Halruun

Deadmanwalking's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 13,175 posts (13,382 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 13,175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

UnArcaneElection wrote:
The LONG slide in that second video has an eerie resemblance to some of my dreams . . . .

I'm obscurely reminded of a story I ran into on the internet years ago. The guy telling it claimed that he'd gone to sleep watching TV and woken up just long enough to see the music video for Weapon of Choice, and for years afterward believed it was a weird dream until he described it to someone and they informed him it was real.

I believe that story.

Liberty's Edge

Corrik wrote:
Resetting fireball traps are most certainly a part of the setting. As are resetting negative energy traps.

Sure, but they don't need to be able to do that an infinite number of times without recharging of some sort. That's the part that the rules say but is completely unnecessary for the setting and allows utopia machines, infinite uses.

Corrik wrote:
They took a disease that was magically created by a necromancer then modified it to be more virulent. I'm not sure where I even suggested that technology couldn't create beneficial microbes and I clearly stated magical disease. I'm not sure what your comment on bio labs is about. The fact that beneficial microbes can be created without magic is a huge argument in favor of them being able to be magically created.

My point was they seemed similarly limited in capability to a modern biowarfare project (replacing our technology with their magic) and there was thus no evidence that they could do any beneficial microbe stuff we haven't done in the real world. And we haven't worked any major miracles as of yet.

Corrik wrote:
Actually construction is a lot of what the working class does in a medieval city. But I didn't say it replaces all of the working class now did I? Being able to spend half an hour to get the same result as 100 people laboring for 3 days(for the minimum is massive. Cities and fleets of ships could be built in an effective blink of an eye. Because yes, if it can build something like a building, then it can build a boat.

I'm skeptical to some degree. It's a very specialized item, and lacks the ability to make Craft or Profession checks. That makes what it can actually achieve in terms of skilled labor (rather than unskilled stuff) extremely mechanically ambiguous.

Corrik wrote:
That is a lot of labor that we no longer need, than can now be focused on becoming skilled laborers.

Okay. Let's assume that it does work this way. I'm not sure how that instantly results in a government offering them the training necessary to do this.

Many governments certainly fail to provide training necessary to be skilled workers in the real world, especially when a profession becomes obsolete.

Corrik wrote:
Who can then focus on creating more magic and money that creates more of a surplus of labor, thus creating more ability to create skilled laborers, thus etc, etc.

Whoah, hold on. How does a laborer getting a bit of training suddenly allow him to perform magic? That requires either a bloodline or something like 10 years of advanced schooling and above-average Intelligence to start with.

Even magic item crafting with Master Craftsman requires being 5th level, and getting someone to 5th level is not as simple as basic training.

Corrik wrote:
Then of course there is automation, which magic more than allows for. For example, horde of unseen servants could take care of a lot of the cleaning and other such menial labor, constructs could be used for hard labor or creating more constructs to do more hard labor. Not that we actually need constructs to mine for us since we can easily conjure raw materials out of thin air. Repair work is simple as Make Whole takes care of the majority of it. Even prestidigitation frees up a lot of chore time. Again, the list goes on. That s@#$ is exponential in a society that has had the available means for centuries, millennia even.

Okay. You're assuming magic items to do all this? None of those are available as at-will magic items for less than a couple of thousand GP. 100s of them is an extraordinarily expensive infrastructure undertaking. Which is a serious short term problem, and one the people of Golarion appear not to have overcome most places (which is perfectly believable, just because something can be done it does not follow that it will).

There's also the economic problem of breakage. Do they get broken more than once every, say, 4 years? If so, hiring people is flatly cheaper, and requires no initial cash investment. Given that Unseen Servants are mindless, I can't imagine there would be less breakage than that. So this is not economical in the most direct fashion.

A government with foresight might well do it and then train people in more skilled trades, but the benefits are gonna take a generation or more to become real and there's gonna be serious cash flow issues in the interim.

And frankly, you have a higher opinion of people than I do if you think most governments plan a generation ahead in an effective manner like that. None having done so is eminently plausible.

Additionally, the long term problem with using magic automation for more than the very basics is that most people are literally incapable of meaningfully creating it. Making most people unemployable creates an undserclass, and a very angry one. Revolution is pretty inevitable at that point. Magic might help you win it...or it might not. And courting revolution is never a smart plan.

Corrik wrote:
"I haven't run across that many construction workers in stories that didn't revolve or involve construction workers" is hardly a compelling argument. You haven't run across all that many farmers. Am I to believe that farmers aren't particularly common? To be fair, the ability to easily conjure food certainly takes away a lot of the need. But I've never once had any of the farmers in the released material talk about all the magical means of crop production they use.

Most farmers don't use magical means of crop production, but then they don't need to. They make a few thousand GP a year from farming. Golarion is apparently super fertile or something. Which actually makes a lot of sense with lots of other things.

Also, in terms of magic food producers, Absalom has a couple, which is how it gets by as an island city.

Corrik wrote:
Yeah no, it's true of Golarion. Take a gander at the spell list some time. They have some modern takes on things and a bit more education on basic information, but the overall foundation remains the same.

It really doesn't. It remains pre-industrial, sure, but medieval? No.

Corrik wrote:
Universal literacy is assumed for play convenience, and has been standard for decades in the d20 system.

Sure, but it's clearly also true for random NPC farmers and the like. It is true in universe.

Corrik wrote:
Local Clerics provide some local health care, but it is very limited and they hardly have the medical infrastructural they RAW could have.

Could and will are very different things. We have sufficient technology and resources to ensure nobody on Earth ever goes hungry and provide free basic medical care for pretty much everyone on Earth. Neither of those things actually occurs.

Corrik wrote:
The nations are hardly modern-style, they are mostly a large collection of city states and kingdoms.

Actually, hereditary monarchies are a minority of Inner Sea nations. But more importantly, only Taldor is even sort of feudal. That's a huge change and is one of the major things that creates the the concept of the modern nation state rather than being loyal to someone purely local who is then loyal to the next link up the chain. It's a sea change in people's perceptions and loyalties as they really begin to think of themselves as citizens of their nation.

Sociologically, we're talking late 1700s to early 1800s (as Andoran demonstrates).

Corrik wrote:
They have some modern morality, but again that is for player convenience as modern sensibilities makes even the greatest medieval kingdom seem evil.

This part I agree with, though in-setting alignment being objective and the Good Gods having some influence make this make a lot of sense.

Corrik wrote:
They certainly don't have anything set up that approaches the logical conclusion of the long range communication and travel options available.

And what would those be? Are you talking teleportation circle networks? Because those are basically only available to 17th or higher level Wizards, and there are precious few of those on the whole planet of Golarion. Most of whom are not that interested in setting such a network up. Some of the ancient empires may well have had one (indeed, Thassilon probably did), but nobody around right now is super interested in setting one up.

Everything except those is only workable in small numbers for the most part, and thus useful and couriers and messengers, but not for trade.

Corrik wrote:
And they certainly don't have anything approaching modern means of education and production.

Production? No. Education? Every tiny town has a schoolhouse and major cities often have universities. That may not be modern, but it's definitely more 19th century than medieval.

Corrik wrote:
So your argument that simply because they aren't exactly a Medieval society holds very little water. And that's bad, because these are offhanded examples and hardly the most egregious. Golarion is profoundly the same set up as Medieval society, with some minor changes from slapping magic on to it.

It's really and profoundly not. You can argue it as pre-industrial if you want, but medieval? No. Not in any way. Even their tech level is mid-Renaissance.

Corrik wrote:
Eberon is a setting that takes in to account the magic available. That is what a profoundly different society looks like. The Tipperverse is what a profoundly different society looks like.

Both of those assume common access to magic for most people. They assume it's generalizable in a way that Golarion does not. Magic in Golarion is certainly impressive, but the number who can wield anything beyond the most basic level is very small per capita, and most of them can't craft any permanent magic items.

Liberty's Edge

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.
Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

The second can be determined mathematically. He's 10th level (well, between 10th and 14th, technically).

The first there's a few options, but starting stats, given that he's a Dwarf, are pretty close to as follows:

Str 18, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10 Wis 14, Cha 10.

He might have only Wis 12 and either Int 12 or Con 14, but it's one of those options.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonborn3 wrote:
IF the Resonance costs is the same. I'm not sure it will even be a slightly scaling cost. Paizo doesn't seem too interested in consumables right now since they are now competing with permanent magic items.

Uh...they've explicitly said higher level items still only cost the same Resonance per use. At least for things like Wands.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

To quote myself:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Batman is not magical in-universe despite doing things that are impossible for real life people to do. He does those because, in the DC universe, human capabilities clearly have a higher cap than they do in real life.

Iron Man is not magical in-universe, again despite doing things that are blatantly and obviously impossible for human beings in the real world. He lives in a world where a non-magical person can do those things, because baseline human capabilities are simply different from the real world in the world he lives in.

Indiana Jones and almost every action movie protagonist ever also do things that are flatly impossible in real life and yet are not superhuman or magical in-universe. They do them because they live in a universe where, once again, people are capable of such things without magic.

Pathfinder is such a world. It's a world where someone can do things that seem impossible to us with raw determination and/or natural ability, no magic needed. And there's no reason to find that difficult to believe given that giants (basically a physical impossibility) exist, griffons and dragons can fly in an AMF (this is also physically impossible), an average 8th level Fighter can out-wrestle a rhinoceros, and tough people can survive being immersed in lava.

Or another version:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Here's another way to look at it:

A radioactive or high gravity environment has effects on the development of creatures who live in it. Over generations they will adapt to said environment, so that even though they may not exude a personal gravity field or be radioactive (indeed, in real life they will never do either of these things), they are nonetheless physiologically different from similar creatures that have not lived in such an environment for generations.

In the same way, a high magic environment could have certain effects on creatures that develop within it. Some, like Dragons, would gain the ability to actually actively use magic, but others would simply display certain physical differences to allow them to survive such an environment better. Humans on Golarion, despite not being magical in and of themselves, are thus the products of an environment in which they must be capable of achieving a degree of competence that human beings on Earth simply don't need to be capable of, making the heights humans on Golarion can achieve quite a bit higher as they must be able to compete with magic in order to survive.

A certain amount of magical eugenics is also very possible (I mean, the Azlanti were definitely the products of such a program, and after so long pretty much everyone is related to them by this point, and thefre could've easily been other such programs), and if the magic was used to effect people on the genetic level, might well leave lasting changes that do not require ongoing magic to have an effect.

These aren't the only possible explanations by any means, but if you want one, I think these follow fairly logically.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Anathema for monks?

Doesn't sound like it.

Liberty's Edge

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I still feel like the naked monk with bracers of armor is always going to be behind the rogue with their similarly enchanted padded armor (and well behind a Dex fighter). I suppose I would need to know the exact armor values for each kind of armor and each class’s available armor proficiency in order to really make an informed decision. edit before posting: I see the specific clarification from the devs that the rogue will come out at about equal or ahead.

No, he said the Monk always came out equal or ahead. Not the Rogue. Big difference.

The math on light armor is actually pretty simple. Light Armor maxes at +2 AC, and the Bracers at +1 (both plus magic bonuses). Both add Dex. Both add Proficiency.

However, the Monk gets better AC Proficiency than anyone else (except Paladin). Since that seems to stay a full +1 higher than anyone else's at least, which makes up for the armor difference compared to the Fighter, and probably more than makes up as compared to the Rogue. Yeah, the Fighter can get to Legendary Armor somehow, but the Monk can then go Crane Style and still be on par.

What they don't get is the equivalent of anything beyond light armor, which encourages high Dex quite a bit.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
For some reason, I was assuming that unarmed damage increases are going to come from the class itself given that different fighting styles seem to grant specific attack die; it made more sense to me that the class itself would just multiply the damage dice from the various fighting styles rather than relying on a magical enhancement.

Nah, that would have huge economic issues. Making things symmetric on this level is much better from a balance standpoint.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Then again, I suppose that arm wraps could give accuracy bonuses and damage bonuses for non-monk unarmed fighters.

They can indeed.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
On a related note: I want to try and get dragon tail style on a barbarian somehow.

That does seem super fun, I'll grant you. :)

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:

Yep, that's been established! Really happy about how Bracers of Armor work now.

My concerns are:

1. Pre-magic armor AC. I suppose d10 vs d8 on Rogues makes it a little more even, I assume Monks will have access to "Raise Shield" alternatives in Bo Staves too?

If they take the Feat for weapons they can do that, yeah. I'm not super worried about this, as the Bracers that just count as Leather Armor sound like you can probably afford them by 2nd level, making this a very transitory issue.

Secret Wizard wrote:
2. STR-based Monk AC. Haven't heard how STR-based Monks will survive. To clarify, I assume STR-based will have 12 or 14 DEX on creation, and would remain lower on the DEX department as they level up. As mentioned before, an Expert Unarmored Proficiency feat that grants high STR characters a small boost to AC will suffice.

It sticks at one or two points lower, yes. A Str-based AC enhancer Feat thus seems very possible.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not surprised either. Still, good to hear.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Monks have no alignment restriction.

Yay! Happiness.

I'd already figured the HP, but that's good to hear as well.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not intended to prevent consumable use, it's intended to make you buy level appropriate consumables (rather than as many Wands of CLW as possible/necessary), since a Wand of Heal (4th level) heals you 7d8+X vs. the 1d8+X from a Wand of Heal (1st level) both for the same Resonance cost.

I'm also still unclear if Wands even have charges or how those charges work, given that it's a legacy adventure converted on the fly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:

Well we already know from one dev that you make potions in batches anyway. I just hope they don't run off Resonance too otherwise all consumables are pretty... bad.

Potions, as last we heard, take resonance to consume. Same with scrolls and other single-use items.
Absolutely awful.
Notably that is magic potions. Alchemical elixirs (I believe) don't need Resonance.
Nah, those usually need it too. Alchemists just don’t have to spend it on ones they made themselves with their daily prep.

This is not necessarily true. We actually don't know whether normal Alchemical Elixirs created with gold during downtime cost Resonance to use. The temporary ones the Alchemist makes every day require Resonance, but they also require Resonance to create and are very much a special case.

Liberty's Edge

Corrik wrote:
I've walked through hallways trapped with far more powerful magic than: Cure light wounds, lesser restoration, remove curse, remove disease, create food and water, and neutralize poison. So clearly it isn't an abuse and works in-universe. If a magical device can infinitely cast inflict minor wounds, then it can infinitely cast cure minor wounds.

It certainly could. But traps with infinite resets that can be used every round (or every other round) are not actually a thing that needs to exist in the setting. They are not inherently needed, and they and only they are the problem.

For example, in my house rules, magical traps hold a max of fifty charges but can recover one per year up to that maximum (allowing for the 1000 year old magic trap that still works). This change effects no actual published scenario or situation at all.

Is that the route they'll take to fix this world building issue? No clue, but they could do a dozen similar things pretty easily.

Corrik wrote:
I thought you liked the rules to be a physics book of the universe?

I prefer it when they are, but some are clearly and unambiguously wrong and broken. The high and low temperature rules, for example, would result in me personally being dead since I've gone winter camping. And walked places in 90 degree heat.

Corrik wrote:
And they might fix up the trap rules, but beneficial magical diseases are still an issue. CotCR has a cult that flat creates a magical disease. A good cult could do the same, and could also use the same 1500gp item to infinitely replicate the disease for plot convenience, I mean mass contamination. Nature is full of beneficial microbes after all. Pretty silly to suggest that magical beneficial microbes couldn't exist.

They don't create the disease. They modify an existing disease to be more infectious and virulent. Basically, nothing was done in creating that disease that a modern biowarfare lab couldn't do (using technology instead of magic), though they probably do it quicker.

In short, there's no evidence they can do this any more easily than we can in real life. Have we done this in real life yet? Because if so I seem to have missed the memo...

Now, they use magic to spread the disease, but that's a whole different thing.

Corrik wrote:
And it's hardly just either of those things. A handful of Lyres of Building would free up most to all of the working class of a city to focus on other things.

Uh...the working class of most cities do jobs other than building things (which is all the Lyre can do). If you want to argue this means there wouldn't be a lot of construction jobs you should feel free...but I can't recall a single construction worker coming up in any Pathfinder supplement. There might be some, but they certainly aren't particularly common.

The Lyre doesn't actually work in the mines, farm, or work in a shop. It's debatable if it can even make something difficult to build like a ship.

Corrik wrote:
The tippyverse list goes on and on and on. The issue is that most fantasy settings don't build things from the ground up to include the magic, monsters, and other elements. Instead magic and the like is slapped on to a basic medieval setting without much regard for how those things would fundamentally change the fabric of society. Hell, long distance communication and teleportation alone would probably see the world play out differently than presented. This problem only gets worse with each new spell and magic item.

This is actually fairly untrue of Golarion. If you read up on the setting, universal literacy is assumed, feudal systems are rare and considered backwards, the equivalent of modern medical care or better is clearly readily available via local Clerics, people are much more familiar with distant locations than they ever were in Medieval times, there are modern-style nation states (something that was definitely aided by long range communication), and a variety of other setting assumptions are profoundly different from what Medieval society was like.

And all in ways that are pretty consistent with the more common uses of magic.

Liberty's Edge

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I do worry about his class’s AC. I wonder what their hit points are going to look like.

Mark Seifter clarified earlier that Bracers of Armor basically fix this beyond the very earliest levels (1st and maybe 2nd), at least for Dex Monks, since it starts off being the equivalent of leather armor and then becomes magic thereafter.

That makes their AC very much on par with other lightly armored characters. Higher with the right Style.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
With flurry of blows and their high movement speed, I suppose they can close distance attack and then run away. Is that how this class is meant to be survivable?

It helps, but isn't necessary.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I also don’t know how this class is going get its accuracy bonuses. Is Ki shout the way or will there really be arm wraps or whatever?

Handwraps of Mighty Fists do indeed exist, and work just like magic weapons, so yeah, those will help.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sounds to me like Agile affects subsequent attacks, not the main attack you make.

So attack with a non-agile weapon > next attack gets -5, cumulative, up to -10.

Attack with an agile weapon > next attack gets -4, cumulative, up to -8.

Actually, no. They've noted that if you attack with a longsword, then a short sword, the second attack is at -4 (because the short sword is Agile). They then said that the third attack would be -8 if you used the short sword, -10 if you did the long sword again.

EDIT: Semi ninja'd. Ah, well.

Liberty's Edge

Cyouni wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
When you make a fourth attack then with agile, is the fourth attack also capped at -8 or is it -10?
It's pretty clearly -8. The point is that attacks after the third use the same penalty as the third, not that they cap at a specific penalty.
So a character with four attacks using both an agile and non agile weapon can exploit the system to do first attack with the heavy weapon at full bonus, second attack with agile at -4, third attack with agile at -8, and fourth attack with heavy weapon at -8?
I'm pretty sure it'd use the heavy weapon's third attack in that case, ie. -10.

Yes. This. It's the same penalty as it would be if it was the third attack. For heavy weapons, this is -10.

Liberty's Edge

Ultrace wrote:
-potentially with more total monetary value than all the mundane goods and real estate of the area.

That's actually not true. A house in a city are worth 1,290 gp, while a farmhouse + farm is 2,090 gp.

A Wand of CLW is pricey, but stuff under 1000 gp is cheaper than a house.

Corrik wrote:
Which is why you would actually have utopia hallways in all major population centers. You walk through and get healed and cured of poison and disease.

This is only possible if you really abuse the magical trap rules in a way that clearly doesn't work in-universe (even if it does by RAW). I suspect it will no longer work RAW in PF2 either.

Ignoring that one thing, the economy is actually pretty workable.

Liberty's Edge

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Sounds like something to keep an eye on in the test, and another good argument for setting base speed for everyone back to 30. Speed 25 after armor vs a speed 50 opponent is at least doable, whereas speed 20 vs speed 45 means no attacks ever without special abilities or reach, yeah.

Well, there's always ranged attacks. Or readying an action (unless the Monk has Reach, of course).

Liberty's Edge

Fuzzypaws wrote:
When you make a fourth attack then with agile, is the fourth attack also capped at -8 or is it -10?

It's pretty clearly -8. The point is that attacks after the third use the same penalty as the third, not that they cap at a specific penalty.

TheFinish wrote:
Yeah it's plenty possible, assuming Monk gives +Dex or +Wis or +Con. Otherwise, you can't pull it off. But you can pull 3 16s, that's for sure. It's just that Class and Ancestry determine which ones.

Monk is explicitly noted as giving either Str or Dex at 1st in the above Blog Post.

And yeah, a non-human can have three 16s (though a Human can't get above two).

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Sure, wordcount, I get it, but why lumping them up as Mwangi? Maybe not unethical, but damn it, the whites get 5 full pages ethnicities, the Blacks 1 for Garundi and 1 for all 4 Mwangi... sheesh.

Honestly, I think this just amounts to land mass. The Inner Sea region includes only a part of Garund but all of Avistan, so you get all the Avistani stuff, but only some of the Garund stuff.

Which inclines me to desire a Garund book, mind you.

Roswynn wrote:
You're right, better to have them, and I too love Seelah (and Kyra!). But again... maybe a more equal share for POC and whites? And it's not like stereotypes are so hard to avoid if you try hard enough - you don't know much about sexuality in Middle Eastern culture? Either write about something else or do some research. It's not like you'll have to spend evenings in a dusty corner of some forsaken library. Google it. Buy a book by some Arabic author on Amazon. Get in touch with actual Arabic people on a forum. The GURPS books are really well researched, even though the system... well. If you wanna present the equivalent of real cultures, you owe it to them.

Sure, but there's not one middle eastern sexuality perspective, there are dozens over different places and eras, and just about any version would potentially play into some stereotype. Also, Keleshites, while vaguely Arabic-themed, are not actually culturally Arabic. They're part of a pseudo-Persian Empire and matrilineal with a much stronger role for women than most Arabic cultures (indeed, they verge on matriarchal at times). Their religion is also obviously divergent.

All of which would make their sexuality being a direct copy of real world Arabic sexuality either now or in some other specific area more than a bit odd and off-putting.

Roswynn wrote:

No, not really Kali. Something like her. Even the Wiccans have an aspect of the goddess who is the mother who devours her youngs, it's not unique to the Indian subcontinent. She should only be a little more nuanced, not completely evil.

Also, okay, there's a lot of nice goddesses, but Lamashtu is so offensive, I swear!

I mean...there are a fair number of nuanced Evil Deities...as much as there are nuanced Good deities. Heck, Lamashtu has specific needs and desires, factions within her worship, enemies even among other Evil deities, and so on.

It's just that, in Pathfinder, if a Deity is Evil (or Good) they are not morally ambiguous. Good deities are actually Good, and primarily do positive things, and Evil ones are actually Evil and primarily do negative things. More 'cycle of life' deities are Neutral.

Roswynn wrote:
Yeah, I was reading about Erastil not being sexist anymore. Although I remember a thread in which one of the devs defended their decision to make a LG sexist god, but don't ask me a link, it was many years ago, one of the thing that kept me from Golarion and PF.

If it's the thread I'm recalling they were mostly arguing that Good deities can, despite mostly being Good, have bad traits (Cayden Cailean is kind of irresponsible, Iomedae is perhaps overly harsh, etc.) so sexism in a Good deity wasn't impossible.

Or maybe it was a different thread and I'm misremembering.

Roswynn wrote:
Yeah, Lamashtu's not going anywhere, I know. Sucks.

Lamashtu is gonna stick around, yeah.

Roswynn wrote:

Yeah, I remember that part, but even the virtues don't make sense. Wealth, fertility, abundance, rest? What are we talking about here? These are not virtues, these are goals - and one benefit, rest. They could have gone like:

virtues - justice, charity, love, wisdom, awareness...
sins - corruption, greed, hate, carelessness, bigotry...

That's fair enough I suppose, but it's a different culture, I can see end states/the pursuit of end states as being perceived as virtuous. Also bear in mind that even the Virtues were from a LN religion, so their standards are not precisely 'virtuous' in the sense of being unambiguously Good and positive in-universe (which makes their corrupted versions not necessarily Evil or negative, though the Runelords certainly were).

Roswynn wrote:
Yeah, you're actually right, a lot of LGBTQ friendly content, a lot of characters of color... yeah, I like that. That's why it's so hard for me to let other parts of Golarion stay so... backwards.

I dunno about backwards, but you certainly don;t have to use the setting exactly as presented (or at all, as you're obviously aware), but I think some of the issues are more in presentation than they are in the world. You can run a canonically accurate Golarion game focusing more on non-Evil Orcs than any existing Pathfinder books do, for example.

Roswynn wrote:
Umm... yeah, Lamashtu is inherently sexist, mate. Believe me, I should know.

By what definition? I personally don't think isolated elements of a larger work should usually be judged as sexist or not absent the context of the larger work. It's sexist if every woman is a terrible and unpleasant person, but equally sexist if every woman is shiny and happy and wonderful. Both men and women are people and have good and bad examples.

Yes, Lamashtu is specifically associated with birth, motherhood, and some other classically feminine stuff, and is portrayed negatively. Taken in isolation I agree she can come off as a sexist portrayal of women, but I don't feel taking one deity from a list where many of the most awesome and impressive deities are also feminine and judging them in isolation is appropriate.

It's like saying that a movie with a mother figure for a villain is sexist due to that villain's characterization when the protagonist (or at leas one of the people who aids said protagonist) is also a mother figure and turns a lot of the stereotypes used on their head.

Roswynn wrote:
And it's very hard being sexist against you guys - white hetero cis males are privileged compared to everyone else.

White hetero cis men are indeed privileged as compared to everyone else in current society. Being sexist against them has been known to happen, though. For example, men accusing women of domestic abuse are pretty universally not believed or taken seriously culturally. Women certainly get abused far more per capita, but the men who do experience that sort of thing are even less likely to be believed.

It's all part of the same system that puts everyone in these neat little gender role boxes (women must be weak, men must be strong, in the above case) with no actual consideration for the real people involved or the fact that categorizing things in neat little boxes seldom works out well.

Sorry, that got a bit off topic.

Roswynn wrote:
As for Kosthschie or how the hell it's written, yeah, he's a big dumb ogre demon... didn't know he was a misogynist too, but he's a demon, it's not like the rest of them are nice and considerate towards us.

Well, Lamashtu is also a demon and kind of unpleasant to everyone.

Roswynn wrote:
Keleshites? Tians? No? Sigh - good for you.

*blinks* Keleshites are, as I note above, more 'Ancient Persian Empire' than any current cultural group, and Tians don't seem to get exoticized by the game itself, at least to me (I can't speak to players with a Japan fixation).

Roswynn wrote:
I think you're not critical enough of the things you like. But that's only my opinion. Maybe it is I who takes it too hard.

I tend to think you're wrong. I disagree with Paizo on various stuff (I've mentioned a few times that I find the Varisian portrayal quite problematic, just to pick a single on-topic example), but then, everyone wants to think the best of themselves.

Roswynn wrote:
But Vikings won't be offended by that depiction. Scandinavian people aren't systematically oppressed in the west, and the linnorm-slaying is a cool thing anyways. Even the oracles are cool, that's not a problem. Those are cool fantasy things you can totally add.

Just clarifying the kind of changes I think are reasonable to a real world culture. Who rules them and why being prominent.

Roswynn wrote:
You know what I don't like - passionate Keleshites, too little room dedicated to PoC...

I'm not sure 'passionate' (usually regarded as a positive trait) is a negative stereotype in its own right. It can play into negative stereotypes, but that's a somewhat different thing.

As for too little space dedicated to non-European ethnicities I tend to disagree. The setting is primarily focused on the Europe analogue, and half the listed ethnicities still aren't white people (the Shoanti are distinctly non-European, despite being natives of Avistan, add in the Garundi, Mwangi, Keleshite, Tian, and Vudrani and that's 6 out of 12, and one of the 6 that are European themed is basically extinct).

Roswynn wrote:
Yeah, but orcs are fictional. You don't need them to be evil to reflect reality. You can write them however you want. They could have made them as varied as humanity right from the start. Same holds for all species in the setting. The fact they CHOSE to leave orcs as evil demon-worshippers, fully knowing they look and act a lot like clichés of tribal native people, is bad.

Obviously they chose to make them Evil, yes. They felt that many stories were already being told about Orcs who were good or pleasant (World of Warcraft, for example) and that they wanted to focus on Orcs who were more classically Evil for their own stories. That may have been a less than ideal decision, but IMO the real problem is not that decision but the long term lack of non-Evil counterexamples.

As for acting like cliches of tribal native people...I'm actually not sure Pathfinder Orcs do that. They're big into metal weapons, siege engines, and active conquest. Nor do they have a lot of stylistic elements that equate to most native peoples. They're barbaric, but in a strongly Conan-inspired way rather than a colonialist sense. The only thing I can find that you could argue fits with them fitting this mold is war paint...but the Celts did that, too.

I find the idea of any species being Evil collectively deeply problematic, and that being the case when they can easily be read as non-white (due to having a different skin color) makes it a bit worse, but saying they act like cliches of tribal native people is not really accurate. They're much more like Roman stereotypes of the Gauls, Visigoths, or other 'barbarians' than they are like any stereotype of non-Europeans.

Roswynn wrote:
And I'm not okay with CE orcs.

I'm fine with CE Orcs as long as it's clear that their Evil is cultural and non-CE Orcs are also around to counterbalance them. This is true in Golarion the setting. It is in many ways not as true in terms of published content.

And that's bad. I want a lot more non-Evil Orc content, and feel its very existence would make the Orc stuff a lot less problematic. And, given that they considered making Orcs a Core Ancestry before deciding on Goblins, I'm hopeful that we'll get such content in PF2.

Roswynn wrote:
No, sure, doesn't have to be like this, but my point was that treating species a little more objectively would avoid demonization.

It also allows for a more expansive and interesting view of the species. Which is neat.

Roswynn wrote:
Yeah, but again, the writers CHOSE to make orcish culture evil (or to leave it that way, more precisely). It's not like Belkzen is a real place and they're documenting some horrific practices they've seen while there. They could've made Belkzen very warlike and ended up with almost the same scenario of constant human-orc war they have, but no, orcs are evil. Their culture is evil. They worship the god of total destruction. It's not a matter of fortune, Deadmanwalking - the devs wanted to have evil orcs. So we get evil orcs. There's no randomness involved here.

No, there isn't. It's quite intentional. But it's not primarily a Race thing. It's an 'Evil Nations Are Bad' thing. Pathfinder is interested in telling stories where the villains are truly and objectively Evil. Where you fight bad people you can feel good about defeating, not simply people who happen to be on the other side. Where, for all the violence common in Pathfinder games, you can still be objectively heroic.

And that's a fine style of game to have that many people like.

There are also places on Golarion where things are more morally grey, but having both allows for a greater variation in what kind of games you can do, which is good.

It's unfortunate, in my view, that Belkzen and its culture are the only Orc culture we've seen. I would be notably happier with the presentation of the setting if, say, the Orc Tribes of the Mwangi Expanse had been detailed as a fairly friendly CN people to counterbalance the unpleasant CE Orcs of Belkzen from the beginning (as it is, we don't even know for sure that they aren't Evil, though evidence supports that conclusion). But Belkzen itself is only problematic because it's the only example, not inherently due to its existence.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The maximum penalty from iteratives is -10, no matter how many attacks you make. But it's not actually clear if agile makes that -8 or -9.

Actually, it is. We know that at PaizoCon they taled about the final attack with a short sword (which we know are Agile) as being -8. So that's how it works.

Liberty's Edge

The Raven Black wrote:
It is my understanding that most Rage powers of PF1 now belong to a totem. I am sure that there will be a way to get several totems, else you could not recreate a character that had powers which are now part of different totems.

That's not my understanding at all. Indeed, I'm betting Totem stuff applies regardless of currently Raging or not, and that many Barbarian Class Feats only work during Rage.

But really, we just don't know.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:

All costs are meaningless if the design calls for groups to be full hit points between encounters.

If the design calls for full hit points - then the cost will be built into the game no matter what 'fluff' you put around it the end result is the same. Fluff used intentionally - here if the design calls for full healing - you can twist words, powers, money, objects, systems, doesn't matter - into pretzels - the end result is the same - all groups will have access to heal to full between encounters and are expected to do so. The idea that the action used to do it matters is really immaterial - at the end of the day if heal to full is an expectation any solution is functionally identical to 'all characters are full hit points after a fight, make up reasons why on your own'. The dressing doesn't change the design.

Sure, this is absolutely true if the design necessitates healing to full between all encounters at no cost.

That's not actually how PF1 was supposed to work, just how it wound up working. And it's certainly not an inherently desirable design goal. Indeed, I'd argue that it's a potentially serious design problem if PCs are never 'too hurt to go on today', and PCs sometimes being too hurt to go on is certainly the tack PF2 seems to be taking from what we've seen thus far.

Ckorik wrote:
I try to use that word sparingly (especially given James Jacob's dislike of the word) - because lore, backstory, or just cool stuff to me *isn't* worthless. I do use it here because people argue over the method (cure light wounds wands). I feel the discussion should be more along what the end goal is - because it'd be easier to make your table and my table happy if they just gave us the assumption, and let us handle the details without telling us that either playstyle is wrong.

It's not about the playstyle being 'wrong' in some objective sense. It's about the playstyle not being the original intention of the game whatsoever. It's a side effect of a standardized rules interaction rather than something they were aiming for.

They are aiming to not have a similar unintended interaction in PF2.

Ckorik wrote:

It might feel good to tell someone 'cure light wounds wands is wrong' because you are on that side of the argument - but I'm telling you that if the changes result in the same thing, that you just spent a ton of time and effort that at the end of the day - did nothing different.

That - to me - seems like a waste of 'design space' that could be used for cool stuff.

But the result is not the same. There's clearly fairly abundant healing, but it's not unlimited. You can absolutely run out of healing in most cases (very possibly all cases), and while you may start many fights at full health or near it, there remains a point of no return beyond which you simply won't have any more healing available.

And that's actually a pretty big change.

Liberty's Edge

Dracoknight wrote:
However i do wish Ki had more entrance "side-grades" than just the strike.

Logan did mention that in the final version there'd likely be more options to access Ki (ie: different Feats you can take to do that), though that doesn't really help for the playtest.

Liberty's Edge

Yup. The floating stat mod lets you pretty readily make a very complete party with all bases covered as whatever Ancestry you want.

+Str Dwarf Barbarian, +Dex Dwarf Rogue, +Int Dwarf Wizard, +Whatever Dwarf Cleric.

Or +Str Gnome Paladin (maxes at Str 16, but that's workable), +Dex Gnome Rogue, +Whatever Gnome Sorcerer, +Wis Gnome druid.

Or +Str Elf Fighter, +Con Elf Rogue, +Whatever Elf Wizard, +Cha Elf Bard.

And so on and so forth.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ARG actually notes

Argh. I screwed this up. It's in Inner Sea Races, not the ARG. The point stands, however.

Liberty's Edge

An all one Class party of something like Fighters or Barbarians seems much more viable in PF2, at least starting at 4th level when you can take Medicine Feats and actually heal party members.

Any Class with in-Class healing (Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Paladin) seems very viable from 1st level on (and always has been). Rogue seems very viable from 2nd level on (when they can get Expert Medicine and the Skill Feat), and can definitely fake it with items and rest until 2nd level, and everyone else (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer, or Wizard) can maybe get by with items until 4th when their own Skill-based healing stuff kicks in (actually, Ranger may be viable from earlier if they get the option for healing magic via spell points).

One Ancestry parties are also super viable, but then one Race parties were all pretty viable in PF1 as well, just via careful Class selection.

Liberty's Edge

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!
Please don't say that ability increases will be similar to Starfinder regarding 2 points to lower than 18 score and 1 point to higher... This is super confusing and not player-friendly...
Weeellllllllp. I guess Logan's comment does confirm our fears about the Starfinder "diminishing returns" ability increases returning, and means odd scores are still a thing. :|

Yep. That's been mathematically clear for a while now. It's not the end of the world or anything, though I agree flat +2s would be simpler.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Re: AC- Aren't Bracers of Armor going to be a thing? would they not help with the AC disparity?
They're going to be a thing, but Bracers of Armor in PF2 neatly replace the bonuses of magic armor (costing the same and providing the same bonuses), but not the mundane armor bonus you get for wearing the non-magical version.

If we've said that anywhere, whoever said it was incorrect. Bracers of armor are just slightly more expensive than a +X leather armor that gives the same amount of AC, and drastically less expensive than the next higher armor (the first bracers of armor are thus less expensive than even +1 magic armor). That and starting with expert proficiency in unarmored defense is much faster than any other class in the game (even paladin) gets expert armor proficiency, and you're in a situation where Logan was right about the monk effectively wearing a no-restrictions chain shirt, assuming you have either bracers or a solid mage armor (which now lasts 24 hours). In fact, a full-on Dex-based monk will very eventually hit a point where they can equal even a full plate paladin, all while not having any of the restrictions of heavy armor, which is pretty incredible.

Mike was talking about Cobra, who's definitely an extreme, but I can say that the defenses on my non-mega-Dex-dump but still-Strength-based monk (who also has solid Wisdom for ki), Iakhovas, were so high that I was surviving with ease even in a serious stress-test playtest (if anything, I may have been too well defended overall, counting AC, saves, self-healing, HP, and so on, given the stress-test Logan was running was supposed to kill us).

Ah! That revelation about Bracers of Armor mostly assuages my worries about Monk AC beyond the very first couple of levels. I'm still ever so slightly concerned about Strength Monks, but I'm much less worried than I was previously, and I can think of several ways to make up for that small difference if you care to.

Thanks for the information, Mark!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ARG actually notes that the majority of Half Orcs outside Belkzen are the descendants of other Half Orcs (since Half Orcs breed true and the 'race' is really anyone between about a quarter and three quarters Orc) going back to thousands of years ago when the Orcs had an actual empire and bred them as a servant/slave caste.

That's unpleasant, but it's thousands of years ago historical unpleasantness rather than the more immediate kind.

There's also several other options, including the Mwangi Half Orcs who are the result of consensual (if somewhat businesslike) unions between the local Human and Orc tribes.

@Roswynn: I'll definitely do a full response to that post, but not tonight. It's late.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

I like this.

The monk looks like it's going to hit hard, be mobile, pack solid saves and have some neat tricks available. If the cost of that is a point or two of AC I'm on board.
Not every class needs all the things.

For the record, I agree that not every Class needs everything. I'm just concerned that Monk will be as easy to hit as Barbarian (who you'll note I didn't complain about low AC on at all) without their extra HP and Temp HP to make up for that fact.

Monks being easy to hit is also a bit off thematically. I'd rather they had less HP (I suspect it's 10 + Con now, and wouldn't mind it going down to 8) in exchange for some additional AC enhancement.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I must admit, I'd much prefer if they were proficient in simple weapons. I mean...what about ranged attacks? Are they just screwed on those forever for no particular reason?

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Which you can now represent as an 8 Wis monk. Something gets a wisdom penalty right?

Goblins. Goblins get a Wisdom penalty.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't really understand the notion that the 2E Monk is any less MAD than the 1E Monk. If you choose to ignore a bunch of your available class feats then sure, wisdom is no longer a necessity. But if you want to use ki powers at all then you're exactly as MAD as you were in 1st edition.

This is true if you want to use Ki, yeah. Of course, getting to boost 4 scores every 5 levels helps this out quite a bit...

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Where have they previously clarified this?

Oh, geeze. I think it was the monster stat-block thread?

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Does that mean the Level 7 Path to Perfection to Fort does not have success=crit success? While the Barb's level 7 Juggernaut ability does?

The Barbarian's Juggernaut ability clearly does add this. 7th level Path of Perfection is less clear.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wasn't the 1st level Fighter's AC 17? I'm almost sure it was, same as the Rogue's.

It is, but we know Fighters get to Master in armor eventually (and can get to Legendary somehow), so the Monk's increases after 1st are matched or exceeded by the Fighter's. So they might catch the rogue, but will never catch the Fighter.

This is also the Dex Monk vs. a bog standard Rogue or Fighter. The Str Monk is in a much worse position.

Captain Morgan wrote:
The monk's AC being a point lower is worrying, but not necessarily the end of the world. Remember, they also get expert proficiency in all their saving throws, which means their lower AC is counterbalanced by better defenses elsewhere.

This is true to some degree. But only to some degree. +1 on one or two Saves (everyone get Expert at one Save, and most people seem to get it in two), so they're only getting +1 to one Save as compared to many characters. +1 Reflex doesn't seem worth lower AC to me, though that might not turn out to be true in play.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect the low level monk will have slightly lower AC than they'd love, but will still have great saves (even better if they focus on both Dex and Wis) AND can probably benefit from Mage Armor on top of that. Which means they are looking pretty similar the PF1 monk, haha.

I despise how much PF1 Monks rely on Mage Armor for basic functionality, as it's super counter to their whole theme. I will be very disappointed if that's still the go-to/necessary tactic in PF2.

Captain Morgan wrote:
There will also be some other ways to pad the AC... keeping a staff on hand for using the block trait springs to mind, for example, though shield users can of course do this too.

They can only do this if they're a weapon user or using the right style, both of which require Feat investment. I'd really like the Monk to be on par with other people sans Feats. Burning Feats to get to where other people are without Feats is not fun.

Captain Morgan wrote:
The monk will also have better touch AC than the fighter at low levels, and will probably surpass the rogue's touch AC at higher levels. Then there's the question of how much 0 bulk and 0 armor check penalty will actually matter...

This is true to some degree, but IMO not enough of an advantage to compensate for the weakness.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I do actually like this idea quite a bit... Although, I suppose if you do that then dex becomes an obvious loser. STR still adds to your damage. Dex adds to your AC, but WIS would do that AND grant more spell points.

Not if it costs a Class Feat. Then Dex gets to be the one who doesn't burn a Feat on that.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Count me in as another seriously worried about the AC of the monk compared to other classes. If a level 1 dex based monk can't even match the AC of a rogue in a chain shirt then I'm struggling to see how a strength monk isn't just going to get destroyed.

It's...worrisome.

A Dex 14 Str Monk (what should be a reasonable build, IMO...Dex 10 is absurd, but a 14 seems intuitively like it should be sufficient for most non-Dex characters) has an AC of 14 at 1st level. That's probably lower than most Barbarians by at least a point or two, and as much as 5 points lower than a Fighter or Paladin with a shield who's using it.

Ouch.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

BTW, Quivering Palm is Necromancy (logical) but is there spell type for it otherwise, i.e. Arcane/Divine/etc?

We see abilities in P1E (+X Saves vs Divine Spells, for instance) which hinge on that, would Monk Ki spells have any magical type in that regard?
Occult seem appropriate typing for Monk IMHO. Or would it just be "not Arcane, not Divine, not Primal, not Occult"?

Type isn't listed in spells themselves for any spell we've seen (since many can show up as more than one type). It's presumably indicated in the Class Feature that gives you spells.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
No one has mentioned this yet, but is this not redundant? Doesn't being master at a Save give you this naturally?...

They've previously clarified that it isn't automatic, it's just that abilities that give you Master usually give it. This version also appears to give it to you for all Saves you have Master in (assuming the wording is correct). That's actually very cool if you can find a way to achieve that in a second or even third Save.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
On another note, I'm going to leave my skepticism of the STR Monks survivability on the way side. Especially since we have someone who ACTUALLY played a STR Monk is commenting here. Thanks Ssalarn...

For the record, I'm not skeptical of Monk survivability. I'm skeptical of Monk AC parity with other martial characters.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:
blog wrote:
In Crane Stance, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and get better at jumping...Well, you can pick up Crane Flutter, a reaction that increases your AC against a melee attack and lets you immediately riposte with a crane wing strike at a -4 penalty if the triggering attack misses.
The monk should be in good shape using one of his styles like Crane Style with Crane Riposte (+1 AC and use reaction for additional AC and attack).

Crane Style helps. However, having any Style be mandatory is kinda not a great plan balance and options-wise, and I'm not convinced it helps enough, especially for Str-based Monks.

It's very possible other Class Feats will in fact help, and help sufficiently. I'm perfectly willing to believe that. But then they're mandatory for most Monks, a Feat tax of the sort PF2 seems to be trying to avoid.

So this is sort of still a problem, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

Aristophanes wrote:
Re: AC- Aren't Bracers of Armor going to be a thing? would they not help with the AC disparity?

They're going to be a thing, but Bracers of Armor in PF2 neatly replace the bonuses of magic armor (costing the same and providing the same bonuses), but not the mundane armor bonus you get for wearing the non-magical version.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
-Poison- wrote:
Monk feels like a lot of investment for, honestly, nothing spectacular or noteworthy like Rogue gets.

This seems a really premature statement to me, actually. From what we've seen they have a flat-out action enhancer, which is a big deal, better Saves than almost anybody (Paladins might be better when using Divine Grace), and some truly ridiculous mobility options. Styles also sound potentially very cool.

So far, AC is actually my only complaint.

Ssalarn wrote:
I don't know that many players are going to look at the Monk class and think "Huh, what if I played this unarmored guy with a starting Dex of 10?", but I suppose that's what the playtest is for. Dex wasn't even a tertiary stat for Cobra, so anyone who isn't specifically avoiding putting points in Dex will likely end up with a higher AC by at least a point, probably several points.

My worry is that even with good Dex, they'll still not be great at AC, and will in fact be actively bad if they don't go that route. I mean, a Raging Barbarian with Chain Mail and Dex 14 has AC 16. I don't feel like a standard Barbarian, currently in Rage, should have as much AC as a Monk who has maxed out their AC, even if the Monk does find that AC survivable.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Temperans wrote:
What? So is the new AC higher or lower in the end? (compared to rogue in both editions)

Comparing to previous editions is misleading.

Seems like the Monk is below the Rogue in total AC if they go DEX by 1 KAC, and by more if they go STR.

They may well catch up with Rogue eventually (due to increasing Proficiency) if Dex based...but not until 13th level at the earliest. Which is less than helpful in many ways.

They do not catch up with Fighter even then.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Sounds to me like a STR-based defensive action should be in there somewhere to pad out the squishiness.

Or Wis based, yeah.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

It would be nice to see an option for Wis to AC instead of Dex.

Then a Str Monk interested in Ki powers doesn't go MAD or tank their AC.
A Fighter dip for heavy armor shouldn't be so tempting...
Oh god yes. Replacing DEX for INT/WIS/CHA would be super fun.

This is also a solid option I'm in support of (for AC only).

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
-Poison- wrote:

"you can pick up Master of Many Styles at 16th level, which lets you enter a stance as a free action at the start of each of your turns."

Are free actions still a thing in this new action economy? I had thought free/swift actions were simply replaced with "reactions" based on a previous blog.

No, Free Actions remain, though they're rarer.

KingOfAnything wrote:
How so? Being 1-2 points behind in AC doesn't matter as much when you can avoid being the target of attacks.

Three things:

1. It keeps people from attacking you too many times, but their first attack is the one it matters most on due to crits and they can almost certainly get one attack.

2. Ranged attacks. Sure, Deflect Arrows helps with this...if you have it.

3. AoO are still a thing. They're no longer universal, but they do exist, and make this tactic not universally applicable.

Secret Wizard wrote:
1 or 2 points behind a Fighter would be fine. 1 or 2 points behind a Rogue isn't.

This is also a factor.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think Flurry of Blows might lead to more mobile monks. The favored tactic at low levels might come to be to move in, flurry for two attacks, then back off to let more heavily armored or shielded allies take the hits.

I'm all for more mobile monks, but I think their AC at the moment is looking a bit anemic even using this strategy.

Fumarole wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Flurry of Blows is once per round. So Flurry on the first attack and then up to 2 more attacks at -8
Wouldn't it be 0/-4, -8, -12?

No, the penalty to get on the third attack (-10, -8 on Agile weapons) is as high as it ever gets.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think "bolstered" is a new term. Anyone know what it means?
I thought we had mentioned this in a previous blog, but perhaps not. "Bolstered" means you're immune for 24 hours.
So... why not just say the target is immune for 24 hours? Why invent a new term?

Word count. It's vitally important in a lot of books, and reducing it like this is thus super useful.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Also, a starting Monk will have an AC of 11+Dex. No armor penalty, true, but then, even someone trained in just Light Armor can start with 12+Dex. I really don't see how a Monk can keep up when they'll be limited to 13+Dex at maximum (assuming Legendary in unarmored) while everyone else will be 13+Armor Bonus+Dex (keeping in mind my earlier comment in the Gearing Up! thread about maximising AC). Unless Heavy Armor is seriously underwhelming, that is.

It's not quite this bad. Almost nobody can get to Legendary in armor (Paladins and Fighters seem to be it in the corebook), and it's very possible few others will get above Expert, which balances out with the Monk's Legendary but no armor fairly well.

It remains a serious problem at low levels, and they could definitely stand at least at point or two more AC even at high levels, but an Optimal Monk might well be on par with Optimal Rogues and Rangers in AC at high levels.

I'm significantly more worried about low level, and especially about the Str Monk.

brad2411 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


There is. Handwraps of Mighty Fists are explicitly a thing and work just like weapons (and cost the same).
Do we know if those are worn or wielded?

We do not.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Nope, I told you the wrong thing! A chain shirt for a 1st-level character who's proficient and has 18 Dex (and has the money for it) would be AC 17, TAC 16. An unarmored monk with 18 Dex would have an AC 16, TAC 16.

Thank you very much for the clarification. :)

This does however somewhat confirm my worry about Monk AC, though we'll need to wait and see how that compares to other Classes, I suppose.

Liberty's Edge

Emeric Tusan wrote:
monks start at expert in unarmored so that's a +2 there not +1.

My Monk math includes that: 10 + 4 Dex + 1 Level + 1 Expert = 16 AC. Which is one less than the 17 it looks like a Rogue (or someone in heavier armor) can have. Unless things are not as they appear in some way, which is what my question was about.

1 to 50 of 13,175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>