I would have swapped Int for either Wis or Con. Skills are nice but having a better Will save or more hp/better Fort save is much better in my books.
I would have swapped Int for either Wis or Con. Skills are nice but having a better Will save or more hp/better Fort save is much better in my books.
Combat Expertise requires 13 intellect, so that's not an option, sadly.
|
Swap out the 1 extra point in int to bring it down to 13, and bring that 7 up to an 8. The extra point in int isn't going to do you much good, 1 rank means very little to a fighter.
Also choose a different race, as a fighter that 1 extra feat is greatly devalued and you can easily get greater mileage out of the elf bonuses, the halfling alternate racial traits, or any the number of amazing new options for dwarves. Fighters get a feat at every level regardless, you do not really need that extra 1 at your first level.
Side note: Tsk Tsk... taking cha as a dump stat is a pretty low move. I get that you want to get extra bang out of your buck but dump stats are a bit too munchkin for my style. In fact in my games charisma has been given extra weight in so far as affecting specific house-rules we put up. First being that RP scenarios of timing always come down to whoever has the highest cha, and whenever luck comes into play cha modifies this. Both come from great suggestions on this very board.
First being that RP scenarios of timing always come down to whoever has the highest cha, and whenever luck comes into play cha modifies this. Both come from great suggestions on this very board.
This sounds fascinating; have you got links for these?
Swap out the 1 extra point in int to bring it down to 13, and bring that 7 up to an 8. The extra point in int isn't going to do you much good, 1 rank means very little to a fighter.
IIRC, 7 gives two points so from where he's now, it costs two points for an 8.
|
|
This sounds fascinating; have you got links for these?
I don't have links to the original articles no but the rules are fairly simple really. But first I should list another houserule that we adopted quite early in the system for the rules to make more sense in context.
1. Whenever there is a strait stat check such as strength for breaking down a door, or charisma for reasons to be listed the modifier is multiplied by 2. These modifications in no way affect combat or skill usage. This does two things, it creates a larger spread in terms of differences in what characters can and cannot do, and it makes certain that players who choose to use dump stats will pay a heftier price. We also do frequent stat checks for mundane things such as remembering an obscure detail from earlier, catching the salt shaker before it hits the floor, and "figuring out" whether or not X decision is wise or not. This being a rule that myself and my players cooked up. Though it may be worth noting that my group does quite a bit more role playing than "roll playing."
2. Charisma dictates social grace when matters arise that require timing or speed in a RP scenario. Whenever this occurs (more often than some may believe) a "social initiative" is rolled. Modified by charisma + any various bonuses characters may receive to combat initiative. This coincidentally makes the feat imp init even better, something I am comfortable with.
3. The last being that charisma = luck. Whenever I arbitrarily decide that the fates would deem to roll chance in a situation (This varies greatly, from a stray arrow to which of the noblemans purse you just cut) the the player rolls a charisma check.
It was a decision made so to make charisma a stat that cannot be thoughtlessly dumped with no consequences by anyone who didn't roll a cha reliant spellcaster.
IIRC, 7 gives two points so from where he's now, it costs two points for an 8.
Bringing 14 down to a 13 gives him 2 points as well so his spread will even out.
Side note: Tsk Tsk... taking cha as a dump stat is a pretty low move. I get that you want to get extra bang out of your buck but dump stats are a bit too munchkin for my style. In fact in my games charisma has been given extra weight in so far as affecting specific house-rules we put up. First being that RP scenarios of timing always come down to whoever has the highest cha, and whenever luck comes into play cha modifies this. Both come from great suggestions on this very board.
Boohoo a low charisma! It couldn't be that he just isn't a very likable character could it? We should punish someone for not playing in our style! Cause you know everyone should have to be good at everything (i.e. have more than a 10 in every stat)!
Finally having played back in the day of the Iron Man 3d6 I can tell you that a 7 is not a bad stat or horribly low.
|
|
Boohoo a low charisma! It couldn't be that he just isn't a very likable character could it? We should punish someone for not playing in our style! Cause you know everyone should have to be good at everything (i.e. have more than a 10 in every stat)!
:)
All things aside, I don't mind the occasional dump stat but when charisma gets picked on (again) and sand is kicked in his face I always want to help help the guy back up. He is bullied by every NON cha-based class and left out to dry more often than not in the case of optimized characters.
I might see where they get off if they are only afforded a 15 point buy but ...
An occasional socially underdeveloped idiot hero is fine, my problem is when more martial characters than not have as much charisma as a horse(Not an exaggeration).
An occasional socially underdeveloped idiot hero is fine, my problem is when more martial characters than not have as much charisma as a horse(Not an exaggeration).
Not met many marines have you? ;)
However I would again point out that a CHA 7 isn't that bad really. Still within the normal distribution bell curve.
However I would again point out that a CHA 7 isn't that bad really. Still within the normal distribution bell curve.
So is 3.
Why don't we just say that 7 is equal to or better than 15% of the population, assuming 3d6 for the unwashed masses?
|
|
However I would again point out that a CHA 7 isn't that bad really. Still within the normal distribution bell curve.So is 3.
Why don't we just say that 7 is equal to or better than 15% of the population, assuming 3d6 for the unwashed masses?
So that being the case they are in the lower 15th percentile of ugly, stuttering, uncultured ignoramuses.
I would just love to see this guy win over the princess, or be made into a statue for the town square.
Probably has happened... of course the sculptor realizing what would happen to him if it didn't look better than that probably took some... artistic liberties with the final product in order to ensure things looked better for himself.
Besides Cha isn't just your looks -- otherwise we would need to talk over the monster manual with all it's high Cha, ugly as sin monsters, and all of the characters in the AP's that are described as "Beautiful" but have a CHA of 7, or ugly with a charisma in the 14+ range.
Another point: If 7 is as ugly and uncouth as all that, my Cha 13 should be that much better since it's the same points off of 10 as 7 is.
I don't think you used your Favored Class bonus.
+1 to HP or +1 skills.
Then again, I would love to know:
Your ACP
What skills out of that list you put ranks into
What bonuses are coming from wher
ACP = Armor Check Penalty.
And by the simple fact that your acrobatics skill is sitting at -1, I'm going to assume its already been applied.
The "Threatening Defender" trait is in Cheliax: Empire of Devils. I don't think it got reprinted into the APG either, though I've not looked for it specifically. It lessens the penalty from using Combat Expertise by 1.
|
7 cha, 14 int. 1 skill point > nothing, and for RP purposes both a 7 and 8 are "not good".
Truthfully, given a int/wis desire and a cha dump, I'd be dwarf:
Str: 16 (10)
Int: 14 (5)
Wis: 14 (2)
Dex: 12 (2)
Con: 16 (5)
Cha: 5 (-4)
Jus better off as a tank, and +2 vs magic based saves is great as a fighter
|
|
To be honest, WIS isn't really a priority, but because of the point-buy breaks the 12 WIS was available. Your dwarf build would definitely be a lot sturdier, whereas this build is more focused from the outset to be more of a controller/offtank rather than a bruiser. He's better off not ever closing to normal melee range if possible.
If i were you I would make sure you invest a few feats to bump your will save up if you are going to dump wisdom because as we all know fighters are notorious for getting charmed, blinded, and all manner of other bad things. Having only +2 to your will save at level 10 is just asking for your character to be taken out with a single spell.
Here's a polearm fighter question that I though I'd toss in here.
At level 2 you get the ability to attack adjacent targets at -4.
Given a halberd is a polearm without reach, how would you apply that ability to it?
a. ignore it - ie tough luck for using a polearm without reach.
b. reverse it - allow halberd wielder to adjust grip to get reach at -4 to attack.
c. some other variation to the ability.
Interested in your views.
|
|
Here's a polearm fighter question that I though I'd toss in here.
At level 2 you get the ability to attack adjacent targets at -4.
Given a halberd is a polearm without reach, how would you apply that ability to it?
a. ignore it - ie tough luck for using a polearm without reach.
b. reverse it - allow halberd wielder to adjust grip to get reach at -4 to attack.
c. some other variation to the ability.
Interested in your views.
I vote a, and apply the "sucks to be you" template on a wasted archetype. The purpose of the thing is to really make reach fighting more viable.
Here's a polearm fighter question that I though I'd toss in here.
At level 2 you get the ability to attack adjacent targets at -4.
Given a halberd is a polearm without reach, how would you apply that ability to it?
a. ignore it - ie tough luck for using a polearm without reach.
b. reverse it - allow halberd wielder to adjust grip to get reach at -4 to attack.
c. some other variation to the ability.
Interested in your views.
Non-issue. The ability specifies "can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach. . . "
so, our answer is E., use the weapon as intended.
I am aware of what the ability specifies - but I didn't have the book on me to quote verbatim. I am more interested in whether people have come up with their own adjustments - house rules, making halberds a reach weapon etc (without diverting into discussions about polearm design).
I think he is saying that the archetype basically gets a class ability that is wasted, if he uses a halberd (a fairly iconic polearm). Not saying he should get something instead, but I understand his POV.
Exactly. Given halberds are, at least in my experience, the most commonly used polearm, it seems strange to create a fighter variant that, as Bruno says, wastes an ability.
Sure I could have started new thread in the house rules section, but it does fit in with the OP's original question.
If you want to be a polearm fighter archetype, don't use a halberd. Simple stuff.
So Paizo creates a fighter variant called the polearm fighter, yet gives the variant an ability that is of no use whatsoever for said fighter using a commonly used polearm.....
Suggesting someone just not use a halberd is just tendentious. All the other abilities work fine for a halberd, yet to get them the halberd-wielding fighter wastes what is effectively a feat at level 2.
Almost as strange as phalanx fighters being able to wield halberds, glaives etc one-handed. But that's a whole thread in itself....
If you want to be a polearm fighter archetype, don't use a halberd. Simple stuff.So Paizo creates a fighter variant called the polearm fighter, yet gives the variant an ability that is of no use whatsoever for said fighter using a commonly used polearm.....
Suggesting someone just not use a halberd is just tendentious. All the other abilities work fine for a halberd, yet to get them the halberd-wielding fighter wastes what is effectively a feat at level 2.
Almost as strange as phalanx fighters being able to wield halberds, glaives etc one-handed. But that's a whole thread in itself....
To me it seems that the point of the archetype is to get fighters to use reach weapons. . . thus making that ability *extremely* useful. All of the other abilities in the archetype are primarily beneficial for reach weapons, especially the one that lets you move the square that establishes flanking. Likewise, the one that grants bonuses to AOO's just screams to be used with a weapon that can threaten *lots* of squares.
Halberd, IMO, seems to be the odd fit with the archetype, but I don't see it as a problem.
I agree that it is strange to have a polearm that doesn't have one of the key features of all other polearms - namely reach. Perhaps halberds should be moved to the axe category. After all they function essentially as a long-handled axe with a spike on top and a hook/projection opposite the blade. The D&D guisarme seems to be closer to the historical halberd (if you add a spear point to the end).
I think in the Kingmaker campaign I am in, I'll just turn my halberd-wielding fighter into a guisarme-wielding one if I go for the polearm fighter type.
I agree that it is strange to have a polearm that doesn't have one of the key features of all other polearms - namely reach. Perhaps halberds should be moved to the axe category. After all they function essentially as a long-handled axe with a spike on top and a hook/projection opposite the blade. The D&D guisarme seems to be closer to the historical halberd (if you add a spear point to the end).
I think in the Kingmaker campaign I am in, I'll just turn my halberd-wielding fighter into a guisarme-wielding one if I go for the polearm fighter type.
If I were running a campaign, I'd just re-skin the guisarme stats as a halberd. . . . Not sure *why* they don't have reach.
Another houserule alternative might be to give a hally reach but then make it exotic (and maybe up the damage slightly?)
In fact that is what me and my DM had been discussing. In the end we just went with a plain old halberd. Then along comes APG polearm fighter variant and it got us thinking again.......