| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?
BARBARIANS THAT AM NOT INVULNERABLE RAGERS AM CALLED MOUNTED FURY.
AM MIGHTYFINE FOR ANY BARBARIAN THAT AM WANTING LANCE AND SUPER SHINY SPECIAL MOUNT.
|
Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?BARBARIANS THAT AM NOT INVULNERABLE RAGERS AM CALLED MOUNTED FURY.
AM MIGHTYFINE FOR ANY BARBARIAN THAT AM WANTING LANCE AND SUPER SHINY SPECIAL MOUNT.
Flaming Crab Games' Berserker is also pretty fun.
I call them "Unchained Fighter"!
@AM BARBARIAN: Pff, posers. The only true Barbarian is an unchained Burn Rider with Regenerative Stance and a Siccatite ring or something. Rage all day long!
@AM BARBARIAN: Pff, posers. The only true Barbarian is an unchained Burn Rider with Regenerative Stance and a Siccatite ring or something. Rage all day long!
UNCHAINED BARBARIAN AM FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO AM WANTING PRETEND TO BE AWESOME LIKE BARBARIAN BUT ULTIMATELY AM NOT NEARLY AS AWESOME AS ACTUAL BARBARIAN. AM OK, AM MUCH SIMPLER TO BE UNCHAINED WITHOUT ENGINEERING DEGREE. BARBARIAN PREFER CHAINS OF KNOWING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND PHYSICS, AM ALLOWING BARBARIAN TO THEN SUNDER CHAINS OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND PHYSICS OVER KNEE, AM ALLOWING FOR BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
WITH DESTROYER'S BLESSING AM STILL BASICALLY RAGING FOREVER ANYWAY, EVEN AFTER NERF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here:
I will accept this statement if and only if you can point out anywhere in this thread where I have said anything at all about what someone else should play.
And RP-related baggage is... kind of a big deal in a role-playing game. One might even call it fundamentally an issue.
Which amounts to you're role playing wrong if you drop the baggage. As someone that catapults that baggage on a regular basis i resent that, hence the "attitude".
We should all read more....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?
Well, Paizo did recently nerf the archetype by saying they couldn't take Improved Damage Reduction, because they love adding fiddly precise wording few players would naturally grasp to their "casually written ruleset."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well, Paizo did recently nerf the archetype by saying they couldn't take Improved Damage Reduction, because they love adding fiddly precise wording few players would naturally grasp to their "casually written ruleset."Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?
It's not an addition, it's a "clarification".
|
It's not an addition, it's a "clarification".Well, Paizo did recently nerf the archetype by saying they couldn't take Improved Damage Reduction, because they love adding fiddly precise wording few players would naturally grasp to their "casually written ruleset."Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?
I mean, in all fairness, they really didn't have to add anything since there was no earthly way anyone could actually distinguish between "damage reduction" the class feature and "damage reduction" the generic ability, so both readings were technically correct (and incorrect) until they made a ruling. The real issue is that a class feature shouldn't have had the same name as a general game mechanic in the first place, as well as the unfortunate proliferation of term duplication (like the game having multiple swashbucklers in its core rules set).
|
|
I mean, in all fairness, they really didn't have to add anything since there was no earthly way anyone could actually distinguish between "damage reduction" the class feature and "damage reduction" the generic ability, so both readings were technically correct (and incorrect) until they made a ruling. The real issue is that a class feature shouldn't have had the same name as a general game mechanic in the first place, as well as the unfortunate proliferation of term duplication (like the game having multiple swashbucklers in its core rules set).It's not an addition, it's a "clarification".Well, Paizo did recently nerf the archetype by saying they couldn't take Improved Damage Reduction, because they love adding fiddly precise wording few players would naturally grasp to their "casually written ruleset."Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?
Or all the abilities that are Weapon Training, but don't have Training in the title so they're not.
It's not an addition, it's a "clarification".
No. It's a power level errata (a.k.a. nerf) that goes against explicit author intend and completely nukes common sense.
@AM BARBARIAN: Destroyer's Blessing requires an action every round, so it turns the barbarian into an unpaid assembly-line worker. Also, attacking an object with nonlethal damage - not exactly barbarian-like, is it? But wearing something (can even be the armor) that burns your very flesh the entire day, and it's only your burning anger that keeps you from dying... now that's heavy metal!
I was very annoyed to find out there is a Master Sniper feat and Master Sniper rogue talent. Which do not do the same thing.
My favorite are the two "hard to fool" Rogue talents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@AM BARBARIAN: Destroyer's Blessing requires an action every round, so it turns the barbarian into an unpaid assembly-line worker. Also, attacking an object with nonlethal damage - not exactly barbarian-like, is it? But wearing something (can even be the armor) that burns your very flesh the entire day, and it's only your burning anger that keeps you from dying... now that's heavy metal!
BARBARIAN CORDIALLY DISAGREE. NAME FOR BARBARIAN ONE HEAVY METAL BAND THAT AM PLAYING WELL WHILE RAGING.
AM NO BANDS. EVERYONE KNOW HEAVY METAL BANDS AM UNABLE TO RAGE WITHOUT URBAN BARBARIAN OR SOMETHING, AND THEN AM PLAYING BARBARIAN WITHOUT DUMPING CHA.
SMELLS LIKE THAT AM CRAPPY BARBARIAN TO BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN BET OTHER BARBARIAN NOT EVEN PROPERLY EAT MAGIC LIKE ACTUAL BARBARIAN. WHEN ENEMY AM THROWING FIREBALL AT BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN ONLY TWO OPTIONS AM 'SUCCESS' AND 'SUCCESS HARDER:GAIN BONUS HP AND STILL TAKING NO DAMAGE,' THAT AM HEAVY METAL. QUALITY OF PROPER BARBARIAN RAGE AM WORTH USING SUNDER EVERY ROUND THAT BARBARIAN AM RAGING AND NOT HAVE BETTER THING TO DO WITH LAST ITERATIVE.
THIS AM MOST ROUNDS. NOT MANY THINGS AM LASTING PAST TWO HITS FROM BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN JUST SAYING.
I was very annoyed to find out there is a Master Sniper feat and Master Sniper rogue talent. Which do not do the same thing.
Could be worse: there are at least three different versions of "Precise Strike."
The weapon master's ability is called weapon training, just like the original fighter's. I'm fairly certain that the gloves work for it.
Though I agree that it's not any weapon group.
The weapon master's ability is called weapon training, just like the original fighter's. I'm fairly certain that the gloves work for it.The weapon master fighter's weapon training is structured in the same way as the...Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability. (It doesn't matter if the archetype's ability name is different than the standard class ability it is replacing; it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter.)Example: The dragoon (fighter) archetype (Ultimate Combat) has an ability called "spear training," which requires the dragoon to select "spears" as his weapon training group, and refers to his weapon training bonus (even though this bonus follows a slightly different progression than standard weapon training). Therefore, this ability counts as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training, such as gloves of dueling (Advanced Player's Guide), which increase the wearer's weapon training bonus.
Example: The archer (fighter) archetype gets several abilities (such as "expert archer") which replace weapon training and do not otherwise refer to the weapon training ability. Therefore, this ability does not count as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training (such as gloves of dueling). This is the case even for the "expert archer," ability which has a bonus that improves every 4 fighter levels, exactly like weapon training.
But the gloves call out the weapon training class feature, so to claim they dont work is to claim that a class feature called weapon training, isn't actually a weapon training class feature.
You also should take into account that Weapon Masters handbook sets a precedent for them being the same ability as the archetype is specifically highlighted in the Advanced Weapon Training section.
I don't think it should be controversial to say that a feature named "Weapon Training" should count as "Weapon Training."
IMO, the Weapon Master, the Soehei Monk, and the Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest can all use the Gloves of Dueling. That FAQ was about class abilities that mimic weapon training but are not named "Weapon Training" (e.g. "Swashbuckler Weapon Training", "Crossbow Expert", "Expert Archer", etc.)
The gloves just ask if you have a feature called "Weapon Training". It's clear that "Weapon Training" counts as "Weapon Training" but less clear whether "Spear Training" counts as "Weapon Training."
It's not an addition, it's a "clarification".Well, Paizo did recently nerf the archetype by saying they couldn't take Improved Damage Reduction, because they love adding fiddly precise wording few players would naturally grasp to their "casually written ruleset."Armored Juggernaut to start off with my DR a whole 4 levels earlier than the BarbWait, there are Barbarians out there that aren't Invulnerable Ragers?I mean, in all fairness, they really didn't have to add anything since there was no earthly way anyone could actually distinguish between "damage reduction" the class feature and "damage reduction" the generic ability, so both readings were technically correct (and incorrect) until they made a ruling.
...
That would be true if the archetype didn't recommend Increased Damage Reduction as a rage power. Since the restrictive (and subsequently FAQ'd) ruling outright renders other text in the same archetype nonsensical, it should have been considered outright incorrect.
But hey, if there is one thing I have learned, it is that little things like "internal consistency" and "what the text says" aren't weighted particularly highly when it comes to Paizo FAQ rulings.
|
If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2.
A 3rd level or higher weapon master fighter has "the weapon training class feature" so the rest of the gloves' ability kicks in. Whether it's the same feature as the fighter doesn't seem to be relevant based on the wording.
|
|
This is the core point of contention: the weapon master does not have the weapon training class feature according to the FAQ.If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2.A 3rd level or higher weapon master fighter has "the weapon training class feature" so the rest of the gloves' ability kicks in. Whether it's the same feature as the fighter doesn't seem to be relevant based on the wording.
He has a class feature called weapon training. That should not be in debate.
Looky there, you're right. Dang, that is a blow to them. Those gloves are the best thing that has happened to the fighter, and are expected to be had around lv10 for the AWT abilities, not getting those gloves is a big decline for the weapon master
|
|
He has a class feature called weapon training. That should not be in debate.This is the core point of contention: the weapon master does not have the weapon training class feature according to the FAQ.If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2.A 3rd level or higher weapon master fighter has "the weapon training class feature" so the rest of the gloves' ability kicks in. Whether it's the same feature as the fighter doesn't seem to be relevant based on the wording.Once again: the name of a class feature does not matter. Only the description and mechanics. Read the FAQ.
At this particular point, I'm tired of repeating myself. Set aside your preconceptions about how things should be, read the FAQ, think about what it means. Repeatedly telling me what an ability is named does not help when the FAQ explicitly tells you to disregard the name of an ability.
I'm familiar with the FAQ. I understand what it says. You are, however, reading it too broadly, and to the point of being in danger of getting run over at the next zebra crossing.
The FAQ covers whether something that is not named "X" counts as "X" for the purposes of rules that interact with X.
Things that are named X are not affected.
"Spear training" is not called "weapon training," so the FAQ applies. "Expert archer" is not called "weapon training," so the FAQ applies. "Weapon training," however, is called "weapon training," so the FAQ is irrelevant. You're overthinking this, I promise.
The Weapon Master doesn't even replace Weapon Training, it just gets it early and then replaces a (then) redundant instance of Weapon Training with something else.
Nope, it's any ability granted by a fighter archetype if it counts as fighter weapon training for the gloves.
Rogues have an ability call weapon training. But since it's completely different it doesn't count as the weapon training class ability, since that is actually the fighter's ability and just having the same name, per that FAQ, isn't enough to make it the same ability.
Nope, it's any ability granted by a fighter archetype if it counts as fighter weapon training for the gloves.
Rogues have an ability call weapon training. But since it's completely different it doesn't count as the weapon training class ability, since that is actually the fighter's ability and just having the same name, per that FAQ, isn't enough to make it the same ability.
Weapon training is a rogue talent, the class ability is called Rogue Talents.
|
|
Nope, it's any ability granted by a fighter archetype if it counts as fighter weapon training for the gloves.
Rogues have an ability call weapon training. But since it's completely different it doesn't count as the weapon training class ability, since that is actually the fighter's ability and just having the same name, per that FAQ, isn't enough to make it the same ability.
1) The gloves don't say a darn thing about fighters. Just the weapon training class feature.
2) Rogues can't benefit from the gloves not because they don't have the class feature but because the gloves don't do anything to what the rogue version of the class feature does.
Plus the precedent that they're the same thing was set as of Weapon Master's Handbook.
Hypothetically if this (bizarre) interpretation of that FAQ were correct, a fighter archetype that did nothing except switch the places in the fighter's level progression for Weapon Training and Armor Training (so Weapon Training at 3, 7, 11, 15 and Armor Training at 5, 9, 13, 17), would not be able to make use of the Gloves of Dueling.
Which, I feel, is patently absurd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which, I feel, is patently absurd.
Well that kind of sums up the entire FAQ anyways.
The assumption that your game is half done by level 5 is faulty, it may be some people's experience but it certainly isnt mine and I'm nowhere near convinced its the common experience.It's a very common claim on the boards.
If the people coming here, the ones that are really into the game enough to be here, aren't getting in a lot of high level play then what would lead you to conclude that they're the exception and you're the rule rather than the other way around?
Outside of PFS, the first 3-5 levels are acquired much more quickly than later levels.
Level 5 is usually reached by the end of the first book in an AP, leaving you >80% of the campaign to enjoy your toys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus the precedent that they're the same thing was set as of Weapon Master's Handbook.No, it wasn't and I've explained why.
No you haven't, you've referenced a FAQ regarding a completely different question.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability. (It doesn't matter if the archetype's ability name is different than the standard class ability it is replacing; it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter.)Example: The dragoon (fighter) archetype (Ultimate Combat) has an ability called "spear training," which requires the dragoon to select "spears" as his weapon training group, and refers to his weapon training bonus (even though this bonus follows a slightly different progression than standard weapon training). Therefore, this ability counts as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training, such as gloves of dueling (Advanced Player's Guide), which increase the wearer's weapon training bonus.
Example: The archer (fighter) archetype gets several abilities (such as "expert archer") which replace weapon training and do not otherwise refer to the weapon training ability. Therefore, this ability does not count as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training (such as gloves of dueling). This is the case even for the "expert archer," ability which has a bonus that improves every 4 fighter levels, exactly like weapon training.
BARBARIAN MAYBE NOT BEST AT READING, AS PEOPLE KEEP SAYING BARBARIAN AM ILLITERATE. HOWEVER, BARBARIAN AM SEEING PROBLEM WITH ARGUMENT BASED ON THIS FAQ, AND BARBARIAN AM SUNDER ARGUMENT LIKE HEAD OF SQUISHY CASTY. AM SORT OF WHAT BARBARIAN DO. BARBARIAN CALL ATTENTION TO ORIGINAL QUESTION FROM FAQ. BARBARIAN WENT TO LOOK AT WHAT GLOVES AM DOING. AM SAYING: IF WEARER AM HAVING WEAPON TRAINING CLASS FEATURE AND AM USING APPROPRIATE WEAPON WEAPON TRAINING BONUS AM INCREASE BY +2. QUESTION THEREFORE AM: AM WEAPON MASTER HAVING WEAPON TRAINING? AM WEAPON TRAINING CLASS FEATURE? AM WEAPON TRAINING BONUS EXISTING THAT AM ABLE TO BE INCREASE BY +2?
YES?
THEN BARBARIAN CORDIALLY REQUEST TALKY FACE ACQUIESCE POINT.
BARBARIAN GET WHY TALKYFACE AM WANTING TO NOT WORK THAT WAY BASED ON READING OF FAQ. BARBARIAN AM FAMILIAR WITH IDEA OF FAQ. BARBARIAN AM ALSO POINTING OUT THAT FAQ HAVE SAY BEFORE THAT IF AM CHARGING ON MOUNT AM NOT ACTUALLY CHARGING BECAUSE MOUNT AM CHARGING FOR WHILE BECAUSE BARBARIAN MAKING CASTYS FEEL UNFERIOR TO GLORY OF BARBARIAN. NERF AM MAKING CAVALIER ALMOST AS GOOD AS BARBARIAN, FOR LIKE TEN MINUTES. NERF ALSO AM MAKING SPIRITED CHARGE AND RIDE BY ATTACK NOT WORK AS RAW. THEN WORLD AM BEING FIX, BECAUSE PIZAO AM REALIZING THAT AM KIND OF PROBLEM. THAT NOT CASE THIS TIME, BUT BARBARIAN DIGRESS.
POINT AM, ARGUMENT AM BASED ON MISREADING OF FAQ AND IGNORING ABILITY OF ITEM TO POINT THAT BARBARIAN AM PRETTY SURE AM DELIBERATE (BARBARIAN NOT EVEN HAVE SENSE MOTIVE. DC AM REALLY LOW), NEXT PERSON AM PROBABLY ARGUING RAGELANCEPOUNCE AM NOT WORKING BECAUSE MOUNT AM CHARGING, NOT BARBARIAN.
PEE-SHAW. GAME AM NOT WORKING THAT WAY. ABILITY A AM ALWAYS ABILITY A.
UNLESS ABILITY A AM BARBARIAN, THEN ABILITY A AM ALWAYS WINNER.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My eyes. My poor, bleeding eyes.
No you haven't, you've referenced a FAQ regarding a completely different question.Plus the precedent that they're the same thing was set as of Weapon Master's Handbook.No, it wasn't and I've explained why."As far as the Weapon Masters Handbook is concerned, the advanced weapon training feat calls out the weapon master as an exception to the standard rules, specifically permitting a weapon master fighter to select that feat. This is not atypcial, such exemptions are regularly located in the special section of feats. So no, the WMH does not set the precedent you believe it does."
As written, several posts ago.
I am now convinced you aren't actually reading my posts and thus am now finished responding to you.
In fact, I'm pretty finished responding in this thread period, since I've stated and restated my position with all responses being recursive in nature.
So I'm done until the FAQ changes or an actual, reasonable counter argument is made. All arguments pertaining to the name of the weapon master fighter's level 3 ability and pertaining to the Weapon Master's Handbook contravening this FAQ will be ignored, as they have previously been addressed.
Yes, the exception to the standard rules is, they can take that feat with any bonus feat, rather than being restricted to once every 5 levels.
Once again, the FAQ you reference isn't saying what you claim it is.
I see on the boards alot of people saying the fighter needs to be "fixed"
My table views them as one of the strongest classes in the game
I am curious about the "issues"
The "issues" with the Fighter, as I see them:
Fighter's do not get as many skill points as many other similar martial classes... Barbarians, Bloodragers, Brawlers, Cavaliers, Gunslingers, Unchained Monks, and Swashbucklers all get 4 skill points per level; Rangers, and Slayers both get 6 skill points per level.The Fighter's class features are simply lackluster compared to the options available to more specialized martials. They get access to a few feats that few other classes can take, and they get Armor Training, Weapon Training, and Bravery... of those, Armor Training I & II (at 3rd and 7th levels) are the only ones that actually do anything you can't easily replicate the benefits of elsewise.
One of the Fighter's "main selling points" is their sheer number of bonus feats... But many of the other martial classes also get bonus feats (albeit not as many). In exchange for the bonus feats they don't get, they are getting class features which are usually much, much better than any feat they could take at that level. Then there is also the fact that Rangers and Slayers can skip the prerequisites of feats in their chosen Combat Styles, allowing them to reduce "feat taxes".