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

Scott Wilhelm's page

Organized Play Member. 4,856 posts (4,860 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,856 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

To make your character functional while blind, you don't need to do more than have the Scent Ability and the Blind Fighting Feat. Blind Fighting lets you navigate, keep your Dex Mod to AC, and reroll Miss Chances. Scent lets you find your opponents' squares. Catfolk can get Scent as an Alternative Racial Trait. Half Orcs can get it as a Feat. Dwarves can get Tremorsense at the cost of like 2-3 Feats. Improved and Greater Blind Fighting would certainly helped, but my Half Orc Grappler with Blind Fighting and Keen Scent never felt the need to take those: Blind Fighting was enough for her.

Next, this character at level 1 probably wants Smoke Sticks, lots of SmokeSticks. When he can afford it, an Eversmoking Bottle. Hopefully, the Rest of the party will work out countermeasures against going Blind/fighting Invisible opponents, or your Blind Fighter will be the only one who IS any good in melee.


I have an idea for an AoO build I've never had time to play up. I was thinking if you were an Inquisitor with some levels in Fighter, Ranger, and/or Paladin, you might fight Thunder and Fang style and also take the Shield Slam Feat, getting a free Bull Rush with every hit of your Klar.
If you then took Greater Bull Rush, you would give all your Allies Attacks of Opportunity with every Shield Bash. And if you took Paired Opportunist, you would get that AoO, too. If you had a Flanking buddy or something, your Attack of Opportunity could be yet another bash with the Klar, triggering more Attacks of Opportunity, looping AoOs for as long as your Combat Reflex held out.

Since the Bashing Enchantment gives no love to the Klar anymore, your Klar will be the thing you put Bane on. Get a Wand of Lead Blades anyway to make your Earthbreaker do 3d6.


Mr.Nightray wrote:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/broken-wing-gambit-combat-teamwo rk/

Broken Wing Gambit is a favorite of mine. Some GMs would say that since it is a Teamwork Feat, they wouldn't let you use it without other party members taking the Feat or without special features in your character builds, Solo Tactics or Tactician, for example.

Another Teamwork Feat that needs to be mentioned is Harder they Fall, since a Tripping Build was suggested. You can't Trip someone who is more than 2 Sizes bigger than you, but with Harder they Fall, you can. Although not Teamwork Feats and not exactty Tripping Feats, Tangle Feet and Punishing Kick might be good to take for certain Tripping builds.

Another potentially powerful way to finesse Attacks of Opportunity from your opponents is Snake Style Feats. With Snake Fang, you get an Unarmed Attack of Opportunity and an Unarmed Immediate Action Attack every time you are missed in Combat. This would stack with Broken Wing Gambit: you would get 1 AoO for being Attacked (with that +2 Bonus) and another if the Attack misses. There is a problem with this Feat Tree: you need 9 levels in Sense Motive to take Snake Fang which means you can't possibly take it before level 9.

A Style Feat Tree you could pluck fruit from at quite low levels is the Panther Style Feat Tree. Panther Claw gives you Free Action Unarmed Strikes whenever you trigger Attacks of Opportunity by Moving out of Threatened Squares. These are not Attacks of Opportunity, either, but that means they stack with the AoOs you might get from BWG and Snake Fang. Also, since you are drawing lots of attacks with this character, it would behoove you to take Dodge and Mobility, and then you might as well take Whirlwind Attack. This character might benefit from Vital Strike Feats as well. I'm starting to think the MOMs Monk might not suck after all.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Anyone can combine iterative attacks and nat attacks. What you can't do is have unarmed strikes be part of a natural attack combo. They might count as natural attacks for certain things, but they don't have a primary or secondary signifier, nor are they ever called out as actually being natural attacks that can be used in a combo.
You can totally combine natural and manufactured weapons in the same Full Attack Action. There are certain problems with it: you can't swing a sword and make a Claw Attack with the same hand, for instance, but you can certainly swing a sword and make a Bite Attack with the same Full Attack Action. I don't have time to cite chapter and verse right now, but honestly, a brief look at the Natural Attacks Universal Monster Rules will demonstrate that this is correct.
Thank you for vehemently agreeing with me. A natural attack combo is when all of your primary nat attacks are counted as primary, instead of having all your nat attacks counted as secondary when combined with your iterative attacks. AKA, when you don't use your iteratives.

At this point, it seems like any disagreement we have is just a definition-of-terms disagreement that I don't have a problem with conceding to you.

If I understand you correctly, you are defining a Natural Attack Combo as a Full Attack Action that consists exclusively of Natural Attacks. I will try to remember and respect your definition.


shaventalz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I've seen people combo things with some trip feats that cause AoO when you trip them successfully, but can't recall the names of the feats.
Greater Trip makes the enemy provoke when you trip them. The Vicious Stomp feat makes someone who falls prone next to you provoke from you, and the attack has to be a boot to the head.

Tripping can be done as an Attack Action, so your could combine Great Cleave with Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, attacking every adjacent foe and also every foe within Reach.

My favorite Tripping Weapon is not a popular one: I like Sickles. My thinking is that Tripping carries the danger of a catastrophically low roll resulting in your getting Tripped yourself. That means to me that the best thing about a weapon with the Trip Quality is that in the event of such a catastrophic Trip Roll, you can elect to drop your Weapon rather than get Tripped yourself. But if your Trip Weapon is something big and important like a Halberd or Horsechopper, you will miss that weapon when it's gone. But if your Trip weapon is a Sickle or Light Flail, when you are forced to drop that, you just shrug your shoulders and pull another one off your belt. If you take the Quickdraw Feat, a catastrophic Trip Roll doesn't even have to interrupt your 'Cleave.

Another potential Trip Weapon I was thinking of is the Throwing Shield. Since it is a Ranged Weapon, you kind of already dropped it just by using it. If you get a Blinkback Belt, it instantly returns to your belt. If your Throwing Shield were also a Quickdraw Shield, you can then re-draw it as a Free Action to attack with it again, given you have attacks available to you. You can't normally Cleave or make Attacks of Opportunity with a Ranged Weapon. To do that, you need to take Snap Shot Feats. But now I'm talking about a very Feat-intensive combination of effects. This would be your whole build.


Grenadier Alchemist


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Always Falls for the Bad Guy

Benefit: You suffer a -4 on Sense Motive checks and vs. NPCs of opposite alignment of yours, but all your allies gain a +2 on all Skill Checks and Attack and Damage against any of these NPCs that they have seen interact with you.


N N 959 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Well, he brought the evidence, and I can finally abandon this

...

That's great to hear, not because I had an opinion about the rules, but because it means that you did not become emotionally wedded to your view point. When interpreting the rules and taking a position, I try position myself so that if the rules clearly say I'm wrong, I'll be able to acknowledge that and move on.

This is doubly helpful given the PDT can and has made rulings that have had no basis in rules logic or consistency and I've had to abandon a previously held understanding.

In general, my position is that I don't care what the rules are: I just want to know what the rules are, and/or I am reporting on what the rules are.

With this particular rules point, was less my sexy bride, and more a dessicated albatross that hung around my neck. When the OP asked the question again, I was dreading the answer I was going to give because of the verbal abuse I was going to face for speaking out about my beliefs. I'm happier knowing I'm wrong. If I believe I'm right, I have to stand up for what I think is right.


wraithstrike wrote:
I didn't ask you if you cared. I asked what you thought they would say,

So, my answer was arguably snarky, but it was from the heart. I will add that I don't really like to conjecture about the intent of the rules, because most of the time, all I can do is conjecture, and wherever possible, I like to stick to things that can be definitively examined.

Also, I don't like the idea of being bound by the intent of the rules in principle. I feel like if you find a way to use the rules that the author did not intend, you elevate the game, even if it is sometimes by uncovering a problem with the game, such as with the Throwing Shield Infinite Free Action Attack Loop which I believe James Risner credited me with getting officially removed, but that credit should be shared.

Furthermore, in this case, since Paizo Publishing did little more than copy and paste the Monk Class from the 3.5 Players Handbook into the Core Rulebook, the PDT has no more moral authority of intent here, since they are not the authors of these rules. They went against the intent of the rules by creating Pathfinder in the first place!

Meanwhile, the discussion of what I think the PDT would think has been trumped by relevations of RAW. Remember how

I often wrote:
I like evidence. Bring forth the evidence!

Well,

Melkiador wrote:

Quote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

Well, he brought the evidence, and I can finally abandon this argument.

"In this way" is by way of using your regular weapon attack slots--primary and/or secondary--to make attacks on top of your Natural Attacks during your Full Attack Action. If this is true, then I have indeed been wrong; any use of those attack slots, including Alchemal Tentacles, demotes primary natural attacks to secondary.

In other words, according to the Combat section of the Core Rulebook, it has nothing to do with whether the attack you are adding is natural or manufactured: using that iterative attack slot is what demotes Primary Natural Attacks to Secondary.

2 other people found the link--chapter-and-verse-so I know it's true.

I wish you guys had gone with evidence instead of verbal abuse years ago. It would have saved me years of pain.

Thank you Melkiador: you have set me free!


LeMoineNoir wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Melkiador wrote:

Quote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

I'm having trouble finding the source of this quote, though. It looks like Universal Monster Rules. But when I look at them in the PRDs, I don't find it worded quite that way.

It's direct copy-paste from the Combat section of the Core Rule Book; the final paragraph under Natural Attacks.

I think I've figured out how to link specific sections now.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Scott goto the following link

here

Well, crap: there it is. So, do you all think that "in this way" means by way of using your iterative attack slots? I don't think I can definitively say it doesn't.


wraithstrike wrote:
Scott what do you think the PDT would say the intend of the wording is if they stepped into this conversation right now?

I don't really care what the intent of the wording of the PDT was. I feel that we customers can hold the Design Team to what they did say, and they don't get to hold us to what they meant to say. If I have come up with an interpretation of the rules that goes against the intent of the rule but is nonetheless technically legal, I am doing Paizo Publishing a favor by pointing out a problem. I am not creating a problem.

Also, I feel compelled to point out the Core Rulebook Monk Class was not written under the auspices of Paizo Publishing at all but lifted nearly whole cloth from the 3.5 Players Handbook. That means that all of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game is violating the intent of the rules when it comes to the Monk Character Class. So if you suppose that my interpretation of the rules goes against the intent of the rules, then I will point out that I am doing nothing more than what Paizo Publishing itself is doing when they came out with Pathfinder in the first place. Going against the intent of the rules is playing Pathfinder in the highest and purest sense of the game!


James Risner wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Oh? Bring it! I like evidence. Bring forth the evidence. I will examine your evidence.

See that is baiting.

Baiting isn't about personal remarks. It's about making a statement, that you know is going to illicit a rejecting response.

I'll give you an Example...

Bringing a legit disagreement--a rejecting response?--to the table backed with evidence isn't derailing. That is what civilized debate is all about; that is what these threads are all about.

You say you have evidence that 100% proves me wrong: I want to examine it. I am not "baiting" you to do anything more than to bring out your evidence about what the rules say to refute what I am saying.


Speaking of examining the evidence.

Melkiador wrote:

Quote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

I know this wasn't central to the point you were making, but Melkiador, this is compelling. It seems to me that "in this way" is by way of using your regular weapon attack slots--primary and/or secondary--to make attacks on top of your Natural Attacks during your Full Attack Action. If this is true, then I have indeed been wrong; any use of those attack slots, including Alchemal Tentacles, demotes primary natural attacks to secondary.

I'm having trouble finding the source of this quote, though. It looks like Universal Monster Rules. But when I look at them in the PRDs, I don't find it worded quite that way.

d20pfsrd

d20pfsrd, Universal Monster Rules wrote:
Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack,

Paizo PRD

Pathfinder PRD, Bestiaries, Universal Monster Rules, Natural Attacks wrote:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack,

Both versions of the Natural Attacks section of the Universal Monster Rules seem to be saying that when you mix regular weapons with Natural Attacks, primary attacks become secondary, but when you mix natural attacks with natural attacks, that doesn't happen. And that means neither of these quotes pulls the rug out from under the Monk Class Ability as I have been describing it.

Did you get your quote from a different, official source, or did you just misremember the Universal Monster Rules?


James Risner wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Totally agree that he shouldn't be derailing, but you didn't help with that either.
You are probably right, but he has so much history of disruption.

No, I don't. I am giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say. I am not baiting you into your personal, insulting remarks. You are responsible for your own behavior. Chess Pwn is right that I should probably just ignore you, but I have trouble letting your remarks stand.

James Risner wrote:
His view is also disproved directly by 100% of all TWF stat blocks and monk stat blocks.

Oh? Bring it! I like evidence. Bring forth the evidence. I will examine your evidence.


Chess Pwn,

I accept your apology.


James Risner wrote:
When really all is happening is he engages in baiting with the most polite manner as possible to evade being seen to be baiting.

Why James, I do believe that is the nicest thing you have ever said to me!


James Risner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
a monk with twf with 6 bab and a slam would be +4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes +4 for the slam because of the twf penalties

natural weapons are not a manufactured weapon.

So twf penalties are not applied to natural weapons. Instead, you make them secondary and apply the -5 penalty to BAB for them.

James Risner is right about off-hand fighting penalties and Natural Attacks

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

Attacking with your off-hand weapon only applies a penalty to your primary weapon and your off-hand weapon, not to your natural weapons.


Melkiador wrote:
Quote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

The weak implication of the monk text isn't close to strong enough to supersede this rule.

Even if the monk unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon, it's still an "unarmed strike", which explicitly forces the other natural attacks to be secondary.

The fact that an unarmed strike treated as a natural weapon is still an unarmed strike is not a problem.

But I have to admit that I am troubled by the idea that you would be still making attacks

Universal Monster Rules? wrote:
in this way,

What is "in this way?" Because it might mean that if you use any kind of weapon with your regular, melee weapon, iterative, primary and secondary weapon action slots, then it indeed wouldn't matter whether you are using those action slots with manufactured or natural weapons, it would still demote the primary natural attacks to secondary.

Melkiador, you have done something that years of James's and Chess's verbal abuse has failed to do. You have started to think I might be wrong.

I need to think about this further.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Chess...
I've not said your view is wrong, that you are wrong, that you're wrong for having that view or anything of the sort.

Dude, yeah, you are.

Chess Pwn wrote:
just ignore Scott about this.
Chess Pwn wrote:
please don't.

This is nothing but attacking me personally. Dude, you're actually telling people not to talk to me for no other reason than I am who I am! I'm not attacking anybody personally. All I am doing is giving my best advice in good faith according to what the rules say and defending my person from attacks.

Chess Pwn wrote:
there's nothing wrong with people discussing this with you, just this isn't the thread for it.

There is nothing wrong with offering dissenting opinions. I welcome disagreements. Show that I misread the rule. Find other rules. Find an official rules post that updates my position. But my person is not being offered as evidence. Stop attacking my person, please!

Chess Pwn wrote:
All I've said is that you have your view that you share often that no one that comments agrees with.

That is actually false. I have had people comment and agree with me. And I do know personally know 1 person who did comment and did agree with me who was bullied off of a thread you were also participating in.

Meanwhile, even if I were the only one to hold this view, I have demonstrated that my view is technically legal. I think the Pathfinder community and the Pathfinder Society should make room for diverse playing styles. I think everyone should be allowed to play the game they way they want according to the rules. I am part of everyone.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Personally I feel you should note when sharing your view that it is not generally accepted by posters on the boards though technically correct.

I did note that this is a controversial opinion. Take another look at my first post on this thread, and you will see that.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Also you shouldn't derail a thread not about it with it,

I'm not derailing the thread. This is about it. The OP asked directly about what the effect is of taking a level in Monk and incorporating Monk Unarmed Strikes in with his Slam Attack, and I directly answered his question with my best counsel given in good faith according to what the rules literally say.

The only thing I have done to derail this thread is to be the victim of personal attacks from you, James Risner, and Fuzzy Wuzzy. I don't think it is ever okay to blame the victim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Scott,

You are a monk have a 6 BAB. You have improved two weapon fighting. And a slam attack.

In my understanding the proper attack combination with un armed strikes is as follows. Do you agree, and if not what does it look like for you?

+4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes and +1 Slam

Chess Pwn wrote:

His answer is no, it's

+4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes and +6 Slam

That is my answer. Chess Pwn is right about that.

Monks have a Class Ability regarding their Unarmed Strikes. A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that benefit natural weapons. I have quoted and linked to the relevant text higher up on this thread.

Slam is a natural weapon. Monk Unarmed Strikes therefore count as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Slams, so they shouldn't demote the Slam Attack from primary to secondary. That's what the rules say.

So one person has argued that this doesn't count as an "effect," but I have demonstrated that it can be, pending further evidence, of course.

Another person has argued that the rule only applies to effects that improve the unarmed strikes themselves, which might be what Paizo meant to say, but not what Paizo did say. They didn't say "is treated as a natural or manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that improve them." They did say a monk unarmed strike is treated as a natural or manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improves manufactured or natural weapons. The wording of the rule does not disallow using this MUS ability to benefit other attacks.


James, Chess,

I'm not the one disrupting the thread. You are. I am giving my best advice in good faith according to what the rules say. You two, on the other hand, have only come onto this thread to make personal remarks at my expense.

I am demonstrating that my advice is square with the rules.

All you are bringing to this discussion is verbal abuses and ad hominem attacks. You aren't even offering counter arguments. You have offered nothing to this discussion.

Chess Pwn wrote:
please don't.

Right back atcha

Chess Pwn wrote:
It's best just to comment how Scott's view is the extreme minority and not likely to be the rule in most games.

I can just as authoritatively state that the majority of people do agree with me, it's just that only a minority are willing to brave the online bullying from people like you!

I may not be able to poll the majority any better than you can, but I sure can demonstrate online bullying!


Melkiador wrote:
Taking a level of monk just to get slightly better damage on the unarmed attacks probably isn't worth it. What class is the character now?

I agree. There are a lot of answered questions about this character build that preclude giving detailed character build advice.


James Risner wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Do you have a rules-based argument to demonstrate I am wrong? I would like to hear it.
You have been shown rules that say your entire interpretation is wrong. You just ignore it and continue to say "show me a rule".

If you have shown me the rules that show me I'm wrong before, surely you can politely do so again, and I will apologize politely for my error.

Clearly, if you had this knowledge of the rules you could bring to bear on this point, you would have led with that--years ago.


Renata Maclean wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon. This doesn't mean that a natural weapon can ever be treated like a monk's unarmed strike. Those are completely different statements.

I agree.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Anyone can combine iterative attacks and nat attacks. What you can't do is have unarmed strikes be part of a natural attack combo. They might count as natural attacks for certain things, but they don't have a primary or secondary signifier, nor are they ever called out as actually being natural attacks that can be used in a combo.

You can totally combine natural and manufactured weapons in the same Full Attack Action. There are certain problems with it: you can't swing a sword and make a Claw Attack with the same hand, for instance, but you can certainly swing a sword and make a Bite Attack with the same Full Attack Action. I don't have time to cite chapter and verse right now, but honestly, a brief look at the Natural Attacks Universal Monster Rules will demonstrate that this is correct.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
That clause is so you can cast Magic Fang on the monk,

Your speculation that that was Paizo's intent might be true, but your point is oblique to mine. I am dealing with what the rules really say, not what I suppose the rules were meant to say.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Technically, with a level in Monk, you get your Slam at +7, not at +2. A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Natural Weapons, so adding Monk Unarmed Strikes is just adding more Natural Attacks.

This use of the Monk Class Ability does seem to be strongly disliked by some people on this forum, however. But it is what the rules say.
What is strongly disliked is saying something is true that isn't true, is misleading, and known to be wrong.

Well, let us know if you come across something that is any of those things.

The rules really do say what I said.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Monk
Flurry of Blows wrote:
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks

I'm not talking about Flurry of Blows. I'm talking about the Full Attack Action.


WagnerSika wrote:

Scott, are you saying that a monk using natural attacks in addition to his UAS does not incur the -5 penalty on those natural attacks? Octomonk would have all of his 8+ attacks at full bab?

Quote:

Q: Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Slam Attacks?

A: Yes!
Doesn't this mean the slams should benefit from the monks increased unarmed damage too?

Octomonk? You mean a Monk/Druid that Wildshapes into a Giant Octopus? Remember that Tentacles are Secondary Natural Attacks already, and even if Fuzzy Wuzzy were correct, throwing Unarmed Strikes into your mix wouldn't harm your tentacle attacks further. There is no such thing as a Tertiary Natural Attack.

The build I think you are proposing should definitely include the Mulitattack Feat, reducing the -5 penalty to a much more tolerable -2. If the OPs GM disallows the RAW usage of the ability I proposed, he can still do what I was suggesting, and just take the Mulitattack Feat: no big deal. Honestly, all I've done here is to give the OP something to talk to his GM about, and if he were thinking along these lines aleady, he's also probably also thinking about taking Multiattack.

Also, I was suggesting ways for him to get Bite, Hair, Gore, a Tentacle, and 2 Claws in addition to his Slam. If his GM makes it so adding Unarmed Strikes into the mix hurts all his other Natural Attacks too much to make it worthwhile, we're still talking about a character that is getting 7 attacks/round. Having to content your self with 7 attacks/round instead of 8 or 9 (with 2WF) doesn't seem like that big a deal.


WagnerSika wrote:

Scott, are you saying that a monk using natural attacks in addition to his UAS does not incur the -5 penalty on those natural attacks? Octomonk would have all of his 8+ attacks at full bab?

Quote:

Q: Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Slam Attacks?

A: Yes!
Doesn't this mean the slams should benefit from the monks increased unarmed damage too?

No, nothing in Monk Unarmed Strike says that it passes the benefits of MUSD to other natural attacks. Feral Combat Training used to do that, but it got nerfed.

To increased the damage inflicted by each natural attack, I recommended levels in Warpriest, applying Sacred Weapon Damage to the attacks you take Weapon Focus for, or worship a deity whose favored weapon is natural attacks, Aslan maybe.


Shady Stranger wrote:

Well, you could ready an action as a standard action and set the condition to "I want to attack said enemy if he steps within my reach".

That would only let you attack one enemy, however.

The Phalanx Soldier Fighter Archetype lets you Ready a Pole Arm as an Immediate Action.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Three, are you seriously claiming that a monk's UAS can enhance/improve other weapons?

Yes, I am. MUS does not say that they count as natural or manufactured weapons for the purposes of effects that only improve THEM. They say they count as natural or manufactured weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural or manufactured weapons. The language of that rule does not preclude Monk Unarmed Strikes counting as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that improve other natural weapons.

My reasoning goes something like this:

Q: Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons for the purpose of effects that improve Natural weapons?

A: Yes.

Q: Is a Slam Attack a Natural Weapon?

A: Yes.

Q: Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Slam Attacks?

A: Yes!

Do you have a rules-based argument to demonstrate I am wrong? I would like to hear it.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Two, the fact that many people think poorly of your reasoning is not something to take pride in or brag about, much less to gloat over.

The verbal abuse I have received over this by you, James Risner, and other people is NOT something I seek. But I resolve not to be cowed out of giving my best advice according to what the rules say by you, James Risner, or anyone else.

My advice is based, as it almost always is, on what the rules literally say, the RAW. I am not gloating about being the victim of online bullying, though I sure do have bragging rights about that.

No, I am giving fair warning about my advice that while it is perfectly legal, it attracts a lot of verbal abuse from a cadre of online bullies that stalk me on these forums.


Fuzzy,

My person is not being offered as evidence. Attacking my person does not change whether I am right.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Scott, what do you think the phrase "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" means? Because it would have to be wholly inoperative in order for the sentence to mean that monk UAS is a natural attack as you claim.

The rules say that MUS are treated as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons. Whether or not it IS one, it is treated as one.

PossibleNinjaCabbage wrote:
I would say "the universal monster rules describing how natural attacks work" is not a spell or effect that enhances anything.

To my knowledge, "effect" does not have an in-game definition to be brought to bear here. It is an English language word that just means a consequence brought about by a cause. So,

The effect of combining Manufactured Weapon attacks in the same Full Attack as your Primary Natural Attacks is to cause those Primary Natural Attacks to become Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 ST Mod to Damage.

But for the effects of improving Natural Weapons, Monk Unarmed Strikes are treated as Natural Weapons. The effect of treating MUS as natural weapons instead is that there is no penalty: just extra attacks.

While you can argue that this application of the ability is unusual, and I have conclusively proven that it is strongly disliked by 1 or more people, I don't see it at inoperative. Admittedly, I don't exactly know what you mean by "inoperative" here. But, I figure it means "bad."


James Risner wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Technically, with a level in Monk, you get your Slam at +7, not at +2. A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Natural Weapons, so adding Monk Unarmed Strikes is just adding more Natural Attacks.

This use of the Monk Class Ability does seem to be strongly disliked by some people on this forum, however. But it is what the rules say.
What is strongly disliked is saying something is true that isn't true, is misleading, and known to be wrong.

Well, let us know if you come across something that is any of those things.

The rules really do say what I said.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Monk

Can you quote any official rules source that says this is wrong? Because I have quoted official rules that say I am right. The rules say what I said they say, and now I can show you as evidence that it is strongly disliked by some people. It seems you came to join this discussion for the sole purpose of proving me right.

You and I have comprehensively proven my point true.


When fighting a character with DR/-, the way to deal with it is:

with big attacks like with Vital Strike that put lots of damage all in 1 punch and so the DR only gets applied the once. If my attack does 40 points of damage, I won't be super upset if your DR negates 5.

energy. "Kill it with Fire!" A Flaming sword will still do Flame Damage. DR isn't Fire Resistance.

my favorite way to get around DR is Grappling. Get your opponent Grappled and Tied Up, and it doesn't matter what his DR is or even how many hit points he has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, with a level in Monk, you get your Slam at +7, not at +2. A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Natural Weapons, so adding Monk Unarmed Strikes is just adding more Natural Attacks.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This use of the Monk Class Ability does seem to be strongly disliked by some people on this forum, however. But it is what the rules say.

Another way to you use your Iterative attack slots for a Natural Attacking character is to take 2 levels in Alchemist and grow a Tentacle. Since the Tentacle Discovery doesn't give you extra attacks, you use your regular, iterative attack, weapon slot to use you Tentacle, but since your Tentacle is still a Natural Weapon, it won't interfere with your Slam Attack.

Another way to get more attacks/round is to just get more natural Attacks. Every time you gain more natural attacks, they just add onto your Full Attack routine.

Take levels in Barbarian, and you can get a Bite Attack and 2 Claws or a Gore Attack as Rage Powers. Something very good about this idea is that these Natural Attacks do more damage than normal, and you get a ST bonus when you Rage, giving you Attack and Damage Bonuses on ALL your attacks.

Take the Feral Mutagen Alchemal Discovery, and you get 2 Claws and a Bite Attack.

Take a level in White Haired Witch, and you get a Hair Attack.

Acquire a Ring of Ratfangs, and you get a Bite Attack.

Acquire an Animal Mask and get a Bite or Gore Attack.

Acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord and get a Gore Attack.

If you take 4 levels in Druid, you can turn into animals up to Size Huge and get all kinds of combinations of Natural Attacks with Wild Shape. If you become a Goliath Druid, you turn into Giants and keep your Natural Attacks you already have, just sized up.

If you take levels in Warpriest, you can apply Sacred Weapon Damage to your Natural Attacks which usually do more damage than your regular natural attack damage.

There is the Druid and Ranger Spell Strong Jaw, which gives you a 2-slot Virtual Size Increase to all your natural attacks.

I know other tricks for optimizing Natural Attacking Characters.


I like the way you think though, Coinshot. If you could use Alchemal Allocation with Extracts, you could cast level 6 Extracts for the cost of a level 2 slot!

But I guess that's why you can't do it.

As it is, Alchemal Allocation is pretty darn powerful. Basically it means that an Alchemist knows every spell of every class that can be made into a Potion or Elixir, and that's a lot of them!


Ferious Thune wrote:

Blade Tutor's Spirit isn't PFS-legal, either, unfortunately.

ShadowDax - What do you use Martial Flexibility for? One of the best fallback options is Dedicated Adversary (assuming someone in the group can at least identify the creature type of what you're fighting). It effectively becomes a version of Slayer's Studied Target, where you spend a Move action to get a +2 to-hit and damage against a creature type. For PFS, you have to pick an ethnicity if the creature is Human, and a subtype for Humanoid and Outsider. But it's a good boost to-hit and damage when you don't need Martial Flexibility for anything else.

Aw, shucks.


I've been turning Mystic Theurge in my head for a while. What would a Druid/Wizard Mystic Theurge be like? If you take Shaping Focus, you can still turn into your songbirds, dust mites, or whatever, hiding in your clouds and raining death on those below. I'm pretty sure Natural Spell lets you cast any spell while in Animal form, not just Druid Spells.

Just thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is the Magus Spell Blade Tutor


lemeres wrote:
Jolken Jenkins wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Yes, but this does not give them any more attacks than a monk with two arms... or for that matter a monk with no arms. It just means that every attack they do get has more options.

Okay but also explain this

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Yes, but a monk isn't using the TWf feats. it is using flurry, which is basically simulated TWF rather than regular TWF, and it was never designed with multilimbed races in mind.

Honestly, since you can use your legs, head, and but to attack, but you still only get the one-two style flurry, then I am going to guess that it has no effect.

You might find more luck trying this with brawlers, since their ability is more explicitly 'just TWF'.

Good idea. Also, if you can play a Kasatha, and you want to play a Monk, you might consider playing a Monk Archetype that doesn't get Flurry of Blows, since you don't need FoB to to get multiple attacks. Maybe you could be a Kasatha Tetori who is a good Grappler and a good Striker, and totally dominate MMA tournaments! Maybe you could wear Armor, since you don't have to 2WF naked like Monks, do.


The King In Yellow wrote:

The difference with the vanguard slayer is their tactician ability can be used to grant -any- of the slayer's teamwork feats to everyone, not just the -one- you pick for free like cavalier does. And I'll admit I'm a bit of a fan of options.

Not claiming it's the best option to pick, but it -is- an interesting option.

Ooh, I missed that nuance in Vanguard Slayer! That makes it an Interesting option indeed! I am a fan of options, too!


Heather 540 wrote:
Hey, if Mick has Greater Bull Rush, would I get an AoO from it when I'm riding him? And would that set off the effects of Paired Opportunists?

Mick is your Mount? Yes, if Mick has Greater Bull Rush, you get an Attack of Opportunity when he Bull Rushes an opponent out of your Threatened Square. And if you both have Paired Opportunist, he gets one, too.

I have a build idea that uses Shield Slam, GBR, and PO. I was thinking that if I got into a Flanking Position, then when I took my AoO, it would be another Shield Bash, then we'd all get AsOO again, looping for as long as our Combat Reflexes lasts.


Heather 540 wrote:

I took a look at the Slayer. I don't think it would fit my build very well.

Question - is the bonus teamwork feat that a level one cavalier gets the only one it can share? Because being able to share Pack Flanking would be pretty helpful.

The bonus Teamwork Feat the Cavalier takes is the only one it can share.


Lady-J wrote:
Rurik Silvermane wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
also note there is a feat that lets you use unarmed strike feats(feats that normally only function with unarmed strike) with manufactured weapons meaning you can run this feat with a large butchering axe with a decent str score and power attack and get high numbers pretty easily
There is? What book is that in?
weapon style mastery is one of them lets you pick 2 style feats you can use with your fighter weapon group, feral combat training nets you all things with improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite for all natural weapons there are a few others but i cant remember their names but they were the reason why pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes no matter what abilities you get to be able to use with another weapon

There is also a Human Fighter Feat, Martial Versatility, that lets all Feats that only apply to one of your weapons also apply to every weapon in your chosen weapon's weapon group. I don't know how you might use that to make Ascetic Style apply to the Butchering axe, but you can use it to apply stuff to other stuff. For instance, you could apply Ascetic Style to your Temple Sword, which is both a Monk Weapon and a Heavy Blade then take Martial Versatility to make Ascetic Style also apply to your Greatsword, which is also a Heavy Blade.


It seems to me that there is a distinct possibility of it not happening. Not all the sections of Pathfinder Unchained were approved for Pathfinder Society play. It is possible that not all sections of Wilderness being adopted, either.

Moreover, in order to use a rule in PFS, you need to own the book. I don't own Ultimate Wilderness, and I intend not to! If they want to make it illegal for me to have a PFS Protector Familiar, it is necessary for them to update the rules somewhere else.

Meanwhile, This uncertainty certainly affects my willingness to purchase the Familiar Folio. They already blew their chance to get me to buy Inner Sea Gods with what they did with Potion Glutton. Now they are about to miss out on my money again with Familiar Folio!


I just looked, I don't see Ultimate Wilderness as official allowed resource at this point in time, and I haven't seen any official ruling banning Protector Tumor Familiars from PFS.

Has this happened?


I was thinking the best way to teleport around a battlefield is via a level in Arcanist and use the Dimensional Slide Arcane Exploit. You do it as part of your Move. It doesn't end your turn. You have no disorientation. And you don't even need to take any of those Dimensional feats to use it.

It's not as good as Horizon Walker or Monk with those Feats, but it is much cheaper, comes into play much faster, and it should work okay to do things like Flank your opponents. or maybe use in conjunction with things like Panther and Snake style feats.


I was thinking the way to go for Halfling Mounted Archer is to take levels in Fighter with the Eldritch Guardian Archetype. Get a Bat Familiar with the Mauler Archetype. Mauler Familiars grow to Size Medium in Combat, so your Size Small Halfling can then ride it. Now you have a Flying mount. And I don't think you even to make Ride Checks because it is a Familiar, and therefore very intelligent and can talk to it rather than kicking it or pull on reins or anything. You might still have to make Fly Checks.

1 to 50 of 4,856 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.