[PF/DSP] The New Soulknife Handbook: Mind Become Matter

[digiman619]

You mean, at level one, before they qualify for Additional Blade Skill by possessing the prerequisite class feature?

Crap. While a level 1 Deadly Fist has a blade skill (Flurry of Fists), I didn't notice the +2 BAB prerequisite. Never mind, looks like you'll have to wait until level 2 to make your mind blade into a Rocket Launcher and do 12d6 a shot. Truly a horrible fate.

[Elricaltovilla]

Crap. While a level 1 Deadly Fist has a blade skill (Flurry of Fists), I didn't notice the +2 BAB prerequisite. Never mind, looks like you'll have to wait until level 2 to make your mind blade into a Rocket Launcher and do 12d6 a shot. Truly a horrible fate.

Because this was brought up in the DSP FAQ thread, I'd like to remind everyone that there's a difference between can and should. Please consider whether or not the other players and GM at the table are willing to accept this sort of cheese before trying it.

[digiman619]

Because this was brought up in the DSP FAQ thread, I'd like to remind everyone that there's a difference between can and should. Please consider whether or not the other players and GM at the table are willing to accept this sort of cheese before trying it.

Oh, don't worry; I consider this to fall under the same banner of "Iron Heart Surge to get rid of gravity" cheese (albeit to a lesser extent). It's something that no GM in their right mind would ever allow, but technically RAW and interesting to theorize about.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Does everyone not just require the Soulknife the have seen the weapon to replicate it? When was the last time your character saw a rocket launcher or vortex gun?

[khadgar567]

Does everyone not just require the Soulknife the have seen the weapon to replicate it? When was the last time your character saw a rocket launcher or vortex gun?

depends on seting but quick excursion to absalom markets will sufice if your pathfinder lodge allows 3rd party content

[Lotheb]

Great guide, good work.
While i think you're mostly right about the amulet of mighty fists being bad for a Deadly Fist Soulknife, it is the cheapest way to pick up training for an extra combat feat (4000 gp if you dont have anything else in the slot, 6000 gp if you do but can use the combined item prices, compared to 8301 gp for a +1 training brass knuckles) since it doesn't have to have a +1 to get weapon properties. That seems worthwhile when you can afford it since you mention several times that soulknives can be feat starved

[Dr_Dinosaur]

depends on seting but quick excursion to absalom markets will sufice if your pathfinder lodge allows 3rd party content

Pretty sure no “Pathfinder Lodge” allows 3pp considering the ruleset of PFS, even if you are playing in Golarion, which idk if most people do

[ATalsen]

I'm not sure I could give the Half Strike feat an unmitigated green, because its debatable that it does what its intended to do.

I'd put into the guide a note that the player should check with the DM to determine if they can actually *attack* into the adjacent squares with their reach weapon - if so, its a good feat for reach users, if not its bad feat - avoid it, and a better solution would be a feat that allows quick shifting of soulknife's weapon type if opponents close in.

---

Info:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war...strike-combat/

Haft strike specifies 'threaten' the area within reach, but does not specify the ability to attack into it. (Historical note: Playtest version of the feat did specify attacking into the area).

While pathfinder general rules do say that you threaten any space you can attack into, they do not invert that and specify that any space you can threaten you are allowed to attack.

[Battleship789]

I'm not sure I could give the Half Strike feat an unmitigated green, because its debatable that it does what its intended to do.

I'd put into the guide a note that the player should check with the DM to determine if they can actually *attack* into the adjacent squares with their reach weapon - if so, its a good feat for reach users, if not its bad feat - avoid it, and a better solution would be a feat that allows quick shifting of soulknife's weapon type if opponents close in.

---

Info:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war...strike-combat/

Haft strike specifies 'threaten' the area within reach, but does not specify the ability to attack into it. (Historical note: Playtest version of the feat did specify attacking into the area).

While pathfinder general rules do say that you threaten any space you can attack into, they do not invert that and specify that any space you can threaten you are allowed to attack.

Well said. I missed that implication when reading over the feat the first time and I'll change the rating appropriately (when I get more time .) Thanks!

[Labelos]

Did you notice this sentence, in the psychic armory's form panoply of blade entry?

When using the psychic strike class feature, the psychic armory may charge a number of weapons from her panoply of blades of her choice.

What do you make of it?

[Aldrakan]

Well said. I missed that implication when reading over the feat the first time and I'll change the rating appropriately (when I get more time .) Thanks!

Without an FAQ answer I'd be reluctant to take "you threaten this area but cannot actually attack into it because it does not specify "and vice versa" in the threaten rules" as the way to read that rule. It's a very...technical reading, which I doubt was the intention nor that most GMs would read it that way. It's also contradicted by the flavor description (yes I know) which says you can "strike" adjacent foes. Likely the ability to attack adjacent squares was supposed to be assumed and it being specified was cut for brevity.

Maybe make a note of that reading and how it would downgrade the skill?

[upho]

While pathfinder general rules do say that you threaten any space you can attack into, they do not invert that and specify that any space you can threaten you are allowed to attack.

Uhm...? Are you saying that to "threaten" an opponent/square has no meaning?

If so, I must say it appears you've not just made an absurdly contrived interpretation of RAW, but also a flat-out incorrect one, seemingly because you've read the following single line from the general rules for AoOs out of context and without considering that it may not contain the whole truth:

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

While this the only line in those rules which most directly and explicitly addresses the matter, the rest of the rules touches upon it several times. In fact, several lines in those rules even use language for all relevant intents and purposes identical to that of Haft Strike's benefit, such as (my emphasis):

• "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
• "However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature."
• "Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square."
• "Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke..."

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all of these basic mechanics for AoOs are highly problematic since they all rely on "threaten" to mean "space/opponent you can make melee attack into/against", and the rules never explicitly say that "any space you can threaten you are allowed to attack"?

Or did I completely misunderstand your point about Haft Strike?

[ATalsen]

Uhm...? Are you saying that to "threaten" an opponent/square has no meaning?

No, it has a meaning, its just not a meaning that allows you to make AoOs [EDIT:] or attack with a weapon having improper reach into the threatened area.

For example, you can still flank, granting the +2 flanking bonus, because you threaten the target.

I'll give you a core example of threatening but not getting AoOs:
You threaten, but cannot make AoOs on, a person with cover (including soft cover) relative to you.

Cover doesn't prevent you from threatening a target (and thus providing or receiving flanking bonus on a normal attack), but it does prevent AoOs.

EDIT:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/

Cover and Attacks of Opportunity
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you

.

---

You mention provoking, and anyone in your threatened area still provokes from you, but you still have to have legitimate reach to use a given weapon. For example if I have an Aegis with extra arms (high enough to attack with), that is wielding a shield and a reach weapon, then they threaten the area adjacent to them, but they still cannot attack with their reach weapon, they would have to attack with the shield to bash.

Now, if I have an immediate action teleport/movement, use it to move to a position where my Aegis' reach is appropriate with the reach weapon, then I can indeed make the AoO with my reach weapon.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all of these basic mechanics for AoOs are highly problematic since they all rely on "threaten" to mean "space/opponent you can make melee attack into/against", and the rules never explicitly say that "any space you can threaten you are allowed to attack"?

Or did I completely misunderstand your point about Haft Strike?

I don't think you misunderstood it, so much as believe that threatened area = attack-able area like DSP seems to believe. I think that's common, but I don't actually believe the rules support that interpretation.

I really do wish that the rules specified the opposite as well, which would make the terms interchangeable.

Anyway, that's why I say its a 'check with your DM' item - if your DM thinks threaten does equal attack, its a fine feat.

---

EDIT:

Here's a link to a question on the Combat Patrol feat - a Paizo feat that also grants extra threatened area, but not reach:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l70v&pa...ally-seeing-it

To the best of my knowledge this is not a official FAQ, just a Dev answering the question, so I'm only posting this as an example that there are other people that think threatened area does not equal attackable area.

[upho]

No, it has a meaning, its just not a meaning that allows you to make AoOs [EDIT:] or attack with a weapon having improper reach into the threatened area.

I get what you're saying now. But I still don't understand what your definition of "threaten" is. Because we know for certain that it's more than merely the ability to attack enemies within melee reach during your own turn, as the rules for AoOs defining "Threatened Squares" say:

"If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

This is despite the fact that you're still perfectly able to perform several types of melee attacks against targets within your reach during your turn. And this would remain true even should you be able to perform these attacks in all regards exactly as if you had been armed, including as AoOs had you been allowed to make them. Note also that the above very explicitly says you cannot make AoOs specifically because you don't threaten.

We also know for certain that the reverse isn't true outside specifically mentioned exceptions, so don't you agree that if you threaten a target, you're per default also at the very least able to make melee attacks against it during your own turn?

For example, you can still flank, granting the +2 flanking bonus, because you threaten the target.

I'll give you a core example of threatening but not getting AoOs:
You threaten, but cannot make AoOs on, a person with cover (including soft cover) relative to you.

Cover doesn't prevent you from threatening a target (and thus providing or receiving flanking bonus on a normal attack), but it does prevent AoOs.

And why is cover relevant? I don't see why a specific circumstance, which is not only completely on the target's end of things, but which also has rules stating a specific and explicit exception to the general rules are. And I think you're confusing whether a target provokes with whether you're able to execute the AoO in the specific circumstance.

In detail, yes, you can threaten a target without being able to execute AoOs against it in certain specific circumstances. So what? The same is true if you happen to have made all your AoOs for the turn when the target provokes, regardless of cover, total concealment or other specific exceptions. For example, Paired Opportunists would work just fine in either case if your ally is able to execute an AoO. And that wouldn't be the case if you didn't actually threaten the target, because it wouldn't even provoke from you in the first place unless you did.

More importantly, if we pretend that Haft Strike did say that you're able to perform AoOs also against nearby enemies which provoke (which you normally don't threaten with a reach weapon), according to your reasoning, wouldn't that also imply the feat allows you to make AoOs against such enemies even if they have cover?

To me, the mere fact that the rules for cover mention a specific exception regarding AoOs/threaten simply reinforces what the general rules for AoOs say, namely that if you threaten a target, it means the target's actions may provoke AoOs from you. And even if you disagree, I hope you see that the rules for cover certainly doesn't contradict that conclusion in any way. And aside from the specific exceptions (such as having no more AoO's, the enemy having cover or total concealment), if you're unable to make an AoO against a target you threaten, it's simply because there are no events happening or actions taken by the target which provokes an AoO in the first place.

Now if you could point to a few examples in the rules which make no mentions of any exceptions but which for example explicitly allow you to make melee AoOs against a target you clearly don't threaten, it might actually be a sound cause for demanding a clarification/errata regarding the benefit text of Haft Strike.

You mention provoking, and anyone in your threatened area still provokes from you, but you still have to have legitimate reach to use a given weapon. For example if I have an Aegis with extra arms (high enough to attack with), that is wielding a shield and a reach weapon, then they threaten the area adjacent to them, but they still cannot attack with their reach weapon, they would have to attack with the shield to bash.

Now, if I have an immediate action teleport/movement, use it to move to a position where my Aegis' reach is appropriate with the reach weapon, then I can indeed make the AoO with my reach weapon.

I think I made it clear why this cannot be the case, because outside a few very explicit exceptions, there is no way in which the rules allow you to threaten a square you cannot make a melee attack into, so I don't see the point here. (Note also that if you threaten different targets with different weapons you wield simultaneously, I'd assume you cannot perform an AoO with one weapon which was solely triggered by the threat of another weapon.)

I don't think you misunderstood it, so much as believe that threatened area = attack-able area like DSP seems to believe. I think that's common, but I don't actually believe the rules support that interpretation.

I really do wish that the rules specified the opposite as well, which would make the terms interchangeable.

Anyway, that's why I say its a 'check with your DM' item - if your DM thinks threaten does equal attack, its a fine feat.

And I think the only thing such a note would do is to plant doubt where there actually is no need for it. Haft Strike works perfectly just as written together with the general rules.

And to summarize, an extrapolation of the general rules gives the following little "hierarchy":

1. Unable to make any melee attack against target = the target is outside your melee reach (or you're completely unable to act).
2. Able to attack target during own turn only = you're "unarmed" or don't threaten the target for some other reason.
3. As #2 but also able to make AoO(s) against target outside own turn = you threaten the target, so it's actions may provoke AoOs from you (even though you may not be able to perform one in certain circumstances).

This may of course be weapon-specific, such as in the case of your Aegis example, but that doesn't change the relevant parts in any way.

EDIT:

Here's a link to a question on the Combat Patrol feat - a Paizo feat that also grants extra threatened area, but not reach:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l70v&pa...ally-seeing-it

To the best of my knowledge this is not a official FAQ, just a Dev answering the question, so I'm only posting this as an example that there are other people that think threatened area does not equal attackable area.

Yes, there are exceptions when threatened area doesn't equal "area always attackable with melee", such as in the case of being out of movement and thus unable to make an AoO provoked within a threatened area enlarged by Combat Patrol. Again, what is this supposed to prove? I couldn't find any comments by Jason Nelson in that thread which contradicts what I've said in any way, but rather the opposite (see for example regarding Zen Archer and Snap Shot). To be extra clear, what I've said is (unless otherwise noted):

Threatened area = the area in which an enemy's actions may provoke AoOs from you.

And again, outside of a few explicit exceptions, by extension that also means that you can at least make normal melee attacks as well as AoOs into the area you threaten, even though the reverse isn't necessarily always true.

[ATalsen]

Threatened area = the area in which an enemy's actions may provoke AoOs from you.

Maybe I just don't get what your trying to present as arguments, but I'm absolutely agreeing with the above bold text.

However, simply provoking doesn't give you the ability to attack them with a weapon that has inappropriate reach to actually strike the location where the opponent provoked from.

Nothing in Haft Strike gives the character the ability to modify the reach of a reach weapon inward in order to actually execute an attack against someone adjacent.

Because no reach modification or augmentation is provided by Haft Strike, you can neither attack an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon during your normal turn when using Haft Strike, nor if an adjacent opponent provokes (and they do provoke because you threaten that area due to Haft Strike) can you execute an AoO with your reach weapon against them.

Basically you said it here:
"Note also that if you threaten different targets with different weapons you wield simultaneously, I'd assume you cannot perform an AoO with one weapon which was solely triggered by the threat of another weapon."

Which to me boils down to: You can only attack with a weapon that can correctly reach the target.

[Aldrakan]

Which to me boils down to: You can only attack with a weapon that can correctly reach the target.

So in that case, what do you think this feat actually enables you to do, if anything at all?

How do you square your reading with the description that says it allows you to strike adjacent opponents?

Finally, what is the point of this reading? Is there any purpose to reading it in this fashion beyond purely "by RAW it says this"?

[ATalsen]

So in that case, what do you think this feat actually enables you to do, if anything at all?

Well, it does allow things, but not directly what it intended to allow.

It allows you to flank an opponent in an adjacent square with a reach weapon, which is not normally allowed.

It allows/causes an opponent adjacent to you to provoke when you wield a reach weapon, and IF you have a source of immediate action movement or other rule that allows movement as part of an opponent provoking an AoO, you could move to a place where your reach weapon was in correct reach and take the AoO. DSP has some PoW maneuvers that can accomplish this.

How do you square your reading with the description that says it allows you to strike adjacent opponents?

The section that states that intent is descriptive text and not rules text, so I don't use it for rules-adjudication purposes.

Finally, what is the point of this reading? Is there any purpose to reading it in this fashion beyond purely "by RAW it says this"?

If your goal is to play by intent and not RAW, then there is no purpose to reading it the way I do. The intent is pretty clear.

If, however, you play with a group that uses RAW over intent, then its good to know what the feat actually does by RAW. I play and DM in such games, so it matters to me.


Game rules (feats, class features, etc.) that do not do what the designers intended are nothing new to this or any other RPG. But each table determines for themselves how they handle such 'broken' effects - not use them, house rule them, go by intent, etc.

There's no wrong way to decide, but I do feel strongly that its good to know in advance so there's no misunderstanding and hurt feeling later on.

---
EDIT:
Here is the play-test version, which did work correctly for attacking adjacent opponents:

Haft Strike [Combat]
Holding your polearm further up its length, you can strike adjacent foes as well as those further away.
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefit: You can attack adjacent enemies with your reach weapon until the end of your turn by taking a -2 penalty to AC for the round. You must decide to use this ability before any attacks are made.

The flaw in this version is for any character with >=10ft natural reach (such as a large creature), there remains a band between 'adjacent' and 'reach weapon reach' that the feat still doesn't allow attacking into, and it is my opinion that the final version attempted to rectify that gap with the wording change to 'threaten'.

[Aldrakan]

If your goal is to play by intent and not RAW, then there is no purpose to reading it the way I do. The intent is pretty clear.

If, however, you play with a group that uses RAW over intent, then its good to know what the feat actually does by RAW. I play and DM in such games, so it matters to me.


Game rules (feats, class features, etc.) that do not do what the designers intended are nothing new to this or any other RPG. But each table determines for themselves how they handle such 'broken' effects - not use them, house rule them, go by intent, etc.

There's no wrong way to decide, but I do feel strongly that its good to know in advance so there's no misunderstanding and hurt feeling later on.

Fair enough. Although in that case I do feel it's incorrect to suggest that a guide should use your reading as the primary version, as you appeared to do, rather than leaving it as a note (technically by RAW this etc). Given that the intent is crystal clear and it requires a particularly careful reading of the threaten rules to even notice the issue, it does not like a common problem.

[upho]

Maybe I just don't get what your trying to present as arguments, but I'm absolutely agreeing with the above bold text.

Please read also the line immediately below, because you obviously still confuse "provoke AoO" with "able to execute AoO", despite the latter having absolutely no impact relevant to the question of whether you threaten a target or not.

However, simply provoking doesn't give you the ability to attack them with a weapon that has inappropriate reach to actually strike the location where the opponent provoked from.

Yes it does! Again, outside a few very explicitly mentioned exceptions, if you threaten a target, it means you CAN attack the target with an AoO as well as with other melee attacks on your own turn.

Nothing in Haft Strike gives the character the ability to modify the reach of a reach weapon inward in order to actually execute an attack against someone adjacent.

Obviously it does precisely that, since it allows you to threaten adjacent squares! Again, without there being a specific exception in play, it's impossible to threaten a square you're not able to attack into it with an AoO. Because that is the very definition of "threaten" according to the general rules. (Though I agree those rules don't exactly do a good job of making it crystal clear.)

EDIT: From my previous post, edited for extra emphasis:

the rules for AoOs defining "Threatened Squares" say:

"If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

/snip/ Note also that the above very explicitly says you cannot make AoOs specifically because you don't threaten.

And let's also add a bit more from those general rules, like:

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

Still unsure whether the rules say you're able to attack into threatened squares?

OK, here's another one:

"Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule."

Exceptions? Oh wait, I know one! The target has cover! Now does that mean the target no longer provokes? Apparently not, because that exception also says you still threaten the target, even though you're unable to actually execute the provoked AoO.

Hmm... So outside those explicit exceptions, could it be that the general rule goes:

You threaten target = Target provokes from you = You're able to make a melee attack against target outside your turn = Target is within you melee reach and you're allowed to make AoOs against it = Target provokes from you = You threaten target = [Ad infinitum, in any order]

These are all interchangeable, and none of them can be true without you also threatening the target (outside specific explicitly mentioned exceptions).

Clear enough? /EDIT

Because no reach modification or augmentation is provided by Haft Strike, you can neither attack an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon during your normal turn when using Haft Strike, nor if an adjacent opponent provokes (and they do provoke because you threaten that area due to Haft Strike) can you execute an AoO with your reach weapon against them.

Basically you said it here:
"Note also that if you threaten different targets with different weapons you wield simultaneously, I'd assume you cannot perform an AoO with one weapon which was solely triggered by the threat of another weapon."

Which to me boils down to: You can only attack with a weapon that can correctly reach the target.

If that were the case, then you wouldn't also be threatening adjacent squares with your reach weapon. It's that easy. Again, since Haft Strike does NOT mention being any exception to the normal rules for threatening, it says that adjacent targets both provoke and allow you to respond with an AoO, just as if you were wielding a non-reach weapon. Likewise, Haft Strike does not change any of the specific exceptions which say that you cannot execute an AoO the target you threaten provokes. So no, you still cannot make an AoO against for example an adjacent target with total concealment which provokes.

[Sunforger42]

I was wondering what the response would be if you used emulate melee weapon to create a gauntlet instead of augmented blade, for the purpose of snagging the fiend's grip and still being able to two weapon fight with the full enhancement blade skill

[exelsisxax]

I was wondering what the response would be if you used emulate melee weapon to create a gauntlet instead of augmented blade, for the purpose of snagging the fiend's grip and still being able to two weapon fight with the full enhancement blade skill

You can manifest a fiend's grip if you have shaped your mind blade into gauntlet(s) using emulate melee weapon. This is a bad idea, because the fiend's grip isn't a mind blade, so it can't use any soulknife features other than inheriting bonuses from the shaped gauntlet. This is a bad idea, and really does not gain anything. It would be less of a waste to dip magus, because at least the bonuses from arcane pool stack on top of any existing ones - the soulknife is going to be behind that curve.(also, magi are int-based, so you can avoid MADness)

[Sunforger42]

You can manifest a fiend's grip if you have shaped your mind blade into gauntlet(s) using emulate melee weapon. This is a bad idea, because the fiend's grip isn't a mind blade, so it can't use any soulknife features other than inheriting bonuses from the shaped gauntlet. This is a bad idea, and really does not gain anything. It would be less of a waste to dip magus, because at least the bonuses from arcane pool stack on top of any existing ones - the soulknife is going to be behind that curve.(also, magi are int-based, so you can avoid MADness)

Using the ordained defender archetype as well as the gifted blade/war soul combination for a high psionics campaign will work just fine for a lead in to awakened blade. Especially with a dip into monk of the silver fist.

[exelsisxax]

Using the ordained defender archetype as well as the gifted blade/war soul combination for a high psionics campaign will work just fine for a lead in to awakened blade. Especially with a dip into none of the silver fist.

Gifted blade/warsoul is an illegal archetype stack, and taking multiple initiator archetypes is a recipe for a garbage build. If you want a good gauntlet TWFer, just go straight MoSF - with a small dip into that warder combo if you really want Fiend's Grip, or do warder dipping MoSF if you want heavy armor instead of monk AC bonus. Awakened blade and warsoul do not contribute in any way to an unarmed strike build.

Oh, or you could go warsoul/deadly fist. AB and warder are still probably a waste, but the archetype combo is legal and you can totally punch things to death like a boss.

[Sunforger42]

Gifted blade/warsoul is an illegal archetype stack, and taking multiple initiator archetypes is a recipe for a garbage build. If you want a good gauntlet TWFer, just go straight MoSF - with a small dip into that warder combo if you really want Fiend's Grip, or do warder dipping MoSF if you want heavy armor instead of monk AC bonus. Awakened blade and warsoul do not contribute in any way to an unarmed strike build.

Oh, or you could go warsoul/deadly fist. AB and warder are still probably a waste, but the archetype combo is legal and you can totally punch things to death like a boss.

War soul and gifted blade don't work together unless you go for the high psionics variant, which gives gifted blade progression to every soulknife.

[exelsisxax]

War soul and gifted blade don't work together unless you go for the high psionics variant, which gives gifted blade progression to every soulknife.

If your DM has told you that all soulknives gain gifted soul for free(because that is not a rule, but a GM-facing option), then the warder and MoSF dips are even worse. Just go straight soulknife, or soulknife/AB for better initiating and worse everything else. The dips do nothing but penalize your powers, mind blade, blade skills, and initiating even more.

[Battleship789]

I was wondering what the response would be if you used emulate melee weapon to create a gauntlet instead of augmented blade, for the purpose of snagging the fiend's grip and still being able to two weapon fight with the full enhancement blade skill

While I'm not nearly as down on the idea as exelsisxax, you can only create a single weapon with the Emulate Melee Weapon blade skill and multiple gauntlets are required to form two fiend's grips. Without Augmented Blade, two weapon styles are limited to the default short swords, daggers (mind daggers), claws (Moonlight Mediant/Brutality Blade/Feral Heart), and double weapons (emulate melee weapon, Living Legend in Champion role, or War Soul with discipline blade shape.) Though, with how many options the soulknife has, I might have missed one...

Edit: In other news, I should have more free time in about 3 weeks, which will allow me to actually finish up the guide. Most of the missing sections are completed or updated and just need to be formatted for the forum.

[ATalsen]

Deadly Fist****

I was actually thinking that Deadly fist may qualify for 5-star purple status.

As mentioned its compatible with War Soul, and even enables the use of natural weapons better than then Feral Heart does, but the big kicker that pushes it over for me is the *stackability* with the use of an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

You can get all your Soulknife Enhanced Strikes/Enhanced Mind Blade, and add in whatever you put in your Amulet of Mighty Fists too. Since an Amulet of Mighty Fists does NOT require a base +1 enhancement, just pick the best or most useful special abilities (even ones a Soul Knife can't normally get) to put in it.

My favorite special for an amulet in this case is Linked Striking which is great if you plan to focus on multiple attacks on the same foe (say from your flurry ability).

[Sunforger42]

While I'm not nearly as down on the idea as exelsisxax, you can only create a single weapon with the Emulate Melee Weapon blade skill and multiple gauntlets are required to form two fiend's grips. Without Augmented Blade, two weapon styles are limited to the default short swords, daggers (mind daggers), claws (Moonlight Mediant/Brutality Blade/Feral Heart), and double weapons (emulate melee weapon, Living Legend in Champion role, or War Soul with discipline blade shape.) Though, with how many options the soulknife has, I might have missed one...

Edit: In other news, I should have more free time in about 3 weeks, which will allow me to actually finish up the guide. Most of the missing sections are completed or updated and just need to be formatted for the forum.

I have decided that the augmented blade penalty of -2 doesn't make any sense for two weapon styles. I get there is no "after the first one" clause to the split crystal skill, but I can't help but feel like there is supposed to be. I'm going to be house ruling the -1 for each crystal after the first into the augmented blade from now on.

I equally have issues with emulate melee weapon not allowing you to emulate multiple copies of a weapon with the standard penalty, and will be doing away with that.

[upho]

I have decided that the augmented blade penalty of -2 doesn't make any sense for two weapon styles. I get there is no "after the first one" clause to the split crystal skill, but I can't help but feel like there is supposed to be. I'm going to be house ruling the -1 for each crystal after the first into the augmented blade from now on.

I equally have issues with emulate melee weapon not allowing you to emulate multiple copies of a weapon with the standard penalty, and will be doing away with that.

My main question when it comes to the fiend's grips specifically is mostly why you'd want two of them so desperately?

I mean, a single fiend's grip is a fantastic melee control weapon all by itself. And I don't really see what you're supposed to gain by having two instead of one, unless perhaps if you're simply going for hit-grab-constrict-release full attack shenanigans for max damage.

[DethBySquirl]

Is there anything in the language of the Augmented Blade that would prevent the enhancements and class features being applied to an improvised weapon? If not, then the Shikigami Style feat line might become useful, which combined with Improvised Weapon Mastery could get you an 8d6 base damage weapon (using a sledge).