|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
To be honest, at least as a kobold you'll be able to strike fear into the hearts of adventurers when you invite them to your home. Also, being a Kobold is less embarrassing than being a mite. Mite's just look like old people with butter knives trying to shank someone for being on their lawn.
James Jacobs wrote:
Did you lie when you said no one guessed it?
James Jacobs wrote:
Including raining lolipops made out of frozen acid! Lick the lolipop and lose your tongue!
The Fiend Fantastic wrote:
How does one kill a Goblin forever? Force it to become a Wizard with Sacred Geometry.
I believe you mean to say, "If the first one wasn't right, go in whichever direction is left."
Insain Dragoon wrote:
There's been a Monk in nearly every game I've played for the last ~10 years and I can only recall 3 or 4 successes. Even on a Monk built around Dex and Wisdom.
Wearing a monk's robe makes no difference because it doesn't increase your movement speed.
The primary reason one would take Flying Kick is determined by the amount of fast movement you get. At 5th level, it's arguably worth it to do so (20 ft. movement) compared to another Style Strike like Elbow Smash or even the Foot Stomp one (lets you stamp on their feet and prevent them from moving). At 10th level though? Now you've got some real distance and can start leaping all over the place.
I asked before, but never saw it answered, does spending Ki to increase your move speed affect Flying Kick at all? Spending 1 point of Ki to be able to Flying Kick targets up to 50 ft. away would make Flying Kick an absolute must have at 5th level as opposed to 10th.
I recently had to sort through a chest that my family stored all of the video games and electronics we used as I was growing up. NES, SNES, N64, Play Station, PS2, Game Cube... you name it, we had stuff for it in there.
What I blame Cosmo for, is that most of it was irreparably damaged due to bad storage conditions and wear and tear over the years.
Fortunately, one SNES and it's dozen or so games was salvageable... including The Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past. Because even Cosmo knows not to mess with something that wonderful.
The Ninja does work with Rogue Archetypes as the Ninja is simply an archetype for the Rogue as well. Ninja's can take the Scout archetype, for instance.
Robert Jordan wrote:
No it does not, because the Monk's training makes him the master of his mind. The wisdom score of the Monk is not an aspect of his training, but an aspect of the person.
The UC Monk *class* is supposed to have great mental fortitude. But the UC Monk *class* does not do this. The UC Monk *class* is no more mentally impregnable than the Fighter, or Ranger or Rogue. They all have the same Will save (poor) so they are all as mentally susceptible as the other. The only difference is the actually person who takes up said training.
Someone who has the potential to be a Cleric will find himself just as mentally strong whether he's a Rogue or Fighter or Unchained Monk. But if he undergoes training that actually strengthens his mind (like becoming a Cleric with good Will saves) then he will find his mind stronger than if he had done something else.
The Individual is providing the strength to the Unchained Monk's Will save, not the Unchained Monk itself.
Hell, the Unchained Monk, all things being equal between the two (magic items, stats etc.) is only marginally more effective at resisting mental attacks than the bloody Commoner NPC Class and that's B!##~$*+!
How the hell can Paizo sit there and be proud of this class when it is only slightly more mentally resilient than some guy who works in a farmer's field all damned day considering the inspiration and flavor the class is designed around? They can't. It's a bloody embarrassment and they should be ashamed of themselves.
[Edit] Added "UC" where appropriate to distinguish between the Monk and the Unchained Monk.
I know I said I wanted to avoid delving too deep into the UM until I have it, but I have to say this:
My problem with the Monk Will save? A Monk making his Will save never used to be a problem for a party so they never had to worry about him turning on the party and ganking the casters.
Now, the class that is flavored in almost every incarnation of having an indomitable will along with a superior physique, as being 'one with thy innerself' and balanced in mind, body and spirit, has become more susceptible to mental influences.
CRB Monk with a Wisdom of 10 has a better will save than his Unchained Monk until he has a Wisdom of 22 (+6) and that's only making up the difference between the two.
Lowering the Monks Will save is, frankly, completely unacceptable, no matter what else changed. Lowering their fortitude or reflex would have been tolerable, because there have been depictions of Monks being drunk, or poisoned or failing to avoid obstacles. But very, very rarely do you see Monks falling under the sway of mental influences.
The Unchained Monk became a better killer, and in turn, became more likely to be used to kill the party.
Doesn't matter. PFS is a huge part of Pathfinder, whether or not it's a bunch of house rules doesn't matter because it is published by Paizo and PFS' aim is to limit table variation, house rules and changes beyond what PFS already incorporates.
Why not houserule or 3rd party? Because there have been many gamers in the past who have been horribly burned by houserules or 3rd party products. Then they tell stories of those kinds of games and why home-made content (like classes, spells, feats etc) are bad to new gamers. These new gamers are then brainwashed into thinking that 3rd party and homemade stuff is bad and they don't want to alter anything published outside of a few house rules here and there.
Especially when Pathfinder Society and it's "NO HOUSE RULES!" policy is such a predominant force in the gaming community, it only further reinforces the idea that house rules are bad and that if you use them, you are bad too.
Hell, one of the huge design decisions behind the whole 3rd edition rule set is to codify as much as is reasonably possible so that it removes table variation from games. This, unfortunately, also reinforced the idea that houserules/home made content is bad.
So there is 15 years of reinforcement of the new system(s) itself implying that house rules are bad, and then 20 years of gaming experience before the new system(s) with bad house rules, bad 3rd party content, and bad home made content.
Remember, humans, by nature, speak out about bad experiences, and very rarely discuss good experiences.
I have no qualm in modifying my own games, but there are many people who aren't as comfortable. I've got older gamers I play with (well, sort of) who shy away from non-1st party content because of previous experiences. So modifying the games that I play in as a PC is unlikely, but modifying the games I run is no problem.
Or like when a friend is looking for the phone and it's sitting in front of them and you exclaim, "Way to fail the DC 0 Perception check!"
I'd wait on this. Someone in this thread pointed out that the the recent Concealment FAQ implies the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment. However, in reading the Unchained Rogue, they don't have any ability that allows them to sneak attack a target under partial concealment. It's certainly intended to (based off the FAQ), but the wording for it isn't there.
It's a technicality to be sure, but without the wording from the FAQ, we wouldn't know about the intention at all. I don't know the wording myself, but the other posted said that, based off what's printed, you wouldn't draw the idea that the Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets under partial concealment.
Hmm... you might make 'Magic Skills' be a sub-skill of Spellcraft. In that, every rank in Spell Craft grants 5 ranks that you can apply to the magic skills which allign with the 8 schools of maigc (Universal School would function off spellcraft ranks directly) with an ability bonus determined by their casting stat.
For example, a Wizard of 5th level with 5 ranks in Spellcraft would have 25 magic skill ranks to use. He could then focus his ranks in any combination he chose, with a limit of his ranks in a magical skill not being able to surpass his ranks in Spellcraft.
So he could, for example be:
With a 20 Int, he'd have bonus ranging from +6 to +10 on his rolls when he attempts to cast spells. It would really let people diversify casters and you could see real differences in how each caster is different. So whens someone says, "Sorry, I'm not all that into Necromancy" he legitimately has difficulty casting Necromancy spells because he doesn't have the modifiers for it.
Traits and feats and stuff could be altered/created to add bonuses to the different schools. Like a trait for a +2 bonus to your Enchantment skill because your magical teacher was an Enchanter even if you yourself focus on Necromancy.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Fun fact! Smite is none of the above!
I blame Cosmo for Artemis not being a contender even if he hadn't stopped playing the above games.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
No, the purpose is to ask Markk *all* of your questions. Like asking what to eat for breakfast, his opinions on shows, whether or not to sell all of your worldly possessions and live the life of a hermit, etc.
Mark, have you ever been contacted for help by both players and the GM in the same campaign? Most of my friends and family turn to me for Pathfinder help. The GM is starting a new campaign and wants me help in designing it. At the same time, the players are asking my help in designing their characters.
I feel a little like the Lord of War here, selling to both sides.
You must not play/participate in the Desiny community because they use the word Vex all the time (one of the many enemies are called the Vex).
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Do I get to yell really loud, charge up my Ki and then unleash a blast of energy capable of blowing up mountains?
John Kretzer wrote:
I was going to, but then I got distracted on Wikipedia and somehow found myself reading Celine Dion's page. Disturbing fact: Celine Dion met her future husband when she was 12 and he was 38 and they got engaged when she was 19, implying that they were dating before then. I may not be a father, but I am an uncle, and I'd be very inclined to have a chat with the guy while holding a shotgun and suspending him above a dumpster filled with rusted spikes and lit gasoline.
I blame Cosmo for the dirt that appears under my fingernails 10 minutes after taking a shower.
The only thing really stopping me from using 3pp stuff is simply money. I've encountered and had to deal with multiple 3pp stuff in Pathfinder that isn't very well balanced, but I've also dealt with just as much stuff that is fairly well balanced with a few outliers (such as the 1001 Spells, for example).
I've got a limited budget, so when I look at 3pp, I view it as something like, 'Do I really need this or can I get by without it?' More often than not, I don't truly need it and I can make things work even if it isn't perfectly accurate. Plus there's always that fear of 'Is what I'm buying actually worth it?' I know a lot of people seem to view Endzeitgeist as a kind of 'Word of God' when it comes to reviewing a product, but I inherently mistrust anyone with that kind of following in a community.
I'd probably be more inclined to buy 3pp if I could get my hands on the products and thumb through them for awhile. Doing that would let me actually decide if I like it and let me make some rough estimations on whether or not it's good or balanced. Unfortunately, many 3pp are digital (printing is expensive!), so this is very unlikely to ever happen.
Power Creep is not a bad thing in this game unless your GM gives carte blanche to all things published by Paizo. Remember, different people like different things. If you prefer lower powered games, run lower powered characters.
A good GM will limit player options to things he finds appropriate for his campaign. Just because something is an option, does not mean it is a necessity.
So I tracked down Sean's post in it's entirety and it does basically say you have two metaphysical hand slots to attack with. It's not stated in the rules, but it's the assumption that the rules are based off of.
The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."
When you throw in natural attacks, it gets more complicated because it starts defining SOME of your specific attack locations, and yet it continues to hand-wave the nature of the rest of your attacks. So you start thinking, "I now have two claws, and it makes sense that I can't make 2 claw attacks AND 2 punches in the same round because I'd be using each arm twice, but before I had these claws I was able to make punches OR kicks, so why is it that now that I have claws, I can't also make kicks in the same round? Did my legs suddenly stop working because I got claws?"
The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches:
punches: BAB +0, no TWF feat means main at –4, offhand at –8, for a total of main –4, offhand –8
In fact, your claws are even better than if you had TWF, which would be at –2/–2.
You're at least +12 better overall with claws than with unarmed strikes, but that's not good enough for you, you have to stack in more.
And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."
The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.
News flash: the game is already stacked so you're expected to win. You don't have to abuse the system to ensure it.
So can a tentacle replace as many attacks per round as you have?
Nothing anywhere in the rules says you can use a natural attack in place of multiple other attacks.
I am not seeing the confusion here and I am not being snarky. What is not being understood?
My take is that Sean's post seems to imply that when you make an unarmed strike, it uses your metaphysical hand slot. If you make two unarmed strikes, then it uses up both slots.
If you make a natural attack, it also uses up said metaphysical hand slot (unless it is a bite).
So a Tengu Fighter can't use kick/kick/claw/claw/bite because the two claws and the two kicks use up the two metaphysical hand slots the fighter possesses. Kick/kick/bite, kick/claw/bite, or claw/claw/bite are all legal. At least that's what I'm gathering from this.
If this is how it's intended to be, it needs to be FAQ'd and clarified as I'd always assumed that you could make natural attacks in addition to unarmed strikes as long as you used different limbs (unless you are doing a Flurry). So the kick/kick/claw/claw/bite would be a legal combination.
There needs to be a physical Blame Cosmo box at Paizo. Like a suggestion box, you slip pieces of paper in it when you want to blame Cosmo for something, and then, at the end of the day, Cosmo empties the box and sates his appetite on the physical manifestations of the sufferings of his co-workers.
I blame Cosmo if this isn't already a thing.
No, this is basically declaring that one person's way of playing a game is 'wrong'.
If at any time you posted actual content to the forums, that content legally belongs to Paizo, regardless of you moving it from the forums to a private document later.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I blame Cosmo for Pillbug being a Soc instead of a Greaser.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Keep up in what way?
Effectiveness. A well played Wizard often has more influence on the world around them than even the best played Sorcerer. This isn't purely from a combat only perspective. A wizard increases his spells known every time he gets a hold of a spell book or has access to other wizards. Every time he learns a new spell, that's another thing he can do to influence the world.
From a purely combat perspective, the Sorcerer and Wizard are often fairly equal if both are played correctly. A well player Sorcerer often has the right spell for the job because he knows how to pick his spells or adpat a spell to do the job 'well enough'. The same is true for a Wizard.
But it's where the combat ends, specifically, that the Wizard vastly outpaces the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer simply can't change his kit from day to day which lets the Wizard fulfill many roles when he needs to.
The Arcanist is in the same boat as the Wizard. Able to completely change his spell selection each day will make the Arcanist *always* a more powerful caster, in the long run, than a Sorcerer. A well played Sorcerer may be equal to a well played Wizard and Arcansit during combat, but combat isn't the only aspect of the game.