With unarmed strike proficiency, that's something from my own houserules where the proficiency is the same as improved unarmed strike, but the actual IUS feat lets you attack with all your limbs like Monks do, do you're still subject to half strength.
This houserule is not supported by the rules. Per the combat chapter, ANY unarmed strike can be a punch, kick, or headbutt.
Kicking is not limited to monks or people with the IUS feat.
generally houserules dosent need to be supported by the rules, it is why they are houserules.
He Can rule like he want in his home game. Without yours, mine or even the CRB's permission.
|
With unarmed strike proficiency, that's something from my own houserules where the proficiency is the same as improved unarmed strike, but the actual IUS feat lets you attack with all your limbs like Monks do, do you're still subject to half strength.
This houserule is not supported by the rules. Per the combat chapter, ANY unarmed strike can be a punch, kick, or headbutt.
Kicking is not limited to monks or people with the IUS feat.
generally houserules dosent need to be supported by the rules, it is why they are houserules.
He Can rule like he want in his home game. Without yours, mine or even the CRB's permission.
True. But as a monk/unarmed enthusiast, I point out the misconception that only monks get the whole body is false whenever possible.
If they decide to house rule that to not be true, that is of course their prerogative.
No no no, I literally only made that house rule because of the misconception.
So really it's fine, honestly I'm happy to be proven wrong, just means I can make more proper houserules!
No no no, I literally only made that house rule because of the misconception.
So really it's fine, honestly I'm happy to be proven wrong, just means I can make more proper houserules!
Ok dont mind me then:)
Also: you want more proficencies?
Try spending feats. It is what fighters do if they want an exoctic weapon proficiency
Rogues don't have too many feats to spare and spending them on something non-exotic is quite a waste.
What I'd like to see the RAW support is this:
If you are playing in Japanese style of a campaign then wakizashi and katana or not that exotic. If you are playing in Pirates of the Caribbean style of a campaign, cutlass and boarding axe are not that exotic (well they are not even now but for a rogue they kind of are as you need a feat to be able to effectively use them).
Furthermore it would have been great if some of the weapons introduced in books after CRB (e.g. sword cane) were added to the list of unchained rogue's proficiencies.
I'd also like to see more of these:
Gladius: Feats and abilities that affect short swords apply to the gladius.
There really should be more of statements like that as quite a lot of weapons are almost the same, they are just called differently in different cultures. Like scimitar and cutlass. Both are curved one-edged one-handed swords, only the curvature might differ (the stats in pathfinder are actually identical).
Also: you want more proficencies?
Try spending feats. It is what fighters do if they want an exoctic weapon proficiency
Rogues don't have too many feats to spare and spending them on something non-exotic is quite a waste.
What I'd like to see the RAW support is this:
If you are playing in Japanese style of a campaign then wakizashi and katana or not that exotic. If you are playing in Pirates of the Caribbean style of a campaign, cutlass and boarding axe are not that exotic (well they are not even now but for a rogue they kind of are as you need a feat to be able to effectively use them).
Furthermore it would have been great if some of the weapons introduced in books after CRB (e.g. sword cane) were added to the list of unchained rogue's proficiencies.
I'd also like to see more of these:
Gladius: Feats and abilities that affect short swords apply to the gladius.
There really should be more of statements like that as quite a lot of weapons are almost the same, they are just called differently in different cultures. Like scimitar and cutlass. Both are curved one-edged one-handed swords, only the curvature might differ (the stats in pathfinder are actually identical).
So? Rogues (ESPECIALLY the unchained ones) get a lot of other stuff fighters don't, they basically get feats and not much else. You want flavour for certain SPECIFIC campaigns, you spend feats at build efficency expense.
In other words, you want proficencies, you do as everyone else does OR you talk with your GM about the campaign and convince him of your reasoning. In an oriental campaign you may sobstitute one or more of the old proficencies with more appropriate ones and that seems reasonable, but I see no need to make that kind of thing RAW for any kind of campaign.And if you think a fighter can easily "spare" feats you are wrong, fighters actually need to think very carefully about what feats threes to invest on and their class is extremely feat consuming.
I think the list of proficiencies does work out properly, just eyeballing it. The weapons are pretty iconic for a rogue to begin with, and in the default setting I think the knife across the throat (i.e., sneak attack) is better than garrotting him. (This was even called out in another game's ruleset regarding MODERN tactics--a knife is generally better to use, especially given modern armour, let alone medieval.)
Note that the game rules do mean that barbarians know the intricacies of a rapier and a sansetsukon. I'm actually trying to think of how to justify a three-section staff to my GM for buying ...