# Fighter Archetype Question (Polearm Master, "Pole Fighting")

### Rules Questions

 51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Okay, terribly text picture time.

I will be illustrating the grip on a longspear via text.

<<< is the spear head, for ease of illustration, we will say it is a foot in length

=== is haft section, every three = will denote a foot

X will be the hands, assumed width of 6"

so an spear will look like this

<<<=====================

Now I am going to assume that people think the default grip looks something like this

<<<============X===X===

So hands a clearly towards the back allowing for maximum reach.

To shorten grip are you saying it goes to something like this?

<<<=======X===X========

Much closer to the point so less reach.

Unfortunately the default grip on a spear is much closer to this:

<<<====X==========X====

Notice how short the distance is from either end?

With a grip like this, guess what? You can not only attack adjacent but targets out at the "10 foot" range. All you do is push the back hand forward propelling the point towards the target. For an adjacent foe you may only push forward six inches to a foot, for a longer range foe you might have to bring your back hand all the way to the lead hand. To attack continuously, repeat above simple process quickly adjusting back hand movement as necessary.

This does not include changing angle of attack.

Now, I know DnD/Pathfinder does a terrible job at realism because it really doesn't try for it, I accept it. However, when a rule states "can shorten the grip" and does not, in one single place define that phrase, nor does it state that it overrides a built in function of a weapon, we have to do two thing. Look at the logical closest real life situation ,thus the need to understand polearm fighting in real life at at least a simple level, and take the rules at face value.

Shorten grip in RL means maybe pulling back spear head closer to lead hand, more time required to travel to longer range targets but not prohibitive, and no mention of loss of reach in rule means no loss of reach.

Your comparison to dead characters being able to act is a blatant straw man.

On a more personal note, if you wish to continue with a civil discussion, I suggest you not imply that those who disagrees with you are quote "dumb people were trying to exploit and twist the rules".

Chess Pwn wrote:

stable also says how you regain consciousness, and then there are probably other ways too.

You're stable because your not taking damage, and since you're not making any checks you can't fail the checks and thus you can't lose 1 hit point on a fail.

Fair point. But hes still unconcious, and cant make his next check to become normally stable for an hour, and then cant make a check to become concious for another hour. And even then hes still dead so he cant be healed. And if he takes a standard action he loses 1 HP and goes all the way back to square 1.

And his con needs to be 10 or less to even have that chance.

Im ok with this.

Chess Pwn wrote:
right, cause this thread was being so productive before because you're going "but it doesn't explicitly say, only implies"

It doesnt imply anything by my reading. I can easily see someone using a spear at a close range and still maintaining the ability to attack far. Mostly because I HAVE seen that.

Andarion got it right. (although not that that is default)

Andarion wrote:

Okay, terribly text picture time.

I will be illustrating the grip on a longspear via text.

<<< is the spear head, for ease of illustration, we will say it is a foot in length

=== is haft section, every three = will denote a foot

X will be the hands, assumed width of 6"

so an spear will look like this

<<<=====================

Now I am going to assume that people think the default grip looks something like this

<<<============X===X===

So hands a clearly towards the back allowing for maximum reach.

To shorten grip are you saying it goes to something like this?

<<<=======X===X========

Much closer to the point so less reach.

Unfortunately the default grip on a spear is much closer to this:

<<<====X==========X====

Notice how short the distance is from either end?

With a grip like this, guess what? You can not only attack adjacent but targets out at the "10 foot" range. All you do is push the back hand forward propelling the point towards the target. For an adjacent foe you may only push forward six inches to a foot, for a longer range foe you might have to bring your back hand all the way to the lead hand. To attack continuously, repeat above simple process quickly adjusting back hand movement as necessary.

This does not include changing angle of attack.

Now, I know DnD/Pathfinder does a terrible job at realism because it really doesn't try for it, I accept it. However, when a rule states "can shorten the grip" and does not, in one single place define that phrase, nor does it state that it overrides a built in function of a weapon, we have to do two thing. Look at the logical closest real life situation ,thus the need to understand polearm fighting in real life at at least a simple level, and take the rules at face value.

Shorten grip in RL means maybe pulling back spear head closer to lead hand, more time required to travel to longer range targets but not prohibitive, and no mention of loss of reach in rule means no loss of reach.

Spears don't have reach in Pathfinder.

Baval wrote:

oh no?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:

oh no?
no

You do realize when we say spear in a thread about reach were probably talking about the one with reach...right?

Normal spears didnt have reach in 3.5 either.

especially since he said

Andarion wrote:

I will be illustrating the grip on a longspear via text.

Baval wrote:
Baval wrote:

oh no?
no

You do realize when we say spear in a thread about reach were probably talking about the one with reach...right?

Normal spears didnt have reach in 3.5 either.

especially since he said

Andarion wrote:

I will be illustrating the grip on a longspear via text.

My mistake. I must have missed that.

Going to post closing argument since both sides are pretty entrenched in our positions and doing much else will devolve into a nu-uh style argument.

Balkoth asked if his player was correct in saying that the Pole Fighting ability of the Polearm Master archetype for Fighter, text will be included below, allowed for the use of reach weapons to attack targets both at the ten foot distance and adjacent target.

Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets . This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.

Chess Pwn and those that agree with him, who I will just refer to as Chess Pwn from here on, believe that since the text in the ability says you shorten your grip and can now target adjacent targets, you lose your ability to utilize the reach ability of your weapon.

I, and those who agree with me, also just referred to in the first person, believe that since the ability does not specifically say you lose access to reach while using the ability, you do not use reach.

Chess Pwn and those that agree with him maintain that a common sense nontechnical reading of the ability supports the interpretation that since you shorten the grip on a reach weapon and can attack adjacent targets with it, naturally you would no longer have the ability to attack target at a longer distance. Every argument and counter argument made have centered around this one idea.

I find this argument lacking.

A common sense reading of shorten the grip on a polearm is not as straight forward as Chess Pwn believes. If these weapons were used in a style similar to baseball bats, yes, shortening the grip would shorten the reach as you are in essence, choking up on the bat, reducing distance from hands to weapon end. Unfortunately, since many polearms are not used primarily in a style similar to baseball bats, shortening the grip is a phrase that makes little sense.

Pathfinder is a rule set where the rules say what they say and mean what they mean. Yes common sense should be used when reading and understanding the rules. Except when they don't. Look at some of the old debates about unarmed strikes and whether they were one weapon only, or multiple body parts. Both options are eluded to at different points in the books.

Because of this disconnect, common place ambiguity, and changes via errata and FAQs, we have to work with what information we have until it is defined.

With that being said.

If we look at the whole of the ability description we see no mention of loss of reach.

The first half states the action being taken and the action required to activate it and the basic effect. In this case an immediate action is taken to shorten the grip and allow attacks on adjacent targets. No where in that statement is a mention of a loss of reach. Shorten the grip is not a phrase used anywhere else, so we cannot look else where in the rules to truly define this inexact phrase. The closest thing we have is a FAQ about changing you grip to make a spear a bludgeoning, improvised, non-reach weapon. As has been stated by the PDT; FAQs apply only to the very specific situation the FAQ is for. Even then, this FAQ is about a character with no special abilities to intentionally use a spear incorrectly.

Now we look at the second half. This section states "This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip." Reading this line informs you that in exchange for being able to attack adjacent targets the fighter takes a -4 penalty on attacks with this weapon until the return their grip to normal. There is no mention of loss of reach being exchanged for the ability to attack adjacent targets.

The last section discusses how the penalty decreases and the fighter ability it replaces and is irrelevant to the conversation.

So we have an unclear phrase that is not defined followed by a set of specific and defined interactions with the rule set. In this specific explanation, a loss of reach is not once mentioned. In fact, other than saying a weapon has to have reach to be used with this ability, the word reach is never once mentioned again.

If the ability said the fighter shortened the reach of their weapon or that they lost the reach property while using the shortened grip, I would be right there with you.

Look, Pathfinder has some issues. All systems do, which is why we have the terms RAW and RAI. Perhaps the RAI of this ability was to do what Chess Pwn states. DMRrostarr said the writer of the archetype claimed so. No link was provided, but I have no reason not to believe him. But we have to remember sometimes what the auther intened and wrote, is not what the editorial staff intended and approved, it has happened before.

RAW does not state a loss of reach.

Since RAW does not say anything we need to ask ourselves, is it really necessary to make this ability weaker? Is there some overpowered option that will break the game, or will it at worst raise the level of fighters?

I do not think it will, it is a niche archetype that loses bravery. At one point that may have been considered an OP exchange, but, and I am not 100% on this, doesn't the new fighter feat that increases saving throws increase based on bravery?

So again, RAW has no loss of reach; RAI, maybe it was intended. It is an old archetype and new and fun toys for fighters have come out. In the grand scheme of things, does being able to threaten at both 5' and 10' break the game?

The issue is all your counter arguments about reach are dealing with real life use, which isn't applicable.

I shorten my grip, My hands are now up closer to the blade and there's a lot of stick hanging out behind making it hard to use. But the blade is no longer 10ft away but 5ft away.

Because there is no changing of grips while attacking for normal reach, nor is there for when your grip is shortened. If I'm holding it so the blade is close enough for 5ft reach, there's no way it's also still long enough for the blade to be 10ft away without changing the grip.

All counters to this are using real life stuff and handholds showing how it easily can work at both ranges since your holding is fluid.
Meaning that in the example, having your hands at the end is how the GAME works. And moving your hands into the middle is shortening the grip. Because, if the default grip ALREADY so easily can attack at reach and at close, IN THE REAL WORLD, then it's obviously not the "correct" grip in Pathfinder, as Pathfinder reach weapons CAN'T attack close. Your grip can't change positions mid attack in pathfinder.

Or to be more accurate, the longspear that has reach is fantastically long to be worthless as a weapon in the real world.

<<<====X==========X====

This is obviously a spear in PFS, your weapon is no longer than your hands and your hands are 5ft because that's how big you are.
A longspear in PF would be like this.

<<<========================X==========X====

twice as long granting twice the reach and being incapable of close range attacks.
Which if you scale this view down you get to the view of
<<<============X===X===

Chess Pwn are you under the impression that a whip just sticks out 15 feet at all time?

Because there are a lot of weapons where the edge isnt always kept at its maximum striking distance. most in fact

It amuses me that earlier you were the "use common sense not game rules guys obviously it cant work that way" guy and now your position has flipped

A whip can strike anyone within the 15ft reach, and is specifically called out as an exception in its description.

The whip can attack at 5,10, and 15. And I can imagine how a whip works to attack all those squares. So it works like a real world whip.

The longspear CAN'T attack at close with the blade in PFS, and that the attacks are done where the enemy is 10ft away. Thus the grip is near the end to be able to leverage so many attacks at that range so quickly. as seen here

Rysky wrote:
A whip can strike anyone within the 15ft reach, and is specifically called out as an exception in its description.

I am aware, but from the way hes arguing it seems like he thinks you just hold weapons out at their maximum distance and wiggle them around. He cant decide if he wants to go with realism or game logic.

It actually doesnt work like a real world whip at all, which can only cause damage from the whips crack at the tip.

Baval wrote:

Chess Pwn are you under the impression that a whip just sticks out 15 feet at all time?

Because there are a lot of weapons where the edge isnt always kept at its maximum striking distance. most in fact

It amuses me that earlier you were the "use common sense not game rules guys obviously it cant work that way" guy and now your position has flipped

In PFS the edge can ONLY be at the attack range.

Also, I argued common sense reading, NOT real life reading or examples.

Common sense of the game applied to reach weapons gives us a certain interpretation.
For real life to be at all applicable the real life has to mimic to PF. And since as you've stated, a longspear can easily attack close and at "10ft reach" in the real world is MUST not be the correct weapon or the correct grip.

So while in the real world the blade of a spear can be at not 10ft reach, in PF it is only at 10ft reach, can't attack close, and can attack around corners with no penalty. And I don't think a speargrip your suggesting would be easy to attack around corners with at full reach with no attack penalties.

Baval wrote:
It actually doesn't work like a real world whip at all, which can only cause damage from the whips crack at the tip.

Is that not how PF whips do damage? A whip can be aimed to crack at any point from max range to fairly close in the real world. In PF the attack can be at any range from max range 15ft to pretty close 5ft.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Baval wrote:

Chess Pwn are you under the impression that a whip just sticks out 15 feet at all time?

Because there are a lot of weapons where the edge isnt always kept at its maximum striking distance. most in fact

It amuses me that earlier you were the "use common sense not game rules guys obviously it cant work that way" guy and now your position has flipped

In PFS the edge can ONLY be at the attack range.

Also, I argued common sense reading, NOT real life reading or examples.

Common sense of the game applied to reach weapons gives us a certain interpretation.
For real life to be at all applicable the real life has to mimic to PF. And since as you've stated, a longspear can easily attack close and at "10ft reach" in the real world is MUST not be the correct weapon or the correct grip.

So while in the real world the blade of a spear can be at not 10ft reach, in PF it is only at 10ft reach, can't attack close, and can attack around corners with no penalty. And I don't think a speargrip your suggesting would be easy to attack around corners with at full reach with no attack penalties.

IF you use it in the correct style, it can attack both close and far. This ability is you using it in that style. If you use a different style, such as the one from that game you linked, you cannot.

And it cants attack around corners, that gives cover. (meaning that when you hit you caught him around the edge of the corner, and when you missed you didnt.

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Andarion wrote:
So again, RAW has no loss of reach; RAI, maybe it was intended. It is an old archetype and new and fun toys for fighters have come out. In the grand scheme of things, does being able to threaten at both 5' and 10' break the game?

Broken/Not broken is only a useful argument when, given two competing interpretations, one is broken (either suspiciously powerful or completely useless) while the other is not. When neither interpretation is broken, but one is stronger than the other, "not broken" isn't really an argument in its favor.

I'm going to put this down as a RAW/RAI disparity and hope it never comes up in my group.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:
Andarion wrote:
So again, RAW has no loss of reach; RAI, maybe it was intended. It is an old archetype and new and fun toys for fighters have come out. In the grand scheme of things, does being able to threaten at both 5' and 10' break the game?

Broken/Not broken is only a useful argument when, given two competing interpretations, one is broken (either suspiciously powerful or completely useless) while the other is not. When neither interpretation is broken, but one is stronger than the other, "not broken" isn't really an argument in its favor.

I'm going to put this down as a RAW/RAI disparity and hope it never comes up in my group.

I disagree. If neither interpretation is broken, the one that is more fun should be used.

Chess Pwn wrote:

The issue is all your counter arguments about reach are dealing with real life use, which isn't applicable.

I shorten my grip, My hands are now up closer to the blade and there's a lot of stick hanging out behind making it hard to use.

-snip-

You owe me a beer. Spit mine out reading this.

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Baval wrote:
I disagree. If neither interpretation is broken, the one that is more fun should be used.

Until you can define "more fun", I cannot fairly evaluate your contention. Like "taste", fun is subjective.

More fun for whom ? Some things that are fun when the PCs do them are suddenly less fun when opponents do them.

Baval wrote:

IF you use it in the correct style, it can attack both close and far. This ability is you using it in that style. If you use a different style, such as the one from that game you linked, you cannot.

And it cants attack around corners, that gives cover. (meaning that when you hit you caught him around the edge of the corner, and when you missed you didnt.

The correct style wouldn't be one that imparts a penalty on your accuracy. Thus the real world style is incorrect.

The game longspear attacks around corners just fine without cover, Since as a reach weapon is uses ranged rules for cover.

__X_X
__X_X
__XEX
XXX_X
__Y_X
XXXXX

Is a perfect, no cover attack in PF. Your grip appears to me to have issues with that attack. The grip that seems to be correct in PF, hands at the end, wouldn't.

Perhaps an illustration would provide some clarification?

Suppose your level 2 pole arm fighter wants to make use of his fancy new ability. On his turn, he shortens his grip as an immediate action to attack the sneaky sneaky goblin that foolishly got right up in his face. He takes his attack with the -4 penalty and hits, but the goblin somehow survives! The fighter keeps his grip shortened, assuming that the goblin will stay put and he can attack again on his next turn.

On the goblin's turn, the goofy gob decides to high-tail it away, but doesn't full withdraw because he is a goofy gob. Thus, he provokes an attack of opportunity from our pole arm fighter, though still at the -4 penalty. Sadly, he misses, and the gob continues to run, having escaped the threatened square. But wait, the goblin is continuing to run from the square at 10 feet from the fighter, and our brave warrior had the foresight to pick up combat reflexes, so he has the chance to make another attack of opportunity. After all, argue Andarion and Co., the ability does not specify that the fighter no longer threatens the square at 10 ft, just that he will take the -4 penalty on this attack as well because the grip is still shortened.* This time, the AoO hits and drops the goblin! Huzzah huzzah!

*This is how I've understood your argument thus far. Please correct me or clarify for me if I've misrepresented your point of view.

BUT WAIT, cries Chess Pwn Consolidated, the fighter SHOULD NOT have threatened the square at 10ft because the fighter's grip was shortened! The fierce little goblin should have escaped! In their view, when the fighter took the immediate action to attack the goblin at 5ft range, that meant that the fighter no long threatens the 10ft square, UNLESS THE FIGHTER TOOK THE ADDITIONAL IMMEDIATE ACTION TO CHANGE HIS GRIP BACK, though, of course, taking that action would have forfeited the ability to threaten at 5ft.**

**Again, my understanding.

To me, both sides have merit, but I think I would side with Chess Pwn. In my view, the -4 penalty to the attack is in place for using the weapon in a way that is sub-optimal for the weapon, something like using an improvised weapon. I understand that in real world martial combat, it is possible to use a pole arm at shorter range. This is not, however, the intended use of the weapon, and it requires special training, adjusted footing/grip, etc. in order to even begin to use such a technique, especially with any kind of proficiency. Hence, returning to the weapon's normal function (attacking at reach) requires an additional action, without which one surrenders that original function.

TL;DR - Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

Mjolbeard89 wrote:
On the goblin's turn, the goofy gob decides to high-tail it away, but doesn't full withdraw because he is a goofy gob. Thus, he provokes an attack of opportunity from our pole arm fighter, though still at the -4 penalty. Sadly, he misses, and the gob continues to run, having escaped the threatened square. But wait, the goblin is continuing to run from the square at 10 feet from the fighter, and our brave warrior had the foresight to pick up combat reflexes, so he has the chance to make another attack of opportunity.

No he doesn't. Movement counts as a single Opportunity to Attack for any givven Attacker of Opportunity regardless the number of squares passed through.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Baval wrote:

IF you use it in the correct style, it can attack both close and far. This ability is you using it in that style. If you use a different style, such as the one from that game you linked, you cannot.

And it cants attack around corners, that gives cover. (meaning that when you hit you caught him around the edge of the corner, and when you missed you didnt.

The correct style wouldn't be one that imparts a penalty on your accuracy. Thus the real world style is incorrect.

The game longspear attacks around corners just fine without cover, Since as a reach weapon is uses ranged rules for cover.

__X_X
__X_X
__XEX
XXX_X
__Y_X
XXXXX

Is a perfect, no cover attack in PF. Your grip appears to me to have issues with that attack. The grip that seems to be correct in PF, hands at the end, wouldn't.

And the ranged rules still mean attacking around a corner gives your target cover. Theres no angle you can attack at with a reach weapon that doesnt give cover

You seem to have tried to show one, but i cant read that at all

Baval wrote:

And the ranged rules still mean attacking around a corner gives your target cover. Theres no angle you can attack at with a reach weapon that doesn't give cover

You seem to have tried to show one, but i cant read that at all

Lets try again

OXE
XXO
OYO

x=wall
o=open
e=enemy
y=you
This attack has no cover with reach weapon or ranged attack even though I'm attacking from around the corner.

yes it does.

any line drawn from any corner of your square (the most beneficial being the ones on your right) will pass through the border of the wall on the subjects right, your left. The line will trace the exact same line as the wall.

Thus, cover.

No, the line has to go through something that grants cover, not runs along something that grants cover. It never passes through a wall.

cover

Quote:
The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).

Shows that the corner of a wall DOESN'T provide cover for ranged attacks.

that's because its large and can attack from its front left square which has a clear line to the rogue.

Balkoth, if you are still reading, here is another opinion. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that the RAW says this... Don't listen to anyone who says use common sense. Lastly, Def don't listen to anyone who argues with either of these people.
Take a look at the feat. Determine what YOU (assuming your the DM)think the intent was. Think about if that is balanced and makes sense in the framework of the world. For this one, I think a -4 penalty might be high (even with it lowering) to account for just being able to use the same weapon on adjacent target, especially as this is what the archetype is going to be known for. So I would let the grip affect 5 and 10 feet but that is just my opinion. I think it is balanced, makes sense. I think it was intended not to work this way, but that ok, I would be ok with it. Getting opinions on whether a -4 penalty is too low for both reaches if you are unsure yourself, would be much better than listening to arguments over how it is used in real life, what the words actually say when dissected into separate sentence structures, what "this other feat" says etc.

what do you mean? It says you figure attacks as if attackign with a ranged weapon. Ranged weapon has you pick a corner of your square to draw to all 4 of their square. All corners from the top all go to the same place. All have to reach all 4 of the rogues, that means ALL have a line that runs along the wall to reach the corner by the wall.

It also has a clear shot at the cleric.

Um Noretoc, that is a nice sentiment, but this is the Rules forum, not the Advice forum.

Rysky wrote:
Um Noretoc, that is a nice sentiment, but this is the Rules forum, not the Advice forum.

It a rule he is asking about. I am telling him a way to rule on it. Seem appropriate to me. Oh heads up, don't wast time on this digression, I won't reply to any other comments about it.

How to rule for a game is deciding if you follow the rule or houserule.
What the rule actually is is the same for everyone.
Now some rules aren't clear what it is for everyone, but in a rules forum it's generally about finding out or deciding which view seems more correct to be the rule that is the same for everyone.

noretoc wrote:
Balkoth, if you are still reading

Chess Pwn wrote:
Now some rules aren't clear what it is for everyone, but in a rules forum it's generally about finding out or deciding which view seems more correct to be the rule that is the same for everyone.

Precisely.

I have stated my arguments so, not contributing any more to that.

But Mjolbeard, ChessPwn Consolidated made me chuckle.

Needed that, thanks.

Also, if we want a real answer, FAQ it.

vhok wrote:
that's because its large and can attack from its front left square which has a clear line to the rogue.

no hes right, i was wrong about that.

that however just means that pathfinder lets you lean around corners to attack, not that the weapon can bend around corners.

Per the APG: Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery."

My question is: if he shortens the grip, can the fighter still threaten 10 ft away or is he only limited to threatening 5 ft when he shortens his grip?

Thx

I agree with BigP4nda. It looks like since you're shortening the grip, you would be attacking up close but not far away. I can see the ambiguity, though. Anyway, that would be my personal ruling, and it's what I used when my group fought a ridiculous polearm master oni one time."

Again not "official" but offers insight...

This would be the relevant post. How interesting.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Seems pretty clear that the wording is not clear. They don't say "You can also attack adjacent squares" but they don't say [i] You lose reach when using this ability" either. I could see a GM ruling it either way. Perhaps the next APG print or rewrite could make it more clear, or if that isn't forthcoming maybe a FAQ is warranted.

This is a new feat.

Paths of the Righteous, p. 15 wrote:

You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of Shelyn.
Benefit: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).
As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.

I imagine both sides will take it as proof (or evidence) that they are right.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's a pretty cool feat, shame about the shelyn requirement.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Literally just read about that feat two days ago, still think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread. It also happens to appear after one of my favorite new prestige classes from the same book. In fact, Paths of the Righteous has a lot of pretty high-quality prestige classes. I particularly like the ones dedicated to Cayden Cailean, Shelyn, Sarenrae, and Ragathiel. I would really like the one devoted to Kurgess too but it depends on whether attack rolls would count as a "Strength or Dexterity check". Pretty much every class has a lot of flavor so even the ones I don't personally like are at least very fitting. And hey, Alchemists have a prestige class focused on extracts! Now we just need one for bombs...

Also, stupid 1-hour edit window preventing me from fixing spelling, grammar, and formatting mistakes makes me look dumb forever. Bluh.

 51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>