jackslate45
First Post
I think it's a comfort thing. I didn't enjoy running for the longest time, because I didn't know how well the PC's would enjoy the story. After running a few online here I want to run IRL again. Just need players. ..
General Discussion
- Thread starter Qik
- Start date
sunshadow21
Explorer
Could someone with the appropriate wiki skills put the original Quillian writeup in the retired section rather than the approved characters section? Much as Quillian would love to have a twin, it could get confusing when there are distinct level differences.
I feel sheepish...
At the risk of making a non-optimal character (Ru) even less useful:
Okay, I feel like I only just noticed this when I was looking up Full Attack for a different reason:
Emphasis mine. Ru is the first TWF character I've mucked about with, I think, and it looks like I've gotten it all wrong? The actual TWF feat didn't seem to mention the full action stuff, which is probably how I missed it, but I don't think either GM I've had with him has noticed Ru swinging both swords and moving, either, so I figured I should check and see if the TWF feat tree makes a difference?
At the risk of making a non-optimal character (Ru) even less useful:
Okay, I feel like I only just noticed this when I was looking up Full Attack for a different reason:
Emphasis mine. Ru is the first TWF character I've mucked about with, I think, and it looks like I've gotten it all wrong? The actual TWF feat didn't seem to mention the full action stuff, which is probably how I missed it, but I don't think either GM I've had with him has noticed Ru swinging both swords and moving, either, so I figured I should check and see if the TWF feat tree makes a difference?
jackslate45
First Post
The TWF tree allows one an additional swing with the off hand, and also reduces the penalty greatly for TWF. For rogues, it's generally not good to get the GTWF, but they can use ITWF to some effect. At the end, you would be swinging 5 times (3 normal iterative attacks, 1 from TWF, 1 from ITWF)
In order to gain the benefit of TWF, you have to be full round attacking. The 1 exception I can think of is the Two Weapon Warrior archetype for fighters, which allows you to swing with both your main and your off hand as a standard action.
For Ru, he is WAY more destructive when he is full round attacking. Since Sneak Attack applies to every swing that he does, that damage can get very deadly very quickly. If you can't get into flank, that is where that invisibility trick works well to provide sneak attacks
Satin Knights
First Post
The way I am reading it,
Two Weapon Fighting:
[sblock=Edit: Forget this...]
BAB = 5; primary attack and off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack and off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack and off-hand attack as a full action
and once you have Improved Two Weapon Fighting
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a full action
BAB = 11/6/1; primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 11/6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack, tertiary primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a full action
The line jkason found says that getting the extra itterative attacks requires the full round action. Both of those would be primary weapon attacks. So, it is not as bad as you think. TWF will always get you two attacks as a standard action and ITWF will always get you three attacks as a standard action. The full attack actions is where you go to four or five attacks a round.
[/sblock] it was wrong.
Two Weapon Fighting:
[sblock=Edit: Forget this...]
BAB = 5; primary attack and off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack and off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack and off-hand attack as a full action
and once you have Improved Two Weapon Fighting
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a full action
BAB = 11/6/1; primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a standard action
BAB = 11/6/1; primary attack, iterative primary attack, tertiary primary attack, off-hand attack, and second off-hand attack as a full action
The line jkason found says that getting the extra itterative attacks requires the full round action. Both of those would be primary weapon attacks. So, it is not as bad as you think. TWF will always get you two attacks as a standard action and ITWF will always get you three attacks as a standard action. The full attack actions is where you go to four or five attacks a round.
[/sblock] it was wrong.
Last edited:
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
I think I agree with GE - getting more than one attack requires a full round action, with the noted exceptions. Although it is worth noting that the two-weapon fighting feat doesn't spell this out, it simply says "one extra attack per round." Crap, now I'm questioning whether I/we've been doing it wrong. 
Last edited:
Okay, at least this isn't one of those times when everyone else knew this one way and I was all alone. 
Yeah, so, previous to this, I thought fighting with two weapons worked the way SK laid it out, and for the reason Mowgli points out: the feat just says "one extra attack per round," without mentioning needing the full attack action. And that's what I'd been looking up previous to that when trying to figure stuff out.
It makes sense from an action / balance standpoint, though. Monks have to flurry as a full attack, for example, and that's effectively two weapon fighting. I've no problem with it, but wanted to make sure I understood it correctly, since it was looking like (and seems, in fact) I had misunderstood it up to now.
Thanks muchly for clarifying, guys!
On another train of thought, I've been toying with a crazy artific-y character concept I tried in a 4e game that died (along with my interest in 4e, honestly). He's a kind of a small-town tinkerer type whose ability is tied in with his magic. Because of that, he's grown up with an off-kilter worldview, in which he perceives objects to have sentience. It makes sense to him, because objects seem to move about like people and do other odd things--though that's due to his infusing them with magic.
I have no idea why, but I've just been wanting to revisit the poor crazy bugger of late.
Pathfinder doesn't have an Artificer, obviously. I toyed with a Magus concept, but Magus magic is book-learned, so it's hard to make the 'not realizing he's the source' stuff work out conceptually. So then I took a look at Oracle. The Haunted Curse (stuff flies off on its own), especially when paired with the Wood Mystery (with a revelation that lets him literally talk to wood objects) actually seems like it might be a better mechanical match for the conceptual elements.
Except, of course, Oracles need good Charisma to cast spells, and I kind of wanted to get folks' take on that. Given that Charisma impacts Intimidate as much as Diplomacy, it's clearly not just likability. If I conceive of Charisma as a strong personality, then, I think this works. In this case, it's less that the character consciously manipulates folks so much as people always wind up paying attention to him. They can't look away ... ish.
I might also play with the notion of how much of the crazy-talk is real and how much is put on because he doesn't like interacting with humanoids. It seems to me that just because someone's able to influence people doesn't necessarily mean they like being around them?
Anyway, I wondered what people thought of the notion of a crazy-type with high-ish Charisma. Does it bend things too much, or could it work?
I don't know that I'm building him any time soon, but since I'd started toying with the notion, and I'm in an asky mood, I figured I'd throw it to the group for thoughts.
Yeah, so, previous to this, I thought fighting with two weapons worked the way SK laid it out, and for the reason Mowgli points out: the feat just says "one extra attack per round," without mentioning needing the full attack action. And that's what I'd been looking up previous to that when trying to figure stuff out.
It makes sense from an action / balance standpoint, though. Monks have to flurry as a full attack, for example, and that's effectively two weapon fighting. I've no problem with it, but wanted to make sure I understood it correctly, since it was looking like (and seems, in fact) I had misunderstood it up to now.
Thanks muchly for clarifying, guys!
On another train of thought, I've been toying with a crazy artific-y character concept I tried in a 4e game that died (along with my interest in 4e, honestly). He's a kind of a small-town tinkerer type whose ability is tied in with his magic. Because of that, he's grown up with an off-kilter worldview, in which he perceives objects to have sentience. It makes sense to him, because objects seem to move about like people and do other odd things--though that's due to his infusing them with magic.
I have no idea why, but I've just been wanting to revisit the poor crazy bugger of late.
Pathfinder doesn't have an Artificer, obviously. I toyed with a Magus concept, but Magus magic is book-learned, so it's hard to make the 'not realizing he's the source' stuff work out conceptually. So then I took a look at Oracle. The Haunted Curse (stuff flies off on its own), especially when paired with the Wood Mystery (with a revelation that lets him literally talk to wood objects) actually seems like it might be a better mechanical match for the conceptual elements.
Except, of course, Oracles need good Charisma to cast spells, and I kind of wanted to get folks' take on that. Given that Charisma impacts Intimidate as much as Diplomacy, it's clearly not just likability. If I conceive of Charisma as a strong personality, then, I think this works. In this case, it's less that the character consciously manipulates folks so much as people always wind up paying attention to him. They can't look away ... ish.
I might also play with the notion of how much of the crazy-talk is real and how much is put on because he doesn't like interacting with humanoids. It seems to me that just because someone's able to influence people doesn't necessarily mean they like being around them?
Anyway, I wondered what people thought of the notion of a crazy-type with high-ish Charisma. Does it bend things too much, or could it work?
I don't know that I'm building him any time soon, but since I'd started toying with the notion, and I'm in an asky mood, I figured I'd throw it to the group for thoughts.
Doubling up here, but what the heck:
Are we using the CRB rule that specialist Wizards have to buy / learn opposed school cantrips (i.e., they aren't part of their 'starter set' in 1st level spellbooks)? The creating the character page sounds a bit like we've handwaved it, but I saw it mentioned when I went digging around the Alternate Cantrips discussion from a long while back.
Thoughts?
Are we using the CRB rule that specialist Wizards have to buy / learn opposed school cantrips (i.e., they aren't part of their 'starter set' in 1st level spellbooks)? The creating the character page sounds a bit like we've handwaved it, but I saw it mentioned when I went digging around the Alternate Cantrips discussion from a long while back.
Thoughts?
