|
If you want the smite evil ability of a paladin while using a rapier and moving around, that just means your a paladin who isn´t using his heavy/medium armor prof and using a martial weapon...you know kinda like how a fighter doesn´t use ALL his martial weapon feats...and only ONE of his armor prof at any given time. Then you focus your feats on vital strike line up and use lighting stance combo. Which is good for pretty much ANY mobility based combatant.And you're much weaker than a typical Paladin. Still, I said there's nothing wrong with going this route.
No...no your not. You get a 50% miss chance on attacks against you...does the ¨typical¨ paladin get that? No you say? Yes your DPR is worse then if you full attacked (typically)...but when you can´t be full attacking, your DPR is HIGHER. The difference between using a mithral breast plate and a mithral full plate with the dex bonus added in is that the full plate is 2 points higher...at a cost of reduced mobility And about 7k gold). Unless all fights happen within 20 feet (40 if there is a straight line), this may cause some issues. AC difference between a buckler and heavy shield? 1. So your 3 AC below the ¨typical¨ paladin. Your not weaker...your just different.
"Your" = second person possessive. Example: "I like your character."
"You're" = contraction of "you are." Example: "You're just saying that."
I´m a scientist...you´re grammar is meaningless to me :P .
Cool! What field? (I'm a hydrogeologist myself.)
In academia, I never had enough grant money left over to hire an editor. Working as an industry consultant now, the clients expect me to produce written correspondence without subcontracting an editor. Either way, all the work I've put into grammar and technical writing has turned out to be equally as useful as the coursework in differential equations -- if not more so.
How is it a quirk at all that if you train with a bastard sword you know how to use a bastard sword?
Looking at it purely from a game system point of view, I thought it was quirky and here is why.
If a character has no proficiency with a bastard sword and they wish to use it as a martial weapon they need to spend one feat on it.
A character has no proficiency with bastard sword. They the spend one feat on it (exotic weapon) and get the effect of two feats. The martial ability to use it two handed AND the exotic ability to use it one handed.
While the actual 'fighter' classes all have the ability to use Bastard Swords as martial Weapons, none of the other classes do. So by a strict view of the rules as written, it is not illogical for a character to be required how to use the basic skill of Bastard sword (two handed) before learning the advanced skill of how to use it (exotic one handed).
Or for a real world similarity, in the Armed Forces you have to learn to fire a rifle before you can learn the more advanced skill of being a sniper with a rifle. You have to learn to walk before you learn to run.
That said though, the world will certainly not end if folks don't do this. D&D is about having fun and if your group agrees that something is ok then go with it. As long as everyone is happy and enjoying the game then whatever ruling you use it's cool.
But that is why I thouhgt it was quirky. Certainly not a huge issue.
|
|
I´m a scientist...you´re grammar is meaningless to me :P .Cool! What field? (I'm a hydrogeologist myself.)
In academia, I never had enough grant money left over to hire an editor. Working as an industry consultant now, the clients expect me to produce written correspondence without subcontracting an editor. Either way, all the work I've put into grammar and technical writing has turned out to be equally as useful as the coursework in differential equations -- if not more so.
Well I went to UC berkeley in Chem E. Not my job currently...but chemists speak in formula...not english :) .
|
Well I went to UC berkeley in Chem E. Not my job currently...but chemists speak in formula...not english :) .
Chemistry depend on grammar. Not English grammar, but it's still highly structured. H2O or HO2? That's grammar! :)
PS I have no idea if HO2 is actually a real chemical, I'm just illustrating a point.
A character has no proficiency with bastard sword. They the spend one feat on it (exotic weapon) and get the effect of two feats. The martial ability to use it two handed AND the exotic ability to use it one handed.
By that logic, the martial classes get the effects of a nearly-infinite number of feats by spending no feats; their proficiency in martial weapons covers ALL martial weapons, including a bastard sword 2-handed, but also including battleaxes, scimitars, longbows, etc., etc. Whereas a non-martial character taking the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat has to select one (1) of those weapons only. That being the case, forcing them to spend still another feat to use a bastard sword 1-handed is just adding insult to injury.
I´m a scientist...you´re grammar is meaningless to me :P .Cool! What field? (I'm a hydrogeologist myself.)
In academia, I never had enough grant money left over to hire an editor. Working as an industry consultant now, the clients expect me to produce written correspondence without subcontracting an editor. Either way, all the work I've put into grammar and technical writing has turned out to be equally as useful as the coursework in differential equations -- if not more so.
I and a thousand other English tutors say, "I told you so!"
D@mn!!! Frogboy did get shot down pretty hard. LOL, I once asked for a free feat with the Elven Curved Blade for my Half-Elf rogue and got shut down for two pages too so don't take it personal chief, which unfortunately appears to be what you are doing.
Yeah, my a$$ is a little sore right now. It's all good though. I should've seen it coming.
I also wouldn't roll with that half-orc jester one of the posters was trying to get you to do. If you have a build in mind stick to it. because rarely ever does straying from your original concept lead to role-playing satisfaction....at least in my world.
Normally, I'm the same way. This may be an exception though. I was originally going to go with the stereotypical thin, evil, spooky looking jester that strikes fear in children (and some adults) everywhere. The idea of a slightly more brutish, somewhat demonic looking (with the tusks and yellow eyes) jester carrying a greataxe that's decorated to look like a jesters head (with the blades hanging low, painted up like his hat) just sounds wicked and could realistically strike fear in just about anything. I also like the idea of ditching the insane idea as I've been playing a character that's about half way there already. A half-orc can just be very orcishly evil especially if he got tired of being the buffoon. I'll make the apple on the head mishap intentional...and with an large axe. I won't change a character concept to force the numbers to work out better. In this case, it just kind of worked out that way. It fixes all of the things that I was having trouble getting to work from a role-playing standpoint.
Swashbuckling human Jester = scary to some things
Greataxe wielding Half-orc Jester = scary to just about everything
I know the falchion is much closer to what I was originally aiming for but let's face it, a big axe is more intimidating even if it isn't as good a weapon mechanically. I also hate rolling d4s on a regular basis. :)
I guess I should restate if you missed it before. This is for an evil campaign.
My main question is why you're fighting if you're a jester. Just something to do at low levels?
I am taking the Dazzling Display feat chain so that I can frighten my enemies at the same time as I inspire the group (all in one action later on). Even though it'd be just like a jester to use trickery to scare someone by making them think they can fight, I have the stats to pull it off. I can use the extra strength to boost my Intimidate later on as well.
I'm with Napalm on this one. I've always treated Feats and Class Features very differently. Everybody gets feats. Class features are those neat things that you have to actually be the class to get.
I wasn't talking about swapping things like Smite Evil or Wild Shape or anything like that. I could see doing something like that if it really fit but generally speaking, it's best to leave a classes' signature ability with the class. Swapping in something like Woodland Stride is a lot easier to balance. Still, I was only talking about switching a very minor one...a weapon proficiency.
My point is, sure, maybe swapping out one thing you'll never use for something more fitting sounds nice. Trading off a weapon prof. for another is powergaming, plain and simple. It sounds like you're trying to get a mechanically better weapon, gain with unequal loss.
Even when you're trading it for something that your character will do less damage with? Interesting.
Any time We've ever dealt with "cherry picking" abilities, we always had to trade in something substantial. Trading in your Rapier proficiency is NOT equal to a Ranger trading their animal companion, or a Paladin trading their special mount.
Look, maybe you have to baby-sit your players but I'm a big boy. I don't need to cheat to have fun.
What's to stop a rogue from trading in his weapon prof. with a Sap and trading it for a Spiked Chain?
Common sense.
What's to stop a halfling trading in their Sling for a Greatsword?
Common sense.
I also don't understand why the type of weapon would influence intimidate in a negative manner, it is you proficiency and mastery of said weapon that may make others reconsider, even if it is a rapier.
By RAW, it doesn't. In my head, it does. I just can't see Zorro intimidating a Minotaur. It would laugh its' head off...and then probably die. I could pretend that it's just the freaky nature of my character that is so intimidating (re-flavor the feat) but I was just trying to keep it real.
Dazzling Display + sucks at fighting = a little lame.
Frogboy,
For what it's worth, I'm with Jake on this one. I like variant class features, and as a DM I have no problem swapping out stuff like that for a typical game.
If the goal is to create a tactical exercise, then strict adherence to the RAW is far more important, and I'd say "no." But for a casual RP-heavy game, I see no reason that classes need to be anywhere near as rigid as some of the comments here suggest.
Cool. I could use a few more of you in my corner. I was getting pummeled out there. :)
Another alternative: Martial Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) as a trait.
It's a whole lot worse than Martial Weapon Profecency or Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword), so it's an excellent candidate for a trait.
It's a possibility. We did traits last time, although the DM picked out what we got. He would probably do that for me unless he had something else in mind (or something picked out for me already). He might not be doing it this time though. Not sure. Of course, as I said above, I'm really leaning towards half-orc right now which would solve that and then some.
No...no your not. You get a 50% miss chance on attacks against you...does the ¨typical¨ paladin get that? No you say?
LOL! Sure, if you want to run around the battlefield and not attack anything, you get a 50% miss chance. You also get it when your running away from the fight? Awesome! When can I get that? 11th level? :(
Yes your DPR is worse then if you full attacked (typically)...but when you can´t be full attacking, your DPR is HIGHER.
Unless the typical Paladin takes the Vital Strike feat chain too which he probably will since nothing says lovin' like a charging smite for 6d6, 3d10 or at least 3d8 added to all that smite damage
The difference between using a mithral breast plate and a mithral full plate with the dex bonus added in is that the full plate is 2 points higher...at a cost of reduced mobility And about 7k gold). Unless all fights happen within 20 feet (40 if there is a straight line), this may cause some issues.
I couldn't make an acrobatic swashbuckler and deck him out in hard ridged armor...even if it is mithril. Chain shirt, yes. I might even bust some mirthil chainmail as the chain links may be flexible enough for tumbling (not sure, my knowledge of armor is as bad as weapons). It seems kind of cheesy rolling around in breastplate. I'm not saying that you're wrong or should feel this way. Just thought I'd mention it.
AC difference between a buckler and heavy shield? 1. So your 3 AC below the ¨typical¨ paladin. Your not weaker...your just different.
1. You are still 3 AC lower...weaker
2. If your DEX is up then your STR is down (or something else is)...weaker3. What's the point of doing acrobatic-type stuff if you aren't any good at it. There goes another feat or two just to be mediocre at it especially if you spread your whopping 2 skill points around to all of the skills that an iconic swashbuckler should have. There goes your favored class bonus that the other guy is using for HPs...weaker.
I'm not saying that he's unplayable this way but he is weaker. He's voluntarily giving away a decent amount of power by going with a build that plays contrary to the strengths of his class. I didn't even suggest bringing him back up to the same level of power as a typical Paladin (drop Armor Prof. down to light, Weapon Prof. to finesse weapons and giving an extra 2+INT skill points and Acrobatics as a class skill). He's still weaker than a typical Paladin but at least now he can get the skills he needs and he's on par with acrobatics (the quintessential swashbuckler skill).
I'm not saying you have to do this. I'm just saying that doing this encourages nontypical builds a little more. You'll still have people try weird combination just to see how well they work out. You'll also have people throw out ideas when they don't work too well on paper. Have you ever came up with a character concept and realized that he just wouldn't be fun to play until you reached level 10 or beyond?
Whew! Another monster post.
Disclaimer: IRL I like the katana because it's a curved blade. No mysticism, just a curved blade.
For fear of stirring up another katana arguement, I prefer the 1d8/18-20 for the katana myself, one or two handed as bastard sword.
Like I said, gamewise it's a funny quirk that if you buy Bastard Sword as an EWP, you can use it two handed (MWP) w/o penalty. It's like the ladder/pole tax in 3.x just one of those little quirks that comes up. Nothing to worry about.
As to tweaking the bard... I might be inclined to allow trading whip and rapier for bastard sword. especially for an Andoran bard, to use the campaign setting. Else, spend a feat, you have more. My oft cited Arcane legionary class has mind blank as a 6th level spell. It makes iron will mostly useless, but I'll still take the feat for my 'less than perceptive but indomintable' Wis 8 iconic legionary.
Funny thing about Katana (which just means "Sword" if I remember correctly) is that they come in the same variety of sizes as western swords. So... any interpretation can be the "correct" one.
As for tweaking the Bard... I remember from the 3.0 days that the Bard class just got to pick from a list of weapons. Some of which, like the whip, were exotic. The Pathfinder Bard just gets those automatically. I also do not see a problem with this approach.
If you are going for a specific "flavor" you might also see about talking to the DM and getting approval for a special "Pathfinder Trait" that would allow you to give up certain proficiencies to gain others at the cost of not being able to be proficient in the weapons you gave up ever again or something and get a bonus +1 on damage with the weapon for your focus.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Funny thing about Katana (which just means "Sword" if I remember correctly) is that they come in the same variety of sizes as western swords. So... any interpretation can be the "correct" one.
It's my understanding that the 'katana' typically was forged from a certain ore, and was folded. Now the sword is typcially curved, but I think there were straight versions as well.
That said, I'm sure there were generic differentially tempered blades that were curved, without the required 'special features'.
|
|
How is it a quirk at all that if you train with a bastard sword you know how to use a bastard sword?Looking at it purely from a game system point of view, I thought it was quirky and here is why.
If a character has no proficiency with a bastard sword and they wish to use it as a martial weapon they need to spend one feat on it.
A character has no proficiency with bastard sword. They the spend one feat on it (exotic weapon) and get the effect of two feats. The martial ability to use it two handed AND the exotic ability to use it one handed.
While the actual 'fighter' classes all have the ability to use Bastard Swords as martial Weapons, none of the other classes do. So by a strict view of the rules as written, it is not illogical for a character to be required how to use the basic skill of Bastard sword (two handed) before learning the advanced skill of how to use it (exotic one handed).
Or for a real world similarity, in the Armed Forces you have to learn to fire a rifle before you can learn the more advanced skill of being a sniper with a rifle. You have to learn to walk before you learn to run.
That said though, the world will certainly not end if folks don't do this. D&D is about having fun and if your group agrees that something is ok then go with it. As long as everyone is happy and enjoying the game then whatever ruling you use it's cool.
But that is why I thouhgt it was quirky. Certainly not a huge issue.
Actually, the feat doesn't give you the equivalent of two feats. It's been pointed out before that any one handed weapon can be wielded two handed. So really having the feat makes it like any other weapon. This weapon just happens to have a side note that if you aren't trained with it, you might still be able to wield it in a certain way. That doesn't make it a quirk, the bastard sword feat doesn't give you anything that any other weapon already has. what your calling a quirk would actually make the weapon weaker than every other weapon in the game if it followed the rules as you see them. Because while with any other one handed weapon you could wield it two handed you couldn't with the bastard sword because you didn't get the martial proficiency. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
Frogboy,
For what it's worth, I'm with Jake on this one. I like variant class features, and as a DM I have no problem swapping out stuff like that for a typical game.
If the goal is to create a tactical exercise, then strict adherence to the RAW is far more important, and I'd say "no." But for a casual RP-heavy game, I see no reason that classes need to be anywhere near as rigid as some of the comments here suggest.
I have two minds on the issue.
On the one hand, I'm a big believer in swapping out one class feature for another (like spell-less rangers or battle sorcerers, etc.).
But on the other hand, I'm a big believer in allowing players to say "I envision my character as using a katana, so my long sword happens to look like a katana", too. That's a better solution, IMO, since it avoids opening up a can of worms trying to figure out exactly what a weapon proficiency is worth (e.g. "I want to trade my weapon proficiencies in light pick, starknife, light shield bashing, blowgun and punching dagger in exchange for Weapon Focus: greatsword and Power Attack").
Funny thing about Katana (which just means "Sword" if I remember correctly) is that they come in the same variety of sizes as western swords. So... any interpretation can be the "correct" one.
It's my understanding that the 'katana' typically was forged from a certain ore, and was folded. Now the sword is typcially curved, but I think there were straight versions as well.
That said, I'm sure there were generic differentially tempered blades that were curved, without the required 'special features'.
If we wanted to make a completely realistic katana, it would just be a longsword with extra hardness ;p
They were folded because Japan had crap iron and had to distribute the impurities more. It lead to the weapons being more durable, though not neccisarily "stronger." They were also developed for use against people who weren't heavily armored since, again, lol crap iron.