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

gnomersy's page

1,549 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:

You can always run interferance/distract the enemy a la Aid Other action no matter what you're facing or how unprepared you are for it.

If you don't think being reduced to using the aid other action or "distracting"(and how exactly are you doing this when you're not a threat at all?) isn't being sidelined I don't know what to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree, if you've ever read the Dresden Files I feel like planar binding should be more along the lines of Dresden's relationship with the demon in his brain where if you rely on it you're headed right into the clutches of evil and even trying to use it for good is the sort of thing where you need to be prepared to damn yourself every time you do.

Anywho as I stated earlier regarding the OP to get things back on topic, I think wizards are mechanically stronger than sorcs simply by virtue of increased rate of spell progression and non linear spell power growth. That being said I think they're both fun and can be powerful in their own ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:


I urge you to remember the following. According to the CORE RULES, those being CORE only, casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is not an evil action. The paladin book (Champions of purity, I believe it was called) had a section called "evil magic in golarion" or something like that, that spelled out that in Golarion, casting [evil] magic is an evil act.

I'm personally -really- glad that this is not a core rule, so I don't have to house-rule it out of all of my games, because it is just the stupidest, most nonsensical ruling ever. If you doubt it, go find Ashiel's response to SKR stating that casting [evil] magic is an evil act, and watch her spin arguments that just completely, utterly -DESTROY- any semblance of reason SKR and half the thread try to muster in the defense of this bad, bad ruling :)

I'm not joking, she obliterates that ruling on a subatomic level, spelling out clearly and precisely, why it is an absolute nonsense ruling. It's a good read.

-Nearyn

*Shrug* the precedent is clearly set and in Golarion(the assumed setting for most of PFs extended rules which people use on the forums and the setting in which the PF gods dictate whether or not a Paladin falls instead of pure DM fiat) the use of evil spells is evil.

That being said I think certain spells shouldn't be classed as evil but some spells are definitely evil. And if you think summoning demons shouldn't be evil I could point out one of a million stories and real life examples of where the summoning and communing with demons is pretty much universally considered evil.

Logically speaking I can't see any reason why the gods of good would be like "Well sure he's summoning demons that could get loose and kill and spread evil throughout the world but if he had to do his dishes and make a sammich with his own power why that would be truly evil!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:

remember brawler gives +1/+3 so the gloves should give +2/+6 (they double the stuff right?)

also, my bad, for some reason I thought fang was a swift action. brain derp, still you can only take 1 immediate action a turn so eh, without combat reflexs you only get snake fang 1/round anyway

also remember the nice thing about MoMS is, once you have the style, you don't need to get the rest of the trees in order, you could very well go snake style, then take snake fang as your MoMS feat without sidewinder (or whatever the other one was called.)

Rorek you really need to fact check before you claim things.

Drinking does not provoke, "The act of drinking is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity." Directly out of the drunken master drunken ki entry.

Also the gloves do not double anything they increase the bonus from weapon training by +2

Edit: Additionally panther explicitly calls out getting attacks back only due to movement not due to any action which provokes. "when an opponent makes an attack of opportunity against you for moving through a threatened square,"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

remember folks, the AoMF isnt *required* anymore since the clockwork prosthesis is out--it costs regular to enchant, and can go up to +10 like any other weapon. main issue is that it's 6k, meaning that you'll have to wait for quite a few levels to get one.

if youre stuck using an AoMF because you DM is a terrible person, for higher levels the monk's robe isnt terribly useful anymore--it's effects cap at effective monk level 20, you can wear a bodywrap of mighty strikes (yes, yes, heresy i know) to add more effects (like, say, holy and courageous) to 4 attacks, generally the first four since they're more likely to hit.

keep the AoMF at a flat +5 enhancement, and use the bodywraps for auxiliary effects.

Unless

1) You didn't want to play robocop and cut off all your limbs to make your monk work

OR

2) You know that in a month or two they're going to make it so that prosthetics don't count for unarmed strikes because if they were going to nerf Brass Knuckles into oblivion why not do the same to fake arms?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

A buffed inquisitor with unimpressive strength and a one-handed weapon and no Power Attack might have 4.5 (weapon) +14 (greater bane) +4 (judgement) + 3 (bardic performance) + 2 (good hope) + 4 (divine favor) + 4 (strength) + 5 (bane enhancement) = 40.5 per hit. Enough to still be fairly effective against DR 15. (And using standard DR rules his bane weapon is effectively +5 and therefore overcomes DR/alignment etc.)

A couple of notes:
SR is not the equivalent of DR. SR is the equivalent of AC. Energy Resistance is the equivalent of DR. (Although DR can be harsher, because DR/Silver is the equivalent of Energy Resistance: everything but Acid, and casters always have options that don't involve energy damage.)

Some people have implied that rogues need to overcome DR to deliver sneak damage. This is not true. Sneak damage is just damage and can be used to overcome DR.

I was thinking of stunning fist when I was talking about conditional on hit effects but that's besides the point.

As for the Inquisitor in question yeah with the best buffing class in the game spending a whole turn setting up party buffs as well as you spending one entire round and a second swift setting up personal buffs you can get up to 40.5 for a maximum of 14 rounds a day(I do recall saying one of the ways to do that is to be buffed to the gills) but not every party includes a bard and not every one handed weapon user comes with a boat load of self buffing abilities and not every fight with DR is going to be against a mook. And on top of that 14 rounds is not an insignificant amount but it is definitely low enough that you're going to need to be sparing with the use of those bane rounds if you don't want to regret it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just say your character tripped while getting dressed and died on his own dagger then "reroll" the same character with a different name to show why people don't roll hp at level 1 anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Why do you hate martials?

One of them probably had a lucky crit, and killed his father. Incidentally his name is Inigo Montoya.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Eh, I like DR. A lot of people do. But I suggest you make a new thread for that--or, better yet, dig up one of the many threads I'm sure have been made over the subject.

Why make a new thread when it's completely relevant to the conversation at hand? Also please elaborate on why you think DR is good for the game?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

And how would you defeat vital strikes and charges, which this ability completely nerfs? The Vital Strike chain is longer and has a higher investment then Crane Wing!

==Aelryinth

Vital strike is already a trash line of feats in 95% of conditions if Paizo intends to balance around it I may as well burn my books and find a new gaming system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion it is not the case that refusing to accept surrender is dishonorable conduct.

Based on what I believe to be the most applicable definition of honorable which is to say the least subjective one. It is honorable to uphold any terms which you accept, it is not dishonorable to refuse to accept them. Essentially it would be dishonorable to accept the surrender and then shiv them once they drop their weapons, but to tell them "Pick up your weapon and die like a man!" That's fine in my book.

It's not snuggley wuggley nice levels of good but that's not what honor is all about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:


I meant in the sense of "how do brass knuckles improve the damage of a kick".

Ah I misunderstood sorry. But what Rynjin said sums it up, this is a universe full of magic why is it perfectly logical that a necklace makes you kick harder but a pair of magical gauntlets or handwraps or brass knuckles doing it is unthinkable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

Now, now, "losing" isn't the proper PC term! They were aggressively winning in reverse!

As for on-topic, I'm not understanding how it is CW stays relevant at higher levels while the mirror spell does not. CW faces the exact same problems in that enemies are far more likely to have counters to it at higher levels.

Shhhh don't point out the glaring logical fallacies to people who don't want to acknowledge that as long as you aren't playing the game directly copy pasted out of a book that it's tremendously easy to work around a CW PC it hurts the poor GMs feelings when you tell him he actually has to do work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:


It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.

And then what's the point of space whales?

Attacks are always resolved sequentially the fact that you can see if a monster dies mid full attack and move(if after one attack) or resolve the remainder of your attacks against other monsters supports this fact.

In which case slam him with 3 or 4 non grab attacks first if he ignores them he takes damage maybe for nothing since you don't necessarily land the hay maker anyways and if he doesn't then you get to use the monster's trick. Seriously smart play by the DM really is a huge counter for CW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

if you have a monster with one attack, it's hosed. Even if that attack is a Vital Strike.

You're playing a high AC character. Generally, monsters are only going to hit such on a 14+ or better.

That means secondary attacks are 16+ or 19+ to hit. And you take no damage, or so little it doesn't mean anything.

Functional invulnerability is what you have. trying to hit something with 28 AC with your +12/+7 to hit monster is an exercise in frustration. When you do hit, and the WIng takes it out, that's worse.

The problem doesn't get that much better with scaling, if you take care to keep AC high...tertiary attacks are meaningless, and the PC's have more tools for keeping monsters to fewer attacks.

From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.

It's still an Ugh moment.

==Aelryinth

Don't use a single monster with a single attack? Use two monsters or one monster with 2 attacks. Also most monsters have natural attacks rather than secondaries sometimes their entire attack routine will have no -5 penalties whatsoever.

If you're the DM, you have infinite resources to work with, not using them is quite simply laziness on your part. If you want to whine about that that's fine but don't pretend the game is broken because you have to actually put in some effort and think instead of looking at the first CR X creature in the bestiary and copy pasting it into your campaigns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, but those are extremely specialized PC builds.

The GM doesn't have to put up with Feint Builds. He has to put up with Crane Wing. Wee bit of difference here.

If you had to put up with every monster having crane wing, like every monster has to put up with your PC having it, you might see things a little differently.

==Aelryinth

Boohoo poor GM has to not use extremely boring, lazy, and linear fights pulled right out of the bestiary my heart bleeds for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
As I pointed out earlier Wakedown pathfinder isn't a game that really holds up for a pure story driven experience...

In the cases I've seen it used, it has held up fairly well for a "mostly story driven experience". It's not quite exactly what I mean (it's a step in between) - but I've heard a lot of stories from Library of the Lion sessions this past week where folks were amazed that you could sit down and play Pathfinder without combat. I have yet to see that adventure firsthand, but my intuition tells me a stereotypical rogue would do quite well in it?

gnomersy wrote:
.. there are just plain old better systems to do that in.
Absolute, total agreement. I fear it may never catch fire, but 13th Age takes a nice step towards story and away from rules while maintaining a balance for both camps of gamers.

While I agree that you can do it in PF(like fitting a round peg into a square hole) the question is why do that in a system that only pseudo supports it. Why fill in pages of skill points stat arrays feats and what not, only to ignore them?

I really enjoy story driven games I've even played a few sessions in PF where we don't throw down but for the most part you end up ignoring stats in that case in which case why is the Rogue better at this than everyone else? Raw skill points? But if you don't roll what makes that important? If I want to just roleplay a Rogue/Rake/Swashbuckler character why can't I do that with any other class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the dead horse wrote:
if pounce were to become a feat without some ridiculous feat tax there would be a thread claiming that the developers are trying to phase out the barbarian the next day.

Totally because the scaling DR, enormous save bonuses via superstitious, big stat upgrades via rage, most HP per level, more skill points than the fighter, and other tremendously good rage powers like spell sunder totally don't stack up to the other classes without pounce.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
We don't misunderstand what the OP is saying. We simply flat out don't agree with it.
Quick, lets not talk about what MrSin was and tell him he's wrong and tell the OP he's wrong!

Quick! Let's momentarily switch sides so we can narrate what we're doing!

Quick! Let's pointlessly deride an irrelevant posting quirk without contributing to the argument!

Quick! Let's confuse ourselves getting meta and...uh...wait, wasn't I supposed to switch my side back to yours? Crap, now I really am confused. I'm outta here!

** spoiler omitted **

Also, I notice a lot of the potential counters to my arguments involve complicated builds, so here's a question for that: If a class needs a convoluted design to beat it, isn't it already, if not perfect, good enough?

Claiming that the Rogue provides more dpr than the Bard is highly misleading, given that the Bard provides a party wide 5,10,15,20% accuracy and therefore dpr boost which the rogue can't.

In fact the Bard is sort of the opposite of the Rogue, the Rogue will excel in situations where they're facing mooks or other low AC mobs where his relatively poor to hit doesn't really hurt him and the Bard may be providing to hit in excess of the target's AC, but on a tough encounter where everyone is having trouble landing hits the Bard is providing way way more DPR to the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oddly enough, Invisibility gives you a +20 on stealth checks, so it somehow makes you better at hiding from a blind man in a completely dark room...
I just imagine that invisibility also muffles the sound of you moving and whatnot. It's the only thing that makes sense given the mechanics.

I'd go with the knowledge of your invisibility means you can focus more closely on moving carefully to prevent causing undue noise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:


It's about 53% to 47%, which (largely irrelevantly) is about the same margin by which the last couple of presidential elections have been decided. Which is why I said "roughly 50-50," and also noted that there is going to be a negative bias built in, because people who are upset about something will always be more vocal about it than people who approve.

And unless I am missing something, the arguments aren't largely being put in terms of, "I fully admit it needed weakening, but I think it went too far." It's been more like...

Based on my count it's 53:47 in favor of it not needing any nerfs whatsoever and like 90:10 on this nerf being too much. If 90% of people are saying that this is an overnerf considering how much people hate Crane wing I think it's safe to say Paizo f*!#ed up somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
You know, it doesn't require any special training to Feint someone. Just a few skill ranks, and bam, you can deal with a crane wing user. No AoO or anything.

But then we can't whinge about how OP those dirty filthy Monks are!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


Crane Wing is a form of functional invulnerability that is player controlled. A smart player can simply work with the melee system and make himself almost immune to damage.

Others have already posted how this distorts the entire system. Suffice it to say that being unable to effectively use melee against a character changes the entire way the campaign has to work. It is completely better to change the option so it is still useful, but is not invulnerability.

Functional invulnerability you say? I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If Crane wing made you invulnerable it's either because you are 100% in on maxing your defenses or the enemy was already trivial as an encounter. Aka the enemy needed a 16+ to even tag you because that's the only time when you could assert that crane wing comes close to invulnerability.

And again if the enemy needed a 20 to hit you and you haven't been throwing every nickel and dime at maxing your AC it's because then enemy was a joke before Crane Wing and in that case chances are good the Raging Barbarian just killed him already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


Samuel Stone wrote:
And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.
Having to guess when something would be useful is frustrating and annoying.

Honestly any time a feat tells me I have to guess before use or choose to use an ability before I see a roll I drop it down by at least one or two tiers of desirability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Android Inquisitor with the Conversion Inquisition.

A cold, calculating Inquisitor, without fear, but without malice.

Also, make a decent skill monkey, and surprisingly, face.

This would be amusing if you called him a Manhunter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Add a caster to the all melee enemy group. Oh man, Crane Wing guy will shut down that one T-Rex? Add another that will attack the rest of the party or gang up on him. You don't have to completely rewrite encounters here.
Problem is, adding in another T-Rex takes a CR 9 encounter up to CR 11. That's a decent jump in difficulty when one character is problematic, and this is my main problem with Crane Wing. It makes it that much more difficult to balance an encounter, because scaling monsters up or adding in more monsters can potentially lay waste to the rest of the party who has their front-liner tied up. If the T-Rexes are only attacking the Craner, that's fine until one hits and uses its grab/swallow whole, and then there are two T-Rexes that turn towards the rest of the party that no longer have their "defense guy."

Alternatively you can not throw in single solo boss mobs?

I mean really it's a fairly well known fact that a solo boss is a joke in terms of difficulty relative to it's CR simply as a result of action economy so if that was your master plan it was a crappy idea before Crane Style even got involved. The only difference is that IF your player uses crane style that single hit that would probably have to take him from roughly 100-0 hp in order for the boss to be a real challenge does nothing.

Frankly I don't see a problem with DMs being punished for bad encounter design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:

I feel you, brother. But that's how taking the high road works. And honestly, you can make plenty of very effective martial characters.

If by plenty you mean all variations of the same cookie cutter mold then yes.

Pick Class X, crank strength into the stratosphere, use a 2h weapon, use power attack, take a nap when anything happens that isn't best solved by smashing your face into it. Why? Because that is the only fighting style that Paizo accepts shouldn't be god awful in their game, at least so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:

Yes, I know that casters are absurdly overpowered. Don't sink to their level, players of martial classes. Recognize a good call when you see it, and support it.

You're right we should take the high road of being worthless trash! Our gods will see our suffering and bless us in the afterlife right Iomedae? I mean what's more important that I actually stop evil or that I'm trying totally ineffectually ... right maybe you should just call up Charlie the Cleric I'm sure his 2nd level spell that makes this encounter completely moot won't get nerfed at least.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Eh, the issue was that the feat was a bit too powerful, at least in my experience. It's not where I'd point to, were I to have to point out a feat or option that was OP, but it was pretty powerful (though, it was, like many things, much better in the hands of a non-monk; Swordlords and Magi tended to get the most out of it). The big issue was that the devs both over-corrected and refused to acknowledge even more broken options first.

I think I've figured out their policy for errata/corrections.

Is this broken in terms of being worthless or useless? If yes, get to it eventually or release a fix which makes it mostly worthless and call it a day.

Is this broken in terms of being good? Is it for a spellcaster? Good for them they deserve it.
Is it for a Martial? If yes, is it for the Barbarian or Paladin? Good.

Is this okay but probably not broken except situationally? Ok ... wait is it for the Monk or Rogue? If yes, nerf that sum'b@$!# right into the ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It happens in rolled stats. Rolling where they can't see you roll and then bringing it in with crazy high scores may result in accusations of cheating though particularly if they don't know you well or you are looked upon with some suspicion for cheesing the game.

Best advice ask your DM.

Edit: Also if you want you can always lower some stats but overall it's going to be relatively minor compared to what you would get just normally putting your high stats where you want them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Since you're doing this in a non gestalt game you'd have to do some balancing.

Remember the goal is a simple fix.

I'm still not convinced that this would be unbalanced compared to other classes. Rogue sneak attack is very situational and all it really does is give foes even more of a reason not to get flanked or flat-footed.

It's not like this class gets pounce or paladin level defenses.

Just because it's a simple fix doesn't make it a good one this is crucial in game design.

As for Sneak attack it's true that it is situational and frankly not that great but the main reason it suffers is because the rogue can't stand in combat without getting torn to shreds and his ability to land hits is terrible. This new Fighter-Rogue wouldn't have that problem getting flanked and flanking when you can stack AC like nobodies business and take the following step feats is very different from doing so on a Rogue with fewer feats less effective armor and fewer hit points.

Also as I said getting 1.5 bonus feats a level is insanely high when combined with the fighter's already considerable static bonuses and sneak attack as gravy. If we assume the fighter is okay in combat(This is pretty much agreed upon by everyone sure he's not the best around but he's a solid pick there) then any upgrades to that should be looked at very carefully. And if sneak attack is so insignificant then there's really no functional difference between having it or not having it.

As for the rest of the kit comparing this to a Ranger you lose 4 levels of spell casting, FE, FT, an AC, and bypassing of feat pre reqs to gain 2 skill points per level 10+ feats/feat equivalents, weapon training, armor training, sneak attack, better armor and shield proficiency, built in trapfinding, bravery, and the uncanny dodges. There is little reason to go with a Ranger over this new class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Whatever.

Somehow a PFS 20 point buy is a generous alteration in the base rules of the game.

News flash not everyone plays 20 pb not everyone plays PFS and many APs are designed around a 15 point pb and on top of that they don't even excel at 20pb they just don't immediately radiate "I'm a useless class and you should feel bad for picking me," at that point.

But that's okay you already pretty much admitted that the Monk can't function under the same circumstances that all the other classes can function under which pretty much means they have more problems than DPR thank you for agreeing with me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

15 strength monk? You jest

20 point build human is 17str 14dex 14 con 10int 14wis 8cha

He was using the Heroic array and he stated that 15 was pre racial bonuses.
Since when have I said you can play a monk with a heroic array or even a 15 point buy?

Since you said the monk was fine and only had a dpr problem. If the monk was fine he wouldn't need a generous alteration in the base rules of the game in order to function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:

So I'm just going to go ahead and toss this out here despite knowing it will invite flaming upon me; monks are not underpowered. There are several monk builds that produce some of the most ridiculous outcomes most people could imagine. True, they are unlikely to possess the raw damage of a fighter and/or barbarian; this does not preclude them from inflicting massive amounts of damage in their own right. However, their strong point is providing a large amount of utility in addition to possessing very reasonable, normally impressive damage dealing capabilities. Some archetypes such as flowing monk, maneuver master or tetori open up whole new cans of worms that'll make your GM want to shoot you.

As for their armor class, monk AC is extremely easy to increase. It is easily possible to produce a monk whose AC tapdances around that of many fighters or paladins. More than that it's significantly less expensive to achieve this desired end result. All it takes is some wisely chosen (they're obvious choices to boot) magical items. Monks require no buffs. Heck, if you're playing a home game you don't even really need an amulet of mighty fists. Just pay to have greater magic fang + permanency done with "unarmed strike" as the target. You'll already be able to bypass most DR due to monks gaining these DR-breaking attributes as their levels progress. Do that and hey look, you've freed your neck slot for the significantly less expensive amulet of natural armor over the amulet of mighty fists. Conversely, you could use your amulet of mighty fists purely to place additional buffs on your unarmed strike; holy, for example, is a good choice. You could have the +5 enhancement form greater magic fang followed immediately by holy, shocking/flaming/freezing burst, axomatic or really whatever happened to tickle your fancy. GMs that will not permit access to permanency (few though they are) diffuse much of what I have said regarding the amulet of mighty fists, and you may indeed be forced to purchase it in order to maximize your...

I really don't know if I agree with you and the fact that the monk needs to resort to cheesing the system by getting permanency to make up for the fact that his weapon enhancement option is crap isn't a good thing. Nor is it ideal that it makes his source of attack bonuses permanently dispellable.

As far as the few select archetypes which make the Monk shine for the most part it has been agreed universally there are a few:

Tetori(when he can grapple, if your DM feels like it he can shut this down in an instant though and the more annoying you make encounters the more likely he might if he can't accept you stomping them, also note that Tetori is only a grappler don't expect him to play like an average monk he's more like a MMA fighter so this is still a surrender of the concept for most players.)

Sohei(Note, not a monk anymore, armor using weapon wielding fighter variant)

Zen Archer(Again not a monk anymore Bow wielding arrow machine)

---------------------------

There are some select builds of Flowing Monk, MoMS(dips), Drunken Master, and Martial Artist which can break even on some encounters. The issue is this is not true of all encounters. Maneuver builds or conditional builds like the Flowing Monk and the MoMS suffer from this in particular where they will dominate encounter X and be completely useless in encounter Y. Being so spotty in usefulness is not very fun imo but that may vary from table to table.

Also just in my experience the Monk needs buffs and magical items more than any other class not less.

Buffs to give him to hit because he has poor odds to start with, buffs/items to stats because he badly needs almost all of them, buffs to his AC because he has no way to get Armor or Shield bonuses normally.

And almost all monk builds will have one of two issues at the low end of levels unless using a 25+ pb or rolled stats where they either have seriously deficient armor compared to other front liners or have negligible damage ability until they pick up an agile amulet.

As far as maximum AC. I agree, the Monks max AC is pretty good but a fighter can get right around the same ballpark with much better to hit scores. But frankly I think looking at maximum AC or builds at level 12 or 20 for the Monk is pretty bad because by doing so you skip the biggest problem levels like from 1-3 where they are just bad at everything and from 4-8 where they're struggling to keep up and don't have enough ki per day to use bonus attacks and have limited buffs up to help them out and not enough money to buy their worthlessly expensive Armor option and weapon option and their scaling bonuses are all still really low.

EDIT: Lord this is long and I hope it doesn't sound like I'm flaming you I simply don't really agree. And one last bit because this wasn't wall of text-y enough ... XD

As far as the Monk being compared to different classes I just really can't see how you don't compare the Monk to Fighters, Barbarians, or maybe Rogues but Rogues at least have a definite out of combat ability and double the Monk's skills.

All of them are Melee range damage dealers with no casting ability, and the preferred comparisons have relatively low skill points. All of them can go into builds focusing on maneuvers often by virtue of using an archetype.

Does the Monk do these things better than the others? Well fewer hit points is bad, higher saves is good, lower to hit and CMB is bad, fewer feats compared to the fighter or rage powers(which are better than feats on average), so he's worse at doing melee damage is on average equal or slightly worse at Maneuvers barring one exception(the tetori), is slightly more mobile but on average has a worse AC and can't use his mobility advantage when the Haste spell is used. On the whole I don't see many advantages in the general case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Remember, these 'days' are just 8 hours, its not like that's all the crafter is restricted to doing. He's just going to work each day like everyone else.

Shifty I'm glad you bother to read posts but I'm unhappy that you selectively ignore everything which counters your argument.

I like how you and others love to fall back on "roleplaying" when it suits your needs, but when anyone points out that the time investment is character time not player time suddenly you go pick another post to respond to because you clearly have nothing to say about that in your own defense.

And I really do adore how you ignored the vast majority of my post on the last page laying out quite clearly how if you follow the WBL rules your idea of proper sharing is essentially bald faced theft of 18% of the wizard's wealth.

Please elucidate me on how the wizard is the one who is being greedy in this case?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HaraldKlak wrote:

@Ashiel and Gnomersy:

You both use real world examples which doesn't really cut it. We are generally speaking of a tight group travelling together on some heroic quest, that might or might not determine the fate of the world.
So " please use your grand powers to make me an epic sword that help us towards that goal", doesn't translate into "please fix my car".

On a personal note, I have helped strangers change a tire a the side of the road, I don't hesitate to help friends who are moving to a new home, or give my stepmother computer lessons, or paint/cut down trees/chop wood/put in a light bulb for my mother. All without asking for money.

Many groups tend to have an even distribution of loot. This is primarily a social contract in the gaming group, not necessarily something that makes sense roleplaying wise. IRL it is relatively rare to have a perfectly even distribution of wealth.

And just to comment on the actual examples:
@Ashiel: Not knowing where in the world you live, I'd probably take you up on visiting and cleaning your shower, since you're paying my expenses to do so ;)
@Gnomersy: If your job was to be a programmer at our company, you'd have a clause in the contract that stated you couldn't work as a programmer somewhere else. While you could have ideas at home just fine, if you were to realize them, you'd need to terminate your employment with us first.

You're exactly right "If my job was to be a programmer" Is my job being a programmer? Was I hired as a magic item craftsmen or are all wizards synonymous with magic item craftsmen? If yes then that's fine with the assumption that I am doing just as much my share in terms of loot splitting by sitting three rooms back and crafting through the day behind a barred door with my workshop set up as you are murdering monsters. But if magic item crafting is in fact not my job and is merely something I have the talent to do on the side and is related to my job like in my previous example of a network admin and programming then there is no expectation that you have a right to such labor from me and I was not hired with the expectation that I would provide such labor. I may choose to do that for you with the expectation of some compensation or because I'm nice but you have no right to expect that I will do it for you just because I can.

Also in my experience very few groups actually have an equal distribution of loot. In my experience loot tends to be very much so weighted towards the martials who will throw on anything we find while we're out murdering and wear it because it's better to have it and use it than to just let it rot in a bag while casters tend to pick up odds and ends or one big score which evens things up.

Also it still comes back to I don't tell you how to play your character and I don't get to tell you how you use your feats. I don't get to steal the use of your magic item feat because that doesn't help the party and you don't get to call me out on taking skill focus(cooking) because it isn't helping the party.

It's also worth noting that saying something may or may not save the world is the same as saying nothing. I can say you fixing my car may or may not save the world from a nuclear disaster because the President could call me personally give me the abort codes for the nuclear missile silo in X city nearby and nobody else can take care of this job but me for some crazy reason but I can only get there if I have my car! So you'll fix it right now for free right? I mean it could save the world as we know it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

How is expecting a PC to use his abilities (including feats) for the benefit of other PCs (and indeed of the party as a whole) with no immediate return such a horrible thing ?

Is it okay then that my fighter refuses to take an AoO at an opponent trying to reach the crafter unless he has received his proper wages as the crafter's part-time bodyguard ?

And if the crafter's player starts complaining, for example after his PC being dropped in the negatives, can I tell him that to think my PC would protect his crafter for free is a truly horrible thing on his part ?

Or maybe that is what I should tell him if my fighter takes the AoO but just does not use one of his feats (say Power Attack) unless paid for it ?

A PC party is based on solidarity and fair treatment for all, which ensures a high level of trust in PCs' life-threatening situations.

It means using your abilities for the benefits of yourself AND the rest of the party as much as you can with no further reward than the knowledge that they will do the same for you.

After all, rather than a crafting feat, the crafter could have taken a Metamagic feat to make his spells more powerful. Would you accept that he refuses to use it unless he is paid for it by the rest of the party ?

And for those who think that it is only fair compensation for the feats and skill points that the crafter "sacrificed", did the group force him to make this "sacrifice" or was it his choice ?

Very similar to the healer actually. Yet I have not seen that many people endorsing a healer that would refuse to heal his party buddies for free.

The group should have tackled the question even before the game began to find a compromise that would be okay for everyone. Now that it has become an issue between players, the GM should help them find a solution that is agreeable for all.

Also, anyone hiding behind the CN alignment to be a jerk is just that. A jerk.

I love this, oh my traveling companion is giving me a 40% discount on the market price of this item f@$% that a$$&+&&! What a b@+%+ time to murder him while he's down!

Also since that's the way you want to play it is it acceptable than any cleric who is already 1 hit from death has to run up through attacks of opportunity in order to throw heals on the party because sure even if it hurts him f~&@ him it's his job?

Or that the Raging Barbarian who's already down to negatives needs to use his deathless fighting abilities to stay standing and then stand in combat even though it will probably kill him?

I find the idea that you get to tell people how they have to play their characters to be laughably bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HaraldKlak wrote:

Why is crafting so special compared to the rest of the things our characters do with our feats and class abilities?

"If I have to pay for your crafting, why shouldn't you pay me to get healed?"

"Buff spells? Sure, but we have to break out the spell casting services prices."

"Breath of life? Honestly, guys, it is never going to benefit me directly, so I want that 50*CL every day you want me to prepare it."

"Hey mister wizard-man? See dat bit ogre commin chargin' us? Me want lotsa gold to stand in da way!"

All in all, charging trusted friends for services, easily opens up a can of worms. While crafting seems more reasonable than most of these examples, the fact is that most players/characters make choices, use ressources, and take actions that benefit the entire group, and not just themselves.

Because there is during adventure work and out of adventure work. For example if your job is to be a network admin at our business if you go home and write up a sweet program that is worth tons of money I have no right to take that s~&$ from you because you do a job for me during the day. What makes you think I should be able to pretty much steal from you or that you should be able to steal from the crafters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:

This thread again?

Went to several hundred posts last time :)

I'll just restate my argument again - "No, you charge cost price".

The 'time' argument is particularly ridiculous in a game where time is abstracted and is handwaved away.

It's also ridiculous that they bother to put food and water prices in the book in a game where that's just handwaved away or that they put a spell in the book solely to clean yourself up when that's just handwaved away.

It's called roleplaying and trust me call up your friend and ask him to do a job for you at cost with no pay or compensation whatsoever 20 or 30 times and see how likely he is to say yes. That is roughly the likelihood that any properly roleplayed character is going to have of saying yes.

So I'm going to go ahead and say, not charging without any other reason is in fact bad roleplaying, and it's violating the intention of the rules as stated by the devs, and it's bad for party and game balance, because that feat actually becomes a negative for the person taking it. So all in all I'm going to have to say I respectfully disagree Shifty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Aranna wrote:

A 5' step is NOT metagaming. AD why are you trying to muddle communication deliberately? A martial character knows from long hours of practice that if they move more than that far they will lose focus and only be able to attack once. OBVIOUSLY this is in character knowledge.

You are really missing his point.

Making a mechanical decision to take a 5 ft step and maintain your full attack instead of moving just 5 ft for the turn to try to achieve something similar is metagaming. It is fully recognizing that there is a game system in place.

Only because you assume it to be. If you consider a 5ft step to be some light shuffling/circling while staying in your "combat ready" stance while you consider movement to be something along the lines of a light jog it makes perfect sense that a 5ft step lets you make all your attacks and avoid attacks of opportunity while the jog makes it very difficult to do the same sort of thing even if you were to travel the same distance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:

So you are suggesting;

`Multiclassing to ruin your spell casting progression
`Going into a class that precludes the notion of spellcasting while in fighting form

Yes, yes I do laugh. I laugh heartily.

Actually you know what has been one of my favorite feats for clerics in recent memory? Glorious Heat. Free healing everytime you murder the crap out of someone.

Eh cleric spells with the fire descriptor with very minor healing? No thanks.

I'd prefer to go with feats for fighting as a cleric and just sub in healing when it becomes necessary. Heavy Armor Prof. + PA + Furious Focus +2 handed weapon = delicious secondary fighter ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hardly think it's dishonorable to kill enemies after combat much less evil and not everyone ever signed up to play a fluffy bunnies campaign, doesn't make him wrong just a pragmatist. Also I think it's kind of stupid that oh if I manage to hit the enemy from standing to completely dead in one strike that's a good action but if he falls down and I don't heal him up and drag his ass to the law forty miles out of my way I'm a rampaging baby eating demon.

It certainly isn't merciful though either way his own fault for picking that order there. So yeah I'd say he loses the challenge for a day but no alignment shift at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Everybody forgets that you can two hand a Heavy shield.

It's a One-handed weapon.

Ah my apologies BBT I did forget to mention that one but it is also one of the valid shield fighting options although it's not really "Sword and Board" So much as "Board and MOAR BOARDS!" =P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on my reading it sort of has to work like any other weapon except that it "can be used 2 handed as a martial weapon" nothing there says it must be used two handed and since the first part which I suspect is what people are getting caught up on is obviously flavor text and distinctly separated from the statement it is an exotic weapon as well as all of the rules text I don't know what else there is to say.

But if we wanted to discuss the realism of the situation nothing stops you from using a bastard sword one handed(excluding the inability to lift it one handed at all but that's a different issue) but chances are good you're not using it very well so pretty much exactly what the game would replicate, you can learn to use it one handed by taking a feat or you can use it two handed without any special training or you can use it one handed without any training but be clumsy and less effective with it -4 penalty.

That's just the way I'd play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say yes, mostly because if you use it on a apple in a late stage of decomposition it doesn't give you back only part of an apple. Poop is just contaminated/rotted foodstuff.

But I'd also say it tastes awful so you need to take Fort. Saves of 10 or be nauseated for each day you stomach the stuff where it goes up by 1 per day you eat only it and -2 per day you have not eaten. That's just because I think it would be fun though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
or for that matter firing a bow that many times(draw an arrow pull back the bow, release, repeat)

Drawing arrows is defined as a non-action. It is simply part of the attack.

As a GM, I would not permit that many free actions.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

From the PRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The_Big_Dog wrote:
...

You're using a CL 20 which implies you found a 20th level wizard willing to waste his time casting spells on your low leveled butt.

And frankly while the book includes rules for this chances are very very good a DM who isn't trying to give you a free pass to keep you from sucking because of the class you chose would look at you and tell you the 20th level spell casters are all busy with things far beyond the scope of your puny mortal affairs and put you on their waiting lists, check back in in 2-4 years.

Edit: @ Tarantula - I know it's pretty uncommon and frankly I would expect roughly half of DMs to deny you access to it which is why I generally don't include it in my build ideas but since it pretty much gives the best bonus you could get out of power attack without a Str requisite it's the best option available. I would have said pick up power attack but you'd need a 13 in Str to do so I suppose you could dock 1 point off of your dex to get it and frankly it would enhance the levels where you're too low to afford a agile enchant so might be worth it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


They *ARE* just people. But the people that designed and built my car have a better understanding of how it works than I do.

Why? I compare my game to other games I have seen plus how JJ sez his games are bing played. I only said our games are "mainstream" i didn't say or imply other games are in any way "badwrongfun". Are you having fun? If the answer is YES! Then you're playing it RIGHT, even if not as envisioned. We get thru a 10 round combat in about an hour or maybe two. In a 4-5 hour nite we get in 2-4 combats, most of them at least 6 rounds. And RPing.

Heck, I played for a while with some guys who had an elaborate and deadly Critical/fumble system. Even spells like Fireball could be fumbled (usually by some typo, Fireball= Furball, etc). They were having HUGE fun. But then one guy had a dual wielding type who was getting a lot of fumbles. He then complained that D&D was nerfing TWF. Now true, it does- but not because
of their home-brewed fumble system.

The OP makes many assumptions himself, then complains the devs make 'faulty assumptions".

The people who designed your car understand the underpinnings and inner workings of your car better than you do but who do you think would be a better judge of it's handling? If you were asked to run it through a course all of their theory could break down and experience will hold out.

Also please spell says correctly.

Furthermore you have no basis for mainstream you have your personal experience and some hearsay to base it off of you could just as easily have said the way we play this isn't an issue. But you didn't you claimed you played the "normal way".

Frankly I don't know if I agree with the OP's original statements either although I do think the game could be altered in ways to make things better.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.