| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything related to the use of the Aldori dueling sword has an insane number of prereqs. Falling water gambit is the worst I think.
If you want to use all the functions of an equipment trick, weapon trick or magic trick feat you will need a lot of feats.
BTW while I'm sure cunning intuition is intended to just give you a choice between BAB and rogue level (with all feats and the skill also required), by the layout used for later feats that's a choice between any one of the feats, BAB or the rogue level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a look at the Brawler guides, they have some feat-chains listed in them for later levels.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW while I'm sure cunning intuition is intended to just give you a choice between BAB and rogue level (with all feats and the skill also required), by the layout used for later feats that's a choice between any one of the feats, BAB or the rogue level.
Please elaborate.
I'm pretty sure Paizo uses the Oxford (serial) comma everywhere. If there's no comma between items they are a group. (But I may not be aware of these later feats.)
The dinner menu will be Salisbury steak, peas, roll, lemon cake or blackberry tart.
The dinner menu will be Salisbury steak, peas, roll, lemon cake, or blackberry tart.
When using the Oxford comma the first line says "choose cake or tart for your dessert." The second line says "choose only one from the entire list." (A case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court a couple of years ago because it wasn't clear whether the drafters of the law in question were using the Oxford comma or not.)
Later Paizo feats use semicolons to separate parts of a list off from each other. CI doesn't. There's a discussion here.
Well, Archives of Nethys has this helpful feat list. For example Disengaging Shot and Dramatic Slam require 5 feats each. The former isn't restricted by level, so you could in theory rush it.
Crashing Wave Fist is pretty rough. The previous feats in the style chain just aren't any good and you're forced to take both Improved Reposition and Drag even though you'll only be focusing on one of them.
So the total amount of feat prerequisites is:
IUS
Combat Expertise
Power Attack
Improved Reposition
Improved Drag
Crashing Wave Style
Crashing Wave Buffet
Seven feats, and it has to be on a class that makes unarmed strikes worth it. In addition you probably want Greater Reposition and Quick Reposition. And Tactical Reposition.
I'm pretty sure Paizo uses the Oxford (serial) comma everywhere. If there's no comma between items they are a group.
Keeping to standards is good in principle, but works only if everyone involved is aware of them and willing to use them.
I tried some alternatives when I made up my own character options lists, using a rather techy approach (brackets and slashes), but it didn't turn out easier to read than the original. IMO the problem has to be addressed one step earlier: Feat chains should be shorter on rules level already, then the description becomes easier to read by default.
The worst feat I could find is Brute Assault, with seven listed prereq feats, two of which each have an additional feat as a prereq, for a total amount of nine.
Anything related to the use of the Aldori dueling sword has an insane number of prereqs. Falling water gambit is the worst I think.
Aldori Style Conquest is actually worse, with seven prereq feats listed (FWG has six).
Can someone explain the Aldori Dueling Sword to me? It's like Paizo's most beloved weapons with a huge amount of options, but at the same time, somethign they seem to hate and thus make all options for it totally suck. Is there a war between writers and editors or something?
Can someone explain the Aldori Dueling Sword to me?
Certainly.
Imagine you have a very specific idea of how a master duelist should act. They're supposed to fight with one hand free, deflect attacks with defensive swordplay, feint foes, and at the same time throw quips at foes and intimidate them. So you sit down and write abilities that rely on those specific actions to make sure that people properly emulate what you have in mind.
Then let's pretend that in the system you wrote those abilities for, literally all of those thematic choices are suboptimal and/or costs resources to make passable. And that those abilities are also tied to a specific weapon which is exceedingly unremarkable and outclassed by what are supposed to be worse options.
Aldori Dueling Sword.
Also called just Dueling Sword on the SRD which is why you might not recognize it.
It's an exotic one-handed weapon with a 19-20 crit range, and it is finessable. It can be wielded in two hands for 1.5x Str, but around 90% of all abilities specific to this weapon forces you to wield it with one hand. Which makes it worse than the martial Rapier, but you're also paying a feat for it.
It has two archetype, one prestige class, and around 10 feats (including a Style feat).
Even if you're not looking to use it one-handed as the abilities want you to, there are a bunch of better weapons for finessable 1.5x Str dmg. Like the Estoc, Elven Curve Blade, or a Scimitar with an Effortless Lace.
|
|
Can someone explain the Aldori Dueling Sword to me? It's like Paizo's most beloved weapons with a huge amount of options, but at the same time, somethign they seem to hate and thus make all options for it totally suck. Is there a war between writers and editors or something?
From a thread about two months ago:
The Aldori Swordlord (fighter archetype + prestige class) was probably the best high AC/good damage martial build. In 2012. But then came other class/archetype options, including the swashbuckler in 2014. . .
As several people have pointed out, the Aldori Swordlord is really focused on a "one-on-one non-magical duel" mentality. And if you pit a well-built Swordlord against a well-built swashbuckler, it's close to a toss-up. Probably a slight edge for the swordlord, especially if you are using the dueling and performance combat rules. But if you are in an adventuring party and run into a bunch of creatures in the woods, the swashbuckler is a far better choice.
So, twofold reasoning. First, the Swordlord started out at a pretty high level in early Pathfinder 1 material. They wanted to keep making material for Swordlords but also wanted to keep from sending the power level into the stratosphere, so they just made really situational feats. Secondly, the Swordlord is meant for a particular niche. It's just that very few adventuring parties would choose to add a member who focuses his feats solely on fighting in arenas. (That isn't unique to the Swordlord, there's plenty of archetypes - especially Intrigue archetypes - where a typical party would say "you're not even decent at the things we need your class to do.")