1. A kangaroo cannot take monk levels. This was spelled out in an FAQ a while back to clarify the intent of awakening animals and what-not. However, RAW allows for a significant amount of wiggle room in that regard, so it's up to your group to figure stuff out.
2. Effects that augment unarmed strike don't actually include the class feature. Again, there's some wiggle room for interpretation, but generally MUS only affects non-natural weapons. However, Feats and Ki-pool still buff the natural attack, so there's that.
Since it's an object, the BSF would be making a sunder attempt against the ice. If the BSF doesn't have improved sunder, then he triggers an attack of opportunity. If he does have improved sunder, then no AOO.
Greater Sunder specifically calls out Weapons, Shields and Suits of Armor, and since the ice-cage does not qualify as any of those, then no over-flow damage happens.
Wait, I'm utterly confused, when did they change the rullong on FoB?
My understanding is that you can use the full flurry with any monk weapon, and if you want to add in an unarmed strike somewhere in there, that's cool too, so long as you don't go over your requisite attacks.
If something has changed, then bummer, monk damage just took a huge nerf.
And @Dabbler: Monk DPR when built and geared properly is above average. Temple Sword (or Naginata if UC weapons and archetypes are allowed) is key to this.
Edit: Dabbler posted while I was doing my write-up, I'll leave this up because it goes in a little more detail.
I leave the forums for a year, and this old thread pops up again, I believe it a sign.
Weapons do not scale with unarmed strike damage. So if you use a Temple Sword, it stays at d8, and doesn't get bigger.
On enchanting unarmed strike: Before you can make a weapon magical, it needs to be masterwork, there are no current methods of making a Monk's body masterwork, so there is currently no way to make a Monk's body a magical weapon either.
On Unarmed vs. Weapons: My answer is based on min-maxed theory crafting, your campaign experience may vary. Manufactured weapons (Like Temple Swords, Nodachi, and others) are better for monks who want to deal damage. this is for three reasons.
1. They can be enchanted, this not only increases both toHit and damage, but also helps bypass the ever so frustrating DR. As of now, unarmed strike can only bypass DR using the Martial Artist archetype, or being at a level that consider your unarmed strike as lawful.
2. They're cheaper. To get a +attak/damage stat for unarmed strike you have to use an amulet of might fists. The price for one amulet is over twice as much for a single weapon, and is still more expensive than buying two magical weapons, putting the monk at a cost disadvantage if they go unarmed. On top of that, AoMF cannot bypass DR without using up the slots for special enhancements like Holy, while a manufactured weapon only needs to reach a certain point threshold.
3. Crit range is more important than damage die. While having 2d10 damage dice make you feel like hot-stuff, most of the damage in the game comes from modifiers as opposed the size of the dice, so a Temple Sword is on average better than a lvl 20 fist.
On Stunning Fist: Ki is a +1 magical enhancment that allows it to be used with a manufactured weapon, so anyone interested in using both it and a temple sword just need to invest properly. Also, many of the monks alternatives to stunning fist like Ghost Kick or Elemental Fist only require that the monk be attacking, so the ki property isn't needed.
Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Enemy NPCs will have just as easy a time hitting the PCs with RTAs, as the PCs would have, hitting them.
Right, I don't want my NPCs shredding my PC's apart with touch spells (which they're less likely to be immune or resistant to). Just because NPCs can use an option doesn't make it balanced (see CoDzilla)
As much as I think it would be cool, I'm apprehensive about throwing gun-slinging NPCs at the party because it would be trivial to hit their touch ACs at this point for too many of them.
On the Lycanthrope front: What does MCWOD have in terms of lycanthropy that using the lycanthrope template and building an NPC not cover? I'm just curious on the differences.
For level appropriate challenges: Look at the monster creation table, if the numbers fall within the margins of that chart, you should be fine for CR.
During a tournament, I used up all of my Elemental fist attempts to to explode, dealing lethal damage to everyone but the enemy fighter, who was so badly charred that the match was declared inconclusive.
Got thrown at and successfully grappled a dire-bat while it was just hanging there on a stalactite.
As a Monk of the Sacred Mountain, I was used as an impromptu wall so that whenever the fighter shield bashed his opponent was knocked prone.
My Paladin's bonded mount took Savage Warrior levels
The boss of an encounter got taken out in one shot by a lvl 1 NPC archer.
Party just apreheneded a possessed man, so they take him to jail. After they lock him away, ghost possesses the gunslinger. Ghost tuants the party, and then then compells the gunslinger to finish a ritual.
Gunslinger bursts through the window, trying to lose the party. Whip fighter then tries to trip the gunslinger through the window. He rolls a 20. Gunslinger (and essentially the chase that would've happened) is now caught by the party.
Colored Powders, or dyed flower, are both non-permanent and easily washed off in a bath/river/shower/what have you.
A polytheistic paladin is none the less interesting if not a little strange for my tastes. Regardless, since the CRB is the guideline for code, I'll talk to the GM about the prankings (assuming you haven't already done so), clarifying that so long as the pranks are both harmless and don't break the law that it wouldn't risk the paladin falling.
That way you have for sure a clear idea as to what your GM is o.k. with, and what they're not. Especially since the CRB's paladin code essentially reads "GM fiat controls your class abilities."
LazarX's cunning analysis of writing belies the fact that anyone can figure out who a poster really is by clicking on the name (Kelsey has an easier time of deduction because her main profile has her name on it.)
Anyways.... a couple of questions, then some more general suggesstions:
1. Paladin of What/Who. That should help with figuring out what limits the limits are for your code.
2. How is the familiar getting played? Is it just another animal that happens to also kinda be a spell-book? or is it an intelligent being that communicates w/ the party? If the later, see if it's willing to prank a little bit.
General suggestions:
Replace the familiar with another, albeit mundane animal of it's type. That way when the witch is trying to prepare spells, it doesn't work, flustering her a bit. Of course giving the familiar back to her so that she can then prepare her spells is for the best.
Jokingly "feed" her familiar to her. Obviously not actually killing and cooking the thing, just another more mundane animal into a stew.
Paint pranks, either by having some fall on her, or by dipping her familiar and coloring it that way. She'd really appreciate a hot-pink fox!
On a related note, if the familiar has fur, shave it. Birds are trickier seeing as how follicle damage from plucking is easy, which means the feathers won't grow back.
@Calagar: I'm not sure who that's directed to. If it's in response to my post then I'm going to say that the folks I play with do something similar, but it's more or less before there's even any inkling of play going on for that session.
Every player gets to and does make their own character, fleshing out the concept and what they want to do. The group as always lends a hand in fleshing out the crunch of it.
and @Kamelguru: I don't think the OP's post is one where he wants everyone to be able to do everything equally, he's just afraid that some of the more math-savy players might create characters that make the experience less enjoyable for the others.
I completely agree with you from a biological reproductive standpoint. But, take a look at dogs. Most of them can breed together. Compare a Pug to a Greyhound. Who is more nimble and agile? Probably the Greyhound, regardless of size. How you carry your weight is very important.
I thought all domesticated dogs can breed together. So yes a pug (the orc in this example?) and a greyhound (the obvious elf) can breed to make a potentially very interesting looking animal. But an Elf and an Orc cannot in most fantasy settings, even if they can breed with people.
Regardless, the vast array and builds of dogs very mirrors the wide array in which humanity has diversified its appearance, but like dogs, all humans are the same species, even though a tribal South African looks very different from some one of Japanese descent, who once again looks distinct from an Irishman. And even within those cultures, you have both your pugs and your greyhounds.
Victyr Korimir wrote:
Or it says something specific about the nature of humanity.
If there is a plausible explanation as to why certain species are related and can thus breed, then I'm down for that. Whether it's due to some magic or god-meddling or w/e. But rarely is there ever an explanation for anything.
This is conjecture. And really, the only thing that bothers me about fantasy in general, there are half human hybrids, but not half-other hybrids. It's just lazy world building, and honestly only done to represent certain groups of people as having some sort of "exotic" characteristic.
Also, from a biology standpoint, if Humans can breed w/ Elves and Orcs, but Orcs cannot breed with Elves, then that probably means that Humans would be the common ancestor of both Orcs and Elves. There are a couple of other explanations, but I'm a little hazy on the terminology, and thus being able to explain it would be difficult.
Regardless, a more biological explanation normally flies in the face of the history of a particular fantasy setting, which breaks verisimilitude for me.
@The_Big_Dog: Which implies a whole slew of things...... And it's rarely ever explained. It follows a very sloppy understanding of how things reproduce and it's really just so that the world builder can mash together their favorite pet monsters into one Super-cool-thing.
Having a session dedicated to character building. A "session 0" if you will. That way, players who don't have as much time to look things over can set a side a good chunk of time to build a character and get feed back from the GM, and more knowledgeable players.
I've done this basically every singe time I've played, and every character has come out to be around the same power level. It also helps people become more cognizant of what everyone else is doing and can even spawn some interesting character-to-character interactions that otherwise wouldn't be there. (Such as being siblings, known childhood friends, or the other person's pet)
Many of my characters are mechanically minded, so while they'll have solid and cool concepts of who their character is, a lot of that person's history if very much fudged or not really considerered.
That made a few of my players squirm during cross-examination by the prosecutor in the Trial of the beast (basic questions such as where you come from, how do you know this for a fact etc.etc.etc.)
It's funny seeing them freak out about the littleist thing.
Also: the following quote from one of my players: "Court is boring, my character is going to get drunk." Then the player goes home. (he needed to leave anyways, I just thought the delivery was pretty great.)
Despite that, I think Anguish makes a good point. I still have a problem with the mechanics of the feats, simply from the perspective that a mage is "wasting" feat slots by taking point blank shot, precise shot, improved precise shot, etc. When the mage could alternately be taking metamagic feats, these feats are a waste, imo. But to say that a mage could take them and apply them to rays is by no means overpowered. Personally, I'd rather see mages use their caster level as their BAB for making RTAs with spells.
That's really hard to balance in certain instances. If the player's are going on a monster hunt, then more of the monsters overtime have less and less Touch AC, so they become easier to hit as time goes one. Combine this with the fact that most touch AC's don't get all that high to begin with, and one has the recipe for almost always hitting touch spells.
It's the same complaint people have w/ Gunslinger DPR (something as a GM I'm currently on the look out for in my Campaign to make sure that everyone in my party of face beaters is able to kick ass and take names accordingly.)
A thing to note about Adventure Paths: Modify them to suit your party. Adding more enemies in theme to the enocunter, and increasing the power level of enemies could help reign in the Barbarian.
On the barbarian rocking more than the res of the party in this situation: AP's are fairly well designed to reward people for having most all of their bases covered, so as long as everyone else is also having fun doing their thing, then there shouldn't be much of a problem. It seems that he's the only one focusing on combat, so trying to balance combat encounter around him is one possible option.
Other suggestions to make for longer combats: More enemies that are weaker. He'll be wrecking a dude or two every round, but it should give the Rogue and Paladin the ability to foray into combat for a little bit too.
Another idea would be to have other encounters that showcase the strength of your other characters. A series of skill checks/RP moments could help share the "spotlight" with the other players.
as a lawful alignment is supposed to mean you follow the laws of the land.
Correction, a lawful alignment CAN mean that the individual is supposed to follow local laws and customs, but that doesn't hold for everyone.
One can be a lawful character by having a strict code of conduct that is outside of the purview of the local authority, and it could very well include things such as hunting down and eliminating slavers.
Amulet of Mighty Fists ASAP. Getting your style to also apply to your bite so you have a full suite of Natural attacks to use with it.
Get the second Dragon Style feat in the chain and then you add 1.5 STR to your Unarmed Strike, Claw, and Bite giving you plenty of attacks, and a good deal of damage.
In the end you'll have 4 Unarmed Strikes, Two Claws, and One bit to use. Not half bad. I'd also suggest taking power attack whenever you can, and getting gloves of dueling to further increase weapon damage bonuses to your unarmed strike.
Other than that I think you can build this guy pretty flexibly. Enjoy.
Edit: I did the math, Comparing MiB's Zweihander Zelda to Broken Impact Isaac, only really swapping out improved Damage multiplier for Ciritcal Focus.
Now, MiB's Zelda had a max DPR of around 64, using Power attack and all other mechanics avialable to her
Isaac has a DPR of 62.... without Power attacking. Using Power Attack, his DPR is 79, a 19% increase in Damage. It's safe to say that most @CR creatures are not prepared to withstand firepower of that magnitude. Add in crazy things like Haste, and BOOM goes the dynamite.
@TalonHawke: I'm not very much gonna concern myself with balancing lvl 20 abilities. I might do the DPR for kicks, but not right now.
@Irulesmost: Yeah that sounds fair, I'll let the players know that this is an option, and I'll add the phrase "or threat range" to the stacking clause.
This ability increases the damage multiplier of a weapon by 1. This benefit doesn't stack with other spell effects, weapon properties and feats that increase the damage multiplier of a weapon(Such as the Heighten Impact Spell or the Improved Damage Multiplier Feat).
Heighten Impact:
School Transmutation Level Inquisitor 3, Magus 3, Sorcer/Wizard 3;
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V,S
Range Close [25 ft. + 5 ft./2 Levels]
Targets One weapon or 50 projectiles, all of which must be together at the time of casting
Duration 10 min/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)
Description This spell magically improves a weapon's impact, increasing the damage it deals during a critical hit. This transmutation increases the damage multiplier of the weapon by 1. A damage multiplier of 2 becomes 3. A damage multiplier of 3 becomes 4. A damage multiplier of 4 becomes 5. If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target. Treat shuriken as arrows, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.
Multiple spell effects, weapon properties and feats that increase a weapon's damage multiplier (such as the impact special weapon property and the Improved Damage Multiplier feat) don't stack. You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.
Improved Damage Multiplier:
Critical attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your damage multiplier is increased by one.
Special: You can gain Improved Damage Multiplier multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any spell effect, weapon property or feat that increase the damage multiplier of a weapon.
A note on the stack wording: I want this effect to still work with a Fighter's capstone ability Weapon Mastery. I think that if someone wants to take their Naginata all the way to a x6 multiplier, they are more than welcome to.
Now here is my conundrum: Should I allow this to also stack with things that increase a weapon's threat range as well? Doing so will definitely create a very powerful option for characters, and increase DPR, but is it unbalancing?
Or should I keep this as more of an option for players who don't want more crits, but bigger ones?
Ok I'm not a math guy by any means, but I have a couple questions:
Does the fact that you used an unrealistic hit frequency (anything other than a 1 hits) have any statistical significance?
No, and this is for a couple of reasons.
1. When you have two different weapons, so long as your comparing the same chance to hit, it doesn't matter what hit frequency you use, it'll come out the same in terms of ratios (which is what would be compared, as the difference between damage changes with accuracy and damage modifiers, but the ratio of damage does not.) This is what (I think) Egoish said in a nutshell.
2. The way DPR calculates damage already takes into account both The chance that something is a critical threat, and the chance that critical threat is confirmed.
3. I'm under the assumption that this guide will contain extensive coverage of all aspects of weapon use and may be even modification. So it will show the numbers and compare things like how keen/improved critical affects things like Scimitars, Greatswords, and Clubs.
Still, not everyone uses the Planescape, Alignment-is-absolute model. And it's not the default model for D&D.
It actually is. In lots of different threads when asked about alignment (Particularly is Summoning an Evil Outsider an evil act) spells with the evil descriptor are concretely evil acts, always and forever. Doesn't matter if you used blood crow strike to stop a murder or summoned Barbazu to save an orphanage, those two actions are concretely evil. (Again, this is distinct from actually stopping the murder and saving the orphanage, both of which are separate actions weighed individually from the other actions)
And I fundamentally disagree with alignment being the purview of the players. Alignment is a setting concern, and as such always the jurisdiction of the GM. It is as always the responsibility of the GM to communicate to their players how alignment works in the world, the only time players have a say in the way actions are weighed comes from talking with the GM to get input, and convince in one direction or the other.
Though I've now been interested in an idea: Why not create a guide to Alignment options? A sort of rulebook detailing all sorts of ways in which alignment can be deployed in a world, ranging from it's complete absence (and a set of rules that help convert spells and effects that deal with alignment into an alingmentless world) To a very concrete every action is X, Neutral, or Y.
1. Talk to your GM, let him know that the way Rovengo was portrayed made the whole town much less sympathetic to help, this is important for the upcomming Arc, and a couple of the later adventures.
2. Never "drop" an issue w/ your GM in the sense that if something is bothering you, let him know. It's important to give feed back so they can modify the adventure to fit the party.
In response to Ustalav being NE, The town of Rovengo is NG in the Adventure splat book. They're a gossipy rumor-mongering town, but not anywhere near xenophobic as people might portray them. At least, I didn't portray them that way.
Well, I personally, would like to dump Strength and NOT dump Charisma. That'd be my goal. If it were up to me, I'd melee fight entirely with Charisma and Intelligence and dump all my other stats. Well, maybe keep a little Dex.
I see your point about the point buy, but I would be willing to pay an exorbitant number of feats to cover the extra point buy.
Which means that on 20 pt buy you can have two 18's before racials.... Not countering some of the traits already in the game that can add Cha to Init, etc.
Man, that would be the greatest Gestatlt Wizard/Sorcereer ever.
As for food, I'm always a fan of Chili, Hamburgers, Enchiladas, and other sorts of fun.
option for non-precision melee damage while dumping strength.
Yeah..... that's something that would be neat because I like making stats modular, but it's also very broken.
The Bold was from my emphasis, Allowing DEX to attack and Damage makes STR a dump stat on par with CHA. So you'd in essence be able to get an additional 8 points off of a point by system, since both of those stats would in essence only affect skill. Encumberance is very much handwaived by GMs, and if not, a handy Haversack/Bag of holding should do fine.
Arguments about alignment are overblown. I think the system as is is fine, and I still use it in my games because I like the idea that the quintessential moral essence of a being has an impact on how magic and other things intereact with them.
To answer you question, No, balancing options is not anti-fun, the opinion of a developer on a Lord of the Rings RPG doesn't mean much in this regard.
And of course it's always a matter of degree. A properly min-maxed Two-Handed fighter might deal more damage than the rest of the party, but that doesn't mean the Four-Winds/Sacred Mountain Monk isn't a mean combatant in his own right, or that the Rogues trap-finding and disable device aren't invaluable.
However a Gestalt Cleric/Ranger would probably blow a lot of folks out of the water since they get an animial companion, lots of skills, spells, Domain abilities, bonus feats etc. Such a character could easily neutralize encounters left and right, making the party feel like there's no point to being there, and giving the GM a hard time of building encounters.
In fact if you count in bracers of armor a monk can actually meet the AC of fighters, however it does require paying very close attention to what you are doing.
And honestly, I'm okay with that. The monk isn't really a class I would recommend for every player. In fact I would only recommend it for players that have shown a talent for the numbers and have an advanced understanding of the system involved.
My only disagreement here is that I think every option should be as easy to build and ply together as every other option. Especially since few people play things for mechanics, but for flavor.
On that note, almost universally since I've started playing inexperienced, or unnattentive players have been the ones that have gravitated to the monk because of the class's innate radness. This can be problematic when the player doesn't have any idea as to how to properly build the character for the roles envisioned by that player.
I alignment is overblown. People make waaay too much of a fuss over it, and in the end, don't even come to a concensus when the discussion is all said and done.
I second Kilokotroni's advice. While I enver ended up gaming with them (I didn't start until College) there were several players who were already into D&D.
Good work all around, however I would like to mention that the second conclusion is only marginal, and not true for all damage values.
Once the average damage exceeds 10, higher crit weapons pull ahead of larger damage die weapons for x2 vs x4 weapons.
Once the average damage reaches 21, the higher crit weapons pull ahead of larger damage die weapons for x2 vs x3 weapons
Once the Average damage reaches 22, the higher crit weapons pull ahead of larger damage die weapons for x3 vs x4 weapons.
This is important info to know so people can make informed disicions on their weapons. If the player doesn't care at all for damage, or is in a low level campaign or what have you and they don't think they'll ever reach numbers higher than 10 or 20 for damage, then they can pick accordingly.
