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

Volaran's page

277 posts. Alias of Imperial Khador.


RSS

1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I've had a lot of fun with a few Fiasco sessions over the last year or so.

On the fantasy front, I have two 13th Age games starting up. One as a player, and one as a GM. There's something highly appealing about a single, one-sided page for a character sheet.


Gauthok wrote:
I'm somewhat of an optimizer for my group, but I try not to stomp on other people's builds or make characters that are just plain better than everyone else's. Each player needs to have their chance to shine.

This is a good philosophy to have, and there can definitely be a lot of fun to be had being creative within specific limits.


I kind of agree with Apocalypso. If he's building his own guides to things that he wants to do, and wants to run a rotating group of PCs that can come and leave as he pleases, it sounds like he might be happier GMing.

Even as an experienced GM, I generally prefer limiting the source material PCs are allowed, simply because I'm not going to be familiar with every little thing. With a group of newbies, this becomes even more important.

I wouldn't recommend speeding up leveling either. I find it much more difficult to get players used to the game when they come in at higher levels, or level very quickly. People forget which powers and abilities their characters possess.

I wouldn't suggest that his fun is less important than the other players or GM, but it isn't more important either. It might be time to have that discussion. "Your constant demands to have your way make me not want to play anymore" is probably a good starting point.

Edit: Also noticed this was your first post. Welcome to the boards, and to Pathfinder!


I'll echo what a lot of other people have said here, but I might as well chime in.

My groups usually meet every week, with occasional interruptions. We're lucky if we can get 2 sessions in December, for example.

When running 5-6 hour sessions weekly, I've finished APs in about 7-8.

Most recently, I finished running Jade Regent over the course of 40 2-3 hour sessions. It took about a year.

As far as rules to save time:
- Follow the advancement track. If the adventure says PCs should be X level by Y point in the adventure, just level them at that point.
- Keep distractions to a minimum. I prefer for only the GM to have a laptop or tablet present, but will occasionally make allowances for other devices that are offline. Might want to also consider smart phones left off or kept in a different room.
- DM's rules calls are not to be argued with during the session. Any disputes can be brought up between sessions.
- The fewer the books, the faster things go. When a PC's feats and spells are spread across a dozen different books, it can take a long time to look up. At this point, I'd strongly consider limiting to the Core, the APG and the adventure path itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting project, but I can't see picking this up. Even the download-only on the Big Finish site is $12.99, and I still consider that too much to pay for an hour-long audio drama. Best of luck though.


Combat Monster wrote:

Ban electronics from the table.

If he makes comments that are obviously metagaming net him a -4 to hit, AC, skills, etc for that encounter.

I've seen this one in use before, and be an effective deterrent. If the player is wondering why another party member can hit a specific AC and they can't, "You are unaware of all the modifiers in effect" is a great catch-all answer.

It could even be treated as a curse, and removed as such...until it comes back again.


StDrake wrote:
What about making an agreement with the player on using the knowledge to benefit the story? make him an agent of the GM? if he likes to spoil himself that's his choice (or sometimes necessity - ever had the wonderful luck of choosing exactly the spells that would get no use at all at a given situation? or walk into a situation that you know would make you depend everything on good dice rolls..and your dice never roll high), the matter is that he doesn't spoil the game for others

I was asked to join a friend's Crimson Throne campaign after I had run the entire adventure path itself. This was a but more above board of course, as the GM knew I had run the adventure path.

I tried to avoid offering solutions, but did make myself a resource for offering information about the region, tied my back story in, etc. The GM used me for plot hooks several times.

If he's going to cheat regardless, and deny doing it, this may be an option if you can't kick him from the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to dissent a bit here. I've considered similar house rules for particular campaigns. At the kind of level where you're dealing with +3 or higher weapons, DR 5, 10 or even 15 isn't much of a hindrance to most front line characters.

As a GM, this seems like it could be a bit more about giving certain creatures a but more survivability, rather than forcing combatants to keep a weapon of every type on hand to absolutely maximize damage dealt by PCs.


If you have another inquisitor in the party, there is the Shared Judgement Feat, and the Lend Judgement (and Greater version) spell.


We had this occur in one of the groups I GMed towards the end of the Crimson Throne adventure path.

Crimson Throne:
This was due to a Harrow Deck of Many Things, and actually resulted in several evil duplicates. Some of which have made their way to other campaigns.

The character in question was an oracle of wind and a devout Shelynite. She was very repressed in some ways. One of the other party members (a wizard) was very casually derogatory to her throughout the entire campaign, but she kept putting it aside for the greater good.

I played the evil duplicates as completely lacking that impulse control. This manifested in other ways, but it meant that they would constantly target him, humiliate him, spite him, etc.

There is a portion of the adventure path where a large portion of Korvosa's treasury is recovered. The wizard was quite happy, and had made clear that he was going to take as much as possible for his own goals.

The original oracle had a string of greater prayer breads...and so did the duplicates. One of them, knowing his plan, used the Bead of Summons to call forth an efreeti and wished the entire treasury to be fused into a ball of lead out of spite.

Another one of the duplicates sought out a nosferatu vampire the party had come to an agreement with earlier in the campaign and bargained her way into vampire-hood just to better oppose the party's goals.

I liked the idea of an evil duplicate that isn't set on immediately destroying you. If they are you, with the good/evil switch flipped, they can imitate you perfectly, know all your allies and enemies, etc. They can make an excellent enemy.

As for the evil duplicates in this case, the original oracle was granted a miracle by Shelyn and asked for the duplicates to be freed of their compulsion...because Shelynites are all about the love.


I'd have to agree with other posters here. The 1d6 lethal damage suffered with no save for being in -20 or below temps is covered in the first sentence of Endure Elements

Endure Elements wrote:
"A creature protected by endure elements suffers no harm from being in a hot or cold environment."

The damage from the environment is described as lethal, but not cold-energy damage, so I would say it falls clearly under that sentence as far as the spell goes. The words 'no harm' are pretty clear.

The fortitude saves for cold environments are not just for non-lethal damage, but for frostbite (which is treated as fatigue), so I can see it warranting a special call-out. No FAQ needed.

Now that said, when I'm looking at various cold weather-gear, I'm only seeing it as giving bonuses to the fortitude save for non-lethal damage, and nothing about the lethal damage, which does seem like an oversight.

Back in 3.5 (and I will admit I still use these rules), I was fold of how the environment books, and I think even the DMG treated hot and cold. In addition to more temperature bands, with penalties not being quite that severe, warm clothing had the effect of you treating the temperature as warmer than it is.

I often frown on using real-world environment explanations, but I live in a city where the temperature regularly drops below -20 F in the winter. I have trouble picturing a northern village where a commoner ducks out to grab firewood and dies from exposure in 2 minutes (2d6 lethal damage) even if they've bundled up ;)


Minor thing. I notice that when doing a search for a spell in the prd, the mythic version shows up before the normal version of the spell.


I post some variant on this whenever I notice a similar topic come up. I haven't read the full 350+ posts though.

With some groups, any resource one character has is expected to be used in full for the benefit of the party. This is definitely metagaming, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In the games I've played it, we usually take the opposite approach, particularly since magic item creation does take real time where the crafter is effectively out of action. A character who takes a magic item creation feat is not obligated to use it for the benefit of any other character. ie. The fighter might want that +5 longsword for 25000gp instead of 50000gp, but I'm the one that has to spend the next 50 days creating it. Their discounted price isn't worth my time, etc.

That said, groups vary, and the meta-gaming argument is not an invalid one. Sometimes it is okay to bend or ignore in-game concerns, depending on the make up of the player group.

I think, (and this applies in any situation where trade or barter might occur between characters), that it is important to set some ground rules. I'll use one of my own past characters as an example.

Xebbidiah was an item-creation focused cleric of a merchant god. I was last to join the group, and his in-game situation reflected this. He had been hired by the rest of the party under the following conditions of employment.

1. Base pay was 1/6th of adventuring spoils
2. Included with base pay was combat participation, healing and other normal daily spell use (expensive focus components subject to negotiation) using any spell-completion or spell-trigger items owned by other characters or the party on their behalf, skill use, and other general adventuring/mercenary duties.
3. Commissioned item creation and/or purchase from his existing stock of items at 60% of book value.

Overall, the party was pretty satisfied by this, and I made sure there were few negative surprises. Xebbidiah was happy to extend credit if a party member didn't have cash or barter, or forgive debts if someone did him a favour. He made sure to encourage other party members in business ventures as well.

The party knew what to expect from him, so there weren't any surprises.


Keep in mind, if you're riding it, and have mounted combat, you can negate one hit per round with a successful check, and the unicorn has a fair amount of self-healing available.

If your GM agrees that it would be underpowered, and is making you use both the mount ability and leadership, then I would suggest compromising with a few extra hit dice initially (or maybe just treat the unicorn's hit points as the max possible for its starting hit dice).


Yeah, I'd interpret that as the paladin having a unicorn cohort who accepts being a mount, rather than it also being a 'Paladin Mount' as per the class feature. Advancement would be as a cohort.

On the bright side, this might mean you can take the weapon bond as well. Not a bad investment for Leadership if your GM is behind it.

If your GM feels that it is powerful enough that it should count as a both a cohort and a paladin mount, I would suggest generally leveling it as a cohort, but allowing it the Link, and Share Spells abilities. I'd considered suggesting Devotion as well, but a Unicorn has an ongoing Magic Circle against evil effect anyway.

(A unicorn with class levels sounds pretty cool actually. Unicorn paladin with the weapon Sacred Bond on their horn...or a ranger unicorn...now I have to go write down some NPC ideas..)


Oh, that's true. I hadn't even thought of that when I looked at the packaging mockup. If it looks like that because it will be in the box as a single stack turned sideways, that would be just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the packaging isn't finalized, would you consider something that would fit all the cards in a single stack? I'm not fond of the two-stack package of the original, and if these are oversized cards, I'd rather not go looking for a custom plastic case.

That said, glad to hear about the new set. I loved the face-art of the original, but really disliked the back-art, and would have liked something similar to the back-art for the plot twist cards. Glad to see that the new set will have different back-art.


I tend to vary my house rules a bit by campaign.

Currently I'm running a campaign where all PC's are lightly armed and armoured. As such:

1. We're using the class defense bonus rules from unearthed arcana, extrapolated for the PF classes.
2. All characters that would qualify for the normal Weapon Finesse feat automatically have its benefits.
3. Characters actually taking Weapon Finesse add Dex bonus to damage in place of strength for applicable weapons.

Not something I use for every campaign, but frequently broken out for urban settings.


Seems reasonable. The witch hex has already opened the door for sleep being an effective tactic later in the game.


In our Jade Regent campaign, I have a very mature/trustworthy character playing an evil character, and it has been fantastic.

The character is a CE witch, but has a strong attachment to one of the good-aligned NPCs, and one of the good-aligned PCs. Their strong loyalty is usually enough to override their normal inclinations (though they still will suggest horrific plans, etc).

When the party's not around, the character is far more likely to give into their horrible impulses when dealing with problems.

That's the type of evil character I'm okay with in a campaign. As long as it is a mature player, and messing with/betraying the party is off the table, it can be functional.


Heh. It if helps, it isn't something I'd allow in a game anyway, ShadowcatX. I think you're right though. Malachi asked for any post or rules call that might support their position, and that entry was the only thing that even remotely came to mind though.

The natural attack comparison makes sense though, as far as the same limb not being involved in two types of attacks in the same round. You might be out of luck unless you have an extremely lenient GM, Malachi. If you mainly have the weapon combo for thematic purposes, maybe go the simpler route and use TWF or THF depending on which makes the most sense at the time.


This FAQ entry suggests a pretty good argument that it could be legal, though the specific example is for taking your hand off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell.

It does seem cheesy, but that's not what you're asking.


Without going into to specifics, the main disadvantage with multiclassing that many times (in my view) is that it will be a long time before the character gets to the place you actually want.

That said, if you're okay with tracking all the various class abilities, and roleplaying the awakening of your PC's dragon blood over many levels, I say go for it.


LazarX wrote:


Or it perhaps might it be possible that the Holy Avenger isn't the only way to express a Paladin's weapon? I remember one such weapon whose special power was to offer each person who grasped it a onetime chance at changing his alignment to Lawful Good and becoming a Paladin with no penalties.

Yup, nothing saying that you couldn't have a different sort of flavourful weapon. I remember really enjoying an article in Dragon during the 2nd Edition era about variant holy swords.

The weapon you describe sounds like it would be based on the atonement spell. I'd probably call it 'Redeemer', and give it some flavour as a weapon placed by an agent of a deity to be found by a character seeking atonement, or questioning their dark past.


I suspect it would largely depend on the religion. In Golarion, most holy avengers are probably associated with the church of Iomedae. I wouldn't be surprised if a legendary sarenite wielded a scimitar with similar abilities.

In Eberron, the most paladin-centric religion (Church of the Silver Flame) has the longbow as its iconic weapon. I wouldn't be surprised if a holy avenger were a bow in that context.


I think your powers are going to lost, unfortunately. Though if the GM is forcing a change to CE, a change to anti-paladin would be a way to keep something similar.

I'd be tempted to play the paladin as someone who is still clinging to their own code, but whose natural instincts have been completely changed. Someone who would still want to offer mercy, but whose initial instinct would be to kill prisoners out of hand, etc.

Could be fun playing the struggle. If you could keep on track most of the time, maybe an atonement would eventually work.

"I'm really sorry about cutting your throat there. I did want to hear your answer, but sword arm was kind of moving by itself. Back in the old days, I'd have been able to heal that before you bled out but...oh, you've pass out...no, no you're dead. Damn. Gonna have to invest in a healer's kit I suppose."

Edit: Hadn't read the Atonement spell in a long time, but it looks like that will be what your paladin is after. As long as he remains repentant, and struggles against the impulses brought on by his magical alignment change, I don't think it would even require the extra offerings.

That said, if he gives in to the evil...then yeah, much more difficult.


Faiths of Purity: Sarenite Paladin's code wrote:
The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

Based on this, your player's interpretation, and your limits seem reasonable.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Yep, I totally boned that up. Deleted the wrong section.

It was more appropriate to this:

Volaran wrote:
Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable.
My bad!

Okay then. That makes a lot more sense :)


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
It's a misconception that a Paladin can't scan a room with the full cone. So he can scan a whole bar, and then narrow things down like a normal use of the spell, OR he can just pick a target and get the move action equivalent of 3 rounds of scanning on that specific target. The first use is helpful in social situations to scan a room, and the latter is good in combat to size up the BBEG and see if he is a smite target.

That is certainly true, but I am unclear as to how it was a response to the portion of my post which was quoted.


paladinguy wrote:


it also got me OUT of combat one time since I ran across a party of goblins in the wilderness at level 1 and was going to come out swinging, but I detected evil on them and got nothing. So, I diplomacied instead.

This might have been pointed out elsewhere, but this is something your paladin would possibly know. Detect Evil functions like the spell. As per the chart in the spell, most evil-aligned characters, NPCs, etc. don't even begin to give off a faint evil aura until they hit 5 hit dice/levels (outsiders, evil clerics and anti-paladins and undead would be the major exceptions).

To use your example above, unless those were particularly powerful goblins, they wouldn't have registered as evil. Same thing with a lot of the NPCs you meet. If they're low-enough level, they won't give off an evil aura, even if they're horribly depraved.

Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable. I'm also one of those GMs who would say there aren't a lot of visible signs to indicate this, but the more familiar someone is with what you are (if they know you're a paladin, or can make a reasonable guess), I'd allow an appropriate check.

Now that said, your paladin may not know this, which could explain ignorance in the situation with the goblins above. I've seen paladins who have been played with low int, no spellcraft, etc. who don't have a precise understanding of how their abilities work. I've also seen perfectly good in-character reasons why they may become overly reliant on detect evil over things like sense motive checks,etc.


I had planned (but sadly never played) a Kalishtar summoner whose Eidolon was going to be the physical manifestation of his Quori soul. So, over time, I would have taken evolutions to make it look more and more like a Quori (though I forget which type).


Thanks to Jason and the design team!

Any chance the prd will be updated with these changes before the next core rules printing?


There is a feat called Dervish Dance in the Qadira book which allows a Scimitar to benefit from weapon finesse as though it were a light weapon under certain circumstances.

That's about all I can think for for non-Mythic content.

Link


I'm curious to see what the Golarion version of Saint Cuthbert is like...and since I'm assuming he's not a god, which religion(s) consider him to be a saint.


+1 for Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally I-IX lists (and Summon Swarm, Rain of Frogs, Mad Monkeys, etc)


I would suggest your GM keep a list of your minimal possible rolls for any given subject. Might save some unnecessary checks.


I don't think it is unreasonable for that sort of character to get prompting from the other players or the DM for even obscure things that they should remember. I would also suggest keeping extremely detailed notes if you don't already do so.

This is one of those bits of roleplaying that can be difficult; accurately playing a character with mental stats much greater or lower than one's own.

In a similar way, I would find it reasonable for a character with a 6 Int to not be able to make logical connections, or someone with a 6 Wisdom to make bad decisions even when their player knows better.


Thank you for this. I find myself frequently bringing my tablet to gaming in lieu of my hardcover books, and this makes it much more convenient.


Personally, I would allow it with spells that allow you iterative attacks from your BAB(so yes with chill touch, produce flame, and flame blade, no with things like scorching ray). Not saying that's official. James' clearly knows what he's talking about. That would just be my call.


Just adding my voice to this. I was pleased with the previous set (though I purchased it at my FLGS for substantially less that what was available through the subscription.

Even with a similar level of discount, I can't justify the expense of the RotRL set. They look nice, and I will probably pick up a few singles though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is mostly in response to eleclipse's original post. There have been excellent arguments for both sides since that went up, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

As a LN character, and a follower of Abadar, it is perfectly reasonable for your character to charge a nominal fee for magic item creation.

Particularly as the party goes up in levels, magic item creation is a _vast_ time sink, during which your character essentially can't go out and do other things (like effectively participate in government, since this is a Kingmaker game).

I would also use the same argument to suggest that a character who takes a magic item creation feat is not obligated to use it for the benefit of any other character. ie. The fighter might want that +5 longsword for 25000gp instead of 50000gp, but I'm the one that has to spend the next 50 days creating it. Their discounted price isn't worth my time, etc.

That said, groups vary, and the meta-gaming argument is not an invalid one. There are certainly players I've played with that assume any party resource can be used by anyone. Sometimes it is okay to bend or ignore in-game concerns, depending on the make up of the player group.

I think, (and this applies in any situation where trade or barter might occur between characters), that it is important to set some ground rules. I'll use one of my own past characters as an example.

Xebbidiah was an item-creation focused cleric of a merchant god. I was last to join the party, and his in-game situation reflected this. He had been hired by the rest of the party under the following conditions of employment.

1. Base pay was 1/6th of adventuring spoils
2. Included with base pay was combat participation, healing and other normal daily spell use (expensive focus components subject to negotiation) using any spell-completion or spell-trigger items owned by other characters or the party on their behalf, skill use, and other general adventuring/mercenary duties.
3. Commissioned item creation and/or purchase from his existing stock of items at 60% of book value.

Overall, the party was pretty satisfied by this, and I made sure there were few negative surprises. Xebbidiah was happy to extend credit if a party member didn't have cash or barter, or forgive debts if someone did him a favour. He made sure to encourage other party members in business ventures as well.

The party knew what to expect from him, so there weren't any surprises. It sounds like part of your group's issue is that they weren't there to be an in-party economy. It is certainly worth more in-game discussion, as Kingmaker is a great campaign for this sort of dealing. Maybe let them know that political favours are also an accepted form of currency to Abadar's faithful


It is a clarification, but one that is _very_ late to the party.

As others have pointed out, even the Pathfinder Beta has flurry much closer to its 3.5 version (both in progression, and phrasing) than to what is in the final version of Pathfinder Core. This makes it somewhat more understandable to me how this was missed by so many for so long.

That said, I believe the quasi-TWF-but-not-really final version creates more problems than it solves, and makes for unnecessary levels of complication. Since a large part of the community has been effectively playtesting the version that emphasizes 'any combination' over 'as if using two-weapon fighting' for 3 years, with no real balance issues, it would be nice to see it become official in future printings.

The developers seem to taking their time on a final response, and seem to have been open to reworking core mechanics in the past (see: Stealth Playtest), so it would be nifty. We'll have to wait and see.


Yes for natural weapons. No for unarmed strike.

The spell on which it is based (greater magic fang) treats unarmed strikes and natural attacks differently (for whatever fluff reason you care to assign).

It is reasonable for this item to be reserved for natural attacks, and a separate item created which does the same thing for unarmed strikes, and is priced normally for a magic weapon.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:


Not all TWFers are fighters. Rogues and Rangers also often use Two Weapons (one for extra sneak attacks, the other because there's a combat style for it).

And they're grumbling about how they have to pay 100k gp for two +5 weapons, while the gloved monk only has to pay 50k.

Are they using weapons that are better than unarmed strikes? Probably. Enough to call the price difference with the proposed gloves fair? I don't believe so.

First, a quick bit. I had meant to enter 64 000gp as the price for 2 +4 weapons above, and I have edited the original post to match. For a full BAB class, the difference between +4 and +5 weapons at the levels when you'd have them is pretty negligible.

I did focus on the Fighter bit of TWF, so please accept my apology on that one.

Rangers and rogues are are somewhat more situational in their fighting styles, so are a more apt comparison to the monk.

A ranger has a lot of the same advantages as a fighter, being a full BAB class. Again, the price difference between Master Arminas' +5 gloves, and 2 +4 weapons isn't too difficult. A well planned ranger will have his situational bonuses in his favour a fair portion of the time. They also don't need to qualify for their bonus feats, and so are a bit less MAD than the monk. The ranger is one of the few classes that can be a strength-based two-weapon combatant, and can be quite deadly as such.

The rogue example has a lot less going for it. Their bonuses are very situational, they work best in a team environment, etc. I'm generally not a hard-core optimizer, but I know that a rogue focused on TWF is already not going an ideal route in terms of hitting a lot.

To be honest, I can see these gloves being a very viable option for rogues, especially urban thief or killer types. I wasn't kidding about your ninja above. I would honestly like to see unarmed combat be a more viable option for classes like these, and I think this sort of item would go along way towards that.

Keep in mind that these gloves, as Master Arminas proposes, only effect flat atk/dmg rolls. An unarmed warrior who wants other types of weapon abilities is still going to be paying through the nose for an AoMF.

Even with these as an option, I think a lot of unarmed warriors would still opt for a permanent magic fang, or greater magic fang. It can be dispelled of course, but it remains much more affordable for a similar effect once your get beyond the +1 range.

Edit: Looks life real life is calling me away for at least a few hours, so that might be my last statement before this tangent is buried by other posts. In case it is, thanks to Master Arminas, Benchak the Nightstalker, and Kakitamike for some excellent diversion :)


I would assume that it would be a case of taking the higher bonus.

If you have a +3 AoMF, and a +1 Flaming Gauntlet, the attacks would be at +3 Flaming. Similar to using a +3 bow and +1 Flaming Arrows.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:


Which is why I apologized :)

So if you don't see a problem with this, how do you think the weapon-using Two-Weapon Fighter is going to feel? He's got to spend twice as much money enchanting his weapons as the monk or ninja does theirs.

Next, people will be asking for a "magic weapon cord" that enhances two weapons, but only costs as much as one magic weapon. :)

Fair enough on the apology :)

I think the TW Fighter is likely a core fighter, who has the Weapon Training ability granting him incrementing bonuses to his preferred weapons as he levels up, or is a Two-Weapon Warrior from the APG who gains incrementing bonuses to any two-weapon or double weapon combo as he goes up in level. I also think he's benefiting from choosing a weapon-type that is probably superior to Unarmed Strikes for almost anyone but a monk, and is a full BAB class to boot.

In other words, while he's grumbling about how he had to spend 64 000 gp for two +4 short swords as compared to 50 000 for the monk's nice +5 gloves, he'll have the tremendous amount of focused-on-killing-things class abilities to keep him warm at night ;)


Kakitamike wrote:

I don't know how many pages of this monk stuff has been going on, but has anyone addressed the fact that their attacks that can't be disarmed, asked to be left behind, detained, as a matter of balancing?

I would think a non-weapon item that enhances unarmed strikes would cost more simply because it has more versatility in game use. A +5 weapon is great and all, but it can be disarmed, dropped, fumbled out of someone's hands. Sometimes weapons have to be left behind in certain areas. WHile many times i've heard npc's ask people to leave their weapons somewhere, very little, if ever, have i heard them ask a pc to leave their jewelry somewhere.

It's just seems like there's a lot more utility wrapped into that cost.

That's a valid point, but one could say the same thing about gauntlets. Should a gauntlet enhanced as a weapon cost significantly more than a sword with the same enhancements?

I understand the mechanical reason you're suggesting it, but how many cost multipliers would be reasonable?

Unarmed is generally a pretty sub-optimal choice for a combat style, and even doing it as a monk has drawbacks. One of the few cool things you get is that people underestimate the unarmed guy...unless of course he's famous for beating people and monsters to death unarmed. Then he's the guy that gets shackled and has to wear iron books when the party meets the king ;)


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:


My Two-Weapon Fighting Ninja or Brawler Barbarian would love these! Bonuses to both my unarmed attacks for the price of one weapon enchantment? Sign me up!

I'm being a little tiny bit sarcastic, and apologize for that. :)

I don't think the sarcasm is needed. :) These seem like an item set that would do very well for unarmed types other than the monk without being overpowering. If the monk's unarmed strikes emulate TWF, I don't see any issue with an unarmed ninja taking the TWF feats normally reaping benefits the same way.


+1 to Master Arimas, though I would hope for a more flavourful name ;)

There are two precedents that suggest to me that this makes sense, and jives with existing rules for magic.

1: Greater Magic Fang
This spell treats a creatures unarmed strike the same way as it does a single natural attack (incrementing bonus up to +5), rather than a single +1 bonus for the creature's whole body, as it does when enhancing multiple natural attack forms on a single creature.

This suggests both a game-mechanical reason, and a fluff reason for magic to treat natural attacks and unarmed strikes differently. Someone trained with Improved Unarmed Strike has worked to make their entire body a single, effective weapon, rather than using multiple natural gifts like sharp teeth and claws. These gloves would do the same (I could see a set of slippers, or even some sort of body wrap that would do the same thing).

Right now, Permanent Greater Magic Fang is probably the monk's most affordable route for permanent unarmed strike enhancement, and this item would seem to work off that, but without the drawbacks of a permanent spell.

2: The Monk's Robe
This is a core rules item that takes up a body slot, and substantially increases a character's unarmed strikes as though they'd trained as a monk. It is priced reasonably for what it does, and it has no effect whatsoever on natural attacks without breaking versimilitude for me.

Whether or not something like this makes it into Ultimate Equipment, I'm happy to swipe these gloves for my game. Thanks!

1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.