Paizo trolling powergamers?

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

I see that Paizo made, arguably, the best 1 handed weapon a yo-yo that you need to be raised by gnomes to use.

GM: “Your barbarian was raised by gnomes?”

Player 1: “Yes, and every time he lost his temper his parents made him stay in his room and his only entertainment was his yo-yo.”

Player 2: “Weird, my fighter was also raised by gnomes but his parents bought him two yo-yos to play with.”

Player 3: “You two sound like powergamers. Not me, my martial is based off the tried and true yo-yo and board style fighter that every fantasy movie ever has. He became an adventurer when his adoptive parent’s village was wiped out by orcs.”

/LOL

[pauljathome]

Well, it probably beats the MASSIVE orphanage that used to be run by the gnomes. The one that turned out 90+% of paladins.

Paladins of Shelyn, of Iomedae, of Irori, of Abadar. Even, rumours hold, a long time ago Paladins of Asmodeus. It doesn't matter. ALL came from that orphanage

[Tiene]

I thought it was a paddle-ball? Wooden handle and everything.

[The ShadowShackleton]

I lol’d. Well stated.

[Helmic]

In all seriousness, I think advanced weapons are a bit too easy to turn into martial weapons through ancestry feats. The gnome flickmace is the most egregious example because holy dick 1h reach with 1d8 is crazy good, but there's not many ancestry feats that are anywhere near as good as a permanent upgrade to your weapon's capabilities if you're playing a martial. I don't know what a good tweak would be to tone them down to where they're just an interesting option if you just wanted to express your character's ancestry.

It's one of the few non-class feats that genuinely give you a +1 or more to damage across the board, it's such a dramatic upgrade over the whip and that upgraded damage will scale with property runes, and you only need to spend an ancestry (and possibly a general feat) to get it.

[Angel Hunter D]

I'd rather see more interesting Ancestry Feats like that than some of the more, lacklustre ones we have.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the flickmace is only the best melee weapon if:
1) You're planning on using that 3rd action to raise a shield
2) You have AoO
3) You have the flail critical specialization and you're likely to crit a lot.

So it's good for fighters and champions, but not so much for the rest of martials. There are still people who would rather use their third action for something else and can just use a polearm for reach.

Like a Shelynite Paladin isn't giving up that much going for a Glaive instead of a Flickmace.

[Quandary]

Agreed, but you're making every adoptive Gnome parent cry.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the flickmace is only the best melee weapon if:

1) You're planning on using that 3rd action to raise a shield
2) You have AoO
3) You have the flail critical specialization and you're likely to crit a lot.

So it's good for fighters and champions, but not so much for the rest of martials. There are still people who would rather use their third action for something else and can just use a polearm for reach.

Like a Shelynite Paladin isn't giving up that much going for a Glaive instead of a Flickmace.

They could also want a free hand open for abilities that require it and don't want to lose actions regripping a polearm to use the ability.

[mach1.9pants]

Like the dire-flail, and other such ridiculousness, this weapon will be Sir Not Appearing in any game I'm in!

[Lanathar]

pauljathome wrote:

Well, it probably beats the MASSIVE orphanage that used to be run by the gnomes. The one that turned out 90+% of paladins.

Paladins of Shelyn, of Iomedae, of Irori, of Abadar. Even, rumours hold, a long time ago Paladins of Asmodeus. It doesn't matter. ALL came from that orphanage

What is this a reference to? Fey foundling ?

[prototype00]

Lanathar wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Well, it probably beats the MASSIVE orphanage that used to be run by the gnomes. The one that turned out 90+% of paladins.

Paladins of Shelyn, of Iomedae, of Irori, of Abadar. Even, rumours hold, a long time ago Paladins of Asmodeus. It doesn't matter. ALL came from that orphanage

What is this a reference to? Fey foundling ?

The fact that one of the premiere Champion Weapons is the Gnome Flickmace, which, one way to access, is to have been raised by gnomes.

[Debelinho]

well...at least a human doesn't have to be raised by gnomes...
just knew one at some point :)

[Colette Brunel]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the flickmace is only the best melee weapon if:

1) You're planning on using that 3rd action to raise a shield
2) You have AoO
3) You have the flail critical specialization and you're likely to crit a lot.

So it's good for fighters and champions, but not so much for the rest of martials. There are still people who would rather use their third action for something else and can just use a polearm for reach.

Like a Shelynite Paladin isn't giving up that much going for a Glaive instead of a Flickmace.

It is true that the flickmace is predominantly a fighter and champion weapon (and even then, mostly a paladin weapon). Other classes are not going to get much use from it, and a fighter might prefer a guisarme in some cases.

You might want to think twice in your example of a paladin. Among champions, the paladin makes the best use of the flickmace due to Ranged Retribution. A champion's combat niche is trying to encourage enemies to attack the champion rather than the champion's allies, and a shield really helps the paladin actually survive such tactics, so a champion really wants a shield. A flickmace lets a paladin respond out to 15 feet with Ranged Retribution while still using a shield.

All it takes for the flickmace is Unconventional Weaponry, no Adopted Ancestry needed.

[Arachnofiend]

Oddly I think it's the flail crit specialization that puts the flickmace out of line, not anything inherent to the weapon itself. No save prone is quite a bit stronger than any of the other crit specs (many of which are also pretty good, just not THAT good).

[Colette Brunel]

The critical specialization is admittedly more of a fighter conceit, since the fighter dishes out the most consistent critical hits in the system. It cannot quite be banked on for, say, a champion.

[Edge93]

I feel like the Flickmace is held in regard over the whip a bit much. Yeah 2 damage per die is nothing to sneeze at, but the Agile and Trip properties on the Whip are great too (I just wish Disarm was better).

That said, I might have been nice if the Flickmace was 1d6 and had a couple other traits instead.

That said, it's not as objectively best as some people seem to think. It actually pays double for that Reach trait, unlike other weapons. The other 1d8 1H advanced weapons have two traits each, Flickmace only has one. The Dwarven Waraxe and Orc Necksplitter are both competitive with it IMO. And if it -isn't- a little stronger than martial weapons, then it's not really doing it's job as an Advanced weapon, it'd be like if martial weapons were only as strong as simple weapons.

But it doesn't invalidate other weapons except -maybe- at the most bottom-scraping level of minmaxing. Even then it's likely build-dependent.

[HidaOWin]

Also, the flickmace could look like a ball and chain flail with some cunning self retracting mechanism. Or look a bit like a meteor hammer. It could definitely look cool.

[Denim N Leather]

Good thing it's Uncommon, then, and has the Gnome trait. Easily dealt with if you're using GM Fiat for Uncommon items, especially those that should have the associated heritage Weapon Familiarity feat. I would say that this weapon is not one seen by most people and if by some chance a player of mine really wanted it, I would have them find it at some point and use it untrained until they found a Gnome fighter that's an Expert or above to train them in how to use it. I would probably use it as an extended Downtime quest/activity in lieu of crafting or earning a living.

[breithauptclan]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Among champions, the paladin makes the best use of the flickmace due to Ranged Retribution. A champion's combat niche is trying to encourage enemies to attack the champion rather than the champion's allies, and a shield really helps the paladin actually survive such tactics, so a champion really wants a shield. A flickmace lets a paladin respond out to 15 feet with Ranged Retribution while still using a shield.

So... Brigitte?

[Denim N Leather]

Denim N Leather wrote:

Good thing it's Uncommon, then, and has the Gnome trait. Easily dealt with if you're using GM Fiat for Uncommon items, especially those that should have the associated heritage Weapon Familiarity feat. I would say that this weapon is not one seen by most people and if by some chance a player of mine really wanted it, I would have them find it at some point and use it untrained until they found a Gnome fighter that's an Expert or above to train them in how to use it. I would probably use it as an extended Downtime quest/activity in lieu of crafting or earning a living.

Except, now I see the Unconventional Weaponry feat! Doh!

[Liegence]

Couple of thoughts...

1) I think reach is less powerful in 2E, particularly for shield users because you will have a choice between Shield Block OR AoO/Retribution. You can take slight advantage of forcing opponent to step to get you, but that’s assuming they don’t charge first, don’t have another viable target, and have no ranged options and don’t have reach themselves. While at high levels there are options for multiple reactions under specific conditions, they are still limited and you’re weighing the value of that feat against others. If you are not going to pick up extra reaction feats, say because you want archetype feats, the flickmace is less attractive.
2) it’s less attractive for two wep fighting or multi attack style because it doesn’t have agile. This alone may give a fighter pause before deciding the flickmace is the optimal choice
3) you’re still putting in an upfront feat for it, so even if you think it’s optimal there’s still a premium price tag
4) crit spec is great, no doubt, and I do think it’s the best with that spec. Sort of off topic - if we’re going to give the flickmace high praise for it’s prone ability, can we please give the Wolf animal companion some props for its advanced maneuver? I’ve run a playtest scenario with a ranger with a wolf and I can confirm that reliable source of prone gets pretty absurd
5) I think fighters have options, but for retribution Paladin this is definitely a fun option. I wish starknife wasn’t garbage weapon because I really really really wanted my gnome Paladin to use a returning starknife for his retribution. At least I still have a solid option

[thistledown]

Colette Brunel wrote:

A champion's combat niche is trying to encourage enemies to attack the champion rather than the champion's allies, and a shield really helps the paladin actually survive such tactics, so a champion really wants a shield.

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

[Takamorisan]

Its more like its missing a whole weapon arsenal in the equipment session that needs to be adapted. (Longaxes,Longhammers, Lucerne Hammer, Big Orc sword that I don't remember the name now and so on)

[PossibleCabbage]

Colette Brunel wrote:

You might want to think twice in your example of a paladin. Among champions, the paladin makes the best use of the flickmace due to Ranged Retribution.

For the Shelynite Paladin I built that I was thinking of in that example, I was going to use the 3rd action to demoralize instead of raise a shield anyway. Shields are not strictly necessary, particularly on the "best at armor" class which has decent healing anyway. It's mostly just a thing to do if you don't have something else to do with that 3rd action.

[Arachnofiend]

Takamorisan wrote:

Its more like its missing a whole weapon arsenal in the equipment session that needs to be adapted. (Longaxes,Longhammers, Lucerne Hammer, Big Orc sword that I don't remember the name now and so on)

You're likely thinking of the Butchering Axe, which I'm not entirely sure will be published in this edition since it's entire deal was being a greataxe with a large sized damage dice. If they make it again it'd have properties that make it an entirely different weapon.

[Takamorisan]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Takamorisan wrote:

Its more like its missing a whole weapon arsenal in the equipment session that needs to be adapted. (Longaxes,Longhammers, Lucerne Hammer, Big Orc sword that I don't remember the name now and so on)

You're likely thinking of the Butchering Axe, which I'm not entirely sure will be published in this edition since it's entire deal was being a greataxe with a large sized damage dice. If they make it again it'd have properties that make it an entirely different weapon.

True, curious how they will adapt those weapons if they are going to do at all

[pauljathome]

Lanathar wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Well, it probably beats the MASSIVE orphanage that used to be run by the gnomes. The one that turned out 90+% of paladins.

Paladins of Shelyn, of Iomedae, of Irori, of Abadar. Even, rumours hold, a long time ago Paladins of Asmodeus. It doesn't matter. ALL came from that orphanage

What is this a reference to? Fey foundling ?

Yup. At least around here and online its incredibly popular for paladins. 90% feels about right as an estimate

[Edge93]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Takamorisan wrote:

Its more like its missing a whole weapon arsenal in the equipment session that needs to be adapted. (Longaxes,Longhammers, Lucerne Hammer, Big Orc sword that I don't remember the name now and so on)

You're likely thinking of the Butchering Axe, which I'm not entirely sure will be published in this edition since it's entire deal was being a greataxe with a large sized damage dice. If they make it again it'd have properties that make it an entirely different weapon.

Maybe an advanced weapon with d12, sweep, and deadly?

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

HidaOWin wrote:

Also, the flickmace could look like a ball and chain flail with some cunning self retracting mechanism. Or look a bit like a meteor hammer. It could definitely look cool.

Sorry but the most "cool" this ridiculous thing looks is like the guy at the gas station with the extendable key ring or maybe as mentioned above a paddle ball.

Here is a video to show you the coolness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBzWHudBoiA

[ZᴇɴN]

Castlevania Combat Cross.
That is all.

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

ZᴇɴN wrote:

Castlevania Combat Cross.

That is all.

Simon was raised by gnomes? You know, actually, that clears a lot of things up for me.

[Colette Brunel]

thistledown wrote:

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

Let us look at it this way. Say you want enemies to attack your allies, and not you. If you do not have a shield up, then the choice is easy: the enemies simply dogpile you. If you do have a shield up, then it is a harder choice for the enemies, because they now have to weigh between going through the improved defenses from the shield, and going through a Champion's Reaction.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For the Shelynite Paladin I built that I was thinking of in that example, I was going to use the 3rd action to demoralize instead of raise a shield anyway. Shields are not strictly necessary, particularly on the "best at armor" class which has decent healing anyway. It's mostly just a thing to do if you don't have something else to do with that 3rd action.

Demoralize is okay, but bear in mind the usage restriction against enemies.

Regardless of how good a paladin is at throwing up lay on hands (usually once per encounter) and at armor proficiencies (which improve only at 7th), the idea is to stack those defenses as high as possible, as long as it does not cripple the character in other fields (e.g. no tower shield). The more durable the champion is, the tougher the enemy's choice is between going through a Champion's Reaction, and going through the champion's own defenses.

[John Lynch 106]

thistledown wrote:

Colette Brunel wrote:

A champion's combat niche is trying to encourage enemies to attack the champion rather than the champion's allies, and a shield really helps the paladin actually survive such tactics, so a champion really wants a shield.

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

This was the dynamic 4th ed swordmages had (think magus with a ranged retributive strike ability). I haven't really looked at paladins much. Do they have to be within reach to use retributive strike? If not a common sword mage tactic was to mark the enemy and then run away from the target they marked.

[Arachnofiend]

You have to be within fifteen feet to use the reaction, but you only get the free strike if you're within reach. Otherwise you just give your ally the DR.

[CorvusMask]

I just hope someone at rule team doesn't overreact and nerf flickmace to oblivion if lots of PFS players start using it :p

(I really hope that kind of errata from 1e doesn't return)

[Pickles Grr]

thistledown wrote:

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

Except paladins have better defences from level 7 anyway and a heal they can use on themselves.

But you (player not toon) are right - in 4e the punishment part of marks rarely got used as the DM usually focused on the tank, so they were sort of an anti synergy with having fun hitting things!

I like that the Champion has the high defences & "Active Tanking" schticks as it clearly differentiates them from fighters. On top of this the mystical nature of it presumably does not irritate people who had dissonance issues with fighters doing this sort of thing.

[breithauptclan]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Colette Brunel wrote:

A champion's combat niche is trying to encourage enemies to attack the champion rather than the champion's allies, and a shield really helps the paladin actually survive such tactics, so a champion really wants a shield.

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

This was the dynamic 4th ed swordmages had (think magus with a ranged retributive strike ability). I haven't really looked at paladins much. Do they have to be within reach to use retributive strike? If not a common sword mage tactic was to mark the enemy and then run away from the target they marked.

Also, only the Paladin (LG Champion) actually hits with a weapon with retributive strike. The other two Champion types do something else in addition to the DR that they provide. NG gives the attacker the option to deal no damage, or become enfeebled. CG allows the attacked character to move (Step, or Escape grapple) after the attack.

[Mellored]

CorvusMask wrote:

I just hope someone at rule team doesn't overreact and nerf flickmace to oblivion if lots of PFS players start using it :p

I would just drop it to a d6, and add shove.

Having a second 1 handed reach weapon besides the whip is good.

[PossibleCabbage]

Presumably there will be a reach 1 or 2 handed advanced weapon available in the dorn-dergar eventually, which might make take some of the shine off the flickmace.

[Perpdepog]

mach1.9pants wrote:

Like the dire-flail, and other such ridiculousness, this weapon will be Sir Not Appearing in any game I'm in!

I miss the dire flail and all the other silly double-weapons. They were super impractical and lovely.

[Tender Tendrils]

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

[Vidmaster7]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

I'm sure Their are some people considering it very seriously.

[John Lynch 106]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

I take it you don’t know very many Pathfinder players outside of your home group?

There is definitely a contingent of players who will not only do that, but they will do it with every single character.

[Tender Tendrils]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

I take it you don’t know very many Pathfinder players outside of your home group?

There is definitely a contingent of players who will not only do that, but they will do it with every single character.

I kind of just didn't want to believe it if that makes sense

[swoosh]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

There are a group of players who'll take a mechanical advantage if it suits them regardless of the associated concepts or fluff. To them, building the character they want is more important than what it looks like in-universe. Some of them just want to build a strong character, some of them are more interested in fulfilling their own specific fantasy even if it clashes with in game lore, and some people specifically just hate having fluff wall off mechanics.

Dunno if there's much of a reason to be disgusted with them like you seem to be suggesting. Different people are interested in different things.

That said, Unconventional Weaponry is just as easy a path for martials to pick the weapon up so I imagine a lot of people who want the weapon will be just as likely to be human or adopted by humans as well.

[PossibleCabbage]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

The Human feat "Unconventional Weaponry" gets you access to it with much less backstory baggage than "raised by gnomes". You can always just say "my best friend as a kid was a gnome, and in hanging out with gnomes I learned how to use a flickmace." It's basically "KNOWN A GNOME" the feat.

[Temperans]

Well one of the responses before and now is always, "just change the fluff". Although I admit the response is more, "ask your GM".