Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jkason" data-source="post: 6260207" data-attributes="member: 2710">Okay, at least this isn't one of those times when everyone else knew this one way and I was all alone. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification