GrenMeera's page

Well, these actions were certainly chaotic. Breaking into a dungeon? That's a little chaotic in the first place, or at the very least not lawful. Seeing friend hurt and going into a blind rage? That's definitely chaotic (there's reasons why Barbarians are not lawful). Going against an offered rules of engagement of a duel? Extremely chaotic (and slightly evil considering it wasn't necessary but revenge was on the mind).

Now were these actions evil? Well, they weren't good. That part is clear. Neutral? Maybe.

The difference to consider is, was he killing enemies in combat, or was he going on a murderous rampage. It sounds a little in between.

As to "is he a bad GM"? I see no evidence of that. GMs know things that you do not. It was stated that this dungeon was run in an evil kingdom, so it certainly makes sense that the Paladin was tortured.

Did the guards above ground know what happened below ground? Yes. Is this meta-gaming? Maybe not. It is very reasonable that an evil king would have people in his employ have contingency spells or scrying devices in his dungeon. Honestly if a kingdom doesn't have any form of protection against people waltzing into their dungeon and going on a murderous rampage, I'd consider the leader incompetent.

Coming to the boards seeking justification and telling your side of the story in a rant? I worry more about the player's attitude than the GM at this point.

A friend of mine has a detailed analysis of the effects of the nerf.

Your friend's heart was in the right place, and it's great to get a start on these things, but the data is very misleading.

The chart assumes the same attack bonus on consecutive attacks, while iterative attacks are not using the same bonus. The new crane wing would change depending upon which attack is chosen in this case, which adds a third dimension to the chart.

Also, the new crane wing dodge bonus AC also applies to confirming criticals, and critical confirmation is not applied to this chart as well.

The last thing that the nerf changes is the chance % to Crane Riposte, which is not reflected at all on this chart.

I am contemplating making a graph that takes all factors into account like I did with the "Allow odd modifiers" debate.

The real infinity gems are kinda' overpowered for all rules everywhere, considering that they represent absolute control over everything in the universe.

I take it you want to represent them in idea but not in power? More of a control of the planet (the entire material plane still seems a bit overpowered)?

Maybe you can keep them in scope simply by having a mechanism for your abilities with the gem itself. An "attunement" rating that they increase through feats or a mythic path. At low attunement, they gain some fairly impressive supernatural abilities (+2 Strength and DR 10/- for Power or Teleport as a spell like ability for Space). At high attunement, they get the epitome of prowess as represented through powers/spells (+10 Strength and DR 40/- with 50 regeneration for Power and Plane Shift with precise accuracy for Space).

Because honestly, only Thanos can control all gems at once. Most others seems to fail at even controlling the limitless power of one of them. It should be difficult to unlock the full potential of the gems.

Oh it's back! This conversation has happened at least five times already with the EXACT same points being made!

I'm not sure I need to link all of the relevant posts again like I usually do since I see some have been on the ball and already done so.

I swear this argument is like my warm fuzzy home.

You're saying that you can roll spellcraft to identify a componentless, silent spell cast by an invisible creature which produces no observable effect?

Yes I am saying precisely this!

Can you counter-spell? No, but not for reasons you're probably thinking. You need to pinpoint an invisible creature before you can ready an action against him. He still has the upper hand due to his invisibility.

It seems you are quite convinced of what the words "see the spell" mean. I usually think of them as seeing a spell, but you are very confident that it means seeing their components or effects. One of these being dismissed by Jason Bulhman and the other required the spell to have already completed casting before it exists therefore rendering counter-spelling impossible by it's own definition.

This is a perspective and an interpretation, but FAR from a fact. None of us will ever have even any remote amount of proof about this one way or the other until it is verified in a FAQ or official ruling.

So, like usual, I am requesting that people stop saying that they have the RAW answer as definitive. You do not. Neither do I. Your interpretation is a house-rule as well.

i proved you wrong.

Actually you just said that he was wrong. Saying something and proving something are very different things.

I doubt that in a thread comparing effectiveness of a class you're ever going to find any proof of any sort for any viewpoint.

Why do you keep assuming I'm going to show up to an encounter unprepared for what is there. Why do you keep insisting on thinking I'm going to operate like a regular dungeon party wandering around the place meeting the encounters head on? Why are you making this assumption?

I haven't made those assumptions, my assertion is that there is no proof, not that I can prove otherwise.

Why are you making assumption that you CAN prepare for an encounter? When you do these campaigns, your GM has every enemy you come across simply let you leave/rest/prepare all the time? Your enemies are fools, which is fine sometimes because some enemies are fools, but to treat it like you have "the solution" is simply wrong.

I think Wizards/casters HAVE strength and can shine, but the assertion that they are BETTER is so extraordinarily circumstantial and anecdotal that I find it dismissable.

My point is that it's random. That's what casters are. They forgo consistency for power and options, but the inconsistency and reliance on preparation is a weakness and it seems that it is often overlooked.

I don't see why you have trouble accepting that this is the current reality of 3rd edition/Pathfinder at high level.

Because it's not. It's subjective. I can guarantee that these factors change drastically from table to table, just like the monk versus fighter experiences.

Also I don't ~see~ it because I have been tabletop role-playing for a very long time and have seen no evidence aside from online anecdotes that I can always work out a way that they got lucky.

Though this is getting WAY off topic, I'm going to have to say that I, for once, agree with shallowsoul. I've never seen Schrödinger God Wizard in my many years of playing. I can only imagine a summoning specialist for adventuring alone, the rest would be ripped to shreds.

Not only is it possible that you did not prepare the very specific spells that would help you in an encounter, most of the time it is likely unless you know precisely what's coming.

Mind control some meat shields and decimate with spells? Well, that kinda' falls apart in high level undead or construct dungeons. The GM doesn't even have to do this on purpose, it just happens that way in real play.

Wizards are far from weak, FAR from it, but I've yet to see how they are SO much better than martials. I can actually imagine Lorymyr's monk beating the crap out of most people's wizards.

Wow, this is back again so soon!

Here is the last lengthy thread about this that also has my links to OTHER lengthy threads about this.

This is the most quoted and relevant post by Jason Buhlman.

Now to add in my 2 cents (which at this point is adding up to a lot of dollars), a spell is not the casting components in the same way that a cake is not an oven or the heat. You use the casting components to cast the spell, but they are not the same things. In fact, I don't even view casting components as the ingredients. Magic itself accounts for the ingredients, the casting components are your tools to cast with.

When you must be able to see a spell in order to identify, they are talking about the spell, not the casting components, not the caster. ~The-spell~

That is like comparing the deadly weapon potential of a ball point pen to a gladius, though.

Yeah, and everybody knows that the pen is mightier than the sword.

By the way Lormyr, I would love to see you write a guide.

I am having difficulty understanding why this is a problem.

His build doesn't make him particularly good at killing the enemy, it makes him particularly good at staying alive. Why is this bad?

Are you worried that his method of survivability will make the other characters get killed because he is not a potential target? Is this even a problem? Personally, if he is risking the other characters I'd say my solution is to play it out. Kill the other players, or at least incapacitate them.

Then the enemy can focus on that insect that kept shooting arrows at them. There are MANY options on tracking down a stealth sniper that have already been presented to you.

I am just having difficulty understanding why you think you need a special solution to this type of character. If you play the game realistically, he's not creating any problems that don't solve themselves, and he's far from overpowered.

To OP: I don't think mixing real world issues with gaming world issues is a good idea.

I would disagree with this statement fairly strongly. Some of the greatest works in literacy involve real world issues (eg. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, Diary of Anne Frank, etc). Moral complexity and ethical dilemmas are powerful tools to make your audience sympathize and relate to your characters. It is used to build a complex narrative.

I have a hard time finding any aspect of literature that cannot be applied to good storytelling.

Technically the definition of murder in most dictionaries is between humans, so unless vegetarianism somehow becomes a large collection of crows, it is not technically murder.

However, I take it that the question is not technical. So let's look at the intent if we can.

I believe people understand murder to mean the taking of life (not the true definition, but there it is). If you look at it this way, killing a plant is murder.

I doubt this is the intent of the question. That was too easy.

So what ARE you asking? Most people are horrified at the delivered pain to other creatures. This is both an empathic and sympathetic response. In fact, to not feel this response is sociopathic. As creatures of reason and remorse, we have made it a social understanding (ethics) to expunge this behavior.

This is all a part of our mammalian conditioning. Sympathy is an evolved response to keep the race going. We feel personal pain when we ignore the pain of others, and will resolve to correct it for the betterment of ourselves and thus the species.

What counters this is when this response is in contradiction to other natural responses, such as hunger. We feel much greater empathic responses to human pain than to the pain of a cow, but that doesn't mean the trauma is imperceptible. So why do we kill our bovine companions? Well, for their meaty bits! Our carnivorous instincts are present as well, and evolutionary responses will always lean towards the one that favors the species survival the greatest.

So I would think that any society of creatures that are not quite human must resolve this issue similarly. If there is an empathic or sympathetic response, it will be weighed against other criteria such as hunger or fear of reprisal. If one side wins with a wide enough margin, it will most likely conclude to be a social norm and ethically sound.

Addendum:

Now, with that in mind I tried to issue the same logic to Golarian specifically. I think that SOME plants would be frowned upon for consumption, but not all of them and not by all species.

It will probably be most related to how intelligent the creature is, and my opinion of Golarian would be that any creatures with above animal intelligence would be considered murder by most races.

Races that are less intelligent, less plentiful and therefore in more need of food would have lower standards (I'm looking at you Goblinoids).

They've show him put down captain a few times times in brawls.

True, but the Captain has put him down a few times as well. You can read about all of their combats here.

Make a Summoner and name him Stan Lee. Now summon your Eidolon (Wolverine) into every story possible and that's about what Marvel does.

Also there's a lot of Eidolon evolutions that seem more like Wolverine than character feats/abilities. Grab Claws, Fast Healing, Scent, and maybe Damage Reduction and what else is there to him?

Wolverine is one of the best martial artists in the entire Marvel Universe.

People love to make this claim. I think it's mostly that he's a fan favorite. There are MANY martial artists in the Marvel Universe that are supposed to be the best trained, but only Wolverine gets impaled by swords every time he fights. Way to go Wolvy.

You don't see Iron Fist, Captain America, Taskmaster, etc. constantly getting impaled (okay Electra has been impaled a few times, but she's still probably a better martial artist).

"Class balance -> 4e -> not fun."

(This is not directed at Kirth despite his quote, but merely the direction this conversation is going with Kirth's quote being the most pointed statement)

There are several problems with this line of thinking, with two principal fallacies:

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Petitio principii

Class balance does not lead to fourth edition and fourth edition is not the primal example of class balance. In fact, the removal of social interaction skills could be argued as an imbalance in the system. Fourth edition simply has better balanced combat, and that is all.

Fourth edition is not objectively accepted as not fun. It has fans like every other game system. It has less fans than 3.5 for more reasons than a balance issue. I actually believe Chengar spoke much closer to the heart of the issue.

This entire argument is rendered fairly illogical. You cannot say that class balance is not fun based off of these criteria.

The way I read it, he's holding up 4e is an example of how pursuing class balance doesn't necessarily make for a better game.

This presents another problem though, because class balance does not necessarily make for a worse game. Generally speaking, an objective improvement is a positive trend but certainly we can debate that more balance has negative value. I think you'll find very little proof of this however.

I once had a character who became obsessed with the idea that Dancing Lights can be made into a humanoid shape:

Depending on the version selected, you create up to four lights that resemble lanterns or torches (and cast that amount of light), or up to four glowing spheres of light (which look like will-o'-wisps), or one faintly glowing, vaguely humanoid shape.

So I cast Permanency on it. We named him, quite simply, Dancing Lights Man. Occasionally he would respond to questions via Ghost Sound, and occasionally he would wear a hat using Mage Hand.

The real fun was seeing exactly how many commoners could be convinced that this thing was indeed a real creature, perhaps cursed or transformed in some way.

I would also recommend Dragon Disciple for melee sorcerer. It doesn't come into it's own right away, but at higher levels it can really shine. I've tried out a couple Dragon Disciple builds and each time have been a monster (and have had the Magus player ask if the DD is overpowered).

Inferring things that aren't there seems like a bigger leap of logic.

I never made a conclusive statement. I can't be making a leap in logic when I am consistently not coming to a final logical conclusion. I try very hard to say that I have an interpretation of the rules which is not the only possible outcome, and I respect those who can say the same.

I apologize if I came in rough, but when I see people trying to prove something that is not provable, I always get the urge to show how "facts" are actually "opinion".

I've never tried to say that my way is the only way. I have mostly been saying that my way is one way that actually encompasses all of the rules and posts by the developers with a vivid explanation.

Your way does not take into consideration some of the developer's posts. This is fine, you don't have to. A developer's post is not a RAW statement, particularly a developer's Facebook post.

Also, it's not compelling to use someone's off the cuff Facebook posts to figure out how the leading RPG works when you could have forum posts, FAQs, errata, and the rulebooks themselves which are all of ever-increasing importance.

To be fair, Malachi did not originally bring up those posts, I did. He merely responded to them after they were introduced.

I also made a natural attacking melee Sorcerer going into Dragon Disciple!

I will say that there are builds on this forum that are stronger, however within my group of role-players I outpaced everybody. So yes, it is VERY viable!

You take a bit of time to really come into your own, but you'll never be truly behind if you are happy enough simply being a sorcerer for the first few levels. Your melee attack won't be great for awhile, but it certainly becomes worth it.

One of the things that really made it worth it for me was choosing Blue as the color for my draconic heritage. You could choose black as well for acid (or non-chromatic versions) but the principle remains the same.

Essentially, Shocking Grasp is a held charge with no saving throw. Adding +1 damage to every damage die is nice. Also, you may cast the spell, then full round attack with your natural attacks on a subsequent round, which will discharge when you hit. Being ready to cast and charge prior to a fight will mean a lot in the early levels. Enter dungeons with hands a glowin'!

Magical Lineage + Spell Perfection this combo!

What happens at higher levels is you enter Form of the Dragon II, then cast Quickened Intensified Empowered Shocking Grasp as a third level spell and full attack. The Shocking Grasp will net you an average +67 damage on top of your full round attack. With haste, you will be dishing out over 300 damage easily. Claw +1d6 electric (+1d6 fire if Eldritch Heritage: Abyssal) x2/Bite +1d6 electric (x2 with Haste)/Wing x2/Tail.

If you take Improved Eldritch Heritage: Abyssal, Strength of the Abyss you will have some serious strength and hitting power. My strength was over 40 during Form of the Dragon II and I didn't even optimize my starting stats for Strength (trying to remember if I had Rage cast on me).

Finally, throw in a couple Paladin levels and you'll be amazed at what you do against your smite target.

Steve Geddes >> I actually wanted to point out that I truly appreciate that you can voice your stance and attitude towards a situation and still remain respectful of others. You show a vigilance towards understanding opinions.

A lot of this thread (a LOT not ALL) contains negativity over the whole thing. It essentially began boiling down to people complaining about complainers and that calling somebody's way of playing badwrongfun is obviously badwrongfun.

Rules lawyers getting flack on an internet forum is a fairly interesting form of hypocrisy. Geeks judging geeks like they don't already have enough judgmental prejudices against them.

Some people find the rules important, some people don't. Is it really so difficult of a dilemma to realize it's a preference and every form has merit? (can't wait for the people who respond with "but their way has no merit" and thereby cementing my point)

Let's get meta! Am I complaining about the complainers that complain about other complainers? :) I figure I'm just pointing out negativity, but I recognize the meta for what it is as well.

Every form of society has very vocal fringe elements. It is often said that the loudest are usually the smallest in number.

There are also reasons for this. It is by the extremes that a society defines their framework, not the average. You notice it in politics all the time. The most extreme example becomes the primary topics and usually sets the tone for an entire political party which may, on average, completely disagree with the base statement.

So this is also true with rule-lawyering. It is a very vocal crowd, and it seems to have defined your experience on this forum.

But your questions seems to be "WHY". For starters, we need to step away from the preconceived notion that your group works like all groups. Players do need a defense against horrible GMs, and at the moment the rules are the best defense. You may not recognize this because you are not a horrible GM and have not needed to suffer one. Also keep in mind that some cities/towns do not have a large enough game community that leave much of a choice in players/GM.

However, in relation to this forum which was also the point, I see another major purpose: keeping Paizo honest. If everybody had the mindset that the books aren't perfect and we can just house-rule away any discrepancies, exactly what motivation would Paizo have to continue to produce good products? Essentially, this is the impact of customer feedback and this is the horrible truth of working in customer relations. It's ugly and hard to sit through, but a forum is just that.

Well this is where my mind went.

I threw XP out the window back in AD&D first edition. It always seemed completely and utterly pointless, and more an ego stroke to PCs than anything.

I think you are missing the point a little.

Well, you are correct in that my point is going in a new direction. I wouldn't say I'm missing the point as much as I am purposefully deflecting the point to what I see as the actual core to satisfying ciretose, if possible. I am making a new point.

Ciretose is lamenting the fact that the rules no longer back up a DM that prefers grittier gameplay.

He is, and my point is that this is false. The rules completely back up grittier game-play if you choose to do so.

A role-playing game is a series of rules laid out by a publisher to make a collaborative work of imaginative fiction easy to describe and create. The guidelines are a means to an end. The rules simplify a complex creation process. My main point is that if you are finding that the rules are dictating the limits of your imagination, then you must re-evaluate your own stigmata on how you define imagination. The rules do not decide how the story goes nor how difficult or gritty something is. They help you describe the infinite ideas in your own head. If you find something is wrong, the tool set you have to fix it is also infinite.

You state the wealth by level as a deflection to my proposed solution. I would like to begin by saying that the wealth by level chart is a suggestion and not a rule. However, let's move forward and assume it IS a rule, shall we?

It can still be done.

1) You give players the wealth by level.
2) Kill half the party horribly.
3) Profit!

Now they no longer have the wealth and are afraid to go back into the dungeon with no funds. You abide by the wealth by level and yet still they don't have the funding because the wealth by level chart accommodates for money SPENT, including money spent to either raise or stay alive.

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that each DM or group can run a game anyway they like.

But now the DM has to do so by fiat, instead of with some backup from the rules.

It's interesting you say this. I was just thinking the other day that the concept of DM fiat is a very particular term that I have not yet seen consistency for a definition.

When does it stop being called DM Fiat and start being "the story"? Literally everything is DM Fiat by some definitions. I can easily create grit without breaking a single rule, so how are the rules not gritty? When you remove subjectivity you realize the rules have very little consequence.

As so for diamonds, there's sort of a problem with the economics here. You need a diamond worth 5000gp. If there are less diamonds, the price should go up. I suppose they could be entirely unavailable in a given area, but otherwise you will just buy a smaller diamond for your 5000gp, which would still work, since it's worth 5000gp.

The example given was that grit is experienced with the player feeling starved through CON and negative levels. You can just as easily starve them of money. It ends up creating the exact same atmosphere.

I've done it before actually. I wanted the players to have a bit more anxiety and concern for their lives. After they realized that they will either die forever or not upgrade their gear ever again, the tough choice had them sweating the exact way they used to in 1st edition. The GM can create tension if he chooses and there's more tools out there than simply this.

I've been through 1st edition, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. I've played almost all World of Darkness, L5R, 7th Sea, Rifts, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands, and a plethora of more games. Dave Arneson actually was a teacher of mine. I'm not simply some new school gamer.

I don't say this all to gloat, but to add weight to my statement AS an old school gamer: The games still play exactly how we decide to play them. The community may change, but if you are unhappy you still have the choice to try to fix it for yourself.

The threat of character death has always, and still completely is, in the hands of the gamers at the table. I do not believe you are being held hostage to the game system.

I have heard many fine points in this thread for both sides of the debate about play style. It was a very interesting read. I think there were many intelligent things stated that I both agreed and disagreed with.

However your question seems to be less about the play-style opinion and more about causality. However, since every attempted explanation of causality has been dismissed let's get straight to what I view as the heart of the matter:

Talk to your GM.

If you feel like there is not enough grit, consequence, or fear of death, the source begins and ends at your table. It seems like in your game it is raining Clerics holding diamonds. The GM, without breaking a single Pathfinder rule, can very easily accommodate you. I know I could.

So, in summary, if you want the game to feel differently, the community isn't going to be able to help you with that. We will discuss things intelligently about the future of gaming with you, but I'm getting the impression that you are not entirely too interested in that discussion.

Ed-Zero >>

I don't have a build handy at the moment, but it was fairly straightforward Blue Dragon based Sorcerer with the Draconic Bloodline. I went caster straight through with Sorcerer 5/DD 10/Pld 1 by the time the game ended, but I have heard of all forms of variance to this, and you'll get nearly the same results.

You lose your normal primary Claw, Claw, Bite when transformed. Typical rules of any transmutation (polymorph) lay this out, so the base number of attacks is 6. However, it is an arcane caster, and you should have NO problem getting Haste. That's why I stated 7 attacks.

Eldritch Heritage: Abyssal can earn you a ton of extra strength as well as additional damage dice to your claws. Stack this with Robe of Arcane Heritage for maximum effect. Choosing Strength Belts and Strength as a primary stat to receive bonuses at level gains, I ended with about ~40 Strength while transformed. With an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5, I recall having an estimated +30 on my primary attacks before really buffing or flanking.

Now, the fun part is choosing Spell Perfection: Shocking Grasp. This, stacked alongside Magical Lineage: Shocking Grasp, allows you to cast the Quickened Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp as a swift level 3 spell.

As for the damage, you forget that Sorcerer's have Bloodline Arcana, which grants +1 damage on every damage die with the dragon's type. This means 10d6+10 is the actual results of an Intensified Shocking Grasp, so Empowered that equals ~67 as the mean average.

Yeah, so I've been reading this thread since it started. At one point, there was an argument that got a little heated, then there were apologies, then the developers all came in and conceded that they would like to release a bit of FAQ that they didn't originally plan.

James Jacobs and SKR have thick skins. This is the internet, and as far as I've seen they both remained amiable and collected.

So, for starters, there is no Paizo apocalypse. This thread didn't "start the end" and it's not destroying the forums. Calm down people, please. I'd call the results of this thread actually quite positive and I'm glad that the FAQs were updated.

Also, all this talk about rules-lawyers versus GMs that happened after the thread was clearly over seems pointless. Yes, clarity of rules was asked for. Yes, the GM can arbitrate a game. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Having clarity of rules does not diminish creativity, the power of the rule of zero, or turn the game into "us" versus "them". Anytime you create an "us" versus "them" problem that didn't exist beforehand means that YOU are the problem.

My table is full of 3-5 people all having fun together. That's it. Some are rules lawyers, some are not. The GM doesn't need to "kill" people to fix the fun, and fun can be had by all if everybody is actually willing to work for it. The rules lawyers still split the pizza with the GM and laugh at each other's jokes.

At the end of the day, I'm seeing a lot of complaining about complainers and nitpicking about nitpickers. It's hypocritical. The thread achieved something, so why is a very negative conversation about nothing in particular taking up the next three pages? Does anybody actually have a point to contribute, or can we finally be done here?

Don't argue with James Jacobs!

Argue with Sean Reynolds. He often doesn't make sense and it's funny when he's mad. :)

Seriously though, JJ, I've enjoyed and appreciated every post you've made. At no point have you ever been derisive or indirect, and you have remained incisive.

To be perfectly frank, what would solve a LOT of this would be for us to cut the amount of products we're producing in half. That'd give us a LOT more time for everyone, from designer to developer to editor, to be more aware of what's going on in each of the product lines. Keeping all of these metaphorical plates spinning at once is a big job, especially when we keep adding more plates because folks keep asking for more plates... ;-P

Would it benefit to have a poll for this? I, for one, would vote in favor of more quality assurance in exchange for less production.

You could make these puns from hair to eternity and I'd just be pleased as punch!

I don't know what you're talking about? I saw a question that needed answered so I came in here to clear the hair!

Also:

Yeah I do this sometimes.

When using a natural attack in order to discharge a held charge, it is a secondary natural attack.

However, when making the free touch attack or the standard action touch attack in order to discharge, you use the same rules for any other touch attack without a weapon. In this case you would still use your Intelligence modifier as the Strength score for the touch attack. You may discharge a touch attack with any part of your body after-all.

A bit hair raising I know...

Sounds solid by the rules to me!

You could try to argue that realistically hair is made of dead cells and therefore not an extension of your body to transfer the magic, but that's just splitting hairs.

You know, it's funny that a situation exactly like this happened in a game I GMed once. Oddly enough, nobody came to the conclusion that was true for me.

I, as the GMed, PLANNED this outcome. The player was instructed by me in secret to assassination a critical NPC when he was just about to deliver a plot point. It was the first gaming session and he already had his REAL character made, who was going to be introduced later. Using a PC as a secret accomplice GM can be a fun way to introduce a plot element.

Now, my players know me and none of them were upset. They were shocked, and then recovered with a "Why you son of a-" glance at me when they realized, but you need to have players that are willing to not let events like this ruin their fun. In fact, it was memorable and considered to be one of the most interesting first sessions to date.

Not saying this necessarily is happening here, and I would add that if the player in question is upset enough to create this thread, then perhaps this was not the right group to perform this trick on anyway.

The Ioun Stone was a good catch by Gren, but the rest of the data is good and double checked.

Wasn't me, and I'd hate to take credit from somebody who deserves it.

I've been remaining mostly silent in this thread because I see exactly what you were referring to. The thread has become more and more about a small number of voices patting themselves on the back and being exceedingly dismissive of other voices as a defense mechanism. I don't believe this is on purpose, but I do believe that cooler heads must prevail or we've wasted a lot of good data.

I will say that two of my most effective parties I've GMed and/or played involved a lot of buffing primarily done by gish builds. You'll notice that most of these buffs affect the entire party, which makes them very useful for a party composed to get the most benefit.

A melee Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, a Magus, a Bard, a Monk, and a Cleric can put out a LOT of buffs and will all benefit from doing so. It will take 1 round and it pays off.

This isn't a typical party, but it is a viable and played one. When there isn't a single party member that isn't front-lining, a full party buff spell helps everybody, and gish classes know how to cast defensively.

I don't think so, actually. At least, no more a nightmare than any other monk fix is going to effect them.

If the monk still cannot hit the AC, then none of it means anything. Enhancement is only one reason monks don't function against high AC, the other is MAD. The monk has to sacrifice AC or damage to get comparable to hit to the other combat classes, something the others do not have to do. If they try and balance it out between their three 'necessary' scores (strength, dexterity and wisdom) by taking moderate values at each, then they end up behind in accuracy. They simply can't take just one high score and two moderate, or two high and one mediocre, and not lose out substantially compared to other classes.

That's where the wisdom-to-hit comes in. It means they CAN take wisdom high, and moderate their other scores. Or if they choose to take two high scores they do not necessarily have to pay a feat-tax, and they only lose out in one area.

Because the strength monk is a glass cannon and the finesse monk is ineffectual in damage output when compared with other combat classes.

I actually agree with everything you have said in many ways, however you seem to have missed my point.

It seems like you were mostly explaining what is wrong with the current PF monk. Once again, all of which I fully agree with.

My point was that you can fix the monk problems in such a way as to mitigate the need to address other areas. An ideal solution is a clean one. You may be absolutely correct in thinking that Wisdom-to-hit is an ideal solution, however there are a lot of consequences to this change and would require a great deal of play testing. I prefer a solution that only impacts the actually problem directly and has no additional messy side affects.

Let me put this another way. You stated that the problem with monk is lack of enhancement and MAD. I would like to change the perspective on this. The problem with monk is not lack of enhancement and MAD, it is the inability to reliably hit (and also to bypass DR, but let's stay focused on one thing). Lack of enhancement options and MAD are multiple CAUSES to a problem, but are not inherently the problem in and of itself. When faced this way, you realize that the goal is to fix the problem, not necessarily to fix the causes of the problem.

If you remove a problem, the results of the causality are mitigated to zero, and all other factors that they may create remain unchanged. Simply put, being MAD as a class does a lot more than affects your ability to hit. A change to this has more ramifications that must be considered, adjusted, and balanced.

If you fix the problem with hitting, you do not need to address MAD. If you had a monk that could hit with his attacks comparably to the other combat classes, would you continue to bemoan about MAD issues? If so, then why? Perhaps there are more issues you believe need addressed and that is certainly worth bringing up.

Also, as a side note and not directed at Dabbler, I still don't understand why everybody creates a monk ability that is "enhancement" bonuses as a proposed fix. Enhancement bonuses do not stack and you need to create special text that allows it to for the proposed monk fix ability. Either keep the bonus untyped or use a rare one. I'm a fan of Insight bonuses.

I am still under the impression that fixing MAD is a mistake. It has far too much backlash to all other areas of balance and will make the archetype redesigns a nightmare.

If you can reliably hit and bypass damage reduction through ki (and possible changes to ki pool), the monk comes into his own adequately. Also there are other suggested changes to turn the monk into better "disablers" through stunning fist upgrades or movement/flurries. These are interesting and plausible. These are the areas that I think can fix the monk's major drawbacks.

If the monk can be made to continue to be useful and playable in high level battles, why is MAD even a required change? MAD actually can grant versatility to build options as long as each option becomes viable through the other fixes.

Let's keep the "I'm a strength monk" - "I'm a finesse monk" MAD motif. If they both can be fixed through ki, MAD is not a drawback.

Actually, I'd like to put this another way.

There is a reasonable and clear distinction that can be made between a weapon with an enhancement bonus and a weapon that applies an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls.

The difficulty: Is there a REASON to make this distinction? Without developer intent of the interpretation of the wordage, one side is jumping to a conclusion while the other is correct.

This is why the topic does, in fact, deserve a FAQ. There is a valid lack of clarity of intent.

And any new character that did, and insisted on playing it, would be shown the door.

You dislike his AC and he seems to have rolled fairly poorly on HP, and that's a reason to not allow somebody to play? He was being very respectful and reasonable in his approach to requesting a retraction I might also add.

Building an offensive character can be brilliant given the correct party make-up. I see no reason to harshly criticize his character merely because his anecdote doesn't prove that Monks are the bees knees.

Valiant >> Thank you for sharing your character. I myself have seen games where Monks did fantastically. It is not normal, but it can happen. In fact, in my game it was also because of the help of a Bard, which I think drastically improves the Monk. When Flurry of Misses actually becomes Flurry of Blows you do see a marginal change in the way the Monk performs.

The point that many are making on this thread is that this is a very situational experience. I'm glad that you have the party dynamic in which you perform wonderfully.

I think Valiant's anecdotal experience does show how slippery a slope it can be to improve the Monk, and it should be done carefully to avoid overpowering. I considered the ki based fix to perhaps be a morale bonus to not stack with Bardic Performance, but the flavor seems off. I'm still leaning towards Insight.

I think I picked a bad time to post my new ability as Valiant's claims have completely buried it. >.>

The major point is, your unarmed strikes are weapons, you are getting the effect(s) from the amulet (which may or may not have +#) which isn't a weapon.

Why would this matter? The rules make no mention of the source of the effect, and I'd therefore conclude that the source is irrelevant. The rules state that there must be an enhancement bonus, but do not specify or restrict in any other manner.

The source having relevance is an assumption at best.

I've been following this thread from the beginning (and many other Monk threads), but to re-focus this one to the point: If you have three or more natural attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists is well priced.

The fact that the Monk class itself relies heavily on an item that is not well suited cost-wise is not a problem with the Amulet of Mighty Fists. This is a design flaw with the Monk class. The developers even seem to agree as they do not wish to fix the Monk's difficulties using items.

Since this thread was supposed to focus on the amulet itself, I will clearly add that my Dragon Disciple does not find the cost prohibitive. I know that there are Druids that feel the same, not to mention the many possible races that inherently have natural attacks.

Since I once had a horse in this race, I figured I'd chime in with a more direct quote of the data I analyzed from that very lengthy thread:

Old Investigative Data

I still, however, do not see this "HUGE OH MY GODS GAME BREAKING" imbalance that most people assume it would create. In the end, I see this more as opinion than having strong factual mathematical data that truly turns this item into an "imbalance". The character enhancement progression curve maintains the same shape either way, only truly changing the rounding at irregular sample rates (since there are only 20 levels worth of wealth and enhancements to choose from).

All in all, the GM arbitrates this and decides if this item can be created. Happy gaming!

I haven't had much time to think on this, but the concept had me brainstorming a bit.

First off, I'd separate class abilities into their own distinct class. This is because some class abilities are actually shared, such as Uncanny Dodge, and you don't need to pigeon hole yourself by giving too much power to the "Character Class" class.

Also, class abilities increase in power individually. Sneak attack constantly grows and at different rates depending upon the character class. This is another great reason to keep most of the logic of application set into the class ability class.

I would recommend the decorator pattern for this.

Also, some class abilities work off of character level, caster level, class level, or even character ability scores (such as Charisma + 3 times per day). This means that they will need to either be concrete classes with reference pointers to their character, or abstract classes that are passed a character reference when asked to "apply" themselves to an attack. Either way works. I personally favor the concrete classes in order to fully work more in tune with the decorator pattern.

If you truly wanted to, you could use the composite pattern on class abilities to support times per day or other shared and common logic. Also, the decorator problem will help you with class abilities that need descriptors. Descriptors will help you handle how odd effects will change the functionality, such as Plant Shape II will certainly remove access to your claws. In this example, you can keep a list of descriptors such as "Hands", and every affect that removes "Hands" will temporarily terminate the ability.

Now, moving onward, a character class itself needs to be nothing more than a list of class abilities that get "applied" as you level. Most of the logic being removed and placed upon class abilities, a character class then is mostly a manager of a class ability list. Nothing more. This means that you only need one class to handle all 20 (or less) levels of a particular class as it would use a map or dictionary to link levels to class ability access.

This will work very well with archetypes. An archetype now only needs to inherit the bass character class and simply change the class ability list appropriately and you're done.

I have other thoughts on non-leveling structures, but for now this is what you were asking for so I'll keep it short and stop.

RAW does not specifically state that the spell makes a sound.
RAW does not specifically state that the spell does NOT make a sound.

We've been down this road before, and I see no reason to bring RAW into this when RAW is irrelevant. Unstated sentences are not proof of anything and I wonder why this comes up so often in these forums. As always, this is a tabletop RPG and it does not function without the GM arbitrating intent.

This whole conversation is GM discretionary of course. Let's keep this in mind to avoid the whole "You're wrong" scenarios? This is an opinion topic and opinions are not directly wrong.

The question itself makes me wonder if this even counts as a Rules Question, but I suppose not every topic has it's place. The only rule that I can see to be considered in this is the automatic Perception check that has already been discussed.

Back to the fun!

It's a thematic effect, for sure, but adding it has a lot of effects maybe not seen.

You have to ask, "Why is adding this necessary?".
If you cannot think of a good reason, then don't.

My reason for always fluffing additional effects with spells has always been to:

Allow the caster to feel like magic is cool. Swirling energies when you cast a teleport may be inconvenient, but it certainly paints a vivid mental image of the game and players usually appreciate the memory.

But more importantly, high level casters can easily start dominating a game if you let them. Magic is fun, mysterious, and well... magic, as you said. However, using the "Well... it's magic" excuse can allow a wizard to drastically outshine the other players. Game balance is often argued on these forums, but the truth is that in a game where the GM must arbitrate more than half of every action taken, the GM is the true center of balance. It doesn't truly matter what the good folks at Paizo put in their books if the GM favors the wizard.

In my experience, stealth casting can create a very dangerous precedent. I've seen it many times through the years in which a wizard was trying to cast stealthily in such a way that I began to smell cheese.

I like to think that these are both good reasons, but once again it always depends upon the GM and the players.

Once again, RAW does not mention there is noise and RAW does not mention there is no noise. These GM decisions are not RAW, but they are not against RAW either and therefore just as relevant for advice (since I know the RAWyers were ready to pounce on this).

BAMF!
.
.
.
or possibly
BAMF?

Seriously though, I've never been a fan of casting being more powerful than it already is. Putting on my GM hat, it never states there's no noise (though it never states that there is), physics would argue that there has to be (displaced air), and unless there's a Silent feat attached I see no reason to let magic get off as freebie stealth (I also don't let Silent metamagic create freebie stealth either).

A hint of brimstone for flavor and BAMF!

To compare, first we have Spellcraft!

Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.

Spellcraft allows you to:

Identify a spell as it is being cast

Now Knowledge: Arcana!

You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.

Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)

Knowledge: Arcana allows you to:

Identify auras while using detect magic

Identify a spell effect that is in place
Identify materials manufactured by magic
Identify a spell that just targeted you
Identify the spells cast using a specific material component

So, the way I see it, the identification of a spell as it is being cast is more about the "technical art of casting a spell". Whether it is the signs/crackles of magical energies in the air or the casting components, Spellcraft is more about the "craft".

Knowing about a spell in general, that's Knowledge: Arcana as far as I can see the interpretation of it. Let the skill points dictate what the character's know. A fighter isn't proficient in Knowledge: Arcana so it will make sense that he's a bit lost on what that spell you always cast on him is unless you directly tell him what it's called.

Indeed! Thank you so much for your response, Jason!

Seriously, I hope you guys NEVER change when it comes to communication with your players. You folks are a shining example to all developers.

It's true! I was drawn to Paizo and even Dragon Magazine because these guys had their finger on the pulse of the fans.

It can get daunting over the years, and it quickly seems thankless, but it's a strong reason why we love you guys at Paizo so much.

Thanks for chiming in Jason!

This all depends upon how you are trying to synergize with your build (other feats you are taking).

Also, when it comes to how this works with metamagic feats, it's useful to keep three things in mind as well:

First, the real benefit of this trait is lowering spell slot usage. This primarily means that you want to choose a spell you will be casting with the metamagic multiple times because each casting represents an increase in effectiveness. If you cast efficiently only once a day, how efficient are you actually being to when you cast efficiently 10 times a day? This is why I would stay away from spells like Mage Armor.

Secondly, consider your metamagic feats and their applications. If you can apply multiple metamagic feats for different usage, you are getting more versatility out of your trait. Can the spell be Heightened, Maximized, Empowered, Elemental, Dazing, etc? How many metamagic feats would you like to apply at once because you should also keep in mind that the effective level cannot go above level 9, but the traits can give you wiggle room for better spells this way.

A large number of metamagic feats affect variable dice rolls, and because of this evocation tends to have better options. Also remember that necromancy has some spells that do variable dice ability damage.

Finally, keep in mind the other feats you will be taking. If you are going to take Spell Perfection, I would suggest something that benefits from Quicken or Maximize. Spell Perfection also increases your Spell Focus/Penetration abilities and this could be a factor too.

Since the selection is all circumstantial and should synergize with your build, let me give you an example of mine. I made a blue dragon style Dragon Disciple that actually focused on natural attacks. Due to Bloodline Arcana, I do an additional +1 damage for every electricity spell. I can also deliver touch attack spells through my natural attacks as per the normal rules of touch spells.

At level 15 with Magical Lineage and Spell Perfection, I am able to cast Quickened Intensified Empowered Shocking Grasp as a swift action prior to my full attack as only a 3rd level spell slot. This adds an additional 67 average damage (30-105 range) with no saving throw to my fairly impressive 6 natural attacks in Form of the Dragon II (7 with Haste, and over 40 strength depending upon buffs).

If I were a different type of character, I never would have chosen this spell. Essentially, build it around how you are going to be using your caster. It's a trait and a feat tax, so it should be an essential part of your play style.

Some areas of Pathfinder require more or less GM adjudication than others. Some things (like enchantment spells) require so much interpretation that omitting references to GM adjudication will often fail to answer the rules question being asked. The "RAW" (loathe as I am to use the term) includes GM interpretation. Other things (like a new player asking whether Weapon Finesse adds DEX to damage) are clear enough in the rules that there's no such thing as GM adjudication. To include GM fiat in the answer to such a question is to not answer the question. In such cases, the rule always functions in manner X unless changed, and you can't assume that other GMs are likely to make the same changes you do.

To fail to differentiate between clear-cut and interpretation-heavy rules is foolish, regardless of which end of the spectrum you try to push the entire game into.

To fail to differentiate between GM adjudication and actual houserules is similarly foolish: Determining how an enchantment spell works in a given situation is an interpretation; having iterative attacks taken with different weapons incur TWF penalties (as a random example) is a houserule.

I agree with this fully and see it as a well written recount of the point I was trying to make.

To refer it back to my wording, the context must be considered (differentiated).

I don't have any idea what anyone falls into, although it sounds like GrenMeera get's paid on the legit so in my book GrenMeera deserves some extra credibility.

True I make all of my money through my work in which I am a game designer. However, I'd like to request that I receive no extra credibility from this alone. My specialization is not in tabletop gaming and I would prefer to earn my credibility through my posts. I do appreciate the acknowledgement though.

Well, in their defense, they were programmed to destroy us. You can't really blame them for it. :)

That was before, when man made machines. Now the machines are making the machines and all hope is lost!

Joking and debating aside though, I want to give you a big bunny-hug, because of the things you said earlier in the thread. It means a lot to me. Gren Meera too. And Tels. I appreciate it guys.

Well thanks, but I wish I could have helped more. I didn't want to get directly in the middle of things on a public forum.

Lots of stuff...

As I haven't spoken about my direct view in quite awhile, I'd like to simply agree with Darkholme. This is another well thought out post that reiterates my stance nicely.