My home group has been playing it that way for a couple years now, and it hasn't even come close to being game-breaking. If anything, it's actually made the clerics more playable, especially if you don't want to be the "healbot". It allows those who want to be battle clerics to actually use those cool domain powers that otherwise would eat up your action in a round.
If there is anything wrong with playing a cleric in pathfinder, it's action economy. Everything you want or need to do is a standard action. Spellcasting, healing, attacking, all standard actions or full. You have to spend one of your few, precious feats to make channeling a swift, so allowing you to use your domain powers on yourself as a swift action is just a small fix to the clerics overloaded action budget.
So I've got a PC with Craft Wonderous Items who wants to craft a Manual of Quickness of Action:
Pathfinder SRD says wrote:
After looking at the prices and crafting costs, it's apparent that they all include the material cost for casting 1 wish per plus. Now with the casting rule that you can ignore an items prerequisite if you add a +5 to the crafting DC, you can ignore the wish requirement, and reduce the cost by the 25,000gp material component cost for the spell.
So lets start with the +1 Manual, if I ignore the wish requirement, I can craft the book for 1,250gp with a DC 27 Spellcraft check. This feels off to me, but seems to be RAW.
Would you add another +5 per wish spell that you do not cast for the +2-+5 Manuals? i.e. able to craft a +5 Manual for 6,250gp with a DC 47 Spellcraft check, or would it remain a DC 27 Spellcraft check since you are only ignoring the single prereq for wish?
This seems very, very cheesy to me, but RAW.
I need a clarification on the intention of the two paragraphs involving similar/different abilities uner the Magic Item Gold Piece Value.
CRB states wrote:
Now my question is, does similar mean "the abilities all affect the same general thing", ie. a +5 bonus acrobatics, and treat all falling damage as if all dice rolled a 1 and land on your feet, and wearer is under the effect of a continuous featherstep effect, able to ignore difficult terrain (basically combining boots of elvenkind, boots of the cat, and featherstep slippers)?
Or does it mean that all abilities you want to combine must be of the same general type, ie +5 to Acrobatics and a +5 to Stealth, a +2 armor bonus and a +2 natural armor bonus, etc?
I ask because this can have, potentially, a very big impact on a custom or combination items cost.
MA, while I also tend to agree with you on the power bloat issue (I still remember playing with just 2 books, the PHB and the UA), this revelation also invalidates all your comparison arguments.
You optimize your comparison classes using non-core sources (Brawler archetype fighters, rogues using the agile weapon property, etc.) then build your monks using core only rules? Also, saying that your characters all have to be balanced, but optimizing your comparisons to the Nth degree?
That comes across as comparing apples to oranges in a very self-serving manner and seriously undermines what would otherwise be a good discussion about the monks weaknesses.
Master Arminas wrote wrote:
In fact, the faults with the monk can be solved if monks have a weapon training-like class feature that adds to attack rolls only, a ki option to bypass DR, and a larger ki pool more appropriate to the class (something like the barbarian rage or bardic performance for uses per day). Give me those three things, and I think the rest of the Pathfinder monk would be able to compete, while not being overpowered.
You say this, yet your own "fixed" monk is so frighteningly unbalanced because you have not only applied these fixes, but have made grossly overpowered adjustments to a lot of the monks other class features.
All this, combined with your "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and you're concentration on the monks offensive abilities solely, have done your cause more harm than good.
Dabbler said wrote:
Why don't you do the donkey work on this one yourself? Also, run them all up against some standard foes rather than against one another, see how they perform.
Because the developer is the one who normally alpha tests something. Personally, I'd throw this in a one-off module and sit back and watch the rest of the party sit around bored for a few hours, but its not my idea to prove.
OK, do me a favor.
Make a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin and your Monk. Level 20, 20-point buy, Humans. Make everyone but the Paladin evil, make the Rangers highest Favored Enemy Human.
Optimize them all to the best of your ability.
Then give them to your gaming group for a Grand Melee. I'll leave it to you to determine what kind of terrain, etc.
I'd be really interested to see the outcome of that fight.
I happen to agree that the monk is not the most powerful class when it comes to DPR, but not any worse than a TWF Ranger vs. anything other than their favored enemy.
Every monk I've ever DM'd for has been one of the most productive members of the party due to the plethora of special abilities they have. Not to mention the sheer frustration of not being able to hit them due to their ungodly ACs. Throw in the crane style tree, and It's even worse. And let's not even talk about the caster behind 3 lines of minions who suddenly has a monk standing right next to him, beating the crap out of him.
Do I houserule that an AoMF costs the same as enchanting 2 weapons, not more...yes. Do I houserule a version of Monk's Robes that costs half as much, and only increases the monk's level by 3...yes. The monk does have some problems with the class specific gear costing too much. But underpowered, I don't think so. I think it has more to do with people too much emphasis on the damage output of the monk and not giving enough credit to everything else it gets.
As for the rant, to expect the designers of this game to write the rulebooks, much less a messageboard post, as if they were preparing a brief for the Supreme Court, just so people with a preconceived idea don't read it the way they want to read it, or misinterpret it in the way that fits their purpose, is the height of ridiculousness.
If people weren't continually and purposefully misreading and misinterpreting the rules and clarifications that the designers have spent many, many hours developing and balancing, there would be far fewer of these threads being hijacked into "this class sucks and needs to be fixed the exact way I want it fixed" threads. And probably much more actual information being passed out to people who came on here with legitimate questions.
As for the OPs original question, we play it that you can TWF with unarmed strike at our table. From the rules, comments, and clarifications that we've seen, that seems to be the way it's supposed to be done, and makes the most sense.
The level of purposeful obtuseness on this thread has reached stratospheric levels.
First, the line "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." clearly refers to the fact that a monk can add his full STR bonus to all of his attacks. It is there because an offhand attack can only apply 1/2 STR bonus. So a monk can add his full STR bonus to all his unarmed strikes because he isn't considered to have an offhand attack for the purpose of determining damage. Period.
Second, a monk's unarmed strike at 1st level does 1d6 damage because it's an effin class ability!! It's meant to reflect the additional training in unarmed fighting that a monk receives vs. your vanilla fighter.
Third, to anyone with a reading comprehension above middle school level, when SKR said "If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others", he was refering to the potential attacks you are going to use that round, NOT all potential attacks you can possibly have. It's ridiculousness of the highest order to even suggest that.
Again, we have people intentionally misinterpreting the rules to justify their position that their favorite class is not the ultimate god of the universe, and actually has some weaknesses to offset their many strengths.
And now for the requisite hyperbole, flame on folks:
Master Arminas said wrote:
Again, your not taking the whole sentence, just the part you want. The sentence is "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
The adjective phrase "as if using the TWF feat" modifies the phrase "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with special monk weapons". Therefore, the phrase means any combination of two different attacks "as if using TWF". I.E. a head butt and your temple sword, a right hand and a left hand, a kick and a punch, etc.
For the Sohei, as the GM, I would say that if you were using a reach weapon, you would get your regular iterative FOB attacks with the polearm, and any additional attacks would have to be unarmed strikes (like kicks or headbutts). If there was no one within reach, then you lose those additional atacks, but if another foe was within your unarmed strike reach, then you could attack both targets. The Sohei works perfectly well within the rules, as long as you realize that, for the monk, any body part is usable for an unarmed strike, not just the hands. Under the unarmed Strike section it says:
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
For example, the Sohei with a quarterstaff can attack with both ends of the staff, using one end twice, or with each end and an unarmed strike, or one end twice and an unarmed strike, or with one end and two unarmed strikes. It doesn't matter what the unarmed strikes are unless you have one body part enhanced with magic differently than all the rest, say by the magic fang spell.
And Nicos says it!! The crux of the entiire flurry argument! The definition of "combination" is to "combine" two (or more) separate things. TWF is by definition the combination of fighting with two weapons.
And then the phrase is modified by the adjective phrase "as if using the Two Weapon Fighting Feat". For the grammatically challenged, that means the "any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with special monk weapons" phrase must be read as it relates to the TWF feat. Therefore, any combination of two different attacks. I.E. a head butt and your temple sword, a right hand and a left hand, a kick and a punch, etc.
Then to make it clearer, they mention TWF twice more, and tell you you have to use the TWF negatives to hit.
Now come back with the "well, NPCs that Paizo published had it wrong too." Yes, I agree, but that still doesn't make your interpretation right, as SKR has since clarified for the entire community, including the contributors who had it wrong too.
As for the Zen Archer, yes the description could have been clearer, but it is obviously intended to allow the ZA to gain the extra attacks from FOB with his bow.
Honestly, anyone who says the Monk is broken has never DM'd against one. They are a nightmare. Nigh unhittable, virtually spell resistant (and later, literally spell resistant), poison/ disease immune, lightning fast, with the best saves and most special abilities of any class in Pathfinder. They are a spellcasters worst fear, and the bane of any low CR mob, as well as a flanking machine.
The only thing that makes them bearable is the fact that they are the bronze medalist in the DPR Olympics. The fact that they have to spend more to enhance their already good abilities is the price they pay for everything else they get.
No problem. This is mainly for a Duelist build fighter, who has to wield a weapon one-handed and doesn't want to be limited to a scimitar (Aldori Swordlord, I'm looking at you). A rapier Rogue would like this, but where it would really shine is with a Magus. That's the one thing I think might unbalance this.
How about these edits:
Agile Swordsman (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse, Acrobatics 5 ranks, Weapon Focus with a martial weapon that qualifies for the Weapon Finesse feat.
Benefit: When wielding a martial weapon that qualifies for the Weapon Finesse feat with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier
Good points BB. I hadn't thought about an INT prereq. Perhaps requiring Combat Expertise?
I was trying to keep in mind the overloading DEX problem, thus limiting the feat the way I did. I think you might be right about Power Attack, but I still think it goes against the flavor of the feat, agility vs. power.
Honestly, I thought that I was making it too narrowly focused. It is really only good for Duelist/Fighters, 1-handed Rogues and Magi. It's probably more unbalancing for a Magus build, but doesn't even come halfway to closing the gap between finesse fighters and a STR-based THF, even with the benefits of being able to concentrate on DEX.
bad the reason it doesn't balance is two weapon fighting, those feats require high dex so if you can ignore strength all together you will have more damage output than someone doing str and a half with a 2 hander since you'd have an additional attack that did full dex (with the double slice feat)
Thus the "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
Exactly my reasoning BB, plus pulling out some of the specific flavor that Dervish Dance has.
And by limiting it to a single, one-handed weapon and not allowing Dex to power attack, you prevent the Elf fighter with the Elven Curve Blade from being able to dump stat his strength and still hit like a full THF.
The other thought I had was to limit its use to those wearing light or no armor. Hopefully further reducing the cheese and OP factor.
Feral - There's already the Dervish Dance feat, and the Agile weapon property. This would just allow a larger selection of weapons for the highly underpowered finesse fighter instead of having to wait until he can afford a +2 weapon.
I was wondering if you guys would give me your opinions on a reinterpretation of the Derviish Dancer feat that might open it up to other finesse fighters.
Agile Swordsman (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15, Weapon Finesse, Acrobatics 5 ranks,
Benefit: When wielding a weapon that qualifies for the Weapon
So whadya think?
There are numerous threads asking this question, but I haven't seen any official answer.
Under the Spellcraft Skill, the DC for magic item creation is DC10, but under Magic Items, it's DC5 to create. Which is it?
It's not in the current errata, and if there was an official answer on another thread, I apologize for asking again.
Thanks! You guys are doing great! Next time, let's talk about some love for the Cleric (Archetype wise i mean)!
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks! That's pretty much how I've always played clerics, but some of the guys in my group didn't think this was right, and kept bringing up the posts here.
I just want to say y'all have done a great job with Pathfinder! Keep up the Great Work!
The Alchemist's bomb damage is 1d6+INT, increasing by 1d6 every odd level. The chart shows the damage increases as a level dependent ability, like a Rogue's sneak attack, or a Cleric's Channel.
The Pyromaniac alternate Race ability says that you are considered 1 level higher for bombs with Fire damage, but that the ability does not grant early access to any level dependent abilities.
My question is, I am running Carrion Crown with a Gnome Alchemist character who has taken the Pyromaniac ability. Does this ability allow him to increase his bomb damage as if he's one level higher (thus having a 2d6 bomb at 2nd level), or does it just give him an extra bomb a day?