|
Quick question: with Brawler's Flurry, can I take Two-Weapon Feint? Do I count as having Two-Weapon Fighting?Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler's flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the "monk" special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler's flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler's flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks.
At 8th level, the brawler gains use of the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler's flurry. At 15th level, she gains use of the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler's flurry.
The answer is Yes, you can take Two-Weapon Feint and you do count as having Two-Weapon Fighting. Just make sure you fulfill the rest of the Prereqs... which as a Brawler should be pretty easy. "Prerequisites: Dex 15, Int 13, Combat Expertise".
Monks qualify for this as well, considering Flurry IS Two-Weapon Fighting, just slightly modified with different restrictions.
Someone claiming that their thread lists every single mistake in their books, and said thread actually listing every single mistake are two very different things. If some stranger came up to you on the street and offered you a book titled "All the mistakes in your life (and how to fix them)", would you just take it at face value? Especially if the first sentence is, "OMG, you totally suck at life!" People will gripe about perceived rules errors (that really aren't) all the time; that doesn't make them legitimate issues. If Paizo dedicated significant time to pursuing every single thread purporting to reveal a "critical flaw" in the system, they'd never have the time to correct the actual flaws in the system.Honestly if Paizo can't manage their resources well enough to prevent these problems or start addressing them then maybe they need to seriously rethink a few of their business practices. Clearly what they're doing right now just isn't working.Or maybe Paizo just doesn't think it is that much of an issue….. Just because they don't respond to every "I think this is broken, therefor Paizo sucks" thread doesn't mean they haven't seen the thread or given it a few brief moments thought before ignoring it.If they were seriously ignoring the thread that lists every single one of their mistakes in that book you could rest assured they'd never get another g#$ d!$n red cent from me.
Thankfully they don't seem to be that shortsighted.
It's funny because Paizo has specifically said on numerous occasions they're not going to fix the actual flaws in the system.
And are you seriously trying to tell me the ACG has no errors?
It would be REALLY hard to take you seriously after that.
@Gallo: thankfully, paizo only needs to care about fixing stuff that's broken if they want customer satisfaction. It's good they just publish stuff for love, right
#graystone: i don't get where people like this come from. I prefer thinking they are wilful trolls. There's clearly no archetype or class whatsoever that requires you to qualify for a feat before granting it to you for free, and much less if it's the top of a long line of feats. The only instance of this i recall was subject to errata (aldori swordlord prc). Further, the guy is willfully oblivious to the game mechanics. You need to constantly spend feats to regain the damage and AC you trade off to be a shield champion, they baked in an answer and redacted it wrong.
clearly this guy thinks Spain was conquered by the moops.
Honestly if Paizo can't manage their resources well enough to prevent these problems or start addressing them then maybe they need to seriously rethink a few of their business practices. Clearly what they're doing right now just isn't working.Or maybe Paizo just doesn't think it is that much of an issue….. Just because they don't respond to every "I think this is broken, therefor Paizo sucks" thread doesn't mean they haven't seen the thread or given it a few brief moments thought before ignoring it.If they were seriously ignoring the thread that lists every single one of their mistakes in that book you could rest assured they'd never get another g~% d+&n red cent from me.
Thankfully they don't seem to be that shortsighted.
There is a big difference between a thread that lists issues with flaws in a particular book and a thread that says " Paizo's business model is flawed". Especially when the particular issue that is apparently not clear has been clearly explained and relevant rules cited by a number of posters
@Gallo: thankfully, paizo only needs to care about fixing stuff that's broken if they want customer satisfaction. It's good they just publish stuff for love, right
#graystone: i don't get where people like this come from. I prefer thinking they are wilful trolls. There's clearly no archetype or class whatsoever that requires you to qualify for a feat before granting it to you for free, and much less if it's the top of a long line of feats. The only instance of this i recall was subject to errata (aldori swordlord prc). Further, the guy is willfully oblivious to the game mechanics. You need to constantly spend feats to regain the damage and AC you trade off to be a shield champion, they baked in an answer and redacted it wrong.
clearly this guy thinks Spain was conquered by the moops.
Ah... You got a lot of insulting and not much actual debate. I already pointed out the Master of many styles. You HAVE to buy/take the base feats before you can take any of the advanced style feats or ones that need elemental fist. SO it's not new or out of the blue.
What it boils down to is 'You don't like it so they should fix it" NOT "It doesn't work so they should fix it. You have to take shield feats to gain even better bonus shield feats. I don't see that as wrong, bad or 'willfully oblivious to the game mechanics'.
So if you have any point to make do so. If you want to be insulting, then from here on out I'll report your post. Everyone gets one and that last post was yours. If you really want to debate that here are the answers to what you 'asked'.
"You need to constantly spend feats": You have to take 2 or 3 whole feats to gain two more and they where all one's you would have taken anyway. I prefer a more open approach to giving away feats but it's NOT an issue.
"There's clearly no archetype or class whatsoever that requires you to qualify for a feat before granting it to you for free": Master of many forms. You need to take the base style feat plus elemental fist before you can take the last feat in the line. It's a CLEAR example that you don't always get a free pass on needing prerequisites.
@Gallo: thankfully, paizo only needs to care about fixing stuff that's broken if they want customer satisfaction. It's good they just publish stuff for love, right
If Paizo doesn't think something is broken then why would they fix it? Just because they don't "fix" something doesn't mean they haven't looked at it. Or they have decided it is just not a priority in allocation of their resources. There have been sufficient FAQs and the like to show they do respond to player feedback. But that doesn't mean they will make changes every time. And applying a fix that some people want does not automatically lead to improved customer satisfaction - Crane Wing being a good example.
Not every view on an issue deserves equal attention or, in some cases, any attention at all. Climate change denial anyone?
Quick question: with Brawler's Flurry, can I take Two-Weapon Feint? Do I count as having Two-Weapon Fighting?
A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).
SO it seems to be working as expected by the dev's...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna need a citation on that to make sure they're saying what you think they're saying. I think it's far more likely that they're saying they aren't just going to cave in to anyone who has a "problem" with how the system works.
Ehm, no. Their exact wording was that they will not "Introduce incremental change via errata" (meaning they won't fix any of the major design problems in the game, their stated reason being they don't want the CRB to become outdated or some such).
They've said that a few times. SKR and Jason Buhlman at least, I believe SRM said it too.
I neither explicitly stated nor implied that ACG has no errors. What I said was that someone claiming that it is an error doesn't necessarily mean it is an error. Paizo has to sift through all the "error" claims to see which are legitimate errors that need to be fixed and which are just empty kvetching circles; ignoring inaccurate or frivolous claims of "error" is completely rational and, thus, your scorn of the practice is misplaced. Consider going to the doctor. Some people have legitimate medical complaints; headaches, nausea, whatnot. Others are just chronic complainers. The Doctor needs to distinguish what is actually a medical issue from what is psychogenic in nature. That's a drastic difference between, "Prone Shooter removes a penalty that never existed in the first place and needs to be fixed," and, "I don't like the way this rules element works so it needs to be fixed." Granted, Paizo doesn't do everything right... but no person nor organization does. But, as I like to say, "The customer is always right... so if you're wrong, you must not be a customer."
If we were talking about any other book I'd agree with you, but the ACG has lot of actual problems listed in that thread, the majority of them real problems created by the severe lack of editing the book has. Typos, misplaced sentences, cut paragraphs (which are still referred to later on in the text), copy and pasted sentences or paragraphs (which don't make any sense since they don't refer to the class in question) and such abound.
I'm not being spiteful when I say they I hope they fire the editor (or god forbid, editors) of this book, because he clearly wasn't doing his job.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@graystone that part of the thread was answered.
The thing that is still being debated as weirdly done is the thing Rushley brought up:
At 11th level, a shield champion gains Shield Master as a bonus feat. She must meet all prerequisites before selecting that feat.
It's weird. It's giving you a bonus feat, but you need to pick up at least two other feats that were never implied prior to 11th level as being needed.
In fact, the ability that it's from gives the effects of shield bashing by throwing your shield around. The point of the ability is to not keep the shield on you, tossing it around. Doing your class gained ability implies not getting Improved Shield Bash, since you won't have the shield on you when bashing with it.Then at 7th level, you get to bull rush (and others) with it, obviating the need for Shield Slam.
But at 11th level, you get the Shield Master feat... but only if you had spent your feats on getting feats that your previous abilities from Throwing Shield effectively replaced the need for?
It's unintuitive, it doesn't follow any other bonus feat methods (getting a line of abilities that replace the need for the normal feats, then get a bonus feat in that same ability that now requires the feats?).
The TWF aspect was already acknowledged by Rushley as not the issue, mechanically and thematically it works.
The problem now is that the archetype is awkwardly built. It's not that it doesn't logically fail at functioning (like the original prone shooter), but that it's an awkward bait-and-switch bonus.
If you didn't read ahead on your class, you'd have to wait at least until 13th level to pick the extra feat needed (grab improved shield bash at 11th, shield slam at 13th).
It's... awkward.
Ehm, no. Their exact wording was that they will not "Introduce incremental change via errata" (meaning they won't fix any of the major design problems in the game, their stated reason being they don't want the CRB to become outdated or some such).They've said that a few times. SKR and Jason Buhlman at least, I believe SRM said it too.
Not true, there's a difference between refusing to fix anything and avoiding long-term shift in game design. What he's basically saying (based on your wording) is that such redesigns are better suited for a large overhaul of the game, rather than bit-by-bit via errata. They're obviously still fixing game issues where they can without fundamentally changing the game (stealth errata, for example).
If we were talking about any other book I'd agree with you, but the ACG has lot of actual problems listed in that thread, the majority of them real problems created by the severe lack of editing the book has. Typos, misplaced sentences, cut paragraphs (which are still referred to later on in the text), copy and pasted sentences or paragraphs (which don't make any sense since they don't refer to the class in question) and such abound.I'm not being spiteful when I say they I hope they fire the editor (or god forbid, editors) of this book, because he clearly wasn't doing his job.
Yeah, the book is a train wreck of issues. This just doesn't seem to be one of them.
It's... awkward.
It could have been done better, no doubt. I'm not defending the book and it's editing. It's just awful. My point is that that doesn't make it wrong or needing a FAQ. It's pretty clear what it does and how it works. You, Rushley and Secret Wizard clearly figured out that you needed the extra feats to get your free ones. It's NOT new or unique just uncommon to need prerequisites. Lets look at a few points you made.
"Then at 7th level, you get to bull rush (and others) with it, obviating the need for Shield Slam.": Nope, it only works for ranged. In melee you still need Shield Slam so it's still needed/useful. Unless you can say with a straight face that you can assume you'll always be in ranged combat and never in melee... Also the ability says "as if she were making a melee shield bash attack". You don't get the free bulrush at range unless you already have it in melee.
"it's an awkward bait-and-switch bonus.": IMO no. All the feats you are required to spend are useful throughout your levels. For example Shield Slam is less useful after you get a ranged option but it's still useful when ranged isn't an option. For instance, an underwater adventure isn't going to see much shield throwing but the Weapon Versatility feat would lets you shield bash to your hearts content without any minuses.
I think this class could use a sidebar that points out the feats you need to get your free feats for new people that might not look up their free feats to see what they need. That's editing though and not errata/FAQ.
Graystone. You're not actually hearing us, you're so focused that you're refusing to hear the actual debate being presented.
Dude. I heard you. OVER and OVER and OVER again. I just don't agree with your conclusions.
The issue is that the class gives you a very specific bonus feat at level 11. That being Shield Master. But due either to design or sloppy copy and paste issues that feat requires you to have other feats before it will count.
Again, I don't agree with your conclusion that it MUST be a problem/issue. It works by RAW even if it's not pretty.
So the question is, is that what they intended. Was this intended to railroad you into selecting other feats earlier? If so why not give them to us and take away the Brawler bonus feats at other levels to accommodate it?
They gave you an option. Take the normal shield feats AND get some free extra's for doing so, OR go your own way and pick non-shield feats and forgo the free ones. Seems straight forward.
There is no other class that grants you a specific bonus feat that will not function unless you've already taken a particular feat. Your master of many styles argument makes no sense and isn't the issue here. The issue is like a barbarian being given improved bullrush at level 11 but saying it only works if you meet the requirements. It's forcing the build to be done in a certain way. If thats what they wanted why not just do it themselves in the design phase?
MoMS is JUST as relevant but is you insist on ignoring it, go back and look at Kazaan's post where you makes a fine list of classes/archetypes that do similar things. Two-Weapon Warrior DOESN'T get two weapon fighting even though it relies on it. How is that not on point? You keep saying I'm not listening but you keep seeming to not be listening...
Then there is the issue of the numerous abilities that don't work with the class but haven't been replaced or altered. Not the same issue, but certainly strange.
If you think so, point them out. Everything makes sense to me. For instance you still gain your armor bonus when you've thrown your shield away and someone made a readied attack.
And finally I end with 1 last question. When do I actually count as using flurry for the purposes of having two-weapon fighting? Is it only when Im actually rolling? Is it until the next turn like with power attack? How does it work?
Flurrying is during your turn. Once it stops being your turn the benefits/penalties go away. Your attack of opportunity is a normal attack. How is it confusing? It works just like flurry does. When does a monk count as flurrying? It's the same question with the same answer. If it didn't confuse you before it shouldn't now.
Thank you for these quotes. This is what I was looking for earlier in the thread when I mentioned that I had not heard of such a rule. For some reason I was unable to find that thread, but it succinctly answers the question that Brawler's Flurry does allow you to qualify for the TWF tree of feats but only during Flurry.Quick question: with Brawler's Flurry, can I take Two-Weapon Feint? Do I count as having Two-Weapon Fighting?A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).SO it seems to be working as expected by the dev's...
No Problem Ogadim. I'm glad that it helped someone in this thread. It took a bit of looking before I found it. Even better it's an official update instead of an ordinary unofficial forum post.
Well, Two-Weapon Warrior comes to mind. All of their abilities revolve around two-weapon fighting; but they don't actually get any TWF feats as bonuses at all. All their class abilities rely on two-weapon fighting, but you must take the feats as either fighter bonus feats or normal feats. So the Shield Champion needs to take Shield Slam in order to use his Shield Mastery which is given as a bonus. So what? A Roughrider Fighter needs to provide their own mount. They don't get a free mount like Cavaliers despite the archetype being designed around mounted combat. What about the Savage Warrior archetype? It revolves around natural weapons which you must provide either by race or by some other class's ability (ie. Druid). Not every archetype is going to hand you everything on a silver platter; some require you to BYOB. We're used to bonus feats being granted "without prerequisites", but in this case, they apparently determined that the combination was too strong for their view of the class and, so, required you to meet the prereqs in order to get the bonus feat; in essence, you're only saving a feat slot, not the necessity to satisfy the prereqs.Again, you're not listening. I'm talking about a feat that you get as a bonus feat for the archtype that doesn't even operate except in specific circumstances, and which you don't even meet the perquisites for.
Shield master is a shield champion bonus feat. But you can't use it unless you yourself use a feat to pick up shield slam. Neither of which work at all unless you're flurrying apparently.
Do you still really not see the issue here?
Name one other archtype or class that gains bonus feats that they can't even use unless they take other feats. In this case im referring the need to take shield slam, which im not even sure I can.
any one can two weapon fight without having two weapon fighting feat. All TWF feat does is improve your ability to fight dual wielding.
It's weird. It's giving you a bonus feat, but you need to pick up at least two other feats that were never implied prior to 11th level as being needed.
In fact, the ability that it's from gives the effects of shield bashing by throwing your shield around. The point of the ability is to not keep the shield on you, tossing it around. Doing your class gained ability implies not getting Improved Shield Bash, since you won't have the shield on you when bashing with it.
Then at 7th level, you get to bull rush (and others) with it, obviating the need for Shield Slam.But at 11th level, you get the Shield Master feat... but only if you had spent your feats on getting feats that your previous abilities from Throwing Shield effectively replaced the need for?
It's unintuitive, it doesn't follow any other bonus feat methods (getting a line of abilities that replace the need for the normal feats, then get a bonus feat in that same ability that now requires the feats?).The TWF aspect was already acknowledged by Rushley as not the issue, mechanically and thematically it works.
The problem now is that the archetype is awkwardly built. It's not that it doesn't logically fail at functioning (like the original prone shooter), but that it's an awkward bait-and-switch bonus.
If you didn't read ahead on your class, you'd have to wait at least until 13th level to pick the extra feat needed (grab improved shield bash at 11th, shield slam at 13th).
It's... awkward.
Also, the 7th level ability with shield throw doesn't have anything to do with shield Slam feat. You can't make sunder, bull rush, trip and such normally as a ranged attack. You can with normal melee attacks. This ability allows you to do so as a ranged attack instead of as a melee one.
Shield slam allows you to do a bull rush in addition to the shield bash attack you did. Normally you could only bull rush in place of a melee attack, but not melee shield bash attack and get the bull rush.
The 7th level ability allows you to be able to do Bull rush and the such as the ranged attack.
Shield Slam allows you to hit with a bull rush for free after you have hit someone with a shield bash (normally you would need to make a bull rush attempt in place of the melee attack.) So you get both with shield smash.
Being able to throw your shield with the throw shield doesn't negate the hindrances you get with fighting with your shield. You are still using your shield to attack.
Throw Shield ability allows you to throw your shield. It does damage like Shield bash but it isn't a shield bash attack (according to how it is written in ACG.)
My last thing on my last comment brings a thought to me.
Seeing how Throw Shield is not a ranged Shield Bash according to the ability in ACG. The bashing quality's last statement about the shield is considered a +1 weapon when being used to "bash" doesn't apply to a thrown shield used with the Throw Shield class ability.
But does the increased size damage still work with a thrown shield? I think it does.
I know that shield spikes do as they are specifically mentioned in the Throw Shield class ability.
But does the increased size damage from Bashing quality work with a thrown shield with the Throw Shield class ability?
This might just be me reading into it too much. but even so it would just go to more to the bad wording/writing of the ACG.
You stated something about a class not having a feat to do something that anyone can basically do.
I stated a reason why they don't have the feat free. I didn't have to elaborate anything more to be quite frank about it.
The two-weapon fighter's abilities aren't tied to having two-weapon fighting feat as a PreReq.
If anything, the Two Weapon fighter actually has an up on two weapon fighting as they don't need to have two-weapon fighting to do any of their exchanged class abilities.
So honestly the Two-weapon Fighter is the exact opposite to what you were trying to make a point for.
|
The two-weapon fighter's abilities aren't tied to having two-weapon fighting feat as a PreReq.
If anything, the Two Weapon fighter actually has an up on two weapon fighting as they don't need to have two-weapon fighting to do any of their exchanged class abilities.
If they don't don't mind having the accuracy of a commoner, yes.
If they don't don't mind having the accuracy of a commoner, yes.The two-weapon fighter's abilities aren't tied to having two-weapon fighting feat as a PreReq.
If anything, the Two Weapon fighter actually has an up on two weapon fighting as they don't need to have two-weapon fighting to do any of their exchanged class abilities.
True that they still have some negatives to attack if they don't have Two-weapon Fighting Feat but they can still do it and are better at it than someone who doesn't have Two-weapon fighting feat at all because of their class abilities.
The Shield Champion can't use at all it's class ability of having Shield Master feat unless it meets the PreReqs of it. Which can be done by using Martial Flexibility timed duration class ability, or by getting the PreReqed feats through actual feat progression by level or Bonus Combat Feat class ability.
and a Two-weapon Warrior CAN use his abilities without having Two-weapon Fighting feat.
A Two-weapon Warrior does not NEED to have Two-weapon Fighting as a feat to use his abilities. All the class abilities of the Two-weapon Warrior archtype can be used without the use of the Two-weapon Fighting Feat.
You used Two-weapon Warrior as part of a rant about a class having abilities without having a feat free that makes them do what they are supposed to do. The fact is that a Two-weapon Warrior does not NEED to have Two-weapon fighting Feat to use it's abilities, unlike the other ones you are saying. Pretty much I was informing you that you used an archtype class, to prove a point, that actually doesn't lend anything to your argument compared to the other ones that do.
It's quite funny that you don't see that.
If you're not using Brawler's Fury, you don't count as having Two-Weapon Fighting.
If you don't have Two-Weapon Fighting, you can't use Shield Master.
AKA, if you're not using Brawler's Fury, you can use Shield Master.