Weapon Master's Handbook additional resources questions


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

So it's unclear to me in the weapon master handbook, all the feats listed, are they allowed but only with melee weapons or are most of them not allowed and the last is with a melee weapon? And if it's the first, how does that work with overwatch style saying it requires you to ready a ranged attack?

Also if orc style is allowed it has no way to be used, since it requires an orc feat that isn't legal and there's no way to gain it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

Chess Pwn wrote:
So it's unclear to me in the weapon master handbook, all the feats listed, are they allowed but only with melee weapons or are most of them not allowed and the last is with a melee weapon?

It's the latter. If all those feats were allowed with melee weapons, it would say 'function' (plural) instead of 'functions' (singular), and the last feat would be included with the others in correct alphabetical order.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if orc style is allowed it has no way to be used, since it requires an orc feat that isn't legal and there's no way to gain it.

It opens the door for the prerequisite feat to be unlocked on a boon or scenario chronicle. Alternatively, some future class/archetype may allow that feat to be selected without needing all prerequisites to be met.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Paz wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if orc style is allowed it has no way to be used, since it requires an orc feat that isn't legal and there's no way to gain it.
It opens the door for the prerequisite feat to be unlocked on a boon or scenario chronicle. Alternatively, some future class/archetype may allow that feat to be selected without needing all prerequisites to be met.

well it's not allowed since it's in the first list of things not allowed so it's not that much of a problem.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Paz wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So it's unclear to me in the weapon master handbook, all the feats listed, are they allowed but only with melee weapons or are most of them not allowed and the last is with a melee weapon?
It's the latter. If all those feats were allowed with melee weapons, it would say 'function' (plural) instead of 'functions' (singular), and the last feat would be included with the others in correct alphabetical order.

And I'm super disappointed that Ascetic style is banned, that my most looked forward to feat.

Lantern Lodge

Yeah, I have not been very pleased with the direction I have seen the AR going of late. Some of the cool defensive stuff (aldori caution), monk stuff (ascetic style), and rogue stuff (waylayer archetype) just isn't making it in, to point out just a few. Just not seeing the need to limit those, and other, options.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

yeah, I thought their reasoning for banning something was
Disruptive, Evil, Themed with something they don't want, High Table Variance, and Creation.

I'm not seeing overwatch or ascetic styles or aldori caution as meeting anything to get them banned. :(

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I can see Overwatch being banned, honestly- if you're readying four attacks and breaking initiative apart for each of those, you're going to slow down the game and frustrate GM/players most likely. Certainly you can work to mitigate the time spent on it, but still..

Ascetic Style though? I have no idea why that would be banned.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Becomes almost a given to use a monk weapon with dragonstyle doesnt it?

I can see a lot of table variation on effects

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

yeah, I thought their reasoning for banning something was

Disruptive, Evil, Themed with something they don't want, High Table Variance, and Creation.

I'm not seeing overwatch or ascetic styles or aldori caution as meeting anything to get them banned. :(

Overwatch Style introduces a concept that could open up some very strange doors regarding where one readied action begins and another ends--all in a way that opens up some ambiguities that a GM could readily parse out for a home game while leading to considerable table variation in the organized play environment. For example, if I ready an action to shot a wizard when a) he casts a spell and b) when he opens his mouth, what happens if he casts a spell with a verbal component (thereby triggering both conditions)? Do I shoot him twice, or do I shoot him only once because his one action inadvertently triggered both of my conditions? You might think that the answer is obvious, but there's almost certainly somebody who's ready to argue the other angle. That means--as you noted--High Table Variance (i.e. table variation).

Let me make be clear: I think this style chain is really clever and could be really fun. I also think that there are some clarifications needed for its application in organized play that are bigger than what the Additional Resources page can adequately address. Until I'm confident that we have the right answer to how multiple readied actions from the same creature work, I'm not ready to add this to the campaign.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

I guess that makes sense, plus the debate on what is a valid trigger for readied actions and stuff. Okay I can see it. Any word on Ascetic style and why it's off the table?

Sovereign Court 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't know the reason, but I can guess it stems from discussions on the WMH's product thread and the designers realizing it applied to more than they wrote it for.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

So the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain warpriest can't take the Advances Weapon Training feats.

What about the Myrmidarch magus and the Sohei monk? Both of those archetypes get Weapon Training as a class feature.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

From an editing standpoint, I would like to see a semicolon separating the Elven Battle Focus exception from the rest of the list or some other means of separating that clause. When I looked at the AR update, the first thing I thought was "what is with this errata of written feats such that an archery style is now melee weapon only?"

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:

So the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain warpriest can't take the Advances Weapon Training feats.

What about the Myrmidarch magus and the Sohei monk? Both of those archetypes get Weapon Training as a class feature.

Both of those archetypes qualify. The Molthuni arsenal champion does not simply because it is a false choice; they only get weapon training for weapons for which they have Weapon Focus, so should such a warpriest not take further Weapon Focus feats, they effectively have a "spare" weapon group that's not applying to anything starting at level 9. Using that to purchase an advanced weapon training trick is basically free--or would be.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
John Compton wrote:
You might think that the answer is obvious, but there's almost certainly somebody who's ready to argue the other angle.

Lies and slander!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
John Compton wrote:
You might think that the answer is obvious, but there's almost certainly somebody who's ready to argue the other angle.
Lies and slander!

Perhaps slander is, but I am not ready.

Lantern Lodge

John Compton wrote:

Overwatch Style introduces a concept that could open up some very strange doors regarding where one readied action begins and another ends--all in a way that opens up some ambiguities that a GM could readily parse out for a home game while leading to considerable table variation in the organized play environment. For example, if I ready an action to shot a wizard when a) he casts a spell and b) when he opens his mouth, what happens if he casts a spell with a verbal component (thereby triggering both conditions)? Do I shoot him twice, or do I shoot him only once because his one action inadvertently triggered both of my conditions? You might think that the answer is obvious, but there's almost certainly somebody who's ready to argue the other angle. That means--as you noted--High Table Variance (i.e. table variation).

Let me make be clear: I think this style chain is really clever and could be really fun. I also think that there are some clarifications needed for its application in organized play that are bigger than what the Additional Resources page can adequately address. Until I'm confident that we have the right answer to how multiple readied actions from the same creature work, I'm not ready to add this to the campaign.

I dig the logic on that style chain. I also appreciate you taking the time to explain that to us.

If you'd be willing to indulge us a little further, is there any behind the scenes insight you're willing to offer on why some seemingly less controversial stuff such as Aldori Caution (Weapon Master's Handbook), Waylayer Rogue (Dirty Tactics Toolbox), or Cudgeler Style chain (Melee Tactics Toolbox) are banned?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

So the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain warpriest can't take the Advances Weapon Training feats.

What about the Myrmidarch magus and the Sohei monk? Both of those archetypes get Weapon Training as a class feature.

Both of those archetypes qualify. The Molthuni arsenal champion does not simply because it is a false choice; they only get weapon training for weapons for which they have Weapon Focus, so should such a warpriest not take further Weapon Focus feats, they effectively have a "spare" weapon group that's not applying to anything starting at level 9. Using that to purchase an advanced weapon training trick is basically free--or would be.

I agree with the choice to disallow them from being able to take an advanced weapon training at 9th level, but they should still be able to qualify for the Advanced Weapon Training feat, as they have Weapon Training and they count as fighters on bonus feats.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

So the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain warpriest can't take the Advances Weapon Training feats.

What about the Myrmidarch magus and the Sohei monk? Both of those archetypes get Weapon Training as a class feature.

Both of those archetypes qualify. The Molthuni arsenal champion does not simply because it is a false choice; they only get weapon training for weapons for which they have Weapon Focus, so should such a warpriest not take further Weapon Focus feats, they effectively have a "spare" weapon group that's not applying to anything starting at level 9. Using that to purchase an advanced weapon training trick is basically free--or would be.

That makes sense. However can I propose a change in the language?

From

Quote:
The Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does not qualify for the Advanced Weapon Training on pages 18-19

To

Quote:
The Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain must continue to select weapon groups with his Weapon Training ability at levels 9, 13, and 17 instead of choosing Advanced Weapon Training from pages 18-19

That would still allow him to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat using one of his warpriest bonus combat feats. (It wouldn't be "free")

And... Slightly ninja'd by Imbicatus

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Something I'd appreciate, because I know that you don't want to tell the reasoning behind banning things cause you're afraid of us arguing about it, though I don't really understand that since you could just not answer any debates, you don't have to defend your ruling, but giving understanding as to why.

Sorry derailed, can you list the reasonings why things are banned, like I did earlier in this thread, and have this list be pretty clear or cover all the banned things. Like if this list had something that could reasonable thought to cover the ascetic style. Because there have been quite a few items recently that are confusing as to why they are banned. Archer magus, ascetic style, constable(yes it got unbanned), this overwatch style, I'd have no idea you thought it was an issue without the clarifying post. Along with the other things listed.

Grand Lodge Venture-Lieutenant, Nevada—Cold Springs aka Gorignak227

Darn, dwarven fury style was going to be so thematic with my dwarf barbarian in pfs.

Well at least a lot of the other stuff got in.


Gorignak227 wrote:

Darn, dwarven fury style was going to be so thematic with my dwarf barbarian in pfs.

Well at least a lot of the other stuff got in.

Dwarven hatred style is legal, just the two follow up combat feats that apply your hatred to everything were banned.

Grand Lodge Venture-Lieutenant, Nevada—Cold Springs aka Gorignak227

Tindalen wrote:
Dwarven hatred style is legal, just the two follow up combat feats that apply your hatred to everything were banned.

Ah, good catch.

If pfs has a very orc and goblin heavy season coming up in the future the dwarves will be ready.

Grand Lodge 4/5

God, I wish. Still haven't used the attack bonus parts of both Goblin Cleaver and Orc Hewer.


Soooo....there's a feat ban list, a single changed feat (that seems to do nothing), and a punctuation fail?

1/5

Oh, nice. I can make my Halfling Slipslinger now. :)


Sorry, bit of a thread necro but this seemed like the best place to ask. Anyone have any idea why the "Smash from the Air" feat is banned? Is it for the same reason Crane Wing got nerfed? But then why is "Cut from the Air" not banned? I was really looking forward to making a swashbuckler with the feat so I'm rather saddened.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
sunderedhero wrote:
Sorry, bit of a thread necro but this seemed like the best place to ask. Anyone have any idea why the "Smash from the Air" feat is banned? Is it for the same reason Crane Wing got nerfed? But then why is "Cut from the Air" not banned? I was really looking forward to making a swashbuckler with the feat so I'm rather saddened.

The Player's Companion line is rife with bans on things that significantly change combat capabilities or revolutionize builds - I was really excited to play a ninja with a katana and an effortless lace. That's my best guess.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

sunderedhero wrote:
Sorry, bit of a thread necro but this seemed like the best place to ask. Anyone have any idea why the "Smash from the Air" feat is banned? Is it for the same reason Crane Wing got nerfed? But then why is "Cut from the Air" not banned? I was really looking forward to making a swashbuckler with the feat so I'm rather saddened.

When a character option is banned and doesn't have any obvious conflict with the general guidelines of Society Play (no crafting or cohorts, etc.) it comes down to four possibilities:

1. It's being saved to appear on a chronicle (usually applies to an item or a new character option)
2. It's significantly more powerful than an existing option that does something similar.
3. It requires a significant amount of GM adjudication and will likely vary from table to table.
4. It can significantly slow down game play.

In this case I think it's 2. Compare the prereqs of Smash from the Air to Ray Shield.

Smash from the Air: Strength 13, Power Attack, Weapon Training, Cut from the Air, BAB +9
Ray Shield: Dexterity 15, Shield Focus, Missile Shield, Disruptive, Spellbreaker. (Spellbreaker has a requirement of Fighter level 10 so factor that in as well.)

So Ray Shield requires 5 feats, at least 11 levels (10 with retraining), can be done once a round, only on ranged touch spells, and your shield takes the damage.
Smash from the Air requires 3 feats, 9 levels, can be done as many times in a round as you have attacks of opportunity, works on any ranged spell that requires an attack roll (and ballistas and boulders as a side effect), and doesn't damage your weapon.

Ray Shield's only advantage is that it's automatic (no attack roll required).

Granted the visual of a character striking all three bolts of a high-level scorching ray to the side is way cooler than cowering behind a shield that takes one of rays while the other two sneak past. However Smash from the Air is overpowered compared to existing options. Personally I think it would make a great Mythic feat (with no prerequisites).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

To be fair to the WMH, I think most of it was designed to be an improvement upon existing options. ^_^

Still, a very well-put analysis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, 'fighters can't have nice things' is in full effect again?

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

Blakmane wrote:
So, 'fighters can't have nice things' is in full effect again?

Said in friendly tones with lots of cheerfulness

Come now, let's not be hyperbolic!

Fighters get a lot of nice things in this book. It's quite an upgrade overall. It's just that this particular option is somewhat out of scale (in my opinion).

Shadow Lodge 4/5

It's so good I'd take it on every character if I could.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Muser wrote:
It's so good I'd take it on every character if I could.

Cheerful tone, following Mr. Willis's example

I'm sure there are many other things we'd take on every character if they were available - 90% of my characters would love a Charisma-to-AC revelation. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

To be fair, while Smash From The Air is slightly easier to get than Ray Shield, it's hardly free. It's still (mostly) fighter-only, for one thing.

A better question is whether Ray Shield was worth taking. Maybe sometimes an option should be (partly) obsoleted, if the power level of the system around it merits an improvement. And Ray Shield still has unique properties.

Still, campaign leadership has made a decision - I'll respect their knowledge of what's best for PFS. ^_^

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

To be fair, while Cut From The Air is slightly easier to get than Ray Shield, it's hardly free. It's still (mostly) fighter-only, for one thing.

A better question is whether Ray Shield was worth taking. Maybe sometimes an option should be (partly) obsoleted, if the power level of the system around it merits an improvement. And Ray Shield still has unique properties.

Still, campaign leadership has made a decision - I'll respect their knowledge of what's best for PFS. ^_^

It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

To be fair, while Cut From The Air is slightly easier to get than Ray Shield, it's hardly free. It's still (mostly) fighter-only, for one thing.

A better question is whether Ray Shield was worth taking. Maybe sometimes an option should be (partly) obsoleted, if the power level of the system around it merits an improvement. And Ray Shield still has unique properties.

Still, campaign leadership has made a decision - I'll respect their knowledge of what's best for PFS. ^_^

It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.

Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Actually, I mixed up feats - Cut From The Air is still legal (and should work fine on gunslingers).

It's Smash From The Air that's banned.

Oops. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.

Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.
Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^

That's terrible! Why would you ask for such pain and torture? ;)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.
Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^
That's terrible! Why would you ask for such pain and torture? ;)

Because I GM 4 times out of 5. >:)

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.
Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^
That's terrible! Why would you ask for such pain and torture? ;)

Those critical hits earn me a x4 multiplier on player tears. It's something about checking off another box on my developer Faction Journal Card.

My first PC kill as a Pathfinder Society GM involved a heavy pick critical hit. When you're holding a fistful of dice thanks to a[n un]lucky roll, sometimes there's just not a low-level character standing after totaling the damage.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Muser wrote:
It's so good I'd take it on every character if I could.

Cheerful tone, following Mr. Willis's example

I'm sure there are many other things we'd take on every character if they were available - 90% of my characters would love a Charisma-to-AC revelation. ^_^

I don't have reach weapon characters anymore who don't take Phalanx Formation. (Two have it, two are taking it as soon as they can - one as a retrain, one when he reaches level 5.)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pfft, just play absurdly over-statted self-buffers and laugh at the cover malus!

No, I mean that's a great feat. Along with Weapon Versatility.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.
Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^
That's terrible! Why would you ask for such pain and torture? ;)

Those critical hits earn me a x4 multiplier on player tears. It's something about checking off another box on my developer Faction Journal Card.

My first PC kill as a Pathfinder Society GM involved a heavy pick critical hit. When you're holding a fistful of dice thanks to a[n un]lucky roll, sometimes there's just not a low-level character standing after totaling the damage.

Is a perms deading a PC a right of passage for paizo employees? :p

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

John Compton wrote:


Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.

The gunslingers you're grouping with must have better will saves than the ones I'm grouping with :)

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
John Compton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It would be nice if there was a defense in the game vs. gunslingers.
Even nicer if more of my NPCs had it! PCs so rarely need to defend themselves against Alkenstars strange firearms.
Indeed! More gunslinger enemies, please. ^_^
That's terrible! Why would you ask for such pain and torture? ;)
Those critical hits earn me a x4 multiplier on player tears. It's something about checking off another box on my developer Faction Journal Card.

OK, now I'm going to spend the rest of the week coming up with an actual "Paizo Employee Faction Journal Card."

I'll have to work out the goals but I already know what the reward for 7+ goals will be.

Reality Check (7+ Goals) wrote:
Sometimes customers get more insight into the minds behind their favorite products than they are ready for. Once per convention you may tell an attendee "Please stop talking to me. I don't care about your character." Any other Paizo employees present may also escape the conversation at this time.

Dark Archive 5/5

^ I love this! :) ^

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

Alanya wrote:
^ I love this! :) ^

Seconded!

I can see it now:

"Check a box if someone asks you about the death of Aroden"

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Weapon Master's Handbook additional resources questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.