Weapon Master's Handbook questions


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Guess we can use this thread to bring up any questions we have dealing with the player companion. Mine is:

Cleaving Smash (Cleave, Improved Vital Strike, Power
Attack): When you use Cleave, you can add the additional
damage from Vital Strike to both your initial and your
secondary attacks. If you also have the Greater Vital Strike
feat, you can instead add the damage from Improved Vital
Strike to both your initial and your secondary attacks.

Would this apply to Great Cleave as well?

Also, when it comes to Gorum's Greatswordsmanship, would you be able to add Improved/Greater vital strike on the charge/aoo or just base Vital Strike?


As written, I don't think it would allow you to couple it with Great Cleave. That said, it probably should work.

With Gorum's Swordsmanship it's definitely just Vital Strike. It doesn't upgrade to Improved or Greater Vital Strike.


Some people don't think that the one on a charge even is a vital strike and thus wouldn't add stuff that triggers when you vital strike. I believe it is a legit vital strike and thus would trigger stuff.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Throiath wrote:
Improved/Greater vital strike on the charge/aoo

You can't take a standard action Attack Action on a charge or Attack of Opportunity, so no you can't Vital Strike Charge or AOO.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Throiath wrote:
Improved/Greater vital strike on the charge/aoo
You can't take a standard action Attack Action on a charge or Attack of Opportunity, so no you can't Vital Strike Charge or AOO.

This is in reference to a new feat from the Weapon Master's Handbook. I'm at my work computer so I forget if it actually allows you to Vital Strike on AoO, but it definitely allows you to Vital Strike on the first attack at the end of a charge with a Greatsword.

Err, it let's you add your Vital Strike damage, I believe. Does not actually specify that you are making a Vital Strike attack.


Can a Fighter 9/Unchained Rogue 3 get DEX to damage with a greatsword?


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
My Self wrote:
Can a Fighter 9/Unchained Rogue 3 get DEX to damage with a greatsword?

If you're willing to spend a feat on it, you could get it at Fighter 5/UC Rogue 3, on the assumption that "gains the benefits" is sufficient for the UC Rogue ability.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
My Self wrote:
Can a Fighter 9/Unchained Rogue 3 get DEX to damage with a greatsword?
If you're willing to spend a feat on it, you could get it at Fighter 5/UC Rogue 3, on the assumption that "gains the benefits" is sufficient for the UC Rogue ability.

Yeah. Tough to say if you can select that weapon type for the Unchained Rogue Finesse Training. Wording is ambiguous whether the weapon class needs to be able to be finessed or if you need to be able to finesse that weapon type.


Take 1 level of U rogue to gain Finesse Training part 1
take 5 levels of fighter and pick heavy blade for training.
Take second level of U rogue and take feat Advanced Weapon Training[Fighter’s Finesse].
Take 3rd level of rogue and pick greatsword.

Finesse Training needs "one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse:
+
Fighter’s Finesse grants "the benefits
of the Weapon Finesse feat with all melee weapons that
belong to the associated fighter weapon group"
=
The greatsword is clearly made into a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Seems straight forward to me.


graystone wrote:

Take 1 level of U rogue to gain Finesse Training part 1

take 5 levels of fighter and pick heavy blade for training.
Take second level of U rogue and take feat Advanced Weapon Training[Fighter’s Finesse].
Take 3rd level of rogue and pick greatsword.

Finesse Training needs "one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse:
+
Fighter’s Finesse grants "the benefits
of the Weapon Finesse feat with all melee weapons that
belong to the associated fighter weapon group"
=
The greatsword is clearly made into a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Seems straight forward to me.

Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds.


My Self wrote:
graystone wrote:

Take 1 level of U rogue to gain Finesse Training part 1

take 5 levels of fighter and pick heavy blade for training.
Take second level of U rogue and take feat Advanced Weapon Training[Fighter’s Finesse].
Take 3rd level of rogue and pick greatsword.

Finesse Training needs "one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse:
+
Fighter’s Finesse grants "the benefits
of the Weapon Finesse feat with all melee weapons that
belong to the associated fighter weapon group"
=
The greatsword is clearly made into a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Seems straight forward to me.

Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds.

Well dwarves aren't known for their awesome dex scores. Elven branched spear and Elven curve blade already work without Fighter’s Finesse so you have to get a weapon better than those to be worth it.

Also, weapons like the Dwarven Longhammer shine more when combined with growth magic, the kind of thing that works against dex combat. The 1d12 and 2d6 from the big dwarven weapons isn't as impressive in a dex build.


graystone wrote:
My Self wrote:
graystone wrote:

Take 1 level of U rogue to gain Finesse Training part 1

take 5 levels of fighter and pick heavy blade for training.
Take second level of U rogue and take feat Advanced Weapon Training[Fighter’s Finesse].
Take 3rd level of rogue and pick greatsword.

Finesse Training needs "one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse:
+
Fighter’s Finesse grants "the benefits
of the Weapon Finesse feat with all melee weapons that
belong to the associated fighter weapon group"
=
The greatsword is clearly made into a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Seems straight forward to me.

Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds.

Well dwarves aren't known for their awesome dex scores. Elven branched spear and Elven curve blade already work without Fighter’s Finesse so you have to get a weapon better than those to be worth it.

Also, weapons like the Dwarven Longhammer shine more when combined with growth magic, the kind of thing that works against dex combat. The 1d12 and 2d6 from the big dwarven weapons isn't as impressive in a dex build.

Yeah, but you get reach and a two-handed weapon. Granted, it doesn't need to be a longhammer, but it works, right? Sure, it's not as good as an elven branched spear, but it lets you do non-elf DEX-y stuff.


My Self wrote:
graystone wrote:
My Self wrote:
graystone wrote:

Take 1 level of U rogue to gain Finesse Training part 1

take 5 levels of fighter and pick heavy blade for training.
Take second level of U rogue and take feat Advanced Weapon Training[Fighter’s Finesse].
Take 3rd level of rogue and pick greatsword.

Finesse Training needs "one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse:
+
Fighter’s Finesse grants "the benefits
of the Weapon Finesse feat with all melee weapons that
belong to the associated fighter weapon group"
=
The greatsword is clearly made into a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Seems straight forward to me.

Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds.

Well dwarves aren't known for their awesome dex scores. Elven branched spear and Elven curve blade already work without Fighter’s Finesse so you have to get a weapon better than those to be worth it.

Also, weapons like the Dwarven Longhammer shine more when combined with growth magic, the kind of thing that works against dex combat. The 1d12 and 2d6 from the big dwarven weapons isn't as impressive in a dex build.

Yeah, but you get reach and a two-handed weapon. Granted, it doesn't need to be a longhammer, but it works, right? Sure, it's not as good as an elven branched spear, but it lets you do non-elf DEX-y stuff.

You either have to spend a proficiency in it [and why wouldn't you get the branched spear that is already finesse?] or take a non-dex race... So either way, not so much non-elf DEX-y stuff. If you're going optimized, combining the dwarf weapons with dex combat isn't your best bet.


graystone wrote:
stuff

It's not about the optimization, it's about creating options.

Oh, and because a dwarf using a huge hammer with finesse is a wonderful image.

Scarab Sages

Let's take a look at the actual text of the ability:

Gorum’s Swordsmanship wrote:


Gorum teaches devastating greatsword techniques.
Optional Replacement: A chaotic neutral barbarian or
fighter who worships Gorum can replace a bonus feat or
rage power with the following initial benefit.
Initial Benefit: If you have the Vital Strike feat, you can
apply its effect to an attack you make with a greatsword at the
end of a charge
. If you don’t have the Vital Strike feat, that
attack deals 1 additional point of damage instead. The first
time you make an attack of opportunity with a greatsword
after using Vital Strike with a greatsword on your turn, you
can apply Vital Strike to that attack of opportunity.

It's very specific in that you apply the effect of the Vital Strike feat to the charge. Considering that same book has the Cleaving Smash weapon trick that specifically only allows Improved Vital Strike on a cleave if you have Greater Vital strike, I am on the side of Gorum's Swordmanship being Vital Strike only, not any other feat that modifies vital strike.

Two-Handed Weapon Tricks wrote:


Cleaving Smash (Cleave, Improved Vital Strike, Power
Attack): When you use Cleave, you can add the additional
damage from Vital Strike to both your initial and your
secondary attacks. If you also have the Greater Vital Strike
feat, you can instead add the damage from Improved Vital
Strike to both your initial and your secondary attacks.


I agree. I'd rather have the option than not. Dwarves are no more or less Dex based than any other race with no bonus and no penalty. It's not even a strength race, it's con. Which frankly puts it above elves getting into melee any day.


Cavall and My Self: You both seem to forget the post I was replying to. "Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds." My point is that I'm not expecting many if any for the reasons I pointed out.

Can you do it?: Sure can!
Can you do it another way with less investment?: Yes!
Is the option to take a suboptimal build bad?: Nope, but I never said that. Just pointing out that it IS suboptimal. If you care about flavor than optimization, more power to you. GO, GO dex dwarf!

PS: Cavall, we're taking a dex build, so an elf sure is ahead of the curve over a dwarf. Since the build would have dex to hit from first, I don't see the dwarf ahead of the elf.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So, Great Cleave modifies how you use Cleave, and should work. Improved Vital Strike gives you an ability that mostly supercedes Vital Strike, and doesn't apply when not called out by name.

On a different note, how many attacks, total, for Startoss Shower? Is it (initial attack) + (1 bounce from Comet) + (1 or more bounces from Shower), or is it (initial attack) + (1 or more bounces from Shower)? If the bounces from Shower replace the one bounce from Comet, the feat does literally nothing when you take it.


I think that Cleaving smash makes those specifications because intentionally the vital strike it allows is a step lower than the one the character normally can use (in fact you need Improved VS to begin with)


Casual Viking wrote:

So, Great Cleave modifies how you use Cleave, and should work. Improved Vital Strike gives you an ability that mostly supercedes Vital Strike, and doesn't apply when not called out by name.

On a different note, how many attacks, total, for Startoss Shower? Is it (initial attack) + (1 bounce from Comet) + (1 or more bounces from Shower), or is it (initial attack) + (1 or more bounces from Shower)? If the bounces from Shower replace the one bounce from Comet, the feat does literally nothing when you take it.

This is my reading:

It replaces the 1 extra from comet with + 1 per 5 points of base attack bonus you possess. This means it functionally grants no benefit until you reach a BAB of +10 and gain more than a single extra attack.


My reading is that it's in addition to the attack from comet because it says,

"When you hit an opponent while using the Startoss Comet feat, you can continue to make attacks against foes that are within one range increment of all previous opponents"

So if you hit the second guy then you can continue to make attacks.


That isn't quite right Graystone. Upon closer reading, all it does is increase the limit of the number of total "bounces" you get to 1 + 1 per 5 points of Base Attack Bonus (BAB) you possess. This would give you 1 extra attack just like Startoss Comet if you were a fighter and took it at the earliest opportunity. However, that would jump to two bounces at +5 BAB, 3 at +10 BAB, 4 at +15 BAB, and 5 at +20 BAB; hitting 3, 4, 5, and 6 enemies respectively.


Chess Pwn wrote:

My reading is that it's in addition to the attack from comet because it says,

"When you hit an opponent while using the Startoss Comet feat, you can continue to make attacks against foes that are within one range increment of all previous opponents"

So if you hit the second guy then you can continue to make attacks.

"As a standard action, you can make a single ranged thrown weapon attack at your full attack bonus with the chosen weapon." To me, that's the "hit an opponent while using the Startoss Comet feat" as opposed to your reading 'after you've hit with your second attack, continue to make attacks". The part you quoted seem to replace the "If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make a second attack" section of the comet feat.

It could be read your way but I find it unlikely.

HenshinFanatic: Shower gives max attacks, not max bounces or max extra attack. If it's meant to be as you say, it's misworded. It's missing a single simple word, 'extra' in the sentence.


I'll concede that you are correct, my subconscious was adding the extra because otherwise it made no sense, why would you be forced to make less attacks than what Startoss Comet allows? This needs to be FAQ'd ASAP.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HenshinFanatic wrote:
I'll concede that you are correct, my subconscious was adding the extra because otherwise it made no sense, why would you be forced to make less attacks than what Startoss Comet allows? This needs to be FAQ'd ASAP.

Well, it isn't in the correct line to be FAQ'd. But we can get the writers intent. I think that would be David N Ross and/or Alexander Augunas. Hopefully they can chime in.


HenshinFanatic wrote:
I'll concede that you are correct, my subconscious was adding the extra because otherwise it made no sense, why would you be forced to make less attacks than what Startoss Comet allows? This needs to be FAQ'd ASAP.

I think it makes perfect sense, though it SHOULD require a +5. You have to remember that the feats grants a +2 to damage making it equal to weapon specialization right off the bat then gives high level BAB characters extra attacks with an earlier feat.

Also remember that nothing forces you to make your 'extra' attack from Shower as it has 'can continue' statement. You can comet normally and still gain the passive +2 damage from shower so you'll never be forced to take a single attack.

Scarab Sages

The feat still adds +2 damage, even when it's not adding additional attacks.


smashing style wrote:
when you succeed at a sunder combat maneuver check against a suit of armor worn by an opponent, you can immediately attempt a bull rush or trip combat maneuver against that target with the same combat maneuver bonus.

What is this saying? Lets say my CMB is normally a 10, but for sunder it's a 15, and I rolled a 10 for my sunder check. What is the trip attempt made at?

Now lets say my CMB is normally a 10, but for trips it's a 15, and I rolled a 10 for my sunder check. What is the trip attempt made at?

And is it an immediate action to use or is immediately meaning more of "as part of the sunder"?

Scarab Sages

If your sunder maneuver bonus is +15, so is the bull rush or trip, regardless of the normal modifier for those maneuvers.

Question 1: The trip attempt would be rolled with a +15 bonus.

Question 2: The trip attempt would be rolled with a +10 bonus.

Question 3: Immediately is not an immediate action in this case, but a free action maneuver check. It never even occurred to me that it might mean an immediate action.


I didn't think it meant immediate action on first few reads either. But on build crafting with it the question came up.

So it's make another Sunder CMB check but to trip or push instead. Okay just like I thought.


How does Dragon ferocity work with a two-handed weapon using ascetic style?

Dragon ferocity wrote:
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks.

The first part works fine, but then it has the part, "to a total of..."

Is that meant to clarify how the adding would work or is it setting hard limit of how high the str can go?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?


Rogar Valertis wrote:

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?

1) +2/+2, it was increased with the first feat.

2) no because there's no saving throw to to replace with your BAB


Chess Pwn wrote:

How does Dragon ferocity work with a two-handed weapon using ascetic style?

Dragon ferocity wrote:
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks.

The first part works fine, but then it has the part, "to a total of..."

Is that meant to clarify how the adding would work or is it setting hard limit of how high the str can go?

Hard limit. You get 2x STR on your first attack and 1.5x STR on later attacks. The combination is still quite interesting for, say, a Swashbuckler. Get all the benefits of wielding a 2-hander except it's a 1-hander so you're also getting Precise Strike.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?

1) +2/+2, it was increased with the first feat.

2) no because there's no saving throw to to replace with your BAB

Thanks, agreed on both answers. Damn enervation... and whoever thought that such a spell with no saves could be anything but an headache ("ok... you are down 2 levels... rework your character sheet please... XD)


Enervate is a ray though, so you can block it with Smash from the Air.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?

1) +2/+2, it was increased with the first feat.

2) no because there's no saving throw to to replace with your BAB

Thanks, agreed on both answers. Damn enervation... and whoever thought that such a spell with no saves could be anything but an headache ("ok... you are down 2 levels... rework your character sheet please... XD)

Enervation applies temporary negative levels, which are not the same as lost levels. Look here to see how they differ.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
My Self wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?

1) +2/+2, it was increased with the first feat.

2) no because there's no saving throw to to replace with your BAB

Thanks, agreed on both answers. Damn enervation... and whoever thought that such a spell with no saves could be anything but an headache ("ok... you are down 2 levels... rework your character sheet please... XD)
Enervation applies temporary negative levels, which are not the same as lost levels. Look here to see how they differ.

I know but it lasts long enough you still have to recalculate a lot of stuff anyway. It's good you don't need a check to regain levels but let's say 12 hours (for a lvl 12 spellcaster) to regain one level is a lot of game time anyway.


Just got interesting for a strength based swashbuckler or maybe a strength based Daring Champion.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
My Self wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

A couple of questions from me too:

-Does the dwarven fury feat apply a +1/+1 bonus to hit and to damage or a +2/+2?

-Does the spellcut feat work against Enervation?

1) +2/+2, it was increased with the first feat.

2) no because there's no saving throw to to replace with your BAB

Thanks, agreed on both answers. Damn enervation... and whoever thought that such a spell with no saves could be anything but an headache ("ok... you are down 2 levels... rework your character sheet please... XD)
Enervation applies temporary negative levels, which are not the same as lost levels. Look here to see how they differ.
I know but it lasts long enough you still have to recalculate a lot of stuff anyway. It's good you don't need a check to regain levels but let's say 12 hours (for a lvl 12 spellcaster) to regain one level is a lot of game time anyway.
PFSRD wrote:
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.

Still not as bad as 3.5 actually having a chance at losing levels. Think of it like a really long-term debuff, like Bestow Curse.


graystone wrote:

Cavall and My Self: You both seem to forget the post I was replying to. "Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds." My point is that I'm not expecting many if any for the reasons I pointed out.

Can you do it?: Sure can!
Can you do it another way with less investment?: Yes!
Is the option to take a suboptimal build bad?: Nope, but I never said that. Just pointing out that it IS suboptimal. If you care about flavor than optimization, more power to you. GO, GO dex dwarf!

PS: Cavall, we're taking a dex build, so an elf sure is ahead of the curve over a dwarf. Since the build would have dex to hit from first, I don't see the dwarf ahead of the elf.

Oh my point was that elves are low in hit points in comparison. I didn't say elves were worse just that dwarves suffer no Dex penalty and have a hot point boost. Gaining a point to one area but losing the other vs a guy with 2 extra hp over him seems like dwarves still make a decent Dex based fighter. Plus less squishy which is nice


Cavall wrote:
graystone wrote:

Cavall and My Self: You both seem to forget the post I was replying to. "Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds." My point is that I'm not expecting many if any for the reasons I pointed out.

Can you do it?: Sure can!
Can you do it another way with less investment?: Yes!
Is the option to take a suboptimal build bad?: Nope, but I never said that. Just pointing out that it IS suboptimal. If you care about flavor than optimization, more power to you. GO, GO dex dwarf!

PS: Cavall, we're taking a dex build, so an elf sure is ahead of the curve over a dwarf. Since the build would have dex to hit from first, I don't see the dwarf ahead of the elf.

Oh my point was that elves are low in hit points in comparison. I didn't say elves were worse just that dwarves suffer no Dex penalty and have a hot point boost. Gaining a point to one area but losing the other vs a guy with 2 extra hp over him seems like dwarves still make a decent Dex based fighter. Plus less squishy which is nice

LOL well my 'elf' would be a 1/2 elf so no minuses. Snag the elven branched spear since it says "Elves treat elven branched spears as martial weapons." and 1/2 elves count as elves. ;)

Dwarves can make fine fighters, just not the best ones. They'll always have a hit less than that of a str of dex bonus race. the other bonuses are nice but the fighters main job is to hit things with weapons.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Cavall wrote:
graystone wrote:

Cavall and My Self: You both seem to forget the post I was replying to. "Now, all I'm waiting for are the Dwarven Longhammer Finesse builds." My point is that I'm not expecting many if any for the reasons I pointed out.

Can you do it?: Sure can!
Can you do it another way with less investment?: Yes!
Is the option to take a suboptimal build bad?: Nope, but I never said that. Just pointing out that it IS suboptimal. If you care about flavor than optimization, more power to you. GO, GO dex dwarf!

PS: Cavall, we're taking a dex build, so an elf sure is ahead of the curve over a dwarf. Since the build would have dex to hit from first, I don't see the dwarf ahead of the elf.

Oh my point was that elves are low in hit points in comparison. I didn't say elves were worse just that dwarves suffer no Dex penalty and have a hot point boost. Gaining a point to one area but losing the other vs a guy with 2 extra hp over him seems like dwarves still make a decent Dex based fighter. Plus less squishy which is nice

LOL well my 'elf' would be a 1/2 elf so no minuses. Snag the elven branched spear since it says "Elves treat elven branched spears as martial weapons." and 1/2 elves count as elves. ;)

Dwarves can make fine fighters, just not the best ones. They'll always have a hit less than that of a str of dex bonus race. the other bonuses are nice but the fighters main job is to hit things with weapons.

Str18 Dex15 Con14 Int10 Wis10 Cha05

Make me an elf who can be a better melee fighter than this dwarf even before considering racial abilities/traits/feats.

An half elf?

If you max out str you have to dump 2 stats and are still WAAAAAY weaker when it comes to resisting spells, seeing in the dark

Str20 Dex14 Con14 Int07 Wis11 Cha07

Best you can do as an half elf fighter is

Str18 Dex16 Con14 Int09 Wis10 Cha07

But even so access to racial abilities/traits/feats make the dwarf a better choice as a fighter, especially now with the new racial weapon mastery feat chain

Edit: I should specify these builds aim for shield mastery which I consider one of the best fighter chains around.


Rogar Valertis... You failed at reading comprehension.

"They'll always have a hit less than that of a str of dex bonus race. the other bonuses are nice but the fighters main job is to hit things with weapons."

My qualification for 'better fighter' is hitting more often. A dwarf will never hit as often do to not getting a bonus in an attack stat. That is all.

As to making an elf or 1/2 elf that's better all I have to list is : dex 20 or str 20... Done. Nothing racial other than stats. The class boils down to various ways to hit something plain and simple.

Everyone has other things they like/want for their character but the ultimately are secondary to their main thing. Hitting.

The rest is quibbling over saves, senses, best secondary stats, ect that I could care less about. No one will ever agree to the best build but I think most will agree the fighter doesn't do much if he misses.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:

Rogar Valertis... You failed at reading comprehension.

"They'll always have a hit less than that of a str of dex bonus race. the other bonuses are nice but the fighters main job is to hit things with weapons."

My qualification for 'better fighter' is hitting more often. A dwarf will never hit as often do to not getting a bonus in an attack stat. That is all.

As to making an elf or 1/2 elf that's better all I have to list is : dex 20 or str 20... Done. Nothing racial other than stats. The class boils down to various ways to hit something plain and simple.

Everyone has other things they like/want for their character but the ultimately are secondary to their main thing. Hitting.

The rest is quibbling over saves, senses, best secondary stats, ect that I could care less about. No one will ever agree to the best build but I think most will agree the fighter doesn't do much if he misses.

There's a lot more to being a good fighter than being able to start with str20. Of course dwarves don't make the best ranged fighters, they are not geared towards it. Do they make the best melee fighters? No, all things considered humans are a tad better but not because of str20, it's because they have extra versatility.

Also, starting with str20 for a fighter is suboptimal compared with starting with str18. How so? Because in REAL PLAY a fighter isn't just a huge brute hitting stuff. Yes, that's his main thing, yes he should be good at it, but he also needs to be reliable as a member of the party, sometimes defend the other PCs, some other times being able to pass a difficult check. Let's just consider defenses against magic: an half elf with int 11 is WAY worse off than a dwarf with wis 10. Why? Because the dwarf also has a +2 race bonus to saves against spells and spell like abilities (one he should AT LEAST increase to +3 with a trait and can go up as far as +5 if he invests a racial feat).In real play a fighter going around with a +0 wis bonus is BEGGING to get dominated/commanded/charmed/paralized and what not. Something that's much more difficult to accomplish against a dwarf even if he starts with wis 10. You might not appreciate it but this is huge for a fighter, because any GM who doesn't want to give that all or nothing build a free pass can make each gaming session a nightmare for you. How many save or suck will based spells/abilities are out there? A lot. And if you build with the assumption you just need to hit hard to be a good melee fighter you are in for some painful lessons. Dwarves help shoring up this HUGE weakness for fighters and that alone makes them great fighters despite not starting with a +2 to str.

P.S.

The idea that in order to be a good fighter you need to just have +2 to str and everything else is suboptimal is just wrong. The game is more complex than "I build a fighter, you build a fighter and we slaughter each other to see who's stronger". Actually, in real play that almost never happens.

P.P.S.

With the new feats, come level 5 a dwarf melee fighter will defeat an elf or half elf melee fighter more often than not, even in theory play.


I said what "My qualification for 'better fighter'" where. I said "The rest is quibbling over saves, senses, best secondary stats, ect that I could care less about."

You really seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I completely don't care about the secondary consideration as "No one will ever agree to the best build but I think most will agree the fighter doesn't do much if he misses."

Of hitting stat total: Whatever starting stat you feel is optimal, it's easier for a race with a bonuses in that stat to get it. So for "starting with str18", you spend less with a race that gets a bonus in it to get it. Simple right! AGAIN, once you've set your hitting/damage stat "I completely don't care about the secondary consideration as " No one will ever agree to the best build".

So AGAIN, taking what I've said, "Dwarves can make fine fighters, just not the best ones." Somehow that's not much different from your dwarves aren't the best fighters either. Do we need to try to quibble over the reasons?

PS: suboptimal isn't what I said. Secondary would be closer. The +2 allows you to spend points where YOU think is best as you're attack stat is covered. In my saying a 20 stat, I did so because I was comparing it to you're spending the same points into getting an 18 for a dwarf. the same points would be spent for a greater benefit. It's also better to keep the same 18 and have more points to spend elsewhere. It just required posting more than I cared too.

PPS: Really? Good thing I don't give a rat's behind about theory play or who's daddy is going to beat up the other's daddy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:

I said what "My qualification for 'better fighter'" where. I said "The rest is quibbling over saves, senses, best secondary stats, ect that I could care less about."

You really seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I completely don't care about the secondary consideration as "No one will ever agree to the best build but I think most will agree the fighter doesn't do much if he misses."

Of hitting stat total: Whatever starting stat you feel is optimal, it's easier for a race with a bonuses in that stat to get it. So for "starting with str18", you spend less with a race that gets a bonus in it to get it. Simple right! AGAIN, once you've set your hitting/damage stat "I completely don't care about the secondary consideration as " No one will ever agree to the best build".

So AGAIN, taking what I've said, "Dwarves can make fine fighters, just not the best ones." Somehow that's not much different from your dwarves aren't the best fighters either. Do we need to try to quibble over the reasons?

PS: suboptimal isn't what I said. Secondary would be closer. The +2 allows you to spend points where YOU think is best as you're attack stat is covered. In my saying a 20 stat, I did so because I was comparing it to you're spending the same points into getting an 18 for a dwarf. the same points would be spent for a greater benefit. It's also better to keep the same 18 and have more points to spend elsewhere. It just required posting more than I cared too.

PPS: Really? Good thing I don't give a rat's behind about theory play or who's daddy is going to beat up the other's daddy.

Lol, sorry, I keep forgetting this is all about what YOU said and that's the end of it.

That aside, you go on and try getting a 20 point buy build for an half elf that's better than the ones I posted above, then confront it with the dwarf fighter build I also posted above, THEN factor ALL the other racial stuff. Then you can start considering which race makes better fighters. That is my point: a good fighter is not made just because you can get a +2 to an important stat, there's also a lot more going on and "being a good fighter" requires more than just hit stuff efficiently. And the fact you refuse to aknowledge this unfortunately does not change the fact it's true.

P.S.

When I say dwarves don't make the best of fighters I also say that humans are better BUT NOT just because they can get +2 to str, it's BECAUSE ON TOP OF THAT THEY ALSO GET VERSATILITY thanks to an extra feat and extra skill points, which is quite different than what you are stating above. In other words: dwarves make worse melee fighters than humans but they make better melee fighters than elves or half elves.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The debate between which race makes a better fighter really isn't a rules question and should probably be brought somewhere else.


LOL YOU are the one arguing with me even after I said what my opinion was. I'm I playing bad/wrong/fun?

Aside: I was following YOUR lead on an 18 strength build on a dwarf: Same number of points spent on strength. The rest is opinion on what makes a better fighter, something everyone will disagree on. Your point is you have an opinion about what makes a good fighter. GREAT! Hope it works for you. Yours, however, isn't the one true way so it can't be the 'truth'. The only thing I 'refuse' to do is start "quibbling over saves, senses, best secondary stats, ect". Somehow this seems to upset you as you seem to have a NEED for me to agree with you even though you yourself say dwarves aren't the best... :P

PS: stuff... different values on the differing racial abilities and in doing so find some better than others. Why do you insist that I agree with you on what YOU find important over what I find important?

PPS: Remember, this all started when I said I didn't expect to see a lot of dwarf finesse polearm builds. Do you disagree with that? Or would you expect to see more elf/half elf ones?


thewastedwalrus wrote:
The debate between which race makes a better fighter really isn't a rules question and should probably be brought somewhere else.

It's not really a debate. I said dwarves aren't the best and so did he, but I'm saying it for the wrong reasons so I MUST agree with him...

Though you are most likely right. The best way to deal with this is most likely to just not reply anymore. I'll admit I wasn't paying attention to the thread theme.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Weapon Master's Handbook questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.