Zilvar2k11's page

Can you clarify what the "Big Six" problem is, specifically? Do you not like that people gravitate toward these categories of items, or do you feel it unbalances things, it's uncreative...?

The general response is something like 'The big six items are generally considered so important by players (and probably DMs) that they will pass over flavorful items in favor of a significant subset of them.'

More or less, depending on the class. The idea being, what caster would give up a Headband of Mental Superiority +6 in favor of a Crown of Heaven? (random example, and probably not a good one. Just looking for expensive head slot items really quick)

There is an active optimization thread I happened to read today where people are posting level 20 builds and taking some big, bad CR20 creatures. They're generally very focused builds, of course, because the challenge is known beforehand, but the point I'm heading toward is there is a distinct set of items that every character has picked up, be it caster or not. They've all got a primary stat booster, tomes, rings of freedom of movement, cloaks of resistance, etc.

Some of that is optimization, but some of it is just common sense. If you get a ring of freedom of movement, you NEVER GIVE IT UP. It's just too valuable. If you have an extra 1000gp, you're more likely to pick up a cloak of resistance or get some +1 armor than you are to snatch a Robe of Infinite Twine (wait...what? really? infinite twine.../sigh). (aside: based on forum commentary, most players are also more likely to pick up those things than a few useful potions...that's a bad thing)

It's easier to pick those bonuses, it provides a lot of real benefit for an easily determined and planned for cost, and it's applicable in a wider range of situations than a robe that can make rope out of nothing.

Nearly all arguments against antagonize come down to the idea that you can do it by saying something normal that would not arouse suspicion or anger without the feat.
Saying "hello, how's the weather" will not trigger antagonize.
Saying "You mother's so fat she could rent her shadow out on hot days" might, while "You stupid, ****eating son of a ****, come over or I'll **** your **** baby sister!" will most likely work.
So the hobo can very well decide the speech is at least hostile after the first few words and kill the hostage without making roleplaying impossible."
It isn't much different that deciding "Lokum, Kym nak mar shedim..." is not a try to be nice but the casting of a spell.

Heh. You know, as I was reading down the arguments about what kinds of vocalizations could/should be able to carry the antagonize packets, I was reminded that, at it's core, Pathfinder feels to me to be written in a very cinematic style.

It's not gritty (though some people like it that way). The game design is just as campy as the various bad movies we all secretly laughed at make it out to be. ;)

In Pathfinder World, the Good Guys can jump off cliffs and bounce off a few trees and pick themselves up and run into the woods to escape (eg. First Blood), or learn entirely new skills as they level up ( heh...Matrix ), or make biting remarks in a conversational tone of voice and piss off the bad guys (eg, Face, from the recent A-Team..I wanted to use a Princess Bride reference, since Wesley rarely raised his voice, but his use of insults was more a Bluff/Intimidate rather than an Antagonize/Intimidate).

IMO, we shouldn't be looking at the text and saying 'this is all you can do'...we should be looking at movies and saying 'how can we do that?'

As bad as it is, Antagonize feels like it could come from that source and could be part of telling a good story. But, it could also be something that would be so, so easily overused.

and DM's consider reasonable given preexisting content'

Ah. Very good. And the spell Greater Command extends to multiple rounds and moves toward allowing multiple saves. Very much in line.

I'm still unhappy with the design of the feat not using a player's defensive stat (Will save), but the effect of the feat is no more out of line than similar abilities.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't get the opportunity for additional saves because it only lasts a round. As does Antagonize.

If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like "every other mechanic in the game" it would be helpful to know your pet exceptions prior to formulating a response.

Out of curiosity, how many exceptions to mdt's general rule exist prior to Ultimate Magic? If the answer is zero, then one possible (and reasonable) response is that UM represents a clear level of power creep in mind control abilities and might have stretched beyond the bounds of what some players and DM's consider reasonable given preexisting content'

Magic:

Dominate person/animal/monster: ...any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw. (per Mr Jacob's clarification, it should apply to animal/monster/person at the same level)

Hold person: Save on cast, save again on its turn (though the action is still lost).

Charm: Save on cast, opposed charisma check to actually make someone DO anything.

I'm sure this isn't exhaustive, but it suggests that the bar on mind-affecting abilities is a bit higher than the bar on just regular action-stealers (flesh to stone, for example)

Reading antagonize, I don't see that the bar is upheld. You have a mind affecting ability that uses a passive target that looks fairly easy to beat if you're making a targetted build (skill focus, skill items, etc) with no fallback. Seems pretty bad mechanically to me.

We're looking at playing Serpent's Skull.

How much of an impact does the Clouded Vision curse end up impacting a life or dual-cursed life oracle? It doesn't look like the range restriction would have any impact on most of the revelations, only spellcasting.

How crippling is it?

+1 here. The Contingency doesn't say anything about perception or anything else that the caster is aware of so by RAW contingency isn't up for debate.

No, it doesn't, but I encourage you to read my later posts. Apparently I was not being clear in what I objected to.

I was under the impression that the idea that feats are synergistic in the sense described by the OP is easily disproven, but then I couldn't find the FAQ entry to support my statement.

However, contining without pastable reference, reference Metamagic feats. They are specifically independent (an empowered maximized CL10 fireball does 60+(10d6)/2 damage, not 90 damage). All metamagic effects are applied to the base spell, not to the already-modified spell. This stops oddities like Diego Rossi pointed out above.

I think I could agree with that if I felt I had, as the GM, to make a call one way or another by a player trying to push the reasonable boundries of the spell. I would probably extend the condition to anything a generic character could "take 10" and make it. And again I'd only really worry about it if I felt the spirit of the spell was getting violated.

If I were DM (a situation that isn't likely to occur), or I had sufficient influence on my DM to bend his brain the way I'd want, my answer would be essentially what I put in a few posts ago.

When cast, the spell gets a static skill level to compare DC's to. Given the most likely contingency phrases, I would likely say Perception, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft. At 10+Caster Level+Stat Bonus+spell-related-feat-bonuses, you could expect reasonably high results, starting around 25 at the level you can cast contingency.

That's pretty darn perceptive. Using those values, the spell could identify a 6th level spell being cast at... 40 feet, I think. Or catch a low level sneak-thief with an average stealth roll, but still probably couldn't see the invisible rogue, or determine if someone is hostile but pretending to be friendly, or teleport you to the location of the nearest treasure room right after the owner turns off the traps and goes inside to swim in his gold.

Since you're arguing the spell would have to make a perception and/or spellcraft which the spell shouldn't autopass, that has implications.

Granted.

Firstly it nerfs the spell hard. Loads of players have set contingencies for when they're asleep or something gets the better of them, which by your logic should fail because since the spell doesn't make those checks it can't succeed. And since it's sorta the point of the spell to be able to recognize certain conditions regardless of the condition of the user, I have to disagree with you.

I am not sure this follows. The fact that the user is asleep doesn't matter. 'If I am attacked', or 'If I take damage', or 'If I am turned to stone' or 'If someone yells "OMG SAVE US FROM THE BALL OF FIERY DEATH!"' (ok, that's arguable, but even if you assume a perception skill of zero then you basically autopass that out to something like 100ft, right?) all still work. The fact that the caster is sleeping doesn't matter, because I'm not arguing that the caster need to be aware of the trigger condition.

I think I now understand why people think that I am, but that wasn't what I was trying to get at. I object to the idea that the spell can be used as some form of uber-divination that automatically knows with perfect accuracy everything that goes on within an undefined (but potentially obnoxious) radius and can be set to respond to those stimuli in any legal fashion. As I reflected in a previous post, it shouldn't act like some sort of global spidey sense that is even more insightful than a powerful divination spell...seeing around corners, picking invisible or ethereal creatures out of the air, detecting intent, or anything of that nature. Those are 'simple' conditions, but I think they're unreasonable ones. I don't think that contingency should be able to trigger off any event that would require a skill check with a DC greater than 0.

I believe that the spell can know/discern things that the spellcaster couldn't (like a hidden enemy sneaking up on you). I also believe that the designers figured GMs and players wouldn't abuse that fact with things like "If X did/does Y, cast Z" and thus didn't bother to lay down a 100-page legal document describing the spell. This game relies on a trust system. Like most games, trust is implied.

Well, of course it is, and the bottom line is that at some point everyone has to draw a line where you decide what the spell can, and cannot, detect, determine, and/or react to.

Since it's not hardcoded in the spell, the line is pretty nebulous. Where does the line exist for you?

'If a hostile invisible creature approaches within 120 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If an invisible creature approaches within 120 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If a hostile invisible creature approaches within 100 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If an invisible creature approaches within 100 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If a hostile invisible creature approaches within 60 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If an invisible creature approaches within 60 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If a hostile invisible creature approaches within 10 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

'If an invisible creature approaches within 10 feet of me, cast True Seeing'?

And why?

I mean, you have my answer (none of the above, [house rule: *]), and why (the spell is not capable of making a skill check to detect them, [house rule: The spell has a base perception skill equal to the level of the caster at the time of casting, plus stat mod, plus spell-related bonuses like spell focus, always takes 10.]). I'm truly curious.

Zilvar, by your stance it seems you would disallow "cast stone to flesh on me if I am ever petrified" if it flesh to stone were cast by an invisible enemy with the silent spell feat simply because the former caster was unaware he was being attacked.

That is rubbish I say. Better to trust that your players are there to have fun and not to abuse the system. If you can't do that, your game has already lost (as it kind of requires trust).

How so? 'If I'm turned to stone', or 'if I'm petrified' is a plain english condition that doesn't require the spell to be able to identify the source. It doesn't matter if it's a gorgon, or a spell, or just a jerk DM. I would have a problem with 'cast flesh to stone on me if someone casts stone to flesh on me' (and frankly that'd be less useful overall, wouldn't it?)

My 2 Cents:

How does the spell recognize these things in any case? How is the spell able to determine what a "melee attack" is? How does the spell know what "damage" is? What's "restrained" for the purposes of the spell?

When in doubt or there is no game term, you refer to the dictionary definitions. That's the answer from SKR in other threads I've seen. So sure, we can apply common sense, and sometimes that contingency will backfire (Yeah..I can just imagine the scene..late one night, and you and your Significant Other, and all of the sudden, Grease! ... yeah, I went there).

You may think I'm nit picking, which I am, but I'm also pointing out that the spell is able to recognize these things and understand the intent of the wording of continingency spell despite having wording referencing how it does so. So, literally by magic, it's able to tell if you're taking HP damage, your friend is getting attacked in melee, or if there are shackles placed on your hands. Is it really such a stretch that the spell, is able to magically recognize when someone within a certain range is casting a certain spell?

Really? We had to go to the it's magic argument? The problem is that your non-divination contingency can now know the unknowable! When the invisible mage-killer casts a Stilled, Silent Feeblemind (or whatever spell you had the amazing foresight protect against) from 300 feet away (of course you specify the max range of the spell in question)? That's, what, a +50-ish to the perception check just to notice the casting? But the arguement given is that it'd still work because the target of contingency doesn't have to know, and it doesn't matter if they have a hope in heck of knowing that the base effect is going on. You're just walking around with this invisible, intangible sphere of spidey sense that sees around corners and through lead walls and does, frankly, amazing things.

IMO, people think it's a lot more amazing than I think it should be.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

In both cases, the spell is being asked to detect something that the player couldn't (or didn't) know and respond to it in some fashion.

Definition of the word wrote:

con·tin·gen·cy

/kənˈtinjənsē/
Noun
1) A future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.
2) A provision for such an event or circumstance.

Synonyms
chance - accident - eventuality - fortuity - possibility

In a certain regard, I do believe you have stated the actual purpose of the spell as a way of saying why you wouldn't allow it.

Hardly.

I can see and understand a contingency of 'if I take damage', 'if I'm struck by a melee attack', 'if I fall for more than one second' (or 10', or whatever), or 'if I am restrained'. All of these are unambiguous enough that I can't see someone calling for any kind of skill check to resolve, nor do they act as a global divination spell. I would have a problem allowing a contingincy that did. But from what I'm reading here, many people wouldn't have a problem with one like 'If Frankie Franks says 'Hey Buddy, I need help!', Greater Teleport me to his location'. And let that work no matter where Frankie Franks is. Or 'If someone other than <party thief> approaches me while invisible, do X'. That's the sort of thing you couldn't figure out even with a darn good perception check.

In the same vein, I have problems with a contingency that would require passing a spellcraft or perception check to function. An 'If <spell X>' contingency wouldn't pass my muster without further house rules (such as 'I will roll the spells check in advance and now know how 'smart' it is...you don't know.').

Despite all of those examples requiring that the spell know things that there's no possible way it could know. Heck, contingency isn't even a divination, and some of the responses in this thread seem to want to allow it to be able to act as the best darn divination in the game :)

So word it this way: "As soon as any creature within 120' of me begins casting 'time stop', teleport me to XXXX".

I see nothing in the "contingency" description that says the caster has to be aware of the situation for it to trigger contingency. Would anyone have a problem with: "If any invisible creature approaches within 30' of me, cast 'true seeing'"?

Honestly? I would.

'It's magic' or not, I'd have a problem with a spell triggering on a condition like that. My position might not be supportable by rules, but I'd still have a problem with it. You might as well ask if I had problems with a contingency that went something like 'if anyone approaches a gem worth more than 2000gp within a mile of me, Greater Teleport me to their position.'

In both cases, the spell is being asked to detect something that the player couldn't (or didn't) know and respond to it in some fashion.

LazarX wrote:

You can't have a contingency based on spells that affect other people, ...

I'm being thick today, LazarX, but why not? That seems pretty par for the course. "If anybody within line of sight, who is not wearing one of the team's signet rings, starts casting a spell, bring up an anti-magic field."

I think I misread the same line..the spell Contingency casts has to affect you, iirc, not the one that triggers it.

I would say maybe you make the Spellcraft check and it's retroactively applicable? If you fail, your preset casting wouldn't be able to recognize the spell but if you succeed your spell knows because you know?

I thought of that. Then I figured it'd just be easier if a conditional requiring a skill roll fell under the 'too complicated' rule and just failed. :)

Now, if you worded it so that "When anyone withing X feet of me casts Time Stop, then...", (where X is a number of feet predetermined by you) then the contingency absolutely would go off ....

Fair question here...could you do that conditional? See, you can't know what someone is casting without passing a Spellcraft check. You might autopass the check at 30 feet or less, but you cannot know without actually making the check.

Can the spell make the check? It can't be you making the check (I mean, it's obvious to me it can't be you, since the a Contingency can fire even if you're not aware of the conditions that triggered it). How's that supposed to work?

The answer is no. Time Stop cannot trigger a Contingency. Time Stop has a range of personal and a target of the caster. It cannot qualify to trigger Contingency since the spell does not affect your person.

Prayer Wheel of Ethical Strength + Cestus means the Monk is bypassing DR/Law, DR/Good, DR/Bludgeoning, DR/Piercing. The Fighter is bypassing DR/Slashing and DR/Material (Except Adamantium). In one level the Fighter will be able to bypass DR/Good as well. The Fighter could swap to a Holy Falchion, but then his Damage would tank against basically anything that isn't a demon.

Sorry, two more questions. I shouldn't try posting right before work.

What level of DR makes it worthwhile to go from 2d8 to 1d4 base damage? Is it anything above DR 8 (the difference in the average damage of the weapon)?

Also, holy does extra damage to anything with an evil alignment. That's about 1/3 of the creatures in the 3 beastiaries, and (one assumes) a fair number of classed enemies in a standard 'save the world' style campaign. Holy really seems like a good investment to me...is it really that much of a trap?

Prayer Wheel of Ethical Strength + Cestus means the Monk is bypassing DR/Law, DR/Good, DR/Bludgeoning, DR/Piercing. The Fighter is bypassing DR/Slashing and DR/Material (Except Adamantium). In one level the Fighter will be able to bypass DR/Good as well. The Fighter could swap to a Holy Falchion, but then his Damage would tank against basically anything that isn't a demon.

Ah. That prayer wheel thing I couldn't find.

funky.

Results: 77 (Fighter) vs 80+ (Monk)

It gets worse from there. The Monk bypasses DR easier than the Fighter, and, as always, crit-immune enemies tank the Fighter's DPR. It isn't just about the Damage. The Monks gain the damage... and the speed... and the AC... and the CMD... and... you get the picture.

Is this a corner case too?...

Can you explain the statement that the monk bypasses dr easier? My experience is that flat bonuses or actually having the required material matter most. Both characters show +3, but the fighter is going to be punching through dr with more damage when he connects. More hits connecting to offset?

Personally, I suspect I am too caught up in anecdote to discuss this dispassionately. My own level 11 monk rocks a +19 to hit and has never managed 70 DPR. Most days I am lucky with 7.

It occurs to me that I did not answer the question. It depends on the social contract at the table. If the death represents another day in hell, then maybe. If its a harsh change of pace, then probably not.

Ravingdork wrote:

Having your long time character suddenly snuffed out by a Power Word: Kill spell from the GM? No save, no chance to avoid. Nothing. Just an unceremonious collapse unto death in front of "Enemy Spellcaster A."

No. There are reasons for spells like raise dead. People fighting things of godly power die.

My only complaint with this statement is that it's a very lossy proposition for the group given the cost of the raise dead component and the potential difficulty of having that money available.

My current 11th level group has it, sure, but we've been specificially given the diamond dust over the course of 3 or 4 adventures and several months of gaming. And at that we only have materials for one such spell.

For equivalent costs, the guy crafting PW:K scrolls (or buying them from the vending machine around the corner) is going to outpace the party's ability to bring people back pretty quickly.

You can call it a corner case all you want, but again. This works almost like a science. All it takes is one, singular case, no matter how obscure, to break your proposal to mark it "needs improvement."

I deleted a previous post because it had too much snark, but I should have just edited it.

There's a couple places where I differ from what I perceive to be your baseline here, though I can't speak for anyone else. I, personally, think that a monk should be capable of competing with a fighter's damage output when the fighter is trying to do the monk's schtick (barefisted TWF). If Dabbler's proposal makes that possible when you've got the Bard In My Back Pocket class ability, cool.

Second, and more importantly, creating a combat-viable core monk takes a great deal of system mastery right now. Just based off the crazy stuff you've pulled out to equip monks with that I'd never heard of, I've got to tip my hat to you (even if I do disagree with pretty much everything you've said about the menacing property). Dabbler's proposal makes it possible to create a monk that can remain useful to people who don't have that level of mastery. It also allows people to make monks that aren't all about strength and have them still be useful at the table. I think this is a good thing.

RE: Feriah.

I'll look at this chara in detail when I'm less tired and more sober. I'm having a hard time picturing what she's actually supposed to be doing or good at. That said, it looks like an Agile AoMF should solve most of your DPR problems.

He already mentioned why that wasn't possible, and I think everyone is on board with the previous dev statement that an item-based fix to the class isn't desirable.

If it takes a specific item to make a monk approach viable, there's something wrong with the class, the approach, or the item. And I'd like to think we can all agree that not every monk should have to look like Hulk Hogan or Hanma Yujiro.

People are proposing to give the Monk +To-Hit. There are situations, some common, where that buffs the monk entirely too much. That means your design needs to take these situations into account and adjust. If you are trying desperately to prove you are correct or less wrong, you've already lost, from a design process point of view.

The majority of the proposals I've seen advocating additional +to hit values wouldn't change the overall outcome of your thought experiments, though.

An enhancement bonus to hit would overlap with your +3. Having the option to use Wis instead of Str would overlap with your +6. Since the overall numbers should be basically unchanged, perhaps it could be noted that (from my perspective at least) that having multiple ways to get to competative results is a better way to look at it?

Not everyone wants to build ... I'm drawing a blank on an appropriate superhero comparison for an unlikable, slightly slow powerhouse with loads of common sense...but that's one of the only ways to build a monk that is competative at the table.

It seems to me that Dabbler's base proposal (wis to hit, scaling enh bonus to hit) does a lot to lower the barrier of entry for the monk without relying on tremendous system knowledge to build a character you won't regret later. Also, being able to cover problems with gear isn't an answer either, as stated by the writers.

Lastly, the biggest thing I (personally) walk away from your examples with is a tremendous appreciation for the bard. Providing roughly 25% of your total bonus to hit with a solid, long-lasting class ability and a simple spell? If my next character isn't a bard, I'll have a bard cohort for damn sure. Just saying :)

Zilar: Menacing specifically states it need not be used.

Is that text in the hardcover, because that text does not appear in the d20pfsrd entry for menacing. All it specifically points out is that you need not be one of the flankers in order to provide the benefit to your allies. In fact, I'm still not clear on whether the bonus applies to the wielder of the menacing weapon (and can think of at least one fluff-tastic reason it wouldn't)

In the interest of avoiding argument, how would the lack affect the posted DPR values?

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

I'm sure a lot would and it would be a smart move for some or many enemies. At the tables I've been at it would bring the game to a halt for a minimum of 30 minutes while everyone figured out butt naked stats.

Sometimes a good idea isn't a good idea when you lose a lot of your game time :)

In truth, I don't see why it would take 30 minutes. All your buffs and such stack on to your baseline. Does someone just forget how attack rolls and such work?

Seems like most of this would be pretty automatic to me. O.o

I could be exaggerating, but I don't think by much. The people at my tables aren't the most system savvy.

I'm sure a lot would and it would be a smart move for some or many enemies. At the tables I've been at it would bring the game to a halt for a minimum of 30 minutes while everyone figured out butt naked stats.

Sometimes a good idea isn't a good idea when you lose a lot of your game time :)

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Personally, I can't remember the last time I was dispelled, but apparently nary a fight goes by at many tables without someone dropping some form of 'make the players pull out the backup butt-naked character sheet'.

People get dispelled in my games all the time (not necessarily by scrolls either as it's a very good spell to prepare, to know, and shows up on a number of outsiders, especially at high levels). I don't know what you mean about this "backup naked character sheet". Do people actually have those?

In the thread in question, I asked the same question and got at least one heck-ya-always sort of response. In that thread I'd asked if any DMs would really use Disjunction against a party since it would bring the game to a screeching halt while everyone recalculated everything.

I am still not convinced, but thats what I've got

Zilar: That was already factored in. Cestus just gives the monk Menacing.

How's that work, and why bother? If you're not attacking with the weapon you shouldn't get to claim the benefit...or did you slip in a cestus attack down at the bottom of the attack sequence for the extra +2, or did you take the 1d4 damage for (1+) attacks, or what? Does the bonus apply to the person using the menacing weapon, also? The wording is a little confusing. Generally when something talks about allies, it's talking about everyone other than the user isn't it? In this case the wording is confusing because 'allies' could be the wielder's allies, or it could be the flankers allies.

Not trying to nit, even though I suppose I am, but some of what you posted seems to rely on oddball items that I've not only never seen, but I can't imagine falling on the table under normal (non-cherry-picked-crafting) circumstances.

One further aside..using GMW to shore up a monk's inability to punch things in the face in a meaningful fashion has been brought up in previous threads. I suspect that at least part of people's disregard in subsequent threads is the apparent regularity with which BBEG, little-bad-evil-guys, and medium-bad-evil-guys are willing to purchase, hold, and use higher level scrolls of greater dispel in some campaigns. Personally, I can't remember the last time I was dispelled, but apparently nary a fight goes by at many tables without someone dropping some form of 'make the players pull out the backup butt-naked character sheet'.

ymmv.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Hmm. For as long as I've been following the monk threads, I'd think someone would have commented on the use of a Cestus to provide enhancable attacks. Even if you purchased two of them they'd have a better return than an AoMF, unless you don't get to apply your higher monk damage to the attack?

The cestus doesn't get a monk's unarmed strike damage because it is a light weapon, not an unarmed strike. Also, the enhancements on the cestus do not apply to unarmed strike attacks; per the description of the cestus, your unarmed strike attacks deal their normal damage. The only changes a cestus makes to unarmed strike attacks are that you count as armed and can choose to deal piercing damage while making unarmed strike attacks.

I assume that would affect the posted DPR numbers given when soulgambit swapped the deliq...de...ooze gloves for the cesti?

Hmm. For as long as I've been following the monk threads, I'd think someone would have commented on the use of a Cestus to provide enhancable attacks. Even if you purchased two of them they'd have a better return than an AoMF, unless you don't get to apply your higher monk damage to the attack?

Speed wouldn't work either, since by RAW, if you apply a Speed effect to the AOMF, you only get an extra attack using that Amulet (which is the "weapon" the effect is applied to), and not the Unarmed Strike.

Methinks Paizo's best bet is to just outright remove the Monk class, since all they get is screwed, screwed, and screwed. I'll never play one, and now I'll tell my brother to never play one because of Paizo's Anti-Monk rules.

Well, I don't know. The AoMF specifies that it modifies attack rolls with unarmed strikes and natural weapons and can grant melee weapon special abilities.

I mean, if I understand your reading, flaming or frost or holy or whatever wouldn't work either unless you were swinging the amulet around to beat things up with it. I don't think that's supported by the text.

That's a fair point, but allow me to show some precedents which blur this line:

Magic Fang: Target living creature touched
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.

Magic Fang doesn't blur the distinction at all. I believe that it clarifies it nicely. The spell targets a creature, and then the descriptive text specifies what happens (in this case one natural weapon or unarmed strike is made more uber than it was before). Unlike Magic Weapon it doesn't target the weapon since they're generally harder to remove and put back, I assume ('Sure, my tiger will give you his bite...just stick your hand in there....')

Speed Weapon Enhancement: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

This ability uses the haste spell, and only has one of the three effects, the extra attack. It is on a weapon (or amulet of mighty fangs) but reads as effecting the wielder. This ability can be used with any unarmed strike if you have the amulet.

The Speed enhancement is also clear, since it specifically acts on the weapon. It doesn't give you all of the bonuses of haste, just the one that says attack again....but only with THIS weapon.

It should even work with an AoMF, as you suggested, because an AoMF enhances, by design, all of the natural/unarmed attack forms of the wearer. Since they don't stack, you only get one extra attack with one of the weapons anyway and it's not broken.

Two abilities that effect both the wielder and the weapon according to their descriptions that would both work for a monk. Why would these work and not the Haste spell (which again the speed ability is based on).

Aside from pointing out that the source spell for a magic item cannot be used in a discussion about what an item can or should do (well, let me rephrase...on these forums, it seems to be generally accepted in the threads that I've perused that it results in interesting and fun thought experiments, but has no real bearing on anything substantive), I think I've covered your examples. Both are specific cases, and IMO, actually work against the notion that Haste works with unarmed strikes to grant an extra attack, by RAW.

I was going to just watch this thread but something interesting popped out to me. Your Quote: "The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects."

This means that the spell is broken up into several effects. Not one but 3 to be precise.
1. It grants an extra attack with the use of specific types of weapons
2. It grants a +1 to attack and AC
3. It grants a 30ft speed increase to all forms of movement.

The Monk ability in question says: "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.

My argument is that even though the spell as a whole targets the creature, the Effect of an extra attack is enhancing/improving the specific attacks listed. Thus the monk ability applies to that specific effect within the spell.

Hmm. I believe your argument has some merit, but unfortunately I am still convinced that it does not work after going back and reviewing the text.

Specifically, 'the hasted creature may make one extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon' still indicates to me that the weapon is, in no way, the target of the effect. It's a limiting factor, not an effect target. In fact, it suggests to me that I was wrong earlier when I listed barstool as a valid weapon (improvised weapons are neither natural nor manufactured, I think).

Does this effect (an extra attack) work for the character as a whole? No. If it did, it would work on unarmed strikes, which it clearly does not because otherwise the only other types of weapon attacks wouldn't have been called out.

What is the differentiating factor? This effect works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons.

Does this effect constitute an improvement or enhancement? Yes.

This effect is an improvement or enhancement that works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons, as opposed to (specifically) unarmed strikes.

This effect meets the criteria for a monk's unarmed attack to work with it.

Again you dispute a given.

The effect does work for the character as a whole.

The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.

Does this effect constitute an improvement or enhancement [TO THE MONK'S UNARMED STRIKE]? No. It modifies the creature. The creature gains an extra attack with weapons that fall within the limitations specified, plus speed, plus an attack bonus, plus an AC bonus, plus a bonus to reflex saves. The monk's unarmed strikes were never affected by this spell at all.

We do not know why the spell was written with weapon caveats. We can surmise that the caveats were intentional since the original version of the spell limited it to attacks with 'held weapons' (as relayed earlier in the thread).

Twice you have disregarded the first line of the spell text in order to attempt to make your case. I believe my stance is the stronger of the two. If you believe otherwise, address the given (the spell affects the creature per the descriptive text, not the weapon) or we're just going to go around in circles until we get really dizzy.

Just going to try a logic chain. As I start, I have no clue what my conclusion will be. I'd like it to be that monks gain an extra attack with haste. For this purpose, I am going to refer only to "natural weapon", with the explicit note that where appropriate I am consciously skipping references to manufactured weapons.

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.

Does the haste spell result in "a spell or effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon"?

The answer to this question is clearly no.

The haste spell affects the target creature, not the creature's weapon(s). 'The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.'

And then on to the line you quoted. Again, the monk's caveat does not apply. The spell does not, in any remote way, improve or enhance unarmed strike. Full stop. You do not get to apply the monk's caveat by RAW, and that is the core of this argument.

RAI, I'd tend to side with the people who throw dice, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

Is the haste spell, for this specific effect, enhancing the monk overall? It would not be globally enhancing a non-monk, since we know that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. The rules of the spell itself does not care whether the target creature is using a natural weapon, but any natural weapon the target creature is using may be the subject of the extra attack granted by haste. Since this effect of the spell requires a natural weapon to function, this effect is selective based upon the weapon being used.

Does this constitute an effect that is improving the weapon, or an effect that is improving the character?

It is not improving the character, because if it were, it would not make a distinction...

I have reread this passage three times now and I cannot quite figure out what you're trying to claim. Haste clearly states, in the first line of the spell, that it is enhancing the target creatures. The creatures are faster, and as a result, they get to attack again and attack more accurately (with a subset of weapons). Since your chain of logic disputes one of the givens, your chain must be wrong.

My take is a little different.

Unforunately your take still does not answer the semantic problem that Ashiel has pointed out. The -creature- is enhanced. The -weapon- is not.

Since the monk's special text deals with enhancements to the -weapon-, the fact that the monk himself is enhanced is not relevant.

Certainly a +1 to attack rolls is an improvement, but the improvement isn't to the unarmed strike. It's to the monk, and affects his barstool, his sword, his polearm, his dagger, his sai, and his shuriken....but not his fists, because the language in Haste does not allow it to affect unarmed strikes (as has been demonstrated many times, they are neither natural nor manufactured weapons except for the monk caveat, which does not apply here).

thanks for the responses guys. I totally missed the obvious there :)

I've never played a wizard high enough level to actually try to use the spell, but I'm curious. Could you set up a contingent dispel magic (or greater dispel magic) to act as a counterspell?

Say 'if someone other than me casts Time Stop nearby, counterspell it with Greater Dispel Magic'.

I assume you could, but for some reason I'm having trouble getting it past my WTF-o-meter. Probably because counterspelling isn't something I ever actually see done.

LoreKeeper wrote:

Secondly you cannot take Weapon Focus or Power Attack at level 1; as both require BAB 1 or better. In this case the effective BAB from flurrying does not apply.

Haven't read far enough to know if this was already brought up, but I think an FAQ allows monks to have Power Attack at first level.

Link

Of course, this means they can only use Power Attack(at level one anyway) while also using Flurry. That's just they way I read it anyway.

I would think you'd have to really stretch things for 'determine the effect of' to be logically equivalent to 'have the prerequisites of'.

Just my thoughts

Fun posts deserve fun answers

In a previous thread I came up with the figure that one point of DR was bypassed by between 1 and 4 J of energy (based on the amount of force needed to break a 1 inch thickness of wood...the figures I could find weren't very exact on the breaking force for wood).

Since it requires 4186 J of energy to make 1 kg of water change its state from liquid to gas, we can use those figures and some butt logic to say that water has relatively few HP and a fairly high DR. So I'd give it maybe 2 hp/inch and a hardness of between 4184 and 16736.

You aren't a full strength based Monk (low Wis/dex)?

You could buy up to 20 Str, +4 Str item, potion Magic fang (cheaper till you buy Aomf +2), +1 WF -2 flurry +1 boots of Speed+10 BAB =18 hit, that leaves +6 that I'm not sure where he has.

I am strength based, but not to the exclusion of everything else. 16 str, 13 dex, 14 con, 16 wis, with a headband of wisdom and a belt of physical might +2 (str/dex).

So, yeah, I acknowledge that I could boost my to-hit by 3 or so if I'd made different choices at creation, or if I'd been able to get just the right magic items. Still quite a bit of difference to cover, as you pointed out.

The number differences we're seeing here do illustrate why the magus might have less of a trouble hitting than the monk. The rogue has sorta been answered too (they're just as hamstrung but nobody in the forums expects them to really hit...those experiences definately reflect what happens at our gaming table).

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

How are you getting a +24 to hit at level 10 with an unarmed monk? That's something like 8 points ahead of the level 11 monk I've been playing for the last few months.

Let's see.. at level 10 I had a +14 to hit with my highest flurry attacks.
10 + 4 (str) + 1 (aomf) + 1 (weapon focus) -2 (flurry penalty)

I know at 4th level my magus self buffs to +11 to hit, +9 when using spell combat. That will jump to +15 / +13 at 5th level.

At 4th level, that same monk would have been at ... +6 to hit on a flurry, I think, or +7 with single attacks. The difference between that an the magus is pretty staggering.

Monks have trouble hitting? They would against opponents whose AC is through the roof. But what is the AC they are trying to hit, regardless of whether its the monk or magus? Level 10 monk sitting on a +24 to hit, averaging 29 damage per hit, 33 vs a creature with DR. Rogue is sitting on +25, averaging 25 damage a hit. Unless the party is constantly running into creatures with an AC of 40 and saves of at least +20. In such games, have seen players just laugh, told the DM to go f@#~ themselves and quietly leave the game.

How are you getting a +24 to hit at level 10 with an unarmed monk? That's something like 8 points ahead of the level 11 monk I've been playing for the last few months.

Let's see.. at level 10 I had a +14 to hit with my highest flurry attacks.
10 + 4 (str) + 1 (aomf) + 1 (weapon focus) -2 (flurry penalty)

I can't see more than another +2 from stat boosters and a more expensive aomf, so yeah. Where'd that other +8 to hit come from?

If memory serves, Crouching Tiger is the movie adaptation of one of the later volumes of a 7 book series. I have several graphic novels based off the earlier works and they also agree that Green Destiny is a supernaturally sharp weapon that could cut nearly anything. Any attempt to model Li Mu Bai and his sword would almost have to be adamantine.

I was asked to generate a 'quick two handed weapon fighter' for someone new to the game to join our 10th level group this weekend. I didn't have a lot of time, but this is what I came up with. I think he still has around 10k gold to spend, some of which would probably be an amulet of natural armor, a bag of holding (for all his beer), and various normal adventurer's sundry items. And more beer.

He clocked my monk pretty hard when the DM made us fight him right off the bat.

20 pb. Changing for 15 pb would, I think, lower his dex by 1 and str by 1. Alternatively, he could be built with a 10 Wis and end up with the same str and one less point of dex. I liked the higher will. Makes him feel like an unstoppable movie villian.

These builds are interesting.

Zilvar, that was a decent breakdown and comparissons of some of the characters.

Been away from the internet for a few days. Thanks for the comment :)