|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Just tell your GM it's not a super death machine. If he's not willing to even audit your character, he's probably not that great a GM to begin with.
To be fair the DM is probably already putting in more time than the player into the game setup and the DM in question probably has a life outside of the game, making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.
Best bet is bribe the DM, give him some pizza or something to compensate him for his time and make him feel less bad about it. Also go through your stuff and note every book and page number which you take something from and when necessary provide him with the books in question if he doesn't have them on hand.
I don't know I'd opt for,
DM says: Are you sure you want to try to steal from this well established magical item shop?
DM means: I'm going to have all your characters get stabbed to death by the roving death squads they hire to keep this king's ransom of magical goods safe if you do this, just try me.
No offense meant to Ravingdork I like a lot of his character concepts but I've definitely seen characters of his which I felt would not survive the climb to the level where they come into their own as well.
But yeah I can attest that with a higher point buy I'm more liable to play something that is either more MAD, more thematic, or more quirky. I was considering making a twf build that passes it's own crits to itself to use with a big multiplier weapon that I would never have bothered with if our PB wasn't so high. And I did infact go into Noble Scion which definitely would not have happened if I didn't know that the rest of our party wasn't optimizing and if our DM hadn't given us rather ungodly stats.
I think an array is better for this kind of thing than point buy though because it means that while you might have a crazy high PB equivalent you might force SAD classes to be a little more rounded whether they like it or not and it gives MAD classes more bang for their buck than PB might. But other methods work too.
Not really. The reason Rogues don't focus on defense isn't because they need to focus on offense but because they need to focus on just getting sneak attacks this doesn't alleviate that issue which means all it does is make the Rogue more inconsistent between when he's sneak attacking and when he's not.
In general I find inconsistency in my character to be annoying at best and intolerable at worst but not everyone agrees with me.
To cap it all off the ability doesn't really make sense in context either since thick hide and being literally made of steel apparently make it no more difficult for the Rogue to find a good place to stick you but only when he sneaks.
If the DM doesn't want you to have money you're not going to have money it doesn't matter what you do.
Just scratch off the gold section of your character sheet and pretend there's no such thing when anyone asks you about gold or pay, start spouting communist propaganda at the table. I'd say 50/50 odds the DM gets sick of it and asks you to stop, then explain that communism is perfectly reasonable when there are no reasonable rewards for exceptional work already, and if such rewards were available your character might care more. If he continues his obstinate behavior begin killing and redistributing wealth in the populace to bring down the Bourgeoisie.
This may or may not get you booted from the group though so there is that.
How much do they sleep with? Completely up to them.
How much can they sleep with? Pretty much everything.
How much would I have my character sleep in? Well given that the game doesn't have a discomfort mechanic outside of armor I'd say all of it.
If we were being realistic though probably rings are on and maybe amulets, possibly a body/chest slot depending on the item would be worn as a nightshirt of sorts, headbands are probably on, belts would probably be a no although because of the rules I would never remove it so I'd say that's a yes, boots are off probably, gloves are probably off but that's a maybe, bracers are probably off, eyes are almost certainly off. Light armor might be on depending on how militant/wary the character is.
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.
I hate DMs like you just fyi.
Walter Leeuwen wrote:
So a char got killed at level 18+ most encounter can and probably will kill party members, there are spells te repair and prevent that, if they dont use those than it is the party's own doing they get snuffed
So a DM incorrectly used the rules and killed off a party member what a bunch of babies for feeling like that's a s+%~ty thing to do ...
"After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" Quote is from the spell entry from dimension door.
You literally couldn't attack the wizard without cheating. So I'm voting dickish move.
Edit: Unless you took the dimensional agility feat. But you didn't say that unless I missed it.
Good peace keepers: Barbarians make excellent mage killers, Monks are great since they can resist spells and incapacitate the mages without killing them, Inquisitors are good if divine magic isn't illegal. Paladins would be good if you can justify it(hard since most good gods wouldn't sanction enslavement or killing of people because of their birth.)
Except that isn't at all what this would amount to. Good job on missing the point.
This situation would amount to Putin Bombed the US then called a peace summit with California and Texas while talking in a secret code then Obama shows up and shoots him in the face twice. It seems fine to me, no falling imo.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
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.
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.
*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!"
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,"
Unless1) You didn't want to play robocop and cut off all your limbs to make your monk work
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?
Matthew Downie wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samuel Stone wrote:
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.
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.
Boohoo poor GM has to not use extremely boring, lazy, and linear fights pulled right out of the bestiary my heart bleeds for them.
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?
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.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
I'd go with the knowledge of your invisibility means you can focus more closely on moving carefully to prevent causing undue noise.
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.
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!
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.
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.
This would be amusing if you called him a Manhunter.
Samuel Stone wrote:
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.
Erick Wilson wrote:
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.
Erick Wilson wrote:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Beard wrote:
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.
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?