Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Warforged

Anburaid's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,226 posts (1,274 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

most perception rolls you roll when presented with "stimulus" this includes someone sneaking past you, because they might be making noise, etc. If you fail, you don't get to make another perception check until the conditions change (a gm call) or until you spend a move action to actively perceive your area. So the first is a freebee, the second costs you (if you're even aware enough to use it. Using the move action most often happens in combat when you see other people reacting because they made their checks).

In answer to your question, You realize where his is when he tries to sneak past you, because that is the most dangerous point where he can get caught, i.e. the rogue determines the risk point. If he didn't sneak past you and stayed behind cover, you still roll perception because he might be making noise or some such. In that case you might know "someone is there", but can't pinpoint them. In any case, the GM calls for the number of rolls.

I agree with you about avoiding too many rolls. I might have one stealth roll for operating behind cover/concealment and then just roll whenever someone tries to hop between cover/conceal or tried to sneak up and stab someone.


correct.


Not higher than +5 enhancement, but it can have up to an additional +5 in special abilities.


MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
No? You post a paladin. Try to make one that is worse than a monk without dumping strength or cha.
Worse? Seems a stupid goal with silly criteria, but ok

Because that's the nice thing to do? The upside is I still prefer the paladins class features to the monk. Only bad thing about a paladin is its code of conduct.

Edit: that paladin hits more often and has more BAB than the monk. He also happens to be immune to several effects, has at least okay saves, and can bypass DR by not liking someone. He also has litany of righteousness and can still help the party with spells and his detect evil.

I am not crazy awesome at math or anything, but doesn't a monks extra attacks technically mean they hit about the same amount as other martials, despite missing more often due to slightly lower bab? I mean are we just assuming the hit less because of their attack bonus but not taking into account their greater number of attacks?


I would say that you want as much enhancement bonus on your AoMF as you can, along with agile, so you can turn that high dex into more flat damage bonus. However, the AoMF is capped at +5 total bonus which makes it less than awesome compared to a magic temple sword.

Although, it all depends on how your campaign goes, and how prevalent your GM makes monk specific items. Just remember that attack bonuses are few and far between, and with a monk's many attacks they of higher value than a lot of damage bonuses.

A monk's "damage feature" (examples Favored Enemy, Smite, etc) IS there extra attacks, which in turn contributes to the image that they can't hit. If you are rolling more attacks with less attack bonus, you might average the same damage but it feels like you miss an etra 20% of the time, which can be frustrating. If you can push your attack bonus up more by investing it more than most, you can help prop up your monk's "damage feature" and feel like your monks really is using a flurry of "Blows".


I am saying that the comparison is being leveraged around one optional class feature that isn't even in the CRB (neither are style feats, but I digress). Pounce is great. Its great for anyone who can get it. Saying that monks can't compete because they don't have pounce is unfair though. I don't want everyone to have a pounce arms race. Let it be a special thing that makes barbs special. Like I said, monks can pounce too under the right conditions.

On a side note I wish that barbs pounce had a caveat too, because its a hell of an awesome ability, especially since they aren't as MAD and can stack high strength based damage.

In a humanoid focused campaign I think that monks fair better in the class comparison area. Especially in that they can get some more use out of their maneuver feats. But that is not something that is guaranteed, and certainly something you might not know as a player at 1st level.


My PFS ninja is doing a happy dance in my head :D

Thanks for the clarification Jason!

Edit - Also this opens up some more functionality for abilities like Assassinate, yay!


Marthkus wrote:

...If the monk is only good in combat, then he must be on-par with the most tricked out barbarian, taking into account that a monk can't pounce while barbar can. Or the monk has to be as good or better in combat than a paladin with his nice offensive and defensive capabilities.

Pounce is OP. And as such is a feature that is highly sought after, and would mechanically benefits any martial class. A monk can "pounce" too with tiger style feats, but has some caveats (the enemy has to be moving away for it to trigger).

If barbs couldn't pounce would they be rated so highly? Probably not, considering how they were viewed on the forums before the pounce rage power came along.

There is a false need here for every class to be "the best" at something. Sure they all have their wheelhouses and thats good, but I think "best" gets us into these 800 post discussions about balance and fairness. "Roughly good enough", and "better in certain situations" is what I think we should be striving for.

That's not to say that I think monks don't have issues, but saying monks must be on par with the most tricked out barbarian goes a bit far.


Krass Kargoth wrote:


I'm sure the monk players can at least agree with me that the TWF and flurry mechanics are cumbersome AND that they force you into a certain role and playstyle -> you need to get in and stick to your target. But none of your class features encourage/reward you for doing so. That's the core flaw of the monk. The design and abilities are all over the place and an approach like the ranger's weapon-styles might be a possible fix for this.

That's kind of a neat idea. There could be a "style" that compliments each of the Attribute concentrations that people make (Dex monk, Strength monk, Wisdom monk), giving them more flavored mechanics.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


Monk? More HP than the Wizard?

D8 Vs D6 is only 1 HP per level.

while you can dump Cha and Maybe Int, you have to Pump Str Dex Con and Wis to be effective. but you personally said you neglect Str and Con in favor of Dex/Wis

Wizard, can afford to neglect Str/Wis/Cha without hindering his primary functions, while maxing out Wis and having a passable Dex and a lot More Con than your monk who didn't pump Con. 2 more Con gives the wizard Equal HP to your monk, 4 More or even 6 More con, depending on the resources the wizard invests...

6 more Con on the wizard is hyperbole. That assumes that a monk PC only has a 10 Con which is highly problematic. I get that monks are MAD, but so are any melee 3/4 BAB with a casting attribute. I also don't think your average wizard is going to dump all their mental stats (save Int) so they can have something like an 18 Con/18 Int. They need Dex, Cha, and Wis if they want to not be hit by touch attacks, be able to work charm spells, and fend off enemy enchantments (high Will save is good, but with WIs its better).

Can you make wizard with more HP than anyone but a fighter? sure. But that is a specific combat build that loses out in a lot of other areas.


BOOYAH! Jack can now steal his chicken!

6th errata wrote:

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

No hidden condition, but its a start. Thank you Paizo!

T-10 seconds before someone finds something else in the stealth skill description to mark as an FAQ candidate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For monks I would do a few things (though I don't think monks are that terribly off, they are just hard to optimize so optimizers hate them). I would reverse their BAB functionality. Grant them a full BAB and d10 HP, but say that when not using monk weapons, they use a 3/4s BAB (making some feats unusable when they do, based on BAB prereqs). That would hopefully free them up to move and attack at full BAB and stand toe to toe with fighters at the front line.

I would change Maneuver Training to only make AoO from attempting maneuvers only happen when the maneuver fails. This would hopefully incentivize maneuvers even when you don't have improved/greater feats.

For handling their damage issues I would allow monks to choose to increase their unarmed crit chance every 4 levels in place of increasing their damage dice. Since monks get A LOT of attacks, that would hopefully allow them to push up their damage through flat bonuses such as power attack. I am not sure, though, if this would be too much of a boost. I think part of the appearance of their weak damage is that they have lots of attacks but often a not so great hit chance. So rolling to miss so much gives the perception that they are weak, when they might actually be doing ok over time. More crits would hopefully counter that image.


I think that you don't want to count out traps. I can't remember if haunts count as traps in terms of trapfinding-perception or trap sense, etc, but I have certainly seen some deadly haunts.

Traps, when used most effectively, don't kill the players (because that's kinda cold), but instead put them on poor footing for the next encounter. So they MIGHT actually TPK groups, just not directly.


For fighters I think I would take something from Evil Lincoln and adapt it more as a class feature. Some of you might remember the Battle Adaptation feat.

I might adapt it the following way:

Battle Tactics
Fighters are adept at adopting new tactics or combat strategies in the heat of battle. At 2nd level a fighter can "borrow" a combat feat or teamwork feat that they qualify for, for a number of rounds equal to their level. Style feats and performance feats cannot be chosen as a battle tactic as they require more training to fully utilize. A fighter can use a battle tactic a number of times per day equal to his Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). A fighter can regain 1 battle tactic use per day when he scores a critical hit.

At 7th level a fighter can choose two feats to use as a battle tactic. One of these feats may be used as a prerequisite for the other. At 15th level three feats may be used as a battle tactic.


Incidentally with rogues I have seen a lot of conversation revolve around them "not being any better at given skill than anyone else" and I think there is some "meat" to that critique. Rogues aren't "better" in the skill arena so much as they are "broad".

One fix that I have been thinking of is granting rogues a free skill focus feat every 3 levels or so (starting at 3rd, probably). That would mean they pick 6 skills over their careers to be "better" than the average person. Not sure how that would mesh with trapfinding, such as it is.


I am of the opinion that if more higher level spells that own the combat were full round castings, the martial classes would feel more on par. If you are a spellcaster you should have to eat a sword to the face (or at least the chance of one) more often that you currently do. That would make the tactical game more interesting IMHO.


Gargs454 wrote:

@Anburaid:

I can see where Furious Focus is awesome. If you are going to power attack with any regularity, might as well take FF too to make that first attack that much more likely to land.

I'm curious though with respect to Hammer the Gap. How often, given the to-hit problems that monks generally have to begin with, does this actually go off? I'm particularly concerned given that it requires consecutive hits, not just previous hits on the turn. In your experience, does it still go off fairly regularly?

You can find the bonuses to make up the difference if you look for them (flanking, spells, bard song, trip attacks), but really it's just nice to have in addition to power attack and dragon style feats to stack those flat bonuses. At 7th level (most likely when you have hammer, PA, and style feats) you have 3 attacks at highest bab. By 10th you might eek out 5 if you can land a medusa's wrath (a bit iffy), and a crap ton of iterative attacks. Oh and don't forget haste which stacks with ki attacks. +1-3 damage is worth a feat. Anything else is just awesome-sauce.


I'll second that toughness choice. If you want to be in the thick of things, having that extra hp is nice. It aught to put you right up there with the full babs.


qinggong actually stacks with all the other monk archs because it only has the abilities you swap out. For example, the drunken master doesn't use slow fall, or wholeness of body, which can be swapped out for qinggong abilities.


Furious focus, hammer the gap, weapon focus (unarmed). Get an amulet of mighty fists mighty quick, and only with enhancement bonus on it, no special effects. Attack bonus is to monks what icecream is to children. It spazzes them out and makes them highly annoying.

You can pick up greater grapple at some point. Some way to get Ki back would be good. That's why drunken master would have been awesome. You could just drink your ki points back. Honestly I would consider just taking catchall as a bonus feat instead of taking the empty fist archetype. You could still throw/swing improvised weapons in rounds where you have to move and can't use flurry.

Ki points are difficult to keep going and archetypes that can get them back do more damage over time. And while the Drunken master's abilities might seem expensive they are assuming that you are spending ki like you just don't care.


nevermind its in catchall eh? You still need the feat to make that work and its only against unarmed opponents.

Edit - still highly situational. Good for starting fights.


I am not seeing where improvised weapons catch people flatfooted. Where is that?

Ninja might grant a damage boost, but its short lived, situational, and pushes back monk abilities from when they are relavent. Staying monk lets your damage increase, movement increase, AC increase, keeps your flurry/CMB bonus relavent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think his stats are just right. I'd go drunken master/quingong monk, myself and not worry about ninja. Multiclassing can really hurt monks. Keep a high strength, pick up barkskin, buy a wand of mage armor and perhaps UMD though traits and go to town.

I'd throw in some style feats too. Perhaps boar style, or dragon style.


There isn't a written rule as far as I know for adjudicating multiple CLs on an item. In theory separate effects (which also usually double the cost) could have different CLs.

Item CLs are also kinda funky. They function as being part of DC of crafting an item as well as a measure of how hard the item is to dispel. For non-spell required items (not potions, wands, scrolls), the CL is not a hard requirement and can be bypassed with the +5 DC. Thus a pearl of power (1st level) could be crafted by a 3rd level wizard even though its CL is 17 (though at some considerable risk of it being cursed, DC 27 and all).

The FAQ and the CRB rules are somewhat contradictory, but that is likely because of unfortunate editing. There was at one point two different DCs for crafting items, for a small amount of time, IIRC (DC+5, and DC +10) so its possible that old language from 3.5 slipped in there or some other writer or editor missed something, but the FAQ is the final official ruling on the issue.

In any case, yes, your crafter friend can take +5 to DC and not need your spellcasting to make his items, and that might seem wrong to long time players. But it sounds like you guys were making minor magic items, which are not difficult. If he wants to make a holy avenger though, he might find that much more difficult/impossible, let alone expensive.


Can you lay that out in greater detail? Like what spells, what caster level, and what your skills were?


Sure, there is a balance to things, and a GM who ignores the fun of the players for their own ego-stroking loses those players.

But this is not one of those cases. This is an example of where the crafting rules have a possible exploit. That's why page 9 of the CRB has rule 0, literally spelled out as "the Most Important Rule".


Ravingdork wrote:
Anburaid wrote:

The DM doesn't have to justify anything.

If the GM is changing the rules of the game, then he most certainly needs to explain his reasoning to the players, lest he not have any for long.

Its not changing the rules of the game, its adjudicating them so they don't derail the campaign.


Aelryinth wrote:

If suddenly the DM starts restricting buyers of Fabricated gear, he's going to need a reason, or justify why you can't sell it vs selling loot gear.

And it's that conflict of interest which breaks the spell.

==Aelryinth

The DM doesn't have to justify anything. Its the DMs world, they rule 0 it. If fabricate is going to be abused and drastically mess with WBL the DM can just say "no". Simple as that.

Player: "I have 20 full plates I want to sell."

DM: "No one has any money for them, they have already bought all the parties other gear. Where is he keeping them?"

Player: "in my portable extra dimensional laboratory!"

DM: "Ok. You might want to reserve an unseen servant every day to keep them spit shined. They are gonna be there a while."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that doesn't come immediately across for most people reading the crafting rules is this. You ALWAYS want to be taking 10. Not taking 10 gives you a chance to create a cursed item, and then become that cursed item's first victim.

So then when you go back to looking at those DCs, note that not having prereqs starts to push those DCs high for people who aren't hardcore crafters. Having the spell you need or whatever other prereq required removes this danger of creating a cursed item. So there is that.

Also as mentioned above, the real counter to overzealous crafting is gold pieces and time. Don't have'm? Can't craft.


swingjunkie wrote:
Hey guys, how often do all your players die? Do you bring them back somehow? Do they lose and you start a new campaign? Is there a way to fix it without it seeming like charity? Don't want to get 7 months into RotRL and have all my players killed anti-climacticly (sp?) by a band of goblins. lol

You jest, but that is exactly what happened to my 1st level monk in Runelords. Damn you, Hurtwurst!

(although not 7 months in, thank god)


Any monk weapon that essentially is 1d6 damage with a normal x2 crit and 1 special effect other than monk should be something all monks are proficient in.


Tarantula wrote:
Maybe the rival wizards merely teleport in, and disintegrate the enemy wizards plate that they had fabricated preventing its sale.

Especially because the crafting wizard used his 5th level spell slot on fabricate and not mage's private sanctum. Wizard chess FTW!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but Making Crafting Work is a low cost 3rd party pdf that is highly recommended if crafting is big part of your games.


There is a great 3rd party pdf for crafting called Making Crafting Work that I suggest to anyone who doesn't like the RAW crafting rules. And it costs less than $1 :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Nosferatu, we are talking about the spell because it's a game-breaker.

the suspension of disbelief that the economy of a magical world works cracks and shatters as soon as you apply Fabricate to it.

That's why the discussion is happening. Sure, if the player is never going to abuse it, you can ignore it, and the DM says it doesn't happen. Buuuuuut as soon as your level 9 wizard or sorc wants to make a little money on the side...it opens a really bad can of worms, and then the other effects of the spell start to be revealed, especially how it sidelines crafters.

as for the 50% rule and demanding to sell at 90, great, just wait around for the buyer, and don't go adventuring.

The 50% rule assumes you are selling to middlemen, who turn around and sell to final customers. If you want to BE a middleman, give up adventuring and get into being a merchant, I'm sure your party can adventure without your character. The DM will take him and make an NPC, explain how he's getting into merchant politics and making and using a lot of gold, and the rest of the party is killing monsters and being heroes.

It's all good.

==Aelryinth

Hold on. I think that this conversation is taking things a bit far. Fabricate doesn't break the economy because the economy is in the GM's capable hands. There is no guarantee that a wizard using fabricate to make suits of armor is going to have buyers. This is a meta-game concept that we all usually take for granted when unloading all the spoils of the last adventure. But any GM worth their salt is not going to let a PC flout Wealth guidlelines because they have fabricate. That just assumes too much.

The craft rules have always been borked since 3E, and no one fixes them because the game is not called "Merchants and Moneylenders" (although there are some nice 3rd party products out there). Fabricate is also NOT an exploit to get rich. Its a spell you use when you need to craft a specific item right now. Its also a 5th level spell, like teleport or dominate person or baleful polymorph. A 9th level wizard is already breaking physical laws left and right in very dramatic ways.

Wizards and economics already don't mix. If a 9th level wizard sold the castings of all his spells, its would net him something in the thousands of gold pieces range, per day. But that doesn't automatically ruin the economy, in most people's games, now does it?


[cartman]Schweeeeeeet...[/cartman]


Incidentally If shadowrun and DnD had a steampunk love-child it would probably be the Eberron campaign setting. Lets see.

• Global network of guilds that are vital to the economy and have extra-territoriality? Check.
• Racial subclasses that suffer discrimination and prejudice? Check.
• Large skyscraper city that is often the focus of entire campaigns? Check.
• Class that can craft and manipulate little robots? Check.
• Hard boiled detective character options? Check.
• Morally grey alignment rules? Check.
• Monsters as misunderstood people? Check.

Now that is silicon in my peanut butter.

edit -

• character option for attaching mechanical augmentations to your body? Check.
• Apocalyptic event that remade the world as we know it? Check.


Brian E. Harris wrote:

Is Shadowrun somehow not transhumanist? I mean, I know the label wasn't around (or if it was, as popular/mainstream) when Shadowrun came out, but it kinda seems to embody a whole lot of the transhuman schtick.

As for Cyberpunk 2020, while it may have been successful in the past, it hasn't been in production for, what, 20 years?

I believe RPGnow/DriveThruRPG has a bunch of R. Talsorian stuff available, but it's not as if the game is actively marketed/hyped.

I wouldn't exactly call it a successful game in today's market.

Perhaps you haven't seen THIS then.


One of the tricks with flanking and rogues is everyone knows you want to flank, so your enemies either do their best not to allow it or they do their best to kill the flanking rogue as fast as possible. Since rogues are not super armored or have super HP, that becomes the sort of tactical struggle as you level up. You are always asking yourself, "how can I make the most of my sneak attack without getting flattened by the fire-giant/dragon/golem/big-bad-whatever". If your party is good they will help you do these things.


A Gish is a githyanki fighter-magic user from 1st addition AD&D, IIRC. It's also rpg shorthand for any kind of warrior-wizard class. Magus being the prime PF example.


Nifty!


I was looking around the interwebs for a good mini for my PFS ninja and I just came across this site Zenit Miniatures. If I hadn't already ordered the anima tactics model Kagemaru, I might have ordered from here (though the international shipping might have been a pain). Still worth checking out if you are running Jade Regent, I imagine.


Ashiel wrote:
Anburaid wrote:
is there any reason why a build using an expendable item (other than say ammunition) is a fair comparison when we are discussing class features and their effectiveness? A fighter could take a point in UMD, take the dangerous curiosity trait and also cast from a wand (maybe not quite as reliably) but all in all it should be a wash. Its not like wands are "ranger only".
Few points on this...

All fair points. But then my question would be, if ciretose is crying foul because your build used an expendable item to out pace the fighter, isn't that a tad unfair? Perhaps the fighter might have invested in potions to do the same thing? Maybe it costs a little more (I am not assuming he matches your ranger, charge per charge), but over all the effect is about the same. Both characters would then be judged by equipment that might not be available because they have exhausted its uses.


is there any reason why a build using an expendable item (other than say ammunition) is a fair comparison when we are discussing class features and their effectiveness? A fighter could take a point in UMD, take the dangerous curiosity trait and also cast from a wand (maybe not quite as reliably) but all in all it should be a wash. Its not like wands are "ranger only".


Guide to Pathfinder Organized Play wrote:

For ease of play in Pathfinder Society, a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item without paying for the masterwork cost again. Instead, you pay the difference between the cost of the +1 item and that of the masterwork item. This rule also applies to upgrading from a +1 item to a +2 item and so on—you never have to repay the original cost or sell your current item for half to upgrade to the next step. Note that this only applies to items of the same kind—you can’t, for example, turn your masterwork rapier into a +1 greatsword. A mundane item can not be upgraded to masterwork, nor can nonmagical aspects of equipment be upgraded (such as the strength rating on a composite bow).

So we know that a masterwork weapon can be upgraded to a +1. doesn't this refer to the act of enchanting it, rather than buying a new one, which would cost PP?


Aelryinth wrote:

Monks still shouldn't be front liners...and I don't believe Rangers, being as skill heavy and magic heavy combined, should be d10's, either, but that's another point.

Monks have a whole slew of semi-mystical mental class skills, along with a high movement rate, innate AC bonuses, and extraordinary saves.

What they are missing is the higher stats to make all their abilities work.

Giving monks +2 or +3 Stat points, one of choice, and +1 to lowest mental and physical stat, would do a lot for equalizing things, as they'd have the stats to make everything work at that point.

But the one biggest thing for the monk is the Tyranny of the Full attack. If they were effective skirmishers, I don't think anyone would complain about the monk at all. Monks aren't really portrayed anywhere in fiction or fact as tank characters. They move around, they exchange a set of blows, move back, dash and dart and leap.

The main problem is when they fight like that, like any martial, they suck.

I think its a matter of perception. They do dart and leap. Not every fighter is built to be front line, though. Some people decide to make their fighters into skirmishers because that's what they want. Ideally monks and fighters should be able to take on the same rolls (even though monks face some issues doing so), because monks are fighters who study combat, just in a different fashion than your standard soldier. Perhaps archetypes step in here. I haven't played a Monk of the Sacred Mountain yet, but they seem like they were written to be stand-and-fight types.

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca6Ba1odirs‎)This guy is very flippy and agile, but he takes on any attackers without a flank buddy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Call it a Grimoire!


Aelryinth wrote:

You don't give Monks a d10 HD. They aren't supposed to be main-liners. Rangers are d8, as are Rogues, and fit the monk combat role as a skirmisher better.

On this, you and I will have to disagree. They way I see it, they are defined by their combat style. Perhaps you might think of them as holistic fighters. Fighters fight with weapons, monks fight with their bodies and farm implements, but in both cases they are defined by how they fight. They are (as written) not even good skirmishers because they cannot normally flurry while taking move actions/spring attacking. Perhaps you meant good flank partner? If, so then Hell Yes, considering their movement rating and acrobatics.

TOZ covered the d8 thing. Actually TOZ mentions the barbarian breaking the BAB-Hp standard, and I think monks should have also done this when they were pathfinderized. Monks are on the path to becoming specimens of physical perfection (so much so that they ignore poison and disease, they don't suffer aging penalties, and eventually become outsiders). Seems like that might be justification for a better HD even if the whole Full BAB didn't come with it.


Gavmania wrote:
Anburaid wrote:

If I was going to modify monks to address the problems discussed in the forums, I might do the following:

• d10 HD. No matter how you slice it, monks are meant to fight toe to toe with enemies. People who want to play frontline fighters need to have the HP to do it.

• Full BAB. Monks would fight at 3/4 BAB when using non-monk weapons. This includes feat prereqs. Feats with a high bab requirement cease functioning as long as the monk is using non monk weapons, if the 3/4 bab doesn't meet them. Forcing monks to stand in place to get the best chance of hitting makes no sense to me.

I quite like this idea, but how would it stack with PA? since PA would be available at 1st level now, is it only useable with Monk weapons until your BAB goes up at level2? similarly when you get the increases in PA damage...

Indeed, that is the intent. I would probably include it in a flurry rewrite, or perhaps relabel it "martial arts" and flurry would be an action that martial arts provides. If the monk picks up a short sword and wants to fight with it, they get saddled with the lower BAB, and in your example, would not be able to PA at 1st level. Basically that short sword is not ideal for their martial arts style.

All that said, there are certainly feats that could be made to allow certain weapons to be Martial Arts weapons. I could see a hwandudaedo/longsword/rapier feat for swordfighting monks, or spear feat for jet-li inspired spear monks. Those would be special exceptions (thus the feats).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Maccabee wrote:
So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.
People are bashing the rogue because he fails to match the wizard at being the ultimate thief, stealth expert (invisibility), trap finder (detect trap,magic etc), skill monkey and also fails to be able to outfight anything. The rogue is an inferior good, pretty much outclassed at all its specialities by the periphery talents of other classes.

Which is a reason to fix the wizard, not the rogue. Of course that runs contrary to the d20 design philosphy of magic being able to do anything that anyone else can accomplish, but with the spellcaster only needing to be half the level.

Strengthening the "weaker" classes isn't the only way to balance the game. Nerfing the "stronger" classes is just as acceptable an option.

Or, you know, actually making them play by the rules, which is frequently ignored.

I would LOVE it in a new edition of PF if higher level spells had more full round actions attached to them. If you are summoning a meteor or are about the drastically change the field of battle for everyone, that should require you to be chanting and waving your hands for the full round, so that the party needs to defend you. It also would make the choice between casting and moving more dire.

1 to 50 of 1,226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.