored Weapon: Rapier"... NO "fluff" reasons or background/ imagery explaining it. The entire thread was clearly focused on "crunch"... I agree that's pretty pathetic if that's your entire game, but that was clearly the premise from the start of this thread.
Sorry,
I guess you are new to the thread. I just have a button about crunch for crunch's sake.
man i gotta say what a comunity we have here...you guys are really responceive and may i add very friendly! (kinda like family around here..kinda nice :D )ok so someone want to do a writeup of what they have in mind for me then?
we all agree that 2 weapon is a good idea and i see what the point is with the rapier/shortsword combo vs the other combo's that have been suggested. i think thats the way i will go with things till i can get the sawtooth saber proficentcy.
thanks for the help and please keep me posted with any other ideas you might have!
so progression for this guy? only need to go to 10th lvl or so cause it is doubtful that we weill go past that in the test run.
should i take my first lvl as a fighter? and then if i do, what do i take as my prefered class?
i still kinda wanna do the 2 rapier thing, is there any way i could make that work? (ok REASONABLY?)
See above about wanting to do it with rapiers (bolded).
|
Ok then. To answer the following bolded question:
>>i still kinda wanna do the 2 rapier thing, is there any way i could make that work? (ok REASONABLY?)<<
My answer is: no.
PS: if you're not interested in crunch answers, don't ask crunch questions. If you want a ridiculous fluff answer as to how he can reasonably use rapiers (one handed weapons) vs. shortswords (light weapons), then I've already provided one such ridiculous answer: pretend your shortswords are rapiers (same look, same swoosh, just the same 19-20/x2 mechanics though).
Of course, we all know the truth though: the reason he's interested in rapiers, self-admittedly, is for the 18-20 crit range. Oh! right: that's not fluff either!
Ok then. To answer the following bolded question:
>>i still kinda wanna do the 2 rapier thing, is there any way i could make that work? (ok REASONABLY?)<<
My answer is: no.
PS: if you're not interested in crunch answers, don't ask crunch questions. If you want a ridiculous fluff answer as to how he can reasonably use rapiers (one handed weapons) vs. shortswords (light weapons), then I've already provided one such ridiculous answer: pretend your shortswords are rapiers (same look, same swoosh, just the same 19-20/x2 mechanics though).
Of course, we all know the truth though: the reason he's interested in rapiers, self-admittedly, is for the 18-20 crit range. Oh! right: that's not fluff either!
You consider one extra feat being required unreasonable?
Pot, meet kettle.
Of course, that relies on the GM allowing 'non-Pathfinder' rulebooks that provide the specified Large Weapon Feat...
Of course, that relies on the GM allowing 'non-Pathfinder' rulebooks that provide the specified Large Weapon Feat...
Granted. That's why I listed the splat book. The stated purpose of Pathfinder is to be backwards compatible with the existing 3.5 materials though, so if the GM would allow the splatbook in a 3.5 game, it should be fair in a pathfinder game.
If the GM doesn't allow the splatbooks, then obviously there is no way to do the build using rapiers. I just don't see personally why it would be considered unreasonable to take one feat to accomplish a desired goal.
Well our group isn't running with any of the splat books.
Most of us are transitioning from 2nd ed to Pathfinder, and part of our decision to drop the splat books is that they 'appear' to get pretty unbalanced at times, and thus we would prefer a uniform set of rules that have been put together with some sort of consistency.
The same held true in 2nd ed though with the various class books, the first few (Fight/Rog) were very well put together and nicely thought out... then it slowly drifted to munchkinism.
Well our group isn't running with any of the splat books.
Most of us are transitioning from 2nd ed to Pathfinder, and part of our decision to drop the splat books is that they 'appear' to get pretty unbalanced at times, and thus we would prefer a uniform set of rules that have been put together with some sort of consistency.
The same held true in 2nd ed though with the various class books, the first few (Fight/Rog) were very well put together and nicely thought out... then it slowly drifted to munchkinism.
I've found most of the splatbooks to be a mix of underpowered, overpowered, and balanced stuff. Some of the classes put in are very weak, some overpowered, some balanced. The balanced ones add a nice flavor (Scout, Knight, Marshal, Warmage), some of the unbalanced ones are a pain to deal with (Warlock, I'm staring in your beady devilish eyes), and some are underpowered but have some really nice flair (Swashbuckler!).
All that aside, if you're avoiding them, then yes, it's impossible to make a dual rapier (or katana, or anything else) rogue.
Here is my suggestion for a Human Rogue; this build is intended to allow the Rogue to setup its own sneak attack routines without flanking help or take advantage of the party bard's ability to frighten enemies into the "shaken" condition.
1) Two Weapon Fighting, Dodge
2) Talent: (Finesse Rogue)
3) Two Weapon Defense
4) Talent: (Weapon Training - Short Sword)
5) Skill Focus: Intimidate
6) Talent: (Combat Trick - Dazzling Display)
7) Persuasive
8) Talent: (Player's Choice - I'd take Fast Stealth)
9) Stunning DefenseThis build wants a high Dex and a decent Cha score. I would move your human bonus from Con to Dex.
I don't think he can take Dazzling Display. He still has to meet the pre-reqs feat wise (he can ignore the fighter requirement for combat feats, but I think he has to be that level of rogue (IE: Fighter 4 = Rogue 4), part of his rogue talent). He still needs to have Weapon Focus with the weapon he is using to do the display.
I don't think he can take Dazzling Display. He still has to meet the pre-reqs feat wise (he can ignore the fighter requirement for combat feats, but I think he has to be that level of rogue (IE: Fighter 4 = Rogue 4), part of his rogue talent). He still needs to have Weapon Focus with the weapon he is using to do the display.The "Weapon Training" talent grants the feat "Weapon Focus"; in this case for a Short Sword. Weapon Focus is the only prerequisite for Dazzling Display. So, it should be legal where it is at in this build as Weapon Training is taken at level 4 and Combat Trick for Dazzling Display is taken at 6th.
Ah, ok, still not used to how that works. I wish they'd just called it 'Weapon Focus'. I was thinking, for some reason, that it was like the weapon training of the fighter.
I am chiming in here very late, so please take this with the grain of salt it deserves. There are some very good points and suggestions here and I only seek to add to that:
1. Twin Weapon Fighting still needs a Rogue --or anyone for that matter-- using his full-round action to benefit from the extra attack, which means a Rogue generally standing in one spot to do so. To quote this post, even a Rogue with D8 HP are still not going to stand up long against another fighter-type. There have been a number of posts regarding fighter levels: I fully support them if you want a Rogue who can go toe-to-toe with a bruiser.
2. Don't forget to overuse Bluff at lower levels. Using Bluff to feint in combat (thus denying an opponent his dex bonus) is your friend.
|
2. Don't forget to overuse Bluff at lower levels. Using Bluff to feint in combat (thus denying an opponent his dex bonus) is your friend.
Not sure about this.
My 2-weapon fighting Rogue2/Fighter1 character used Charisma for his dump stat, so any chance of feinting an enemy is not that good.
Furthermore, taking a standard action to bluff prevents me from attacking. Heck, even the move action still required after taking Improved Feint would get in the way of the full-attack required to use my 2 weapons.
Finally my sneak attack does not do that much damage (from being at lower levels AND adding Fighter levels).
I did not do the exact math, but I have the feeling that in such a config, feinting is in fact counter-productive, as the sneak attack damage you can get once in a while does not make up for the normal damage of all the attacks you gave up to feint.
IMO, feinting should be reserved to Charisma-based Rogues who are already good at bluffing. Not to fighting-type Rogues wielding two weapons.
Bluffing has never been worthwhile unless you're having actual trouble hitting someone who is largely unarmored. Monks or Rogues, stuff like that.
The action required to take it makes it pretty much useless for regular combat. You're better off taking things like Flick of the Wrist (or Mercurial Strike) and Quick Draw to make people flatfooted. There's tons of ways to deny Dex bonuses and still get a full attack.
I've heard the "rogues shouldn't be in full melee" argument a few times, but I think it's a little overstated. They've always had UMD, so a broader range of healing than most non-casters. They've also got the best chance of escaping from melee with good tumble, climb, etc. checks.
I'm a big fan of the new Scorpion Style tree in the Beta rules. It's a hefty feat investment for a rogue, but always getting two extra attacks at highest base with no penalty on someone who's flatfooted with Medusa's Wrath is pretty darn good.
Bluffing has never been worthwhile unless you're having actual trouble hitting someone who is largely unarmored. Monks or Rogues, stuff like that.
The action required to take it makes it pretty much useless for regular combat. You're better off taking things like Flick of the Wrist (or Mercurial Strike) and Quick Draw to make people flatfooted. There's tons of ways to deny Dex bonuses and still get a full attack.
I've heard the "rogues shouldn't be in full melee" argument a few times, but I think it's a little overstated. They've always had UMD, so a broader range of healing than most non-casters. They've also got the best chance of escaping from melee with good tumble, climb, etc. checks.
I'm a big fan of the new Scorpion Style tree in the Beta rules. It's a hefty feat investment for a rogue, but always getting two extra attacks at highest base with no penalty on someone who's flatfooted with Medusa's Wrath is pretty darn good.
This is one reason why the scout has all but replaced the rogue in most of my games. You have to move at least 10 feet to get your bonus damage, but you can get it every time you fire if you move. You only get one attack per round (although you can get more than one with feats like rapid fire or by two-weapon fighting), but you get your bonus damage every time. And it's not hard to move with dodge, mobility, a high tumble, etc. I've got a scout in my game that routinely races around the edges of combat, shooting people 25 feet away. If anyone closes with him, he tumbles out of their threat range (which isn't hard against one person, or even two, since he's a dex build). He's very happy to trade some extra attacks that have a lower chance to hit for one (or two with rapid fire) that's likely to succeed and bonus damage to each hit. Granted, he multiclassed warlock/scout, so his attacks are ranged touch attacks, but even when he uses his bow (to get multi attacks) he can usually hit about 3 out of 4 times.
Bluffing has never been worthwhile unless you're having actual trouble hitting someone who is largely unarmored. Monks or Rogues, stuff like that.
At low level, bluffing isn't worth it, especially for a TWF rogue. Four chances to do 1d6 (2 full attacks with a short sword) are better than one chance to do 3d6 (bluff and full attack, but 1d6 sneak attack only on the first hit) unless your opponent has a sizable dex bonus to AC.
It can be worth it at higher levels, where you have more sneak attack damage. At 7th level, a successful bluff lets you do 6d6 damage (4d6 sneak and 1d6 from two short sword attacks) in two rounds, where as two full attacks would grant you only 4d6.
My rogue normally flanks with the fighter to gain sneak attack, so he hasn't invested feats into no-dex sneak attacks. If I ended up in solo combat, I'd probably either withdraw or try bluffing. (Solo combat here might just mean I'm trying to finish off a mook while the fighter handles a main enemy that I can't effectively attack.)
Any Rogue taking Medusa's Wrath is only going to get it at 15th anyway, unless they multiclass to improve their BaB.
Scout/Warlock sounds really interesting actually, I'm surprised it never occurred to me.
I get that bluffing is preferable to just taking a non-sneak full attack at higher levels, but you can almost always find a way to take a full attack that includes sneak. Flanking is probably the easiest method, but between feats and magic items you can go a lot further. Daunting Nuisance is a great feat for a fighter to take to help out the other party members in combat and it allows a rogue to go to town on a BBEG.
Any Rogue taking Medusa's Wrath is only going to get it at 15th anyway, unless they multiclass to improve their BaB.
Scout/Warlock sounds really interesting actually, I'm surprised it never occurred to me.
I get that bluffing is preferable to just taking a non-sneak full attack at higher levels, but you can almost always find a way to take a full attack that includes sneak. Flanking is probably the easiest method, but between feats and magic items you can go a lot further. Daunting Nuisance is a great feat for a fighter to take to help out the other party members in combat and it allows a rogue to go to town on a BBEG.
Yep,
As a GM, it's been a major pain at times. At low levels, he's outdamaging the fighters every round (2d6 eldritch blast + 2d6 skirmish) as a ranged touch attack. So he never misses. Even giving up multiple attacks at higher levels he'll be averaging the same damage as a tricked out fighter. On the bright side, everyone is hitting level 9 now, and the fighters and druids are caught up damage wise. They'll pull a little ahead of him now, but he'll be in spitting distance for awhile.
I'm going to work out a Scout/Warlock right now. Thank you for giving me something other than my hangover to think about.
I'm going to work out a Scout/Warlock right now. Thank you for giving me something other than my hangover to think about.
LOL,
No problem.
Not sure about this.
My 2-weapon fighting Rogue2/Fighter1 character used Charisma for his dump stat, so any chance of feinting an enemy is not that good.
Furthermore, taking a standard action to bluff prevents me from attacking. Heck, even the move action still required after taking Improved Feint would get in the way of the full-attack required to use my 2 weapons.
Finally my sneak attack does not do that much damage (from being at lower levels AND adding Fighter levels).
I did not do the exact math, but I have the feeling that in such a config, feinting is in fact counter-productive, as the sneak attack damage you can get once in a while does not make up for the normal damage of all the attacks you gave up to feint.
IMO, feinting should be reserved to Charisma-based Rogues who are already good at bluffing. Not to fighting-type Rogues wielding two weapons.
Being counter-productive is really a matter of personal opinion on how a roguish character is played. But that was where I was going: Improved feint makes it into a move action, allowing you to sneak attack on your very next standard action (which I would have thought would have been appealing to a character who prefers to face his opponents head-on instead of flanking or sneaking), but each time you do it, you are -of course- denied the use of a full attack (plus one attack for your off hand) if you do. To me, it sounds like two weapons and standing toe-to-toe with your adversary is more important to you than actual sneak attack at this stage, but I think you wanted the Rogue class for its versatility --which brings me to the second point:
Rogues come in all shapes and are nothing if not versatile. The DM may throw the players a curve-ball at some point (steal your favorite weapons, has you grappled, or pinned, or swallowed by a gigantic creature, facing an opponent with insane DR --where sneak attack has it in spades over multiple attacks--, or even having all the spellcasters knocked out and you desperately need a Fireball from a wand, for example) and the Rogue needs to be ready for it when it happens, because that's when they shine.
The problems with feinting include:
It relies on the same stand there and slog it out with the enemy in melee position as Two weapon fighting, even with improved feint.
Without improved feint, you only get 1 attack every 2 rounds, and even with improved feint you can only perform 1 attack per round.
It does way less damage than a decent two weapon fighting(or even 1 weapon fighting) build with a halfway decent party.
Opposition(in 3.5 anyway) gets their BAB as a bonus to Sense Motive attempts, so even if you bend over backwards to increase bluff, every melee class gets a scaled bonus to defend against it to various degrees.
Also, dropping Two Weapon Defense would be smart, since it adds basically nothing. A good feat would be Savvy Rogue from Complete Scoundrel, if you plan to take any of the Advanced Rogue Talents(and you should, some are very good).
I understand the disdain for feinting, but what don't you like about Two-Weapon Defense? It's not a large bonus, but a little more AC isn't bad...
The problems with feinting include:
It relies on the same stand there and slog it out with the enemy in melee position as Two weapon fighting, even with improved feint.
Without improved feint, you only get 1 attack every 2 rounds, and even with improved feint you can only perform 1 attack per round.
It does way less damage than a decent two weapon fighting(or even 1 weapon fighting) build with a halfway decent party.
Opposition(in 3.5 anyway) gets their BAB as a bonus to Sense Motive attempts, so even if you bend over backwards to increase bluff, every melee class gets a scaled bonus to defend against it to various degrees.
Also, dropping Two Weapon Defense would be smart, since it adds basically nothing. A good feat would be Savvy Rogue from Complete Scoundrel, if you plan to take any of the Advanced Rogue Talents(and you should, some are very good).
The build was Pathfinder RPG I believed, I am unaware if the OP's uses the Complete books. What I was trying to work with his apparent play style of a swashbuckler.
To underline what I was trying to say before; I wanted my original post's point to be about versatility in keeping with being a rogue, not a strict shot rotation he must adhere to. Granted, twin-weapon fighting will churn out comparitively more damage when the OP faces a standard foe, but when he faces a foe with Damage Reduction (a Pathfinder Skeleton or Zombie will suffice in terms of meeting criteria as undead susceptible to sneak attack), DR5/bludgeoning and/or DR5/Slashing are going to make a mockery of his multiple, piercing attacks at low level unless his adds are comparitively high enough or he has an appropriate weapon to mitigate it. In terms of versatility, I am sure he can keep twin maces and twin sabers flapping at his belt for just such an occasion, toy with Power Attack if he has the feat, or he could feint and make one sneak attack with the rapier he already has in hand.
BTW, people might want to look at the "Beta Feat update" in the Feat Playtest, as that includes a "Greater Feint" which Flat Foots the opponent for both your next attack AND your next round (allowing Standard Attack + Full Attack next round). I was almost certain it worked by allowing Feints as a Swift Action (allowing Full Attack Sneak Attack EVERY round if you don't need to move more than 5'), but apparently was wrong. Of course that's just the Beta... But it's fairly certain that some sort of "Greater Feint" will be in the Final PRPG (Core Rules) that facilitates more Flat-Footed Full Attacks. FYI.
The Intimidate chain is an interesting one, especially when you consider the escalation of Fear effects and you have other combatants in your party with Intimidate Feats/Rage Powers or Casters with Fear effects in their repertoire. With everyone ganging up with these, the bonuses/penalties will really stack up and can even trigger them to flee, giving everyone in range an AoO :-)
Both can be effective in Combat, but it shouldn't be forgotten that both approaches are really about 'recycling' your non-combat social skill investment (maxing your ranks and probably taking Skill Focus to be reliably effective) - Though one more Feat allows you to substitute your Attack Bonus for Intimidate Skill Checks (if you have low CHA/few skills). If you have a Rogue with a decent social focus (decent/good CHA and high Bluff or Intimidate or both) it's probably worthwhile considering if you want to put a little more (Feat) investment in to convert that non-combat skill proficiency into a combat bonus. If you're just a no CHA ninja type, you're certainly much better off taking a level of Sorceror and pick up a Familiar for reliable Flanking.
re: 2 Weapon Defense, it seems alot more attractive if Shield Enhancements are allowed to be enchanted into the weapon (presumably only "usable" if the wielder has 2 Weapon Defense). Since with 2WD, the OH weapon now grants a +1 Shield Bonus, it seems like it should be treated as a Shield for such purposes - Though this certainly isn't a clear-cut interpretation as of Beta.
Yes a Rogue can always use an ally to gain flanking and get sneak attacks. The purpose of the initially posted build was to allow the Rogue to get sneak attacks without relying on a partner to setup the flank as that is not always a viable option.
*shrug*
I'm not being flippant, I just didn't read the initial post that closely I guess.
Also, flanking won't allow you to use Medusa's Wrath. MW requires a target to be staggered, stunned, paralyzed, unconscious, or flat footed. Staggered does not allow for sneak attacks, stunned can not be setup by the Rogue themselves, paralyzed and unconscious are targets best left for later, leaving flat footed as the only condition a rogue can setup for themselves. Also, the only way for a Rogue to cause a target to be flat footed against all of their attacks - another conditional requirement of MW - is to use Stunning Defense.
Yeah, I know how it works. Although the stunning thing depends on the rogue, certainly not impossible to get that status effect. I think there might even be an ambush feat that does it. I'd definitely prefer to set them up with flat-footed though, and Stunning Defense isn't the only way to do it. At higher levels it's almost a given that most people will be flat-footed, ring of blinking or greater invis or whatever. At lower levels it's as easy as having darkvision and turning off the lights, etc. Of course it depends on the situation, PC, and NPCs.
The level 15 MW build could be fun to drop into a game starting at high levels but I don't think I would want to play it from level 1. The lack of defense feats and the inability to use weapons - making your fists do magical damage is expensive - would be less than fun at low levels.
That would largely depend on personal preference and how closely the DM wants to stick to book-only items. My group has never had an issue with allowing unarmed fighters to simply purchase hand wraps that are enhanceable with the usual weapon rules. You can buy magic shirts, for goodness sake, why would it be so hard to get unarmed magic enhancements? If we're talking preference, defensive feats are absolute crap and I've always despised them. Of course, my preference not withstanding, I've seen fighter builds that capitalize on Robilar's Gambit quite nicely.
i want to do the 2 rapier thing cause i was inspired by old movies like "count of montesquieu" and old zoro stuff.
Yeah you could do that pretty well in 2ed, or Rapier and Main Gauche offhand (with a Basket Hilt for a parry bonus too!) Later editions (cough - 3rd+) put a stop to this sort of play.
Yes a Rogue can always use an ally to gain flanking and get sneak attacks. The purpose of the initially posted build was to allow the Rogue to get sneak attacks without relying on a partner to setup the flank as that is not always a viable option.
If he is going to be that high level(such that he gets MW), the best way to get reliable sneak attacks with no partner is a ring of blinking, or umding a wand or scroll of greater invisibility(preferably created by a Teflammar Shadowlord).
Also, the twd feat is terrible because it gives 1 AC at the cost of a feat(like dodge). I realize pathfinder is a bit kinder with the number of feats, but it is still a large investment, and if they were willing to let people treat it as a shield and increase the shield bonus, then they wouldn't need improved twd. It is a waste of limited resources(a feat), when you could simply get a cloak of displacement, and end up with a x% chance to ignore the attack.
I suppose you have a point, it does seem a bit light for sacrificing a feat. On the other hand, it can be hard to squeeze out more AC past a certain point. And this lets a TW fighter get a shield bonus, which is an AC boost they couldn't normally get.
*shrug*
I can see why you wouldn't like it though.
As far as I can tell, adding a Shield Enhancement on top of the Weapon Enhancement is cheaper because:
In other words, an additional Shield Enhancement should end up being slightly cheaper than an extra +1 Weapon Enhancement for Defending AND give you full benefit of both Weapon and Shield Enhancements all the time. It's basically about letting you treat the 2WD weapon like a Spiked Shield, since they both have Shield Bonuses and both can have Weapon Enhancements. Anyhow, it's pointless to discuss this until the Final is released (or this application of the Feat happens to be previewed).
Okay.. So I'm chiming in a little late here, but still!
I'm aware that the OP was thinking something in the line of rapier fighting in-close and personal, and wanting to keep up with the fighter and not be reliant on a flanking buddy... And seemed to like the idea of some spell-casting, I think...
So here's my suggestions trying to offer some, maybe alternative, options...
And as always, mostly, I'd go human here ;-) I would drop the concept of rapier and choose... Dagger! Yes, the trusty old dagger for two reasons (well, more if you take into account the coolness of taking out the big baddie with a measly dagger ;-) ) Daggers are easily concealable and you can use them both for melee and ranged combat... But they only deal d4 damage! Yeah, I know, but the difference isn't that great and you are going to be dishing out sneaksies, so... :-)
Rogue 1 Dodge, Two-weapon fighting
Rogue 2 Talent (Finesse Rogue) Yes, yes I know you could take it as a regular feat, but this is how I chose it..
Rogue 3 Quick Draw, yay! Draw your daggers real lightning quick. Good thing when you get more attacks and you can throw more daggers...
Rogue 4 Talent Weapon training, weapon focus (dagger)
Rogue 5 Dazzling Display, as others have said, use a full round action and shake up your adversaries, giving them a -2 penalty to attacks and such..
Rogue 6 Talent (Minor Magic: Mage Hand) my choice, gives you that jedi feel ;-) and can be useful in lots of ways, but that's just a personal preference...
Rogue 7 Skill Focus (Intimidate)
Rogue 8 Talent: Major Magic (Shield), A nice little AC boost when you're up close and personal...
Rogue 9 Stunning Defence, yay! Now you can sneak those that are shaken, frightened or panicked... Whick means most of your opponents...
Rogue 10 Talent Improved Evasion, a must have in my eyes....
Rogue 11 Improved two-weapon fighting
Rogue 12 Talent Dispelling attack: Enter the magekiller/hunter.. ;-) every sneak becomes a dispel magic attempt as well...
So focus on charisma and max out your intimidate and dex of course, always dex....
Edit: Forgot Use Magic Device!! To bring in some nice magic from wands and such... Around lvl 10 with good cha you will rarely fail your check...
This was a build I've actually played with, and it worked like a charm. I could pretty much keep up with the fighter (well, paladin as it were) and was happy to be able to fling daggers at shaken baddies and deal sneak attacks. So there...
It was my take on it, and yeah, you could probably optimize this a bit here and there, but I was happy with this one...
Don't know if this helps or even matters..
Take care y'all
Wow, Gworeth, this is a beautiful build.
I will definitely consider basing the rebuild of my Pathfinder Society character on this once we convert to PFRPG.
Thanks! M'glad you like it. And you are totally free to use it, no copyright there at all ;-P
i know, i used to play the life out of 2nd ed, and i only got into 3.5ed about lets see...4 years ago maybe? to say the least i wasnt thrilled when the GM said "ok were gona convert from 2nd ed to 3.5" i was like "ok might be cool"..it wasnt
at the time i was a 4th lvl ranger with the justifier kit from the complete ranger handbook.
wellll?...i had to chose 2 weapon fighting as opposed to just having it, and there was no justifier kit anymore so just those 2 diffrences alone WRECKED my charater concept. i had falconeer as oe of the skills i had in 2nd ed...that didnt exsist now, i had a flame toung...yes there is one in 3.5ed but well lets face it THERE TOTALY DIFFRENT THINGS.
and quite honestly 3.5 put out WAYYYYY too much s#!* to try to get.
i mean theres a spell compedium but it dosent have all the variants of the spells (like ball lighting or the alternet rule to magic missle to make then 1d6+1 arrows of damage insted)
nor did they do the smart thing and sell updates or a "spell compenium II"
ok done with rant... :D
Hee... I used to play a ranger/justifier as well... it was sort of the only viable kit from rangers handbook, unless you wanted to get silly...
So far in 3.x and pfrpg I've played rangers, fighters, sorcerers, rogues barbarian/fighter/druid, cleric and quite likely more that I've forgotten about, but, and I know this is a question of taste so bear with me, the 3.x and especially PFRpg has been much more enjoyable to play. But again, it's a question of taste and some like coke and other like pepsi, to me it's both cola.. ;-) I just hope you find something that you really like, whatever that may be. I can only say that so far every class i've played have been my favorite at the time I've played it... See? now you got me ranting as well :D