You could ask a NPC (or better: a fellow PC) to adapt the looks of a head / body / chest item. Or do it like a barbarian: Just rip off parts that annoy you, without spending a second thought...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you work with your DM you should be able to fill all of them. I always describe my characters the way I want them to look and as long as it's generally in line with what my character is wearing no one has ever had an issue.
The last gnome I played had a permanent continual flame spell cast on her head that she could change the color of using prestidigitation. By RAW that's not how any of that works but it's what I wanted and it didn't provide any mechanical advantage (over having a hat with continual flame on it) and so my DM allowed it. My back up plan if they didn't allow it was to cast it on the headband my character was wearing. Which from a mechanics standpoint did the same thing but wasn't as appealing visually.
So, as long as you aren't trying to gain a mechanical advantage from your gear being non-standard I don't see why any DM would have an issue with it.
If it ever starts to become unbelievable enchanting your armor with glammer, grabbing a set of sleeves or even just getting a hat of disguise automatically solves any and all aesthetics as they specifically let your clothes (and in the case of the hat even your whole character) look however you want them to look.
The armor enchant is essentially slotless and the hat and sleeves only occupy a single slot. So in the worst case scenario you only have to give up a single item slot and that's only if your DM is being difficult.
My advice very much mirrors the rest - work with your GM to get the aesthetics you want. I know for me as a GM, as long as an item's mechanics don't change (i.e. moving something to a different slot, making it significantly harder to disarm/damage, etc.), it can look however they want it to look, especially if the character is having the items custom-crafted or is coming into a game with them.
(Also, look at magic item tattoos. They're a very by-the-book way to accomplish what you want, and although they cost more, they completely win out in terms of aesthetic and cool points.)
Sticking with the Conan theme, is the Classic or Unchained Barbarian better? And how viable is Titan Mauler?
Still browsing, but I'm considering using it despite the speed loss since it looks good for fighting really dangerous monsters, along with Rage Powers like the one that treats you as if Enlarge Person'd while Raging, and anti-magic stuff like the magic sundering and Witch Hunter so that I can be actually useful helping the casters fight giant magical creatures like dragons and stuff. The thing is, other archetypes (I remember Invulnerable Rager being popular) might actually be better. Big weapons have big penalties until the late levels, so full attacking would have a pretty unfortunate chance of missing a couple of times.
And would it be a good idea to dip a level of Oracle for fatigue/exhaustion immunity and access to divine wands without a skill check? If so, how early - second level? Third? Going all the way down to a speed of 20 as opposed to 40 (no lame curse, barbarian archetype that keeps Fast Movement) might hurt too much to be worth it.
Classic Invulnerable Rager is pretty much the default Barbarian. Titan Mauler is kinda meh in my opinion.
Fatigue/Exhaustion immunity is nice but not necessary.
Spell Sunder makes normal Barbarian much better than Unchained.
An endless bandolier can hold spare weapons in hammerspace while still exposing those mighty pecs. Cheap, too.
|
IMO, the mechanics of magic item boosts are required for game balance and should not be held against players who don't want to wear capes. If you want to say your cloak of resistance +1 is a bronze torc set with wolf fangs, go for it. It still takes up the "shoulder slot" and functions the same. Aesthetics and mechanics don't need to be tied together.
I think the unchained barbarian is slightly better, with more survivability and some better rage powers (accurate stance). It is mostly, however, a sidegrade. Some things are better and some worse. I've played both and both barbarians are very much viable. The original barbarian has a slight edge to damage when wielding two handed weapons due to the strength boost instead of the unchained flat +2. The unchained rage also doesn't help with strength checks while the original one does. The temp hp of the unchained are significant and mitigate the downside of the original barbarian which is sucking up all the party healing all the time.
I was wondering how many magic item slots I would potentially be able to fill mechanically without sacrificing aesthetics. I'm going for a sort of Conan the Barbarian look, maybe with some Woad paint.
Ask the GM to use Automatic Bonus Progression. It's something I suggest anyway, as the system vastly improves the game in my opinion, but for you, it also serves the additional purpose of allowing a fully functional character without worrying about a cloak or something.
The main slots I think will prove difficult are the Head, Body and Chest slots, though maybe an open Robe on the body would still be fine.
You don't need items in those slots anyway - most characters don't fill these slots until high-ish levels.
Way harder is not wearing armor!
Sticking with the Conan theme, is the Classic or Unchained Barbarian better?
Depends on the desired level of optimization, or possible of certain abilities you might want.
cBarb:
+ Allows Rage cycling
+ Rage boosts strength checks and related ability scores (breakiing doors, swimming, etc.), and Fort
+ Can pick up rage powers to fly (Greater Elemental Blood (Air) or Dragon Totem Wings)
+ Reckless Abandon and Come and Get Me don't need an action to activate and can coexist
+ Superstition works against supernatural effects
- Superstition doesn't stack with the will bonus from Rage
- Reckless Abandon lowers your AC
- When you drop below 0 HP, you fall unconscious, Rage ends, and the loss of HP (from the loss of Con) can kill you
unBarb:
+ Temp HP actually decrease the damage taken that needs to be healed
+ Accurate Stance doesn't have an AC penalty
+ Superstition stacks with the will bonus from Rage
- Superstition doesn't work against supernatural abilities
- Stances need a move action to activate
- Stances are mutually exclusive
- Slightly less damage on two-handed weapons
And how viable is Titan Mauler?
Both Jotungrip and Massive Weapons are mathematically crap (at ther most common levels, anyway). Oversized weapon are almost never worth it, to be honest. The archetype isn't bad, actually, it's biggest downside is probably that it prevents using other archetypes, like Invulnerable Rager or Savage Technologist.
I just had the best idea ever. (...)
Two Weapon Fighting. Jotungrip. FLYING. BLADES. Big-ass swords attached to 10-foot chains!
I hope you realize this makes me envision you as a 14-year old kid whos not very... 'developed' yet, and wants a character with huge weapons to compensate for that. Every character using oversized sword(s) has that effect, to be honest.
Hey everyone. Been a while, hasn't it?
I don't tend to diversify much beyond my usual paladins and monks, so I'd like to borrow a bit of your collective expertise for this.
Inspired by Kingmaker's Staglord's Armor, I was thinking my next character (for tabletop play) might be my first Barbarian. I was wondering how many magic item slots I would potentially be able to fill mechanically without sacrificing aesthetics. I'm going for a sort of Conan the Barbarian look, maybe with some Woad paint.
The main slots I think will prove difficult are the Head, Body and Chest slots, though maybe an open Robe on the body would still be fine.
Big six for a start.
Theres always that stigma around massive weapons. You get used to it. If you ask me, it's only fair that physics take a backseat to the rule of cool for martials every bit as much as it has for casters for the last 30 years.
Oh, I'm down with martials doing impossible things. I like Startoss Style and Ricochet Toss, I like the conduit feats, I like a 4th level unMonk having mastery over the own body so much that they can turn into a ghost. I like that PF2 feat that lets you ignore any falling damage, even if you drop from orbit. I'd love a Rage Power that let you jump 30' in the air to a flying enemy, and if you hit with an attack, pull both of you to the ground.
But I consider oversized weapons (well, such huge ones), especially swords, to be juvenile, overused, and just plain ridiculous. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should alter your choices based on my personal opinion on the matter, but you should indeed be vary lest your character might end up appearing to be a joke character. I know I would have a very hard time to take e.g. Amiri's penis-envy-sword seriously. My issue is not that it would be impossibly heavy to swing, or something like that, but that it looks stupid, more caricature than character.
not also have DCs that aren't in the complete s$#& range
A Bloodrager should never cast spells with a DC. Seriously, even with high charisma, the DCs are too low because of the low spell levels.
Another thing im experiencing difficulty with is a Vital Strike Barbarian.
That's because Vital Strike is terrible and just way overrated. The problem is that under almost all circumstances, the weapon's damage dice make out a minority of an attack's damage. It's very hard impossible to get into a situation where using VS would be preferable to a full attack, meaning it's only useful for when you have to move, and it's vastly inferior to pounce at that job. The Furious Finish feat theoretically buffs VS for Barbarians, but it doesn't work with Improved or Greater VS, and requires rage cycling.
Gorum's Swordmanship allows using VS on every attack of a pounce, but that's not a VS centric build.
On the subject of inappropriately sized weapons, even though YOUR handedness to use them changes, is the WEAPON'S handedness still technically unchanged?
Magic items should use the base, but to my knowledge there's nothing explicit on the topic. Per this FAQ, feats et al. use the effective, i.e. relative, handedness. A Titan Mauler 2/Swashbuckler 1 can finesse a Harpoon weighting 16 pounds, but only gets 2:1 Power Attack ratio on it.
|
|
I am of the opinion that you should never let anyone's sword envy stop you from carrying a ridiculous sword.
This is fantasy, and everyone's fantasies are different. If one player want's to imagine their character in gritty realism, another as an anime, and a third in classic american comic style, that's fine. You do you, that's kind of the point of it being fantasy.
My characters are all ridiculously proportioned cartoons. If you complain about it and call it juvenile I'm going to look you in the eye and say, "Juvenile? We're a bunch of grown ass adults playing make-believe. It's not juvenile, it's down right childish!"
@Derklord,
Since when does Gorum's Divine Fighting Technique allow Vital Strike to be applied to every attack during a Pounce?
It says that you can apply Vital Strike to AN attack at the end of a charge.
I want martials to have nice things, but even I don't see it anywhere in AoN's description that you can unload a full attack Pounce using applying Vital Strike to every attack. It just doesn't say that. Or imply it. Anywhere.
@Derklord,
Since when does Gorum's Divine Fighting Technique allow Vital Strike to be applied to every attack during a Pounce?It says that you can apply Vital Strike to AN attack at the end of a charge.
Every attack made with pounce is an attack made at the end of a charge, and that is all the DFT asks for. The description is not written in a way that you have to choose. Limiting such abilities to only one attack on a charge would use different language, see here, here, here, and here.
It's not actually that powerful, though, because it takes two feats, and only works on a charge, for 2d6 bonus damage. Spending those two feats on EWP (Butchering Axe) and Improved Critical would result in a higher average damage on a charge (and even on an attack action), for instance.
1) lack of feats across the board. Even though some martials get bonus feats or feat-like abilities or even spells up to the lower levels (read the not-game breaking ones like found in level 7-9)
The number of feats would be plenty if we wouldn't be plagued with tax feat prereqs like Combat Expertise, gate feats like Precise Shot, or feat chains that're basically one feat in three parts (e.g. Improved/Greater/Quick maneuver feats).
3) fiddly semantic nonsense like VS constantly is dealing with preventing compatibility between movement feats and attack feats.
It's not a semantics issue, the problem is that practically every martial needs to make a full attack action to be relevant in combat. The game only knows "1 attack" and "all your attacks", with nothing in between. That is the main issue. There is no half-charge, if you will. Making VS usuable on a charge wouldn't really help, as it would still mean having to move lowers your damage to 1/3rd, and that's under good circumstances.
1) The effect of Vital Strike is adding damage equal to dice to 1 attack.
2) Vital Strike is written to apply to 1 attack.
Not only do I have absolutely no idea what's supposed to be the difference between those two "kay points", I also don't see how they help your case. Each attack is resolved individually, that's how full attacks (which a pounce is) work. Vital Strike does not have a "once per round" limit or anything, it's simply (by default) uses an action that is a single attack.
Even if we ignore that the "you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus" part of Vital Strike's text is not rule text but reminder text* (as is the last sentence), as it doesn't do anything not already done by the general rules, it's still tied (as is the nature of a conditional sentence) to the "attack action" part that the DFT allows us to ignore.
*) There's plenty of redundant reminder text throughout the CRB (and other books), like how Weapon Training says you add the bonus to CMB of maneuvers made with those weapon even though that is already covered in the maneuver rules, how Mobility and Haste say you lose the dodge bonus when denied the dex bonus even though the combat rules already says that, how the Monk's Unarmed Strike class feature says "This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full." when everyone can do that, or the sheer stupidity of the consecutive Monk class features Proficiency and AC Bonus both saying you lose the bonus when wearing armor.
Every single case where Vital Strike might apply to multiple attacks ruled/FAQ as not working, explicitly written to not work, or said by the author to be unintended.
Going by this post, wrong, as the Warrior Poet is apparently intended to use VS or ImpVS with Improved/Greater Spring Attack.
I dont think Gorum's Swordsmanship was ever intended to apply multiple times if you somehow managed to get Pounce with a Greatsword.
Quite frankly, I don't give a f*%$. RAW it works. The feat exists as it is. Everything else is a houserule and should not be the base assumption.
Author intend is completely, 100% irrelevant in Pathfinder, if the actual rules say otherwise. Everything a writer hands in is subject to editing anyway; if the editor wants to changes something, they can simply do that (at which point we have two conflicting intents!). The author in question is a freelance writer, not an employee of Paizo, and incidentally has acknowledged that Paizo can change his stuff as they like. There're even two FAQs that go against explicit author intent where Paizo changes things after the book was printed.
Oh, and if we were to actually follow that "author intent is more important than the written rules" stuff, we'd have to use the D&D version of the core classes - like, the original author of the Barbarian didn't intend the class to have Rage Powers!
All fluff text should be removed from feats and spells.
In the most exact and concise terms possible, the benefits and cost should be listed, nothing else.
Feats and class abilities should have structured templates for terminology and layout.
Nonsense like "you may" and "you can" needs to be consolidated and defined, so that the verbiage is consistent throughout.
All fluff does is add confusion to something that should be concrete.
Literally, nobody needs to waste their time reading your stupid description about how you imagine a Fireball forming... tell me the spell level, the school it belongs to, how long it takes to cast, and what it does once it is casted.
All Paizo had to do was have some form of standards (not even very high ones), and all of this would have been solved before it was ever an issue.
Quite frankly, I don't give a f+&@. RAW it works. The feat exists as it is. Everything else is a houserule and should not be the base assumption.
Author intend is completely, 100% irrelevant in Pathfinder, if the actual rules say otherwise. Everything a writer hands in is subject to editing anyway; if the editor wants to changes something, they can simply do that (at which point we have two conflicting intents!). The author in question is a freelance writer, not an employee of Paizo, and incidentally has acknowledged that Paizo can change his stuff as they like. There're even two FAQs that go against explicit author intent where Paizo changes things after the book was printed.
So in your opinion, if there was a feat that was intended by the author to be used with unarmed strikes but RAW it allowed you to use natural attacks, then you'd say it works?
Because I remember you taking a different stance on Horn of the Criosphinx and RAW.
|
|
All fluff text should be removed from feats and spells.
Yeah I feel like they did that with PF2, and it is so hard to get through that crb and so uninspiring. Trying to read those rules sucks all the energy out of an rpg and leaves me with no desire to play the game. A rulebook for what is supposed to be a fun imaginative game needs to be the opposite of dry, technical, and boring.
So in your opinion, if there was a feat that was intended by the author to be used with unarmed strikes but RAW it allowed you to use natural attacks, then you'd say it works?
It depends on the circumstances a bit, see the examples below, but in general, yes. As I've said: 'The feat exists as it is. Everything else is a houserule and should not be the base assumption.'
I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying one should be a slave to RAW. Knowing RAW, and following it, are two different pair of shoes. I'm not saying disallowing Gorum's Swordmanship is a bad thing for a GM to do. But I firmly believe that it should be the result of an informed decision with the knowledge that it differentiates from the RAW. I might even use the exact same 'rule interpretation' that I speak out against on these boards as a houserule for my game, but I would be open with the fact that is indeed a houserule. When talking about such things where I think the RAW are disfunctional/problem inducing, I usually use the phrase "by strict RAW" - I acknowlede or explain the RAW, but also imply (and often state) that they shouldn't be used.
Because I remember you taking a different stance on Horn of the Criosphinx and RAW.
In the case of Horn of the Criosphinx, there is explicit rule text in the book (that wasn't included in the AoN text at the time of discussion). It's not as clear as it should be, but it verbatim talks about unarmed strikes. Likewise, I recently argued that Ascetic Form allows an unMonk to ignore the body part requirement of style strikes, despite not explicitly saying so, because the fext explicitly mentiones style strikes, and at the time of writing, every style strike had such a body part requirement, meaning the only way for the feat to do what it says it does is to ignore that requirement. A similar case with official ruling is the first printing ACG's Pummeling Style, which does not say it only works with unarmed strikes... but the summary in the feat list does.
The difference between those and the Gorum's Swordmanship issue is whether or not the indication of a differing intent is written down into the actual rules. In the three examples I just gave, the finished book tells you how the ability is supposed to work, even if the written ruletext doesn't 100% match. Temperans, in contrast, goes by what he imagines the author's intent for the DFT might be, without anything written in the book to support that. I firmly believe that the book in question (and accompanying FAQs) should tell you all you need to know - not some more-or-less educated guess patched together from things across a dozen other books, nor some author statement on some forum or blog.
All fluff text should be removed from feats and spells.
Doesn't have to be, it just should be firmly seperated from rule text. Problems arise when we don't know which of the two it is. Does a Flying Kick allow my to ignore the pit between me and the target, because the Monk "leaps through the air", or is that flavor text?
I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying one should be a slave to RAW. Knowing RAW, and following it, are two different pair of shoes. I'm not saying disallowing Gorum's Swordmanship is a bad thing for a GM to do. But I firmly believe that it should be the result of an informed decision with the knowledge that it differentiates from the RAW.
The difference between those and the Gorum's Swordmanship issue is whether or not the indication of a differing intent is written down into the actual rules. In the three examples I just gave, the finished book tells you how the ability is supposed to work, even if the written ruletext doesn't 100% match. Temperans, in contrast, goes by what he imagines the author's intent for the DFT might be, without anything written in the book to support that. I firmly believe that the book in question (and accompanying FAQs) should tell you all you need to know - not some more-or-less educated guess patched together from things across a dozen other books, nor some author statement on some forum or blog.
Hm. Judging from previous discussions I believe you have three different categories you use.
1. RAW: Exactly what the feat says that it does. (Plain rules text)
2. RAI, Book: What the intention of the feat is, according to the book. (FAQs, context)
3. RAI, Author: What the intention of the feat is, according to the author. (Author statements)
====
Horn of the Criosphinx can, rules as written, be used by a monk to apply 2x Str to a bite attack on a charge. The only stipulation of the feat is that you must be able to make an unarmed attack and that both your hands are free. You, rightly so, said that the intention wasn't to allow natural attacks with it because the context heavily implies it's for just unarmed strikes (point 2).
Ascetic Style can, rules as written, be used to apply Style Strikes to the weapon chosen for the feat. But we have author intent contradicting this extremely permissive view (point 3), and Ascetic Form explicitly states that you'd need the second feat to apply Style Strikes (point 2). I do remember you saying that Ascetic Style is enough because RAW it is, although from context we know that to be untrue.
====
Now for some reason you went with RAI for Horn of the Criosphinx but didn't for Ascetic Style. I'm assuming you felt that the Horn trick was a blatant abuse of the actual intent, and argued based on point 2 against point 1.
In the current discussion Temperans is arguing from point 2 and 3 against point 1. I'm not saying that either of you is wrong or right, but keep in mind that they might feel that you're blatantly abusing RAI in the same way you feel that the Horn trick doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All fluff text should be removed from feats and spells.
In the most exact and concise terms possible, the benefits and cost should be listed, nothing else.
Feats and class abilities should have structured templates for terminology and layout.
Nonsense like "you may" and "you can" needs to be consolidated and defined, so that the verbiage is consistent throughout.
All fluff does is add confusion to something that should be concrete.
Literally, nobody needs to waste their time reading your stupid description about how you imagine a Fireball forming... tell me the spell level, the school it belongs to, how long it takes to cast, and what it does once it is casted.
All Paizo had to do was have some form of standards (not even very high ones), and all of this would have been solved before it was ever an issue.
This is a terrible idea.
2. RAI, Book: What the intention of the feat is, according to the book. (FAQs, context)
FAQs are written rules, they're part of RAW. In Pathfinder, at least - Paizo (mis)uses them for explicit rule changes a lot.
Horn of the Criosphinx can, rules as written, be used by a monk to apply 2x Str to a bite attack on a charge.
I never said otherwise. In the post in question, I both pointed out how the RAW are, and that the intent based on material on the same page of the book is that it only works with unarmed strikes (and two-handed weapons), and thus most GMs will not allow it to work with a natural weapon. It's actually a perfect examply of how I like to adress such issues on these boards!
Ascetic Style can, rules as written, be used to apply Style Strikes to the weapon chosen for the feat.
That's not correct, because you don't apply style strikes to something - they're an active ability. You definitely need Ascetic Form for style strikes.
I do remember you saying that Ascetic Style is enough because RAW it is, although from context we know that to be untrue.
I'm pretty sure you're misremembering that. I have sometimes used "Ascetic Style" to talk about the feat chain, here for example, but when talking the individual feats, I always said that you need Ascetic Form for style strikes (and the bonus ki attack).
Ascetic Style is a perfect example of why I couldn't care less about author intent:
The author first claimed (twice!) that it is designed/intended to work with "class abilities and feats"/"feats and class features". Then he made a post on his blog where he called the feat "Aesthetic Style". In that blog post, he gave a version that only includes feats, and claimed that was "exactly what Feral Combat Training was changed to post errata", which is simply wrong because Ascetic Style works with more feats than FCT does, and that "as written Ascetic Style completely invalidates its subsequent feats", which is wrong because you need Ascetic Form for e.g. the bonus ki attack, and need Ascetic Strike for non-Monks or multiclassed Monks.
I do remember you saying that Ascetic Style is enough because RAW it is, although from context we know that to be untrue.I'm pretty sure you're misremembering that. I have sometimes used "Ascetic Style" to talk about the feat chain, here for example, but when talking the individual feats, I always said that you need Ascetic Form for style strikes (and the bonus ki attack).
Huh, seems like I did. Sorry for that.
It might have been this one I thought about. Your dismissal of the author's intent combined with your answer that Ascetic Style would allow you to apply the scaling unarmed damage lead me to believe you were advocating the idea that Ascetic Style already allowed you to use any unarmed strike class feature. Of which Style Strikes would be part of.
I never said otherwise. In the post in question, I both pointed out how the RAW are, and that the intent based on material on the same page of the book is that it only works with unarmed strikes (and two-handed weapons), and thus most GMs will not allow it to work with a natural weapon. It's actually a perfect example of how I like to address such issues on these boards!
What I wanted to point out is that you find yourself on the other side of the argument here. Temperans is referring to the language of the feat (RAI from context), and author comments regarding similar abilities to argue that Gorum's DFT wouldn't apply several times during pounce.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VoodistMonk… if you don't like fantasy writers writing fantasy mechanics for a fantasy game in a fantasy setting you might want to look for a different system in all honesty.
I don't know what else to suggest when you make the reprehensible demand that authors be fired for putting flavor text on abilities in a fantasy game. That's why most of us buy the game, for the flavor. We don't want a bland technical manual.
VoodistMonk… if you don't like fantasy writers writing fantasy mechanics for a fantasy game in a fantasy setting you might want to look for a different system in all honesty.
I don't know what else to suggest when you make the reprehensible demand that authors be fired for putting flavor text on abilities in a fantasy game. That's why most of us buy the game, for the flavor. We don't want a bland technical manual.
I don't think it's a matter of not wanting any flavor text, but keeping it clearly separate from rules text. When you mash it haphazard together is when issues occur.
|
|
I don't think it's a matter of not wanting any flavor text, but keeping it clearly separate from rules text. When you mash it haphazard together is when issues occur.VoodistMonk… if you don't like fantasy writers writing fantasy mechanics for a fantasy game in a fantasy setting you might want to look for a different system in all honesty.
I don't know what else to suggest when you make the reprehensible demand that authors be fired for putting flavor text on abilities in a fantasy game. That's why most of us buy the game, for the flavor. We don't want a bland technical manual.
All fluff text should be removed from feats and spells.
All fluff does is add confusion to something that should be concrete.
Literally, nobody needs to waste their time reading your stupid description about how you imagine a Fireball forming... tell me the spell level, the school it belongs to, how long it takes to cast, and what it does once it is casted.
If you want your Fireball to form a dragon face and leave a trail of fire like Liu Kang, then that is what Fireball should be for you. Not a pea-sized orb of flame at the tip of your outstretched finger, or whatever BS is included in the description of the Fireball spell.
Leave the details up to me/the end user.
I don't need help imaging this stuff.
What I need are concrete rules that answer difficult questions, not create more questions due to piss-poor grammar standards and ambiguous descriptions.
The lack of standards and the allowance of nonsense flavor text in the definitions is how we end up with RAW and RAI being separate things.
Whoever allowed that to be a thing needs to be fired.
I don't like flavor text.
Not in definitions.
Definitely not in rules.
Rules should be mind-numbingly boring.
The most cut and dried, inarguablely precise verbiage possible, please.
It should read like an instruction manual, a dictionary, a freaking book of law.
The way spells are spelled out is mostly correct, in my opinion.
You have what it takes as far as actions, materials, time, hands/voice/focus required.
They even include the flavor text, like using the word in a sentence at a spelling competition, for those that need such things.
Feats and abilities could have been defined in a similar manner. Making sure that they don't get published unless they check all the boxes.
Does it clearly mention the subject, by name as a Proper Noun, every time the subject is mentioned in the text?
Ex. Never refer to the Longbow as "it" or "the" in a feat or ability pertaining to Longbows. There should never be any question what your subject is, in any sentence of a description or rule.
Does it clearly state the action/time required in clearly defined gaming terminology?
Ex. If something does not require an action, clearly state that it does not require an action... even in obvious stuff like Iron Will. There should just be a place in the definition of feats and abilities where you expect to see the required action, if any, clearly stated.
Etc, etc. Blah, blah, blah.
But we don't have that. Not in PF1, or PF2.
And it's sad.
Oh well, designing stuff is hard, I like Pathfinder regardless.
Rant over.
It might have been this one I thought about. Your dismissal of the author's intent combined with your answer that Ascetic Style would allow you to apply the scaling unarmed damage lead me to believe you were advocating the idea that Ascetic Style already allowed you to use any unarmed strike class feature. Of which Style Strikes would be part of.
Ascetic Style and Ascetic Form do different things - AStyle applies "effects that augment US" to the weapon, while AForm allows you to use "any class ability that can be used with an US" with the weapon. Simplified, the AStyle is for passive effects, AForm for active abilities. The scaling US damage is a passive effect, and thus AStyle is sufficient; the bonus ki attack and style strikes are active abilities and thus need AForm.
What I wanted to point out is that you find yourself on the other side of the argument here.
I don't understand what you mean by this. How am I "on the other side of the argument"? The way I see it, my position is exactly the same.
Your argument is that the Vital Strike text is "reminder text", my argument is that Vital Strike is not meant to be used with multiple attacks.
You are completely right, VS is not meant to be used with multiple attacks. Know what else it's not meant to be used with? Charge!
This is why your argument is, quite frankly, silly. Gorum's Swordmanship changes how you can use VS, this change means the intend for VS without the DFT cannot possibly be relevant for the combined effect. When we use the DFT; we have stopped abiding by how VS was meant to be used.Of course, that's all pretty much irrelevant to my original point, namely that RAW it works, and everything else is just a houserule.
I see 3 cases where you can potentially use Vital Strike with multiple attacks: Heritor Strike (said by author to not work), Warrior Poet (weird interaction with Spring Attack and its improved versions), and the feat discussed here (weird interaction with charging).
The Two-Handed Weapon Trick Cleaving Smash says "When you use Cleave, you can add the additional damage from Vital Strike to both your initial and your secondary attacks." It can't get more explicit than that.
I like Pathfinder regardless.
And especially you seem to like the enter key. Do you get payed for every double line break you make? Seriously, your posts are horrible to read. Most of your sentences shouldn't be followed by any line break at all.
I will use fewer line breaks from now on.