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

Ckorik's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 653 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 653 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Assuming this is made into a FAQ isn't PFS obligated to follow the FAQ?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly I think the rest of the text in the same section that has a defined search area in the new book clears it up.

Paraphrasing:

the move action search is to find hidden doors, secret doors, hidden objects, and traps or anything like the above. Opposed checks (stealth) or anything that is not deliberately obfuscated is a called check with modifiers for distance - this includes things you see, hear, or feel (i.e. breeze on your face from a draft).

From that I would gather something specifically hidden is a search action. Something not specifically hidden but not obvious - would not be a search action. (like say a partially burnt page in the fireplace).

Outside of that I'd say there will be a bit of judgement call, but I think that covers the big instances of what is/isn't really a search action. That said I hit the FAQ for you as it's obvious that not all people take searching with the same (non)seriousness that I do.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Before anyone says it - yeah I know you can't take 10 for assists... it was just a point and it ran away with me :P

Even still assisting is a single roll that given any investment in perception a DC 10 should be possible - meaning you just need a single confirm per player to make the assist roll. This still shouldn't be that much of a time consuming action.

The only time this really bogs the game down is if you have a player that has to find something on their own without the groups help.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.

Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.

Then again I'm all for moving the game along.

I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.

Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.

Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.

Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.

Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.

So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.

Well, you can use both your standard and move actions to search, meaning you can search the square in 1 minute.

But I think he was actually talking about it taking 2 minutes of real time, not 30. Using Take 10 and 20 to speed up the game.

Exactly this. My point is that '5 players making 12 rolls each' is exactly what 'taking 10' and 'taking 20' is about.

Scenario 1: each player makes 1 roll per search area and accepts what they roll each time for 12 rolls.

Why not take 10 and move along - on average you'll have more consistent results from the search, as some of those rolls will be less than 10.

Scenario 2: each player makes multiple rolls per search area until they roll a 15 or higher to ensure 'they see everything'

Why not take 20 and move along - yes it eats up buff time - that's intentional - if you don't have time to search right now note it and come back later so you make use of your buffs. Otherwise say 'I take 20' and search - game time is sped up the GM notes if you can see 'whatever' and lets you know what you find - you literally can't roll better than a take 20 result unless you are using a house rule for critical skill checks. Outside of that if you really want to be in a hurry you do the following....

5 players - player with best perception takes 10. Player 2 takes 10 to assist - etc. so you have a 10+2+2+2+2 = take 18 on the entire room for the same time frame as a normal take 10. In 99% of any case I'm aware of (especially in published material) that should be more than enough to spot something hidden.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Tels wrote:

I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

So... Your post is marked as "Answered in the errata."

I really do wish, that they would provide a link or something to tell you where it is, if it's unpublished, or what have you. The same with FAQs, Setting the search box to Everything doesn't return answers from the FAQs. It should be more like search Everything*.

*Everything but the place that has the most definitive answers to questions.

Not to be too snarky about it, but since this little bit of technological sorcery escapes Paizo, I'm not surprised that the Unarmed Strikes problem you mention hasn't been resolved since 2008.

Yeah, I actually PM'd a couple of the PDT about the thread being marked as answered in the FAQ but none of them could really give me an answer as to how it was answered....

Answer...

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qk0

Quote:


Monk: Does the extra attack from spending ki as part of a flurry of blows stack with the extra attack from haste?

Yes. The extra attack described in the ki pool ability doesn't say it works like haste, nor does it say that it doesn't stack with haste, so the monk would get two additional attacks (one from spending a ki point as part of a flurry, one from haste).

This was answered in the long dark era between them deciding that FoB would require two weapon fighting (meaning half your attacks were with one fist or weapon, and the other half were with a 2nd weapon).

After the several month revolt by the players they changed their minds on how it all worked.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.

PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).

One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.

After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.

Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.

5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.

5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.

And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?

So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.

Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).

But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.

I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.

I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.

Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.

Then again I'm all for moving the game along.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd say so - note though that dragon ferocity doesn't give 1.5 str to the rest of your flurry - it only adds a bonus = .5 str to your damage - which is different.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
coyote6 wrote:
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.

If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.

That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.

As long as you don't have the "you can't take 10 on perception checks due to immediate danger" GM's when there is no combat you should be fine. However some people do like to roll instead of taking 10, so in that case things could slow down.

I will most likely stick with the old rule.

My 15th level Trap Spotter never took 10 once.

Occasionally I have a character that does, but that shouldn't be the point.

Taking 10 is the alternative to the normal rules of rolling dice.

It shouldn't be the default.

And what happens when someone takes 10, and they don't find anything?

They roll anyways.

It's not alternative - it's a 'you can use this' rule that a GM has to houserule out if they don't like it. Once you houserule take 10 then why even bother caring what the book says about searching - talk to your GM to see what he's making rules up about that on. A player that is in a *hurry* takes 10 - a player who isn't takes 20 - the only difference is time - time that eats at a players running buff spells - time that might prompt the GM to roll the random encounter table - time that lets a GM track about how long the efforts of the party are taking to play into the background plot or if they are on a timer keep the clock ticking.

Besides - what does a player do that rolls a 1 on their search do - they roll again. That's the point of take 20 to begin with. At some point the person rolling is either going to be happy with a number between 10 and 20 - or he'll roll a 20. I'd say the guy that forces the table through tons of rolls instead of saying 'I take 20' is the one slowing the game down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Lost In Limbo wrote:
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.
Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...

You don't have to - the only thing having a defined area does to search is give the GM the ability to *reliably* and *consistently* determine the time it takes to search a given area. Without the definition you get various interpretations - which is exactly why PFS should have this kind of definition - because it tries to eliminate table variance at all opportunities.

It does however stop the players from searching a 200x200 warehouse top to bottom taking 20 in 2 minutes... so it has the 'makes search a bit more realistic' thing going for it also.

On the other hand, you have to take just as long to search the nearly bare room as the cluttered one, so realism is still stretched a bit.

Sure - but one one hand you have players that want to search the grand canyon to 'visible range' with one take 20 - on the other you have GM's that want to make you specify each drawer you open.

In the middle is a defined area - that a roll covers - regardless of what's inside that area - it would be assumed if you are taking 20 on a 10x10 of empty (save for the floorboards) area you are going to check for hidden\loose boards and empty spaces - or trick doors etc...

Any system that attempts to simulate reality via a dice roll is going to loose to credibility somewhere - I don't see why it isn't a bad idea to have a defined area as a middle ground.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Lost In Limbo wrote:
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.
Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...

You don't have to - the only thing having a defined area does to search is give the GM the ability to *reliably* and *consistently* determine the time it takes to search a given area. Without the definition you get various interpretations - which is exactly why PFS should have this kind of definition - because it tries to eliminate table variance at all opportunities.

It does however stop the players from searching a 200x200 warehouse top to bottom taking 20 in 2 minutes... so it has the 'makes search a bit more realistic' thing going for it also.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

What's the average dungeon size?

36 squares by 24?

That's 864 squares.

And, with this new idea, you can only search 4 at a time?

That's over 200 die rolls.

I don't feel the need to spell out a concern greater than that.

You enter a room (60x60)

player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
Player: "take 20"
GM: "alright it takes you 2*6 = 12 minutes to search the room"

When do you ever use dice to search a room? I get rolling to be surprised or notice something off - but on a search? In a hurry - take 10 the above becomes:

player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
player: "take 10"
GM: "alright it takes you (2 move = 1 round = 20x20 = 3 rounds for 60x60) = (3*6 seconds) 12 seconds to sweep the room ....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My reading of the rules say:

The funnel makes 2 separate items into one - so fire (1d6) + acid (1d6) become a new item:

Flask of fire/acid (1d6 fire/1d6 acid)

Throw anything doesn't add the int bonus twice to this item - your damage would be 1d6 fire, 1d6 acid + int bonus.

So if you apply this to an arrow it doesn't add anything (as throw anything doesn't apply) - so you get:

1d6 fire/1d6 acid/1d8 arrow - not sure where you are getting any delayed damage from this - I'm not seeing it.

As to the second question:

Creating the bomb is a standard. Adding it to the weapon is a move. If the bomb isn't used in the round it's created - it becomes a dud. " Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert"

Thus - unless you have a way to take a second standard action to actually fire or swing the weapon - no. The problem isn't putting the bomb on a weapon - as of level 6 you could do this and hand the arrow/weapon to another character to use - rather the problem is that creating the bomb is *always* a standard action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well you can have all the overrun feats - but the target can choose to avoid you negating all of them. Overrun is a standard action.

Trample uses a full round action and the target can't avoid you - but there isn't a roll and therefore the target can't be knocked prone. You automatically get an attack on the trample for each square you move through.

So the major differences:

Overrun:


  • uses a standard action
  • requires a CMB check - if this fails you stop in front of them
  • can be improved to not provoke
  • can be improved to make an AoO if your CMB beats the defender by 5 or more
  • can be avoided by any enemy

Trample:

  • uses a full round action
  • requires no CMB check - you always move through the enemy
  • gets one attack per creature moved though (no more than 1 attack per creature
  • does provoke or the defender gets a chance for 1/2 damage
  • can't be improved (as it doesn't make a CMB check there is nothing to improve
  • can not be avoided by an enemy unless they have evasion and take the save option

Charge Through would use the overrun rules above - you just get a free overrun check on one opponent during a charge - all the improvements and such should apply to that check (like improved trip would apply to a free trip attempt from a different ability).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well if the animal knows the trick they should only need to make the DC 10 (or 12) handle animal roll to make them do what they want.

Flank is a trick - so if you say 'flank' it should attempt to do so assuming you make the roll.

The animals/familiars at our table have separate initiatives so that makes it rather interesting - outside of a given command to attack the animal will stay by it's master in guard mode - they should automatically attack anything that gets close and attacks their master.

There are also tricks for combat maneuvers - I figure if they know 'trip' they will try every attack - if you take the 'trick' they will only do so when commanded, regardless of if they have the trip special ability or not (same goes for other special abilities - grab for instance is automatic unless you teach them the trick - then it's on command).

A push is to get them to do a trick that they don't currently have - which would include sneaking up on the wizard for example. The 'link' a druid has with an AC should allow them quite a bit more control and leeway than you'd expect over a real world type situation - and if you ever have seen some advanced dog training videos you know that what we can do without special links and abilities is already quite amazing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

If you are asking for the wording from the unchained book which would give us a hint while we are waiting, the reason is that the book is not allowed to be quoted until the pdf is up for sale. They have been deleting direct quotes from the book.

Right, which is kinda my point. The reason he is being coy is because Paizo intends to charge for a rule that was "accidentally omitted" in the first place. It tastes bad.

Or they aren't doing that, which means that the rule wasn't meant to be included all along.

Really? For a company that gives away every rule they've ever printed that's a pretty unreasonable and unjustified statement to make.

Considering the only rule they have is 'no rules text before the official book is released to the public' I have a hard time finding it unreasonable, unfair, or even that much of a bother.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Although you could take the VMC for rogue - giving you +1d6 sneak attack at 7 - and take a level of ninja at 8.

That lets you take arcane trickster at 9 - only being down 1 level of spellcasting - so the choice you have to make is full spellcasting as a wizard but only 8 levels of trickster - or only 19 levels of spellcasting but all 10 levels of trickster.

If the prestige class appeals to you - the 'capstone' of surprise spells, how high in level you expect the campaign to go, and how much full casting matters to you would all factor into your choice.

While not explicitly called out in the VMC, you cannot normally take levels in both rogue and ninja. There are a couple other ways to get sneak attack, however (vivisectionist alchemist for one).

Yeah but using regular multiclassing with VMC is already an optional rule to an optional rule - I'm unsure how the vivisectionist would stack as it calls out it's not 'extra' sneak attack but uses the combined levels of the other class and itself to determine total sneak attack dice. The VMC rules give no guidelines on how to determine 'effective class level' from the alternate class.

While the ninja and the rogue don't usually work together - in this type of multiclassing I don't see why they would be a problem as the secondary class abilities don't come into play to make the game unbalanced (such as a level 2 character having 2d6 sneak attack). Lots of 'ifs' in regards to how your table plays it out and 'talk to your GM to see if they will allow it' in the entire thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?

Sent PM - with very little time left on the 'embargo' I'm trying to behave and not invoke the anger of the staff ;) We are allowed to PM stuff so that is what I did.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Although you could take the VMC for rogue - giving you +1d6 sneak attack at 7 - and take a level of ninja at 8.

That lets you take arcane trickster at 9 - only being down 1 level of spellcasting - so the choice you have to make is full spellcasting as a wizard but only 8 levels of trickster - or only 19 levels of spellcasting but all 10 levels of trickster.

If the prestige class appeals to you - the 'capstone' of surprise spells, how high in level you expect the campaign to go, and how much full casting matters to you would all factor into your choice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DragonBringerX wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
I prefer an active shield system that removes the static AC bonuses, like this.
Actually that IS pretty good. I would still have a static bonus to AC from shields, but overall I think I like that a lot. May have to update my shield rules with that.

I'll be honest - I like yours better - although I think a mix (no AC bonus - like the second system - but a block eats the damage like yours) would be the best system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just wanted to say thank you for no peanuts - I love the cardboard corners - it was a huge step up from the mess of peanuts previous shipments came in.

Unchained is great - love the quality and the feel of the pages is on target - no sticky pages like the monstrous codex!

I did have some odd claw divits on the front cover (not serious enough to make me upset - but figured you might want to know) - and an odd shallow cut on the back cover (same - not really enough to make me upset - but it did seem weird).

Looking forward to Occult Mysteries :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Akerlof wrote:

What am I missing here? Area A8, "Mammy's Room" is listed as a CR 11 encounter in the Anniversary edition. But it's just Mammy at CR 8 and 3 zombies at CR 1/2 each, far shy of CR 11. The terrain seems favorable for the PCs, so am I missing a trap or something? 4800 + 3*200 = 5400 xp, still closer to CR 8 than 9 and only about 40% of what a CR 11 encounter should be. I'm thinking about buffing her up to level 10, and maybe strengthening the zombies, so my PCs don't just walk in and murder her in a round or a round and a half.

Similar question for area A15, "Kennel." 3 CR 2s does not a CR 7 make.

I've looked through this thread and searched the forum, but am not seeing any comments on these CRs, so I'm thinking I'm missing something. But can't for the life of me figure it out.

She's more like a CR9.

I made the encounter into a CR 11 - my players should encounter it this Tuesday (depending on if we play this week due to RL stuff).

What I did:
** spoiler omitted **...

Further changes:

Spoiler:

A5 - Playpen:
Add 1 level of fighter to each ogrekin - HP are now 36 each - give each weapon focus shortspear for +9 to hit. Now CR 5

A12 - no change needed

A 15 - add 2 levels of fighter to two of the ogrekin - add 1 level to the last.

Here is the statblock

--------------------
Hograth CR 4
XP 1,200
Male human ogrekin fighter 4 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 204)
CE Medium humanoid (giant, human)
Init +5; Senses low-light vision; Perception +6
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 13 (+1 Dex, +3 natural)
hp 46 (4d10+20)
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +2 (+1 vs. fear)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee shortspear +11 (1d6+8)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 13, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +4; CMB +10 (+14 grapple); CMD 21 (25 vs. grapple)
Feats Cleave, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (shortspear), Weapon Specialization (shortspear)
Skills Climb +11, Intimidate +3, Perception +6, Survival +5, Swim +10
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Other Gear shortspear
--------------------
Ecology
--------------------
Environment any
Organization solitary of family (2-6)
Treasure npc gear (spear, other treasure)
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Cleave If you hit a foe, attack an adjacent target at the same attack bonus but take -2 AC.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
--------------------

--------------------

--------------------
Jeppo CR 4
XP 1,200
Male human ogrekin fighter 4 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 204)
CE Medium humanoid (giant, human)
Init +5; Senses low-light vision; Perception +8
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+1 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 natural)
hp 46 (4d10+20)
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +4 (+1 vs. fear)
Weaknesses light sensitivity
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee shortspear +10 (1d6+6)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 13, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +4; CMB +10 (+12 bull rush); CMD 22 (24 vs. bull rush)
Feats Cleave, Dodge, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack
Skills Climb +11, Intimidate +3, Perception +8, Survival +5, Swim +10
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Other Gear shortspear
--------------------
Ecology
--------------------
Environment any
Organization solitary of family (2-6)
Treasure npc gear (spear, other treasure)
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Cleave If you hit a foe, attack an adjacent target at the same attack bonus but take -2 AC.
Improved Bull Rush You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when bull rushing.
Light Sensitivity (Ex) Dazzled as long as remain in bright light.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
--------------------

--------------------

--------------------
Sugar CR 3
XP 800
Male human ogrekin fighter 3 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 204)
CE Medium humanoid (giant, human)
Init +5; Senses low-light vision; Perception +1
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 13 (+1 Dex, +3 natural)
hp 36 (3d10+15)
Fort +9, Ref +2, Will +4 (+1 vs. fear)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee shortspear +8 (1d6+5)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 21, Dex 13, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +3; CMB +8; CMD 19
Feats Cleave, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack
Skills Acrobatics +1 (-3 to jump), Climb +9, Swim +9
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Other Gear shortspear
--------------------
Ecology
--------------------
Environment any
Organization solitary of family (2-6)
Treasure npc gear (spear, other treasure)
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Cleave If you hit a foe, attack an adjacent target at the same attack bonus but take -2 AC.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Akerlof wrote:

What am I missing here? Area A8, "Mammy's Room" is listed as a CR 11 encounter in the Anniversary edition. But it's just Mammy at CR 8 and 3 zombies at CR 1/2 each, far shy of CR 11. The terrain seems favorable for the PCs, so am I missing a trap or something? 4800 + 3*200 = 5400 xp, still closer to CR 8 than 9 and only about 40% of what a CR 11 encounter should be. I'm thinking about buffing her up to level 10, and maybe strengthening the zombies, so my PCs don't just walk in and murder her in a round or a round and a half.

Similar question for area A15, "Kennel." 3 CR 2s does not a CR 7 make.

I've looked through this thread and searched the forum, but am not seeing any comments on these CRs, so I'm thinking I'm missing something. But can't for the life of me figure it out.

She's more like a CR9.

I made the encounter into a CR 11 - my players should encounter it this Tuesday (depending on if we play this week due to RL stuff).

What I did:

Spoiler:

Give her 3 zombies the fast and host body templates - each zombie now has a flesh eating cockroach swarm inside of it that will burst out when killed - the zombies are meant to go down fast - the swarms are much more horrible for my players at least.

Added 3 pickled punks (Bestiary 4) to the encounter - these will start to thrash on round one - falling and breaking open - if you've not looked up these monsters... well enjoy - they fit the theme of the room and house perfectly.

Added one more zombie to the encounter. Made a riding dog/ogrekin/dread zombie (dread zombie from the advanced bestiary) taking inspiration from others in the suggestions thread to have a really horrible 'offspring' to seal the deal on the squick factor of this house.

Stats are here:

Baby Rex CR 8
XP 4,800
Riding dog ogrekin fighter 3 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 87, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 204)
N Medium undead (animal)
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
Aura command zombies, unnatural aura (undead)
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 20, touch 13, flat-footed 17 (+3 Dex, +7 natural)
hp 70 (5 HD; 2d8+3d10+19)
Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +3 (+1 vs. fear); +2 bonus vs. channeled energy
Defensive Abilities channel resistance +2; Immune undead traits
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee bite +15 (1d8+8), bite +15 (1d6+8), slam +14 (1d6+8)
Special Attacks brain consumption
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 27, Dex 16, Con —, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 13
Base Atk +6; CMB +14; CMD 27 (31 vs. trip)
Feats Improved Natural Attack (bite), Lunge, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Perception), Toughness, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (bite)
Skills Acrobatics +10 (+18 to jump), Perception +8, Stealth +9; Racial Modifiers +4 to survival when tracking by scent
SQ armor training 1
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
+4 to Survival when tracking by Scent +4 to Survival when tracking by Scent.
Brain Consumption (DC 22) (Ex) Death attack by eating the brain of grappled creature.
Channel Resistance +2 +2 bonus to save vs. Channel Energy.
Command Zombies (Su) Automatically command zombies within 30 feet.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Immunity to Ability Drain Immunity to ability drain
Immunity to Bleeds You are immune to bleeds.
Immunity to Death Effects You are immune to death effects.
Immunity to Disease You are immune to diseases.
Immunity to Energy Drain Immune to energy drain
Immunity to Exhausted You are immune to the exhausted condition.
Immunity to Fatigue You are immune to the fatigued condition.
Immunity to Mind-Affecting effects You are immune to Mind-Affecting effects.
Immunity to Nonlethal Damage You are immune to Nonlethal Damage
Immunity to Paralysis You are immune to paralysis.
Immunity to Physical Ability Damage Immune to ability damage to your physical abilities.
Immunity to Poison You are immune to poison.
Immunity to Sleep You are immune to sleep effects.
Immunity to Stunning You are immune to being stunned.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Lunge Can increase reach by 5 ft, but take -2 to AC for 1 rd.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Scent (Ex) Detect opponents within 15+ feet by sense of smell.
Undead Traits Undead have many immunities and use Cha in place of a Con for all effects.
Unnatural Aura (Undead) (Su) Animals do not willingly approach the undead.
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

This adds up to a CR 11 encounter EXP wise - and by adding the 3 swarms/3 punks/1 dread zombie dog - you give alot of fodder to let mammy get some spells off - I plan on having her DDoor out and use 'command undead' in the yard - where I'll have other zombies ready to go ... I was thinking 1d4 rounds for them to surface and then perhaps 1/round until she is killed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ian Bell wrote:
Scrapper wrote:

1st, the -6 Does affect spell casting ability, it is considered a Drain as it requires more than simple rest to recover from.

2nd, I didn't realize the target had a 36 Int score, though bonus spell slots would be lost, randomly selected?

I still admire the use of Mark of Justice, and on a lower Int caster, it would be viable.

Nope, it's just a penalty. Regardless of what method is used to remove it, it isn't drain unless it actually says drain in the spell (it doesn't.)

Um no a curse is worse than a drain - it's a permanent reduction of the stat instantly.

Any stat increase or decrease which is permanent = redo all abilities/modifiers and other such things that rely on that stat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Secondly - regarding natural attacks.

Yes the way I read it - they won't work with FoB - however the monk can attack with any weapon they are holding as *part* of a FoB.

It's frustrating to not just post the text but to me I read that as different than (say) TWF. Currently if you (for whatever reason) have 3 'hands' and 3 'weapons' you can only use two max (TWF) - FoB doesn't have this limitation - thus if you have a +5 defender, and a +5 vorpal, and a +5 bane you could use your last FoB attack on your defender for the AC boost without giving up the other weapons.

That's just a thought - like I said before I'm thinking tails, vestigial arms, and other weird ways to have extra limbs (fleshcrafting!) which could setup interesting combos with weapon effects previously impossible to do, due to the 'wielding' rules requiring you to make an attack with the weapon, and the rules not supporting these extra limbs.

Does this mean the limbs actually give you more attacks? No - but they can be used to wield during a flurry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
funny how devs tend to think making things needlessly limiting for monks is a buff. unarmed combat is so prohibitive that it's literally more cost-effective to cut off your arm and get a prosthesis than to use the limb you were born with to hit things. and lovely slaps in the face like the bodywraps of mighty strikes and the brawling armor enchant.

Sadly this still won't work with Flying Kick as the leg is not enchantable. :-(

Edit: Ha! I guess this would fall under the genre of SteamMonk

Um if that's what has everyone nervous about the 'use of specific body parts' - unless I'm totally mistaken - if you get an amulet it works on your entire body as a monk.

Same thing with magic fang. For the idea of FoB when you use that each attack is using 'your body' the specific body parts are only flavor text (well outside of if you have that specific body part unavailable for some reason).

When you use a style strike - you make an attack and do damage with it (including the kick) - it's just an 'unarmed strike' - without special rules regarding damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AndIMustMask wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

How do you figure?

Should be Unarmed at highest, another at highest, -5, then -10.

At least the way I read it, Style Strikes take the place of one of your Flurry attacks, not are in addition to.

Well yeah, but you said

Rynjin wrote:
then one attack at -5 (plus another at -5

and the unchained monk never gets more than one -5 attack. I was assuming you were referring to the second add-on from flurry at 11th level, which is at full BAB.

Maybe you meant core monk, and I missed the context.

Oh durr, right. I forgot both of the NuFlurry attacks were just extra attacks.
if you went for the TWF feats, would they get tacked on top at the end, or do they not allow interaction with each other?

TWF doesn't stack with flurry - it is a special thing that doesn't work with other things, a monk can use 2 weapons or more if they have more limbs honestly, but they get no extra attacks from them when using the flurry feature. It stacks with haste, and other similar effects.

That did just give me an idea - about a tiefling with the prehensile tail, and enough alchemest to get the extra arm - and monk flurry with a bunch of weapons that did interesting effects on hit....

Because you know... why not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

How do you figure?

Should be Unarmed at highest, another at highest, -5, then -10.

At least the way I read it, Style Strikes take the place of one of your Flurry attacks, not are in addition to.

Hrmmm depends on your level - you get 2 extra attacks at 11 ...

So a UC monk at 11 will FoB at: +11/+11/+11/+6/+1 before modifiers


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
master arminas wrote:
...why the text on Flurry of Blows was changed to allow for Two-Handed Weapons to gain 1.5x Str-bonus on damage?

If you ruin this for the rest of us I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN.

J/K

(But seriously, why question or risk messing up a positive change?)

Because I want to know what the intent behind it was. The rationale of the change.

:)

MA

Just be sure to make it absolutely clear to the designers that you are not looking to have it changed, and I think we can still be friends. :P

I have to be honest - for a monk that doesn't mind using a weapon (which allows the full +10 enchantment stack) this change alone is a game changer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spook205 wrote:


Most of the APs punish players for having the unbridled gall of not following a script they don't even know about. The party OP talks about is trying something clever...

I'm pretty upfront with my players about it - The AP has a story and a timeline - they are free to ignore things as they want - but the timeline will continue regardless of how they want to proceed.

If they decide to go off chasing butterflies they'll have to put up with custom stuff from me, and the possibility that bad things could happen - if they are interested in the story I provide as much as possible in terms of clues and direction without giving them a 'go do this' card.

I adapt to their goofiness all the time, and thus make changes to the plot and such as it goes along. I have side quests and plot lines that have nothing to do with the AP thrown in - so far about 3/4 of them were ignored. So be it - either way I try to make sure they have options and don't feel *forced* into any one thing.

In this particular instance though I think the problem wasn't the 'railroad' - it was that the players felt bored in Sandpoint - which I have a hard time wrapping my head around, as we spent 2 months (weekly sessions of around 4 hours a session) just playing around there. The trick to playing this AP in the beginning is to make sure things *happen* when the players start to look a little shifty in their seats. There are many encounters in the AP proper to keep the action moving along - if you just say 'nothing happens' and 'what are you doing' players are going to go wild. If you need a timelapse between event a and event b it's entirely reasonable to say the next week is uneventful - would anyone like to do crafting during this time.... and skip to the action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LoreKeeper wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I still think there is a great deal of overreaction here about the will save - all about a single spell that is rarely cast - that is only a threat in the late game (or by very rare specific monsters - where that is the *only* offense they have like a standard aboleth). As many people point out there are a ton of tables that never even take the game that high level. Honestly if your play experience consists of wave after wave of casters that were built with max spell focus and stats casting dominate every session I humbly suggest it's not the game that is letting you down.

But isn't the converse also true? Wouldn't it have been just-as-fine if the monk kept good Will saves? There are plenty of other ways in which multi-classing monks could be balanced to make them less attractive for dips.

Sure - I get being upset, however there is upset and overreacting - saying the unchained monk is worthless because of a lowered will save is overreacting.

I said previously and I'll say it again to make my point - I like the idea of tying still mind to enhanced will saves - (+2 will saves when you get it and +1 more at 8, 12, 16, 20) which stops the 'omg I must dip' and brings the save back to what it was without really massively changing anything. It would be just as easy to give a new ki power -

Power of Self (Ex) As long as a monk has 1 point of ki in his pool he is immune to domination effects. He can still be charmed however any command that would be against his will causes the spell to automatically end. A monk must be at least 8th level to take this power.

That's another way to do it - which would still allow the monk to have a weakness for balance reasons yet stop the biggest complaint I see here which is 'kill your party' or 'unplayable for hours' (although from my own experience the only thing that actually makes you 'unplayable for hours' is death - I've never seen dominate last longer than a fight - either it dies and thus ends the dominate or your party dies and thus ends the game at that point - my experience isn't everyones FWIW).

I think the limited ki pool and no decent (current) ways to regenerate or regain Ki on a reliable basis are valid criticisms. I think some abilities are wonky but overall I think the class changes are a major improvement, and reserve a 'wow you guys totally can't design a game' comments for after I've had some serious experience playing it. I do understand the idea of balance in game design - and giving weaknesses is part of that design, otherwise every class could just start the game with 10,000 hps and full casting with a BAB of +80. The game isn't fun if there is no room for failure anywhere.

The opposite is true as well - the game isn't fun when your main abilities are either resisted, unusable, or just don't work right - which is how the old FoB was - unable to move to flurry - and typically whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff. You got to hit now and then but even when most of your flurry connected you did 23 damage (minus whatever DR) and the barbarian went up and hit once for 38. The barbarian could afford to have power attack running due to full BAB and no TWF penalties. The unchained monk can now do the same - meaning the damage will be closer to par and won't go further and further into dismal land. Instead of needing to spend 1 ki point for a burst of speed for one round - I can take that ki power and use it for 1 minute. Yes it's not automatic - but I can take it if I want it. The style strike 'flying kick' makes the monk way more mobile and gives the ability to pounce before any other martial. One of the style strikes lets the monk ignore *any* DR or hardness for a single hit - combined with pummeling style you could build quite a beast with this, and pummeling style is no longer a required feat line to get the most out of flurry. That alone is great - as it make the style no longer a 'kludge' fix, but instead an interesting option that isn't mandatory.

There is quite a bit to like about the unchained monk that goes beyond the will saves - I hope we continue to see style strikes and ki abilities added to the game to support it - my biggest worry is that unchained being an 'optional' book we may not see archetype and ability support we would if it were core.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@wraithstrike

I didn't see anyone answer you so here it is...

1st monk - FoB(1 more attack - only restriction is monk weapon), stunning fist, unarmed strike, choose one: Catch off-guard, combat reflexes, deflect arrows, dodge, improved grapple, scorpion style, throw anything.

1d10 hps - +1 BAB

Saves +2 +2 +0

Is it an attractive dip? Yes - for the new FoB the extra attack works with a 2h monk weapon (now any weapon that says 'monk' - they are all auto proficient and usable) for 1.5 str. If you need unarmed combat - it's attractive for the extra attack and feat. If you are looking for grapple, dodge, combat reflexes - the rest of the stuff is decent and extra.

The only downside to the extra attack is the restrictions on using armor or shields. That won't stop barbarians perhaps - but fighters will most likely skip it as they get plenty of feats anyway. Other classes YMMV.

I still think there is a great deal of overreaction here about the will save - all about a single spell that is rarely cast - that is only a threat in the late game (or by very rare specific monsters - where that is the *only* offense they have like a standard aboleth). As many people point out there are a ton of tables that never even take the game that high level. Honestly if your play experience consists of wave after wave of casters that were built with max spell focus and stats casting dominate every session I humbly suggest it's not the game that is letting you down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well as much as I think people are over-reacting to the will save (you can - although I really like the change to still mind above - and think I will adopt that in my games!) - I am on board with the 'formless mastery' ki ability. Honestly it just reads weird - and as written it is either a very poor choice, or not doing what it intended. Based on the flavor text and rules text I see it trying to do one thing but not.

As written it:


  • requires the monk to not have any style feats
  • requires the opponent to be in an active style

As flavored it:

  • requires the monk to not be in any *active* styles
  • doesn't require the opponent to do anything special

The first is way to restrictive. The second would be fantastic and give awesome situational use that gives monk players an interesting choice in using ki for combat bonuses (as his swift action) or to be in a style stance.

I think the first thought was 'omg the bonuses are too good he'll use this every time' - except no - stances are good enough that you won't - but the bonuses are good enough to make you think about using a stance or not. Add to that, that the new monk is ki intensive and using 1 point of ki every turn is just not something done lightly and I feel that someone knee jerked the rules on this ability as it stands.

Any chance we could get insight Mark?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gisher wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
So no, under the current rules there's nothing unique about the fighter, unless you want to cite bravery, armor training or weapon training.
At least one archetype, the Myrmidarch Magus, gets partial armor and weapon training, so even those aren't unique.

Well from that perspective Wizard aren't unique either...

familiar? Fighters can get that...

cast spells? Witch, Bard, Sorcerer, etc.

Lots of skills? Alchemist, rogue, etc.

Arcane school? Nope other classes can take that too...

Right now I'm trying to think of any class that has a unique ability... the only thing I can think of is a paladin's smite. Pretty much any other class has abilities that are shared or stolen by other classes and/or archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:

I'm thinking about combining the trait system and the background skill system. If a trait grants you a class skill, and you already have the skill from your class list, it's instead treated as a Background skill.

So a ranger with a theoretical trait called Avid Hunter that grants Survival as a class skill would be able to put his Background skill points into Survival... Thoughts?

If we are going to talk about alternate skill systems why not try this:

Trait bonus[all classes]:
If you take a trait that grants you a class skill you already have as a class skill - this trait instead gives you 1 skill rank at levels 1,5,10,15 and 20. These skill ranks stack with the skill ranks you put into the skill. This means at level 20 your max skill ranks are now 25 for that skill.

That gives some extra skill points to spread around or the player can become a legendary (whatever).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Also, monks losing their movement (now called Sudden Speed) and...
Wait, is fast movement no longer constantly active?
He's referring specifically to the core monk's ki pool having the innate ability to buy extra movement. The Unchained monk's ki pool has only one innate ability: buying extra attacks on a flurry. The extra move and the AC bonus have both become ki powers.

Yeah, I saw this last night in one of Cerebus Seven's posts. I DO NOT like this. It takes away from the Monk what he has been able to do since Pathfinder began. Sure, you can pick these as ki powers . . . but should they HAVE to pick?

It is another nerf on a class that didn't need a nerf.

I'll still buy the book and the PDF, but I'm getting more and more disappointed hearing about the details.

MA

Well you could pick almost all the same abilities and have almost the exact same skillset.

Of course the new stuff is just so juicy it'll be hard to justify it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Two things really...

First when doing DPR on 'old flurry' vs. 'new flurry'.

This was done on a 10th level character so did you start the fight 30 feet away?

Because if so new flurry is 'flying kick' and full flurry - meaning pounce essentially (flying kick = move up to your bonus speed at any time during a flurry which includes before the first blow). Because it's a flurry he can spend his ki for the extra attack.

Old flurry is 'move and get 1 attack'

'new flurry' is now 3 attacks ahead of old flurry.

That is the problem. There was already a solution to that problem- pummeling charge. It made those more than even in mobility (and I do not know if flying kick spends ki; if it does, then pummel is much, much better).

Ok - so old monk requires 2 feats to do what the new monk does for free. Except the new monk has +2 better to hit across the board before any other buffs/abilities/etc. Which means the new monk can take power attack for one of the feats the old monk used to 'pummel' so....

Yea?

*edit* - flying kick is not a ki power - it's a 'choose one of these once during a flurry of blows for free' power - and at higher level you can choose two of the options.

Quote:


It was pretty much tailor made to solve a large, large swath of monk problems. Heck, even enhancement is less of a problem- since you blast through DR, you can use greater magic weapon/fang with impunity while using an amulet of natural armor instead.

And I will stick to my guns on the old monk...mostly because there was such a large mass of archetypes built to deal with the problem. Archetypes that gave options that are not available to the unchained monk.

Yep - and the new monk give the most used and popular of those as part of the base class (Qinggong Power)and the best ability is now available at level 6 (abundant step).

Quote:


Sohei would likely be working with a +9 or +11 bonus on hits if, depending on items. Maneuver master could have them blind, deaf, and nauseated with dirty tricks and the like (making them easy pickings, even with 'meh' melee). Tetori could hogtie ghosts before they even had time to ask 'lol wut?'

And the new monk can also use items - thus being +11 or +12 on hits... (still +2 better). New monk can still use Maneuver master.

New monk can also (for free without archtypes) choose to stagger, or trip, or ignore DR, or double damage, or make a foe flat footed.

With no feat investment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Two things really...

First when doing DPR on 'old flurry' vs. 'new flurry':

This was done on a 10th level character so did you start the fight 30 feet away?

Because if so new flurry is 'flying kick' and full flurry - meaning pounce essentially (flying kick = move up to your bonus speed at any time during a flurry which includes before the first blow). Because it's a flurry he can spend his ki for the extra attack.

Old flurry is 'move and get 1 attack'

'new flurry' is now 3 attacks ahead of old flurry.

2nd round...

Old flurry gets +8/+8/+3/+3 + ki attack +8

New flurry gets +10/+10/+5/+5 + ki attack +10 (elbow smash for the first +5 - does nonlethal damage though). Mind elbow smash is just one of several options (of which are +4 dodge AC, root target in place (can't move away), double damage on hit (like vital strike - extra damage die not doubled on crit), free combat maneuver, knockback, bypass all DR, make foe flat footed - the only one that grants the extra attack (at -5) is elbow smash however.

I fail to see how the old flurry is better in any way.

New flurry is +2/+2/+2/+2 better than the old flurry - and the ki strike is +2 better - and new flurry gives options other than that last attack at +5 depending on what you want to accomplish.

I like Ki Hurricane as well - it's a high cost - but double your speed (include monk bonus speed) and flurry of blows for 1 ki per hit with any movement up to your max at any time during the flurry. Must be 10th level - note while doing a flurry you can still do a style attack - so a 10th level medium sized monk will have 120' move at which point (at the end) they can move 30' and still pounce. That's 150' of movement and full attack for the cost of 3-5 ki points (depending on if you want that extra strike).

Do I think the unchained monk is perfect - undecided - I need to see it in action - however the stamina pool ability I think would finish the job - there are many (frankly awesome) stamina uses on all the combat feats, and I wonder if stamina should be on the monk bonus feat list or given for free.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I'm extremely interested if the stamina pool actually has an effect on a Fighter's non-martial defenses (i.e. saves, resistances), base movement, and other stuff, feats of which generally fall under General, not combat.

Anyone got any outliers to contribute on this?

==Aelryinth

I just looked through this again - the answer is no. Currently all stamina based things are enhancements to combat feats. Almost every combat feat is enhanced by stamina.

No base movement. No saves (although combat feats that give a bonus to saves may allow a re-roll for example), no resistances, etc.

I can see expanding the system to other things - but as it stands it's a way to expand combat feats.

So, ugh.

Does nothing but make some combat feats stronger...which they needed, but doesn't help the main problem with the fighter - defense, movement and versatility out of combat.

Wahoo.

==Aelryinth

No - I think the systems you are looking for are:

* alternate action economy (in the book)
* alternate skill system with background skills (in the book)
* honestly I have no idea what you want more for defense... the fighter can rock the armor and physical protection, if you mean magic - well yeah he still needs to rely on other characters for something.

Honestly with the reaction to background skills (short version - 2 skill points per level only usable on non-combat related skills - all classes get these) which seems to be very loved by many people I think you can take care of the 'versatility' part.

The movement part is pretty much the same as everyone else in terms of getting a full attack off - however the action economy works pretty well at fixing that - it is across the board for all characters though. (short version - get three small actions/round that can be used for attack or move (single) each - or combined for more complex actions.

Outside of that I honestly don't see a problem with any character type having a weakness. If that's defense for a fighter (in terms of magical) then so be it (my opinion)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Keeping on topic...

Hopes: A second strategy guide that covers the APG, ACG, and OA. it can be called... 'the advanced strategy guide'.

A GM book that goes into tips/tricks for running a game - including how to handle (with perhaps 2-3 alt systems) for handling flying combat, mounted combat, etc. How to scale and build CR encounters, make the world more interesting and such :) A nice section on how to prep for a game and run it - which would hopefully get more people interesting in running their own games.

A mea culpa on Mythic that has them at least put out a web suppliment on what changes they suggest to fix some of the mythic rules. I know this would be a huge 'cost' for them in terms of production/testing/etc. however I think it would be a good move if they want that rulebook to have any life in the future.

Fears: More product lines I can't buy and or afford. More pirate stuff (not a huge fan - tired of it at this point - I'll take a spaceship adventure with an oriental vibe, that dimension hops to different worlds while time traveling to the future with giant mechs and nuclear submarines at this point as awesome before I want another pirate themed anything).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

It's an aside but, specifically relating to social encounters, have you seen the Social Comabt cards?

I wasnt really taken with them, to be honest (it's a little too game-within-a-game for me), but I used them a few weeks ago and the players really enjoyed them. One player in particular has a pet hate about most skills being valueless and found that the inclusion of some of those here was a huge plus. Another likes the idea of diplomacy/interaction scenes but doesnt really get into them in character - this was a way everyone could be involved in a social scene, irrespective of their personalities/roleplaying "skill".

Ok now I'm intrigued - how many decks do you *need* to enable your table to use these - can they mix with people who are just roleplaying or if you use them does everyone really need them...

Are we talking a deck per player?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

*Reads Dabbler's review"

*Cries*

The Unchained Monk was basically the only reason I was considering purchasing this book. From what I can see, none of the core problems were fixed, and in some ways the class was actually WEAKENED.

WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

I read the review - agree with his concerns over the monk - however disagree on his conclusion of the changes. I think they look awesome and can't wait to playtest them.

Some of the ki powers are game changers from a read through..


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
So i notice the UNC monk actually does well with a couple vmcs. Pick up channel for for guided hand or do rogue and pair that with the spin kick strike for sneak attack awesomesauce.

Makes me wish I was a player.

Quote:
barbarian gets rage at 3rd, but no rage powers until 11th.
I'd give 5 feats for rage! How does that work? And you get Uncanny Dodge at 7th, Greater Rage at 15th, and another Rage Power at 19th, I take?

Greater is at 19

you get DR at 15

You got Uncanny dodge spot on. Rage = con mod + level rounds per day just like a barb


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dread Knight wrote:

Posting my question again.

What does a VMC Summoner and VMC Ranger get?

Summoner

Spoiler:

3rd level - summon monster clvl -2

7th - eidolon clvl -4 1/2 evolution points

11 - summon monster 3/day

15 - shield ally

19 - aspect but only 1 evolution point

Ranger

Spoiler:

3rd - Track at clvl=clvl

7th - 1st favored enemy

11th - 1st favored terrain

15th - woodland stride, swift track

19th - quarry


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Tels wrote:


I'd wait on this. Someone in this thread pointed out that the the recent Concealment FAQ implies the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment. However, in reading the Unchained Rogue, they don't have any ability that allows them to sneak attack a target under partial concealment. It's certainly intended to (based off the FAQ), but the wording for it isn't there.

It's a technicality to be sure, but without the wording from the FAQ, we wouldn't know about the intention at all. I don't know the wording myself, but the other posted said that, based off what's printed, you wouldn't draw the idea that the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment.

I disagree 100%.

Read the rogue in unchained - then find sneak attack and read the last line.

Now go to your core rulebook and do the same.

Let me repeat them here for clarity.
** spoiler omitted **
Note the difference - the wording and intent are there - ignore the line above which is fluff to setup the actual rule - which is the last line in each sneak attack paragraph.

*edit* added spoiler as I got ahead of myself there for a second :)

I'll wait for you to catch up in the posts.

If you mean this:

Quote:
Like I said, it's a technicality, but the general rule is 'Concealment stops precision damage' and the Unchained Rogue does not specifically state that the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets benefiting from partial concealment.

No it doesn't.

Went to the PRD - looked at the section titled concealment - nothing about precision damage in that section. The only place where the 'general' rule is listed is under the class 'rogue' - which would be replaced by the new class in unchained - which doesn't have a general rule about concealment - but a specific one about total concealment. That's a rules debate however and we can take it up in the rules forum or by private message so not to derail much more.

In other words - I still disagree 100%


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:


I'd wait on this. Someone in this thread pointed out that the the recent Concealment FAQ implies the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment. However, in reading the Unchained Rogue, they don't have any ability that allows them to sneak attack a target under partial concealment. It's certainly intended to (based off the FAQ), but the wording for it isn't there.

It's a technicality to be sure, but without the wording from the FAQ, we wouldn't know about the intention at all. I don't know the wording myself, but the other posted said that, based off what's printed, you wouldn't draw the idea that the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment.

I disagree 100%.

Read the rogue in unchained - then find sneak attack and read the last line.

Now go to your core rulebook and do the same.

Let me repeat them here for clarity.

Spoiler:

CORE
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature
with concealment.

UNCHAINED
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature
with total concealment.


Note the difference - the wording and intent are there - ignore the line above which is fluff to setup the actual rule - which is the last line in each sneak attack paragraph.

*edit* added spoiler as I got ahead of myself there for a second :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

From the 'community created stuff'

Yossarian wrote:

Apologies, it looks like my host went down without me noticing it. Here's the links to the Runelords resources I created.

Sandpoint guide:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10866745/Sandpoint_guide_v1.2.pdf

Detailed may of South West Varisia (many invented locations):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10866745/SW_varisia.pdf

A short guide to the monastery of Alba Lilia that I added not far from Sandpoint:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10866745/Alba_Lilia_monastery.pdf

Enjoy!

Seriously - get the guide.

Here is more stuff:

NPC Cards

Sandpoint player handout

Sandpoint sign

As to making it come alive - I have the NPCs move around - it's not a bad idea to think about which notables frequent which taverns and what time of day they might be there.

My players taught the local kids 'goblin ball' when trying to prepare them for another goblin attack - that was quite a bit of fun :)

Outside of that make them shop around - don't let the general store have everything and if they have the handout they can start looking at the names of the shops and decide where they want to go.

I also ran 'chopper's isle' as a side adventure - which is available for free in Wayfinder # 7

Here is a link to that - it's free - great story and ties into a prominent NPC with further opportunities for the players after it's over to actually get a stake in the town.

My players (at the start of book 3) just bought the island and are in the process of building their own guildhall... :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

I'm extremely interested if the stamina pool actually has an effect on a Fighter's non-martial defenses (i.e. saves, resistances), base movement, and other stuff, feats of which generally fall under General, not combat.

Anyone got any outliers to contribute on this?

==Aelryinth

I just looked through this again - the answer is no. Currently all stamina based things are enhancements to combat feats. Almost every combat feat is enhanced by stamina.

No base movement. No saves (although combat feats that give a bonus to saves may allow a re-roll for example), no resistances, etc.

I can see expanding the system to other things - but as it stands it's a way to expand combat feats.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Don't have the book or PDF yet.

Does the 'stamina' thing address the problems with fighter's weaknesses in saves, versatility, movement, and defenses, as well as out of combat options?

Or is it basically more DPR tricks the fighter doesn't need in the first place?

==Aelryinth

Let me say the section has a *large* list of feats modified by use of stamina, as such I've not read every one of them but was doing a 'scan... check.. scan' of the modifications.

From that impression alone my answer would be:

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, no.

That's first impressions - no playtest time - gut reaction to what I see in the system. I also saw it as a perfect fit for a fighter, and to a lesser extent for a rogue and or monk with the added stipulation that the larger class changes they received may change my mind in actual play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Karui Kage wrote:

As the title says: assuming you are the GM, which Unchained Rules will always see a place in your games? I'm curious which ones people seem to value the most.

Personally, my own list:
CH 1
Unchained Barbarian
Unchained Monk
Unchained Rogue
Unchained Summoner

CH 2
Background Skills
Skill Unlocks (no feat, access limited to Rogue levels)
Variant Multiclassing

CH 3
Combat Stamina (feat requires Fighter 1, additional stamina uses only apply to Combat Feats gained via Fighter Bonus Feats, so as to discourage dipping)

Others?

Unsure about the barbarian changes - the class works pretty darn well as it stands and a read through didn't jump out at me and say 'hey yeah they made a great class into ... a better class' it just seemed kind of like 'they took a great class and made some tweaks and killed rage cycling'

Monk for sure.

Rogue for sure.

Will still ban summoners from my games.

Unsure about skills - skimmed this so far and plan to read it several times before I make up my mind.

Like the multiclassing.

combat stamina available to fighters rogues and monks. Free to fighters.

I like the scaling items.

Those are my thoughts on a first read through - I am not making any changes 'for sure' until I see stuff in action - what's good on paper doesn't match up in play sometimes so I need to see how it works before I commit whole hog.

1 to 50 of 653 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.