Phil. L's page

Phil. L wrote:

2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).

That isn't true. The weapon goes to flank something you are fighting, it gains flank as you threaten the creature. The knife does not threaten anything so you do not gain flank.

Both mages sword and spiritual weapon specifically state that they do not provide flanking bonuses, while this spell is strangely silent on the matter. Was that simply an oversight or an intentional omission? Seems strange considering the dagger can clearly flank an opponent.

Are we getting into RAW and RAI again?

Phil. L wrote:

Sorry about that. I realized that it needed a warning, but obviously didn't get it in soon enough. Remember though, that my post was partially facetious so should have been taken with a gram of salt and a shot of tequila. Also, I was not technically being rude to a specific person like you are.

1.How was I rude?

2.I did not see your post as rude, but I put my disclaimer at the top because many posters will try to use such a header like you did as an excuse to be rude. While I did not agree with your ideals I did not find them to be troll like in nature.

Quote:

Regardless of how you change the class you end up alienating someone. That's just the way it is so why bother? ;-)

No matter what you say or how you say it someone will be upset. You might as well tell them the truth. Pretending like a problem does not exist does not make it go away.

Quote:

Video games certainly have influenced pen & paper rpgs negatively. I personally know of at least two people who stopped playing pen & paper rpgs because of them. If that's not negative I don't know what is. And as for the math side of things you are correct. However, its importance has been exacerbated by video games like WOW (which introduced terms like dps into character builds for D&D and Pathfinder).

Two people. I have seen people stop WoW to play pen and paper since the limit is normally your imagination. The difference between now and 1st edition is that in our world communication, mostly due to the internet allows munchkins(not all optimizers are munchkins) to spread the word. I have seen posters who played 1st edition talk about really powerful character builds. You don't even need to do the math to figure out how to do the builds. I was doing pretty well before Tejon's calculator was created.*

*It is on these boards in the DPR thread.

As to whether or not they suck is a matter of opinion which depends on many things, mostly controlled by the DM.

To get back on track. I think the monk is what...

This is one of those circumstances when two people are slightly misinterpreting one another because they're not face to face and being able to see the little winks and gestures that makes it all better.

By the way, I don't disagree with you when it comes to pen & paper rpgs and computer games like WOW. I just think the negativity exists even if it is unintentional or a two-way street.

Now let us not argue again. :-)

As for the monk being ineffective or weak in comparison to fighters and other martial characters? I've more than said so to my friends, since it's backed up by substantial evidence (that has been thrown out ad-nauseum elsewhere). Of course, that little element called fun is always the one that is never taken into account when playing a monk, and I simply love playing my 14th level Eberron monk (Pathfinder rules not 4e). In comparison wih some of the other characters in the campaign he's a damned champion.

Now what about those alchemist and barbarian classes? They're just pathetic and boring if I do so say myself.

Joking! Joking!

I'm a proud member of the Grognardian way. I've even been a quarterling.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, I'm done.

Phil. L wrote:

Warning: The post below is facetious and intentionally inciteful. You have been warned. :-)

Here's an idea.

If you don't like monks don't play them or put them down, and let others enjoy the experience of playing one of the most unique classes in the game.

That might seem like a simplistic argument, but raving on for hundreds of words about optimized builds, AC differences, dps calculations and the like is just boring and doesn't actually solve anything!

This is where games like WOW have ruined pen & paper rpgs. By bringing in this sort of technical mumbojumbo into a game where it shouldn't belong. It's probably why the designers don't indulge in these conversations.

Now, is the monk the weakest class in the game? Possibly yes. But it is also one of the damned sexiest, and when you get it right and show-up the paladin or fighter in your group you can push out your chest and feel proud to be a monk.

A warning does not excuse rudeness<--Written before I read your post.

Telling the truth about a class is not wrong, as long as the poster is not being a jerk.
As to whether it is boring is a matter of opinion, and it does solve things, sometimes.
Video Games did not ruin Pen and Paper. I am so tired of that argument. The games is heavily based on math, so there had to be some mathematical calculati
I like the monk concept, but I won't be disillusioned enough to think I won't be putting extra work in if I expect to make it work.<--This is how a lot of people feel.

Sorry about that. I realized that it needed a warning, but obviously didn't get it in soon enough. Remember though, that my post was partially facetious so should have been taken with a gram of salt and a shot of tequila. Also, I was not technically being rude to a specific person like you are.

Arguing about a class is fine, but when the argument spirals in endless circles and the designers simply nod their heads and move on you know that you're arguments aren't really making an impact. And the reason is that for everyone who hates monks, someone love them flaws and all. Regardless of how you change the class you end up alienating someone. That's just the way it is so why bother? ;-)

Okay, now that I have probably ruffled your feathers again let me continue.

Videa games certainly have influenced pen & paper rpgs negatively. I personally know of at least two people who stopped playing pen & paper rpgs because of them. If that's not negative I don't know what is. And as for the math side of things you are correct. However, its importance has been exacerbated by video games like WOW (which introduced terms like dps into character builds for D&D and Pathfinder).

of course, that all belongs on another thread since this thread is about why monks suck or don't suck.

They don't.

Phil. L wrote:

I would agree with you if there were domains to cover everything and if we weren't talking about a narrow selection of spells. What I'm doing is nothing new and is actually what Paizo did when they released their Gods and Magic book. Each god gave his or her followers an additional selection of spells to choose from or altered the level of exisitng spells they could access.

True, but they didn't subtract from their spell list while doing so. I'd say add those in for the deity in question, but don't replace BS/ES.

My intention is not to replicate Gods and Magic but to use a similar principle. I have no problem with what you are saying, but my way prevents one cleric from whinging that they don't get cat's grace when some other cleric does. At least when it's a trade off it actually makes the choice more of a flavor choice than a power choice.

I actually warned my players not to make Charisma their dump stat when playing Council of Thieves because there are so many instances in the AP where Charisma is damn important. Being players who enjoy optimizing their characters' potential they found this a confronting statement but succumbed to my wishes, and created more interesting characters as a result.

Making your character the best it can be given the circumstances is just the way certain people are, and in particular campaigns (like the various APs) can be damn important. Of course, there is a difference between optimizing your character and being a power-gamer or munchkin, and whenever my players pull this trick I simply tell them that two can play at that game, and being the GM I can play it better. ;-)

Warning: The post below is facetious and intentionally inciteful. You have been warned. :-)

Here's an idea.

If you don't like monks don't play them or put them down, and let others enjoy the experience of playing one of the most unique classes in the game.

That might seem like a simplistic argument, but raving on for hundreds of words about optimized builds, AC differences, dps calculations and the like is just boring and doesn't actually solve anything!

This is where games like WOW have ruined pen & paper rpgs. By bringing in this sort of technical mumbojumbo into a game where it shouldn't belong. It's probably why the designers don't indulge in these conversations.

Now, is the monk the weakest class in the game? Possibly yes. But it is also one of the damned sexiest, and when you get it right and show-up the paladin or fighter in your group you can push out your chest and feel proud to be a monk.

Here, here. Same with the monk hate.

Hah! I spliced together two threads.

I would agree with you if there were domains to cover everything and if we weren't talking about a narrow selection of spells. What I'm doing is nothing new and is actually what Paizo did when they released their Gods and Magic book. Each god gave his or her followers an additional selection of spells to choose from or altered the level of exisitng spells they could access.

Builds? Bah!

Conan spits on your builds and skewers you with his greatsword.

It's all about the style.

Though, in all honesty, the APG makes barbarians a hellavu lot better.

Some people find it really difficult to think outside the box.

Twilight knife made me sit up and take notice for multiple reasons.

1. It's perfect for helping out other party members, particularly any rogues in your party. In fact it doesn't even need to be hitting a target to help.

2. It's great for a fighter/mage or eldritch knight and bloody brilliant for a rogue/mage or arcane trickster (since it provides flanking even if this is not specifically stated in the spell description).

3. It's a force effect which means it overcomes damage reduction and energy resistances. What's better is that the sneak attack damage is also a force effect, which actually makes it a great spell to use against high level foes.

4. As for Kurikami's rant about pit fiends, let's think about some other 3rd level spells being used against it. Fireball? The pit fiend is immune to fire so that spell's useless. Lightning bolt? The pit fiend has a fantastic Reflex save and resistance 10, so we can assume the spell won't do a lot of damage. Stinking cloud? The pit fiend is immune to poison so that doesn't work.

Comparing most 3rd level spells against a pit fiend is useless, since you really should be focusing on all those 5th-9th level spells you should have.

I think Ace has it in the bag. I agree with everything he said. :-)

I have no particular problem with this ruling, though some might say it makes no sense with regards to the gods. For example if you follow a god of thievery or agility, cat's grace seems like a perfect spell. The same goes for a god of knowledge or science being able to boost his clerics' intelligence.

In my new campaign world I will be allowing certain clerics to replace bull's strength with cat's grace and eagles splendor with fox's cunning depending on their god. Bear's endurance and owl's wisdom will be non-negotiable.

Intimidate is a perfect weapon to use in negotiations and business transactions as long as you know exactly what you are getting into (retaliation from the authorities for your standover tactics) and know that using the tactic only works for the short term (and must be attempted again if a new situation against the same individual arises). And people are right when they talk about the situation influencing the uses of Intimidate. Sometimes, the results of a dice roll are irrelevant in certain situations (as KAM pointed out).

A lot of the posts on this topic are about the uses of Intimidate and what constitutes an intimidating action. Let me just say that threats can take many forms (physical, fiscal, emotional, mental and social). Of course, a half-orc using the Intimidating Prowess feat is probably threatening physical violence, since his physical strength is a key factor contributing to his check.

Although the RAW isn't clear on this, I think the RAI is that you can only have one celestial spirit bonded to a weapon at one one time. In fact, there are several indicators that this was the intention.

For instance, the power can only be used on the paladin's weapon and only functions while wielded by him. This put's paid to multiple characters using the weapons (and if that was the player's intention in the OP then Scharlata ruled correctly). Of course, the player might be a dual-wielder or use a weapon/shield combo so that's when RAW and RAI get fuzzy.

The paladin loses the ability to use divine bond for 30 days if his weapon is destroyed. Now assuming he can summon multiple celestial spirits at once why does this heavy restriction exist? Some might say that it's a penalty imposed by the paladin's god, but just as likely an explanation is that the paladin can only summon one celestial spirit at a time and if it is destroyed he must wait to summon another one. In fact, if the paladin follows a philosophical ideal rather than a god, this second reasoning suddenly makes much more sense.

Now this entire thread hangs on the fact that you can use the ability multiple times per day. Now I think the RAI here is quite clear. It was intended that the paladin can call the celestial spirit to inhabit his weapon more than once a day. A handy ability if the paladin is in multiple fights per day over an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, since the RAW weren't more discerning we have arguments. I will leave you with this thought however. ;-)

The paladin's mount can be called multiple times a day at higher levels, so does that mean the paladin can call multiple mounts at once that all his friends can ride? Many people might feel I am playing with words, but technically there is nothing different between the abilities. They both summon a celestial servant, one which takes on a physical form and one which possesses a physical form. So what's the problem?

I have used a variety of systems as both a GM and a player, with the 4d6 method being the one used most often. All the methods presented here actually makes me think about whether GMs who employ these methods use the same methods when creating their NPCs?

For example, if you let your players roll 4d4+2 or 3d6 straight across the board do you use the same method for the NPCs, use a different method, use point buy or just create stats on the fly?

Also, if anyone runs modules (such as the APs) do you ever worry that your dice rolling method for players will make them too strong or not strong enough for the adventure (or the NPCs they face)?

I'm trialling point buy for the first time and find that it at least creates fairly equal character's stat-wise. In some ways it's not as much fun but at least I don't have characters with wildly varied stats (like two people who used the old 6d6 method - one didn't have a stat lower than 15 while another didn't have a stat higher than 13 - the power disparity was almost painfully obvious).

Yay Liz! Happy dance!

:)

Haven't really read all the other posts, though there are some great ideas out there.

Here's some of mine (some of these might already exist):

Arcane Carapace (Su): Once per day, the magus can create a shield of pure force that attaches to his free hand as if he were wearing a ring of force shield, granting him a +2 shield bonus to AC. This ability lasts a number of rounds equal to 3 + the magus's Intelligence modifier and does not intefere with spellcasting or the ability to deliver touch spells with that hand.

Arcane Freedom (Su): Once per day, the magus can cast any magus spell without losing the spell in question. He can also use this ability to power one of his magus arcana abilities without losing the prepared spell. The magus must be at least 12th level before he can select this magus arcana.

Arcane Juggernaut (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana gains an enhancement bonus on all saving throws equal to the enhancement bonus of his armor. A magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this magus arcana.

Arcane Sprint (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can sacrifice a magus spell as a swift action to gain a +5 enhancement bonus to his movement rate per level of the spell sacrificed.(this one or something like it has definitely been stated before).

Arcane Storage (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can store a single magus spell of 3rd level or lower in his bonded weapon. The spell remains stored within the weapon until it is used. The magus can use the bonded weapon to cast the spell normally or can use the stored spell to power one of his magus arcana abilities. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this magus arcana.

Dazing Spell Strike (Ex): Whenever a creature is affected by a touch spell delivered through the magus's spell strike class feature, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the magus's class level + the magus's Intelligence modifier) or be dazed for 1 round. The magus must be at least 12th level before selecting this power.

Greater Arcane Storage (Su): This works like arcane storage but the magus can store a single magus spell up to 6th level in his bonded weapon. The magus must be at least 16th level before selecting this magus arcana.

Intensified Magic (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can cast one magus spell per day as if it were modified by the Intensify Spell feat. Ths does not increase the casting time of the spell. The magus must be at least 6th level before he can gain this magus arcana.

Intimidating Arcana (Ex): Whenever a creature is affected by one of the magus's spells (such as from a failed saving throw) he can make a free Intimidate check against the foe to demoralize him. If he succeeds the foe is shaken for 1 round per level of the spell used to begin the Intimidate check. The magus uses his Intelligence modifier instead of his Charisma modifier when making this Intimidate check. This ability cannot be used with the Intimidating Prowess feat.

Pierce Magical Barrier (Su): A magus who selects this magus arcana can sacrifice a magus spell as a swift action to destroy a single magical barrier of lower or equal level to the spell sacrificed after making a successful attack roll against the barrier in question. A magical barrier for the purposes of this ability is any abjuration, conjuration or evocation (force) spell that protects a target from harm by providing an AC bonus or cover from attacks. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this magus arcana

Sickening Spell Strike (Ex): Whenever a creature is affected by a touch spell delivered through the magus's spell strike class feature, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the magus's class level + the magus's Intelligence modifier) or be sickened for 1 round. The magus must be at least 6th level before slecting this power.

Staggering Spell Strike (Ex): Whenever a creature is affected by the touch spell delivered through the magus's spell strike class feature, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the magus's class level + the magus's Intelligence modifier) or be staggered for 1 round. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this magus arcana.

I never realized there was so much mathematics in Pathfinder until I started reading all these posts (not just these ones mind you but the ones about probabilities and statistics as well).

I can just imagine a wizard sitting down with his chalkboard as a purple worm starts rushing towards the party with the illiterate barbarian yelling out for the wizard to hurry up and cast a spell to which the wizard replies: "In a moment, I'm just working out a few geometrical sums."

you are correct that the classes would be different (which is why I didn't mind the idea of two bases classes). Since that's not going to happen talking it up certainly doesn't fix the perceived problems with the magus. Perhaps there is room for this sort of idea in the archetypes however?

I'd agree that since it doesn't specify otherwise and is a supernatural ability (one not directly related to the casting of the spells themselves) it would probably work with all illusion (pattern) spells.

Of course, after reading the oracle more closely I'd have to say it might be one of the most powerful classes I've ever seen (with the right mystery and revelations). The life mystery oracle is absolutely brilliant (the healer of all healers), with the stone, wind and heavens oracles not far behind.

Of course one of the things about the magus is the great unknown about his expanded spell list once Ultimate Magic comes out. I know the dev's don't reveal things like spells and spell lists in playtests, but with the magus us knowing what he has up his sleeve would make it much easier to properly assess abilities like spell strike and his overall spellcasting versatility.

Just saying Jason. ;-)

That's because everybody hates the EK! He doesn't even follow a code of chivalry (according to one of my friends the EK doesn't deserve the K part in his title because he isn't one).

That's about the only semi-intelligible reason I can give you.

Phil. L wrote:

I'm really beginning to pity Jason. He probably came up with the core design for this class and now it is being absolutely ripped to shreds by the fans here.

Saying that I tend to agree with Jason that a full BAB, 4th lvl arcane caster class would have been more interesting for me personally, especially since Paizo had the wherewithal to break the mold and create a 6th lvl divine caster with the inquisitor.

As for the spellstrike/spell combat issue I think that the class needs to see some real action in playtests before it can be bagged. If after a month of people actually using the abilities in the game they still think they are no good, then they can post negative criticism. At the moment it seems to me that too many people aren't giving the class the chance it deserves.

If he didn't want his work to be critically reviewed then he would have kept it private.

Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Anything posted by the devs here must only be met with applause and b**@-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.

Oh no. You misjudge me. He brought this entirely upon himself and consciously made the decision to do so (well Paizo did but he knows the consequences). That still doesn't mean I can't shed a tear for him or that people shouldn't pull their heads in until they've actually played the class. Criticism is entirely warranted as long as it's also backed up with cold hard facts (mathematical probability notwithstanding) and not just conjecture about how badly the class will perform.

i am really not seeing the problem with spellstrike. it use is for burst damage. at fifth level you can add a 5d6 shocking grasp most of the time with spell combat. that uses up 1 first level spell. at 10 you can intensify it for 10d6 from a second level spell. add empowered arcana and thats a lot of damage there, with your weapon damage.

I understand where you are coming from, but people will bring up things like economy of actions or lack of touch spells or somesuch counterargument.

of course most of the bias towards the magus is subjective bias rather than objective bias. In other words, even if the class functions perfectly people will find fault with it, either because they believe it is too powerful, not powerful enough or simply not how they envision an arcane melee caster (everything from I want a spontaneous arcane melee caster to I want to be able to rule the cosmos with my unstoppable gishnaut!)

Ah... spell combat as the arcane version of rage.

Spell combat as a stance that can be maintained for a number of rounds equal to 5 + the magus's Intelligence modifier. At each level beyond 2nd the magus can use his spell combat stance for an additional 2 rounds. While maintaining this stance the magus can make a full attack and cast a spell in the same round, taking a -4 penalty to hit and a -2 penalty to his Concentration checks. He can also add his Intelligence modifier as a bonus to attack and damage rolls, and can add his Strength modifier to his Concentration checks (whether or not he attacks and casts a spell in the same round). At the end of the stance, the magus suffers magical fatigue and takes a -2 penalty to his caster level for 1 minute.

The spell combat stance can then improve at later levels, gradually removing the penalties while retaining the benefits.

Now these new spellstrike ideas do sound interesting. I would suggest however that elemental damage is actually inferior to straight arcane damage in most circumstances and particularly at high levels. If I would make a suggestion it would be to make the first type of damage dealt fire, then follow up with cold, electricity, acid, sonic and finally force.

Of course, I can also see the point of view of those people not wanting to change spellstrike that much because they like the base mechanic, just not its application. Perhaps a compromise of some sort can be reached?

I'm really beginning to pity Jason. He probably came up with the core design for this class and now it is being absolutely ripped to shreds by the fans here.

Saying that I tend to agree with Jason that a full BAB, 4th lvl arcane caster class would have been more interesting for me personally, especially since Paizo had the wherewithal to break the mold and create a 6th lvl divine caster with the inquisitor.

As for the spellstrike/spell combat issue I think that the class needs to see some real action in playtests before it can be bagged. If after a month of people actually using the abilities in the game they still think they are no good, then they can post negative criticism. At the moment it seems to me that too many people aren't giving the class the chance it deserves.

When Paizo brought out their new system they made a conscious decision to remove an element that had previously been in the game for working out the effective character level (or ECL) of monstrous characters. They did this for a variety of reasons I won't get into here, but it means that you should not use CR for working out the new power level of characters in comparison to the rest of the party. The reason for this is that while you might encounter a vampire or graveknight as an enemy only once (or perhaps a couple more times if you don't kill them right) players who change into these creatures get the templates abilities all of the time, which fundamentally changes their power levels.

In Pathfinder the level adjustment for a vampire would be about +6, for a graveknight it would be about +5 and for a skeleton champion it would be about +2. In other words if all your PCs were 10th level, the vampire would have an ECL of 16 (even though he was still only a 10th level character), the graveknight an ECL of 15 and the skeleton champion an ECL of 12. Looking at the templates like this you begin to see the disparity you were talking about.

It's not always falling, there's also lava :3

Yeah, but falling was brought up first. :)

Paragon of winter is way too powerful, particularly when combined with piercing cold or a feat like Intensify Spell. Perhaps the damage should be equal to your level for the entire spell not for each die of damage (starting at +20 cold damage at 20th level and progressing from there).

Not a bad version, even though I prefer the boreal bloodline as it already exists.

Sharoth is banned for banning two people in a row.

Sharoth is banned for banning himself.

If I have a scroll of it? Yes please thank you. It might get used, or it might sit on the character sheet until the character dies, or I'm done playing it.

If it's not a spell I plan to use a daily slot on, then it doesn't belong on a "top 10 spells" list, unless that list is "Top 10 spells to be put on a scroll" in which case I can still think of other spells I would rather have scrolls of.

That's why the wizard should be using a wand of indentify instead. ;)

Ah, the old falling issue rears its head once again.

Why is it that falling is always the thing that gets brought up? What about having a 2-ton block of stone falling on top of you (12d6 damage or thereabouts), or being critically hit with a rune giant's greatsword (with its 20-foot blade). That happended to a player's character and he was barely scratched.

At what stage is believability superceded by fantasy? When the PC is 5th level, 10th level, 20th level, 50th level? I'm sorry, but if a 10th level fighter can kill a dire bear or hill giant in single combat you can have him survive a 100 foot fall.

Also remember that Pathfinder and 3.5 regularly break the laws of physics. You could say that a dragon flies because of the magic inherent in its blood, but what about a hill giant? Any human that tall and big would collapse under his or her own weight unless they were structurally very different from humans.

Maybe adventurers are structurally different from normal humanoids? Maybe they survive those great falls because the fates have something truly miraculous in store for them.

I HATE anything that starts with P.

Hey, wait a minute...

Can you trip with a spiked chain if you don't have proficiency? with a -4 yes you can. But I'm think I'm done with the whole thing. Seems like a lot of work for a mediocre monk that would do better just hitting things with his fists, and it seems I'm out numbered here. Thanks for the posts even if I don't agree with them.

Of course you can. And I would say that you can trip with a chain as well. The monk of the empty hand would just take a -4 penalty for doing so unless he had Exotic Weapon Proficiency (chain). To use the chain as a trip weapon he would need to treat it as a weapon not an improvised weapon and thus would need different feats for doing so without the penalty.

And as for the monk of the empty hand being mediocre once the monk has the ki weapons ability he can use his unarmed strike damage for all improvised weapons (at 5th). And lets not forget that he can deal slashing and piercing damage as well (at 3rd). Combine this with the ability to throw virtually anything you can lift as a weapon and you have quite an effective monk.

With regards to normal weapons being used as improvised weapons it's a case of one feat and therefore one way of using the weapons being in opposition to the normal way of using the weapon. For instance, a monk of the empty hand can use any exotic weapon as an improvised weapon but in so doing loses any of the benefits of using the weapon normally (tripping, disarming, etc).

I see the monk of the empty hand as grabbing anything within reach and using it as a weapon before dropping said item when it has become broken (sort of like that guy in the Dead Rising video game).

I think you have confused yourself into thinking that you have specifically trained with one particular improvised weapon. The feat allows you to pick up anything that is not a weapon (a chair, a sharpened ostrich quill, a frozen halibut) and use it as such. Because the list of improvised weapons is endless all improvised weapons use a simple formula whan working out damage and what special abilities they have. This is part of the reason that the monk of the empty hand is given versatile improvization and ki weapons as abilities. The spiked chain can trip because of the barbs along its length. They catch hold of prey and wrench them off their feet. You could technically do this with a length of chain (in a slightly different way) but you wouldn't be using the Catch Off-Guard feat for it but Exotic Weapon Proficiency (chain) instead.

You know, I don't think I have ever read anything positive about the alignment system ever on these boards. It makes me wonder why people have stuck with it for so long. Of course, I often play games where alignment is meaningless like CoC.

Can anyone present one instance where the Pathfinder alignment system was or had a positive influence on their game?

I would raise it like a son treat it very well for like 2 years and then kill it to show how evil I am.

Nah! That takes way too much patience and means I get to spend less time bedding and corrupting female paladins.

Sharoth is banned for starting the links. Everyone else who linked is banned for copying Sharoth.

Gandal is banned for referencing old Anime TV shows.

Wait a minute is this a normal puppy?

What if its a disguised quasit sent by your patron demon prince just waiting to be kicked?

What if its a hellhound puppy and its huge nessian warhound mum was watching nearby and you are only 1st level?

I'd personally kill the puppy, skin it and wear its bloody fur as a hat. But then again my anti-paladin would be a bit of a loon.

I wanted to post earlier but a few puppies got in my way so I had to kick them out of it.

Did the dragon fly into the square and unleash hell or did you ride him in? If the Dragon started attacking and you did your best to protect innocent lives then you paladin should have been clear.

Or, The dragon flys into town to buy a toothbrush. You called him a flying lizard and throw rocks at him? Innocent people burn.

The dragon flew in and unleashed hell. I then unleashed hell back. This was back in 2nd Ed. over 15 years ago and it was the last time I ever played the character (I then switched over [in some disgust] to a crazy CN half-orc fighter who thought everyone he met was an illusion - long story).

When I realize a character is metagaming in an unreasonable way (a little bit of metagaming is just swept under the table) I radically change up my adventure so that his assumptions actually lead him into greater danger or down an unexpected route. This usually leaves my players scratching their heads and leads to more exciting play.

You have to be subtle about it however. ;-)

Of course the biggest metagaming I've ever seen is from a player who had actually read the adventure (not me) and didn't tell the GM. He then proceeded to stuff up every carefully laid ambush and derail every plot device. The GM had no idea what was happening.

It was mean, but it was priceless.

The latest posts actually remind me of all those action movies where the good guy has no problem killing hundreds of faceless hired goons but then takes the BBEG to jail instead.

I once lost my paladinhood for fighting a red dragon in the town square. I killed the dragon (who had been attacking the village) but during the fight a dozen-odd innocent people died when it breathed on me and they were caught in the cone.

by raw, (or at least common opinion) it does work. you would get 3 thrown dagger attacks at a -4 penalty.

2 weapon fighting does not explicitly require the weapon to be a melee weapon. it stacks with rapid shot for this particular purpose. just remember that you get half your strength bonus to damage with the 3rd dagger.

I suppose it does not specifically say that you can't (by RAW). I don't think it's a very effective combat strategy however.

Xabulba and Sharoth are banned for using ridiculous fantasy pseudonyms instead of their real names.

Gary is banned for not using a fantasy pseudonym.

Everyone is retroactively banned for banning me in the future!

We know that the paladin followed Erastil but what if he followed a god of mercy, life, peace, love or healing?

Would killing the sleeping wyverns be an evil act or just an ethos violation?

And if this is the case are you saying that mercy, peace or healing are not GOOD actions or endeavors?

What if he followed a god of honor and justice instead? What if he followed a god of good dragons who viewed wyverns as a blight upon the face of the world (spilled as they were from the urine of the god of evil dragons)?

Just postulating. :-)