|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
There's a very significant difference between "this rule is badly balanced" and "this rule shows clear signs of being an editing error".
You're right there is, now if only the latter was true about your claim.
That isn't a rules discussion, that would be like me posting "Oh Rogues only have 3/4 BAB and are the only full martial class that are stuck with that the rules are wrong right?" And posting it to rules discussion.
That is an opinion, it can be explored in GD.
If it were 84k it would be way down the list of priorities hell even at 40k it's more of a nifty if I find it but otherwise not worth the investment item for most characters I've played. Simply because most characters have better options to spend their money on and their own ways to get around the issues FoM takes care of.
Big fan of it on martials last few characters were a Rogue/Fighter, a Monk/Fighter, a full Oracle, and a full Sorc. Really don't care for it outside of a 1 level dip to pick up pre reqs for a prestige class on casters.
I know.the mass combat rules don't quite work with regular combat; so what is the most efficient way to handle this.
Get a few Warhammer battle trays and run them as squads of 5 or 10 until they get too close and their thirst for blood causes them to break ranks?
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:
I wish there was more synergy between abilities in this game.
I like Opening Volley but the game tends not to support dipping in and out of the front line very much and it would still be done better with a short bow because then you don't need to worry about reloading or any of that junk. +4 to hit is nice but since it only works on 1 attack it's only okay instead of awesome. Decent synergy with Scout but not too hot on the Rogue because of the general lack of feats.
If your build only comes online at level 10 and in certain terrain I'd say it's a far cry from ideal unless you're starting at level 10ish.
Of course there's also the fact that at level 10 you're giving up secondary attacks to get that sneak attack where as a build using smokesticks and Firesight/goggles doesn't. Sure the secondary isn't a high chance to hit but even a second attack at 25% percent chance to hit is a big difference in your average damage.
Personally if my build doesn't make me feel like I'm playing the character the way I want by level 3-5 I consider it a failure but YMMV.
It's worth noting that it can be difficult to Sneak Attack bonus damage as a ranged Rogue. You'll need something like Sniper Goggles to extend Sneak Attack range beyond 30 feet, and a method to reliably trigger Sneak Attacks. One way to do this is the Scout Archetype, who get sneak attacks if they move at least 10 feet at level 8. Alternatively you could try something like playing a tiefling and using a combination of the racial Darkness SLA and darkvision to gain sneak attacks (I think this works).
The darkness thing does assuming the target can't see you in the dark(which is kind of common) which I think is why the normal suggestion involved smoke and smoke vision using the fire race whatever they were called instead of darkness but we don't know the limits on the character so it's possible neither of those races are available.
Edit: @ Sin my only issue with Sniper Shot is it's a full round action which means you need the method to sneak attack to reset itself freely without your intervention(Greater Invis., pre-set darkness sphere/smoke cloud etc.) because you can't move for scout and you can't stealth in the open.
Well since somebody wanted some hate though I'll provide.
Rogues aren't very good in combat, this is particularly true in ranged combat because of the awkwardness of stealth and ranged sneak attacks. Crossbows aren't very good in combat(they're inferior to bows in pretty much all circumstances), this character won't be good in combat regardless of the feats you pick so I'd advise you to use the feats on something else or go Rogue 1/Gunslinger 5 so you can at least get dex to damage and a better weapon.
Of course if you're the DM and this is a theme character please refer to the above posters.
I wouldn't expect a lot of cooperation when it comes to spreading darkness about with a paladin and a cleric of lawful good around. One is already saying he is detecting evil on me cause I am useing the shadows and threatening to kill my shadow clone.
Kill the party in their sleep. It saves everyone some trouble!
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.
I suspect severe dual personality disorder. I kid of course.
Moving on, Crit fishing with a staff isn't really viable and I can't think of any good monk weapons to do the job on that although there's probably an exotic one somewhere, a trip build works but is frankly still a step down from most other martials doing the same thing although with maneuver master it can work I guess, it does however run into the same issue as all such builds do where untrip-able enemies make you very sad.
Also given how using a 2 handed weapon to flurry works(ie. you can do so although you only get 1x your strength bonus) there are no mechanical advantages to using a staff over say a temple sword for a monk.
Imagination is wonderful but in Pathfinder imagination isn't quite as critical to having a strong character as research is, however it is quite critical in how fun a character can be to play.
That all being said it's important to know what you want as far as character strength before we make definite suggestions, if you're not aiming for hyper min maxed it's very possible to have fun with a staff weilding monk. I guess what it really comes down to is what is your character vision? Are you looking for a kung fu movie staff weilder or something like a western monk/priest like Friar Tuck or something else?
Aradhel Curunipar wrote:
I really like the Genius Monk but it's much too complicated for beginners.
As pointed out above by others the spell specifies that they get to save to negate effects so that would be how you should play it.
I just felt like it's worth pointing out that technically this statement in particular is false, a 5 foot diameter sphere cannot physically occupy a 5x5x5 cube entirely, simple geometry.
Volume of a sphere = 4/3 pi(2.5)^3~=~65.4 ft^3
There a solid 10 cubic feet of space open at the absolute minimum.
Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutral but name me a saint who got that way by summoning demons, and furtermore explain why if he's so saintly he couldn't call upon an angel instead to help him in which case he doesn't plague the world with an increased number of unholy beings made of pure congealed evil.
Apparently forcing an angle to eat children via planar binding is a good act because the spell is good.
Not so, summoning the Angel is a good act because an angel is inherently good and left to it's own devices will do good. Causing the eating of children is a separate evil act.
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!"
James Jacobs wrote:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!
If you like I can fish up the dev. posts stating that casting evil typed spells is an evil action.
I can also refer you to the earlier quote of me "If you constantly summon up demons to solve your problems don't be surprised ..." I assert that once you start relying on planar binding of evil creatures to solve your problems you're no longer good, at best you're neutral.
And referring you to the paladin's code "... and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." endangering innocents by permanently summoning demons onto the plane could be interpreted as threatening the lives of innocents.
"When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type."
Good thing nobody asked the rules either.
Summoning evil outsiders onto our plane is reason enough to gank a "good" character if you ask me.
If you only find Planar Binding desired in 'select situations,' you aren't trying hard enough.
If you constantly summon up demons to solve your problems don't be surprised when you end up in the nine hells being torn limb from limb, or a paladin hunts you down and guts you for endangering the common folk.
Soooooo why exactly did the discussion on why you should choose a wizard over a sorcerer devolve into which of them is better at making use of a spell that is only really desired in select situations and tends to be outside of the scope of the majority of the levels at which the game is played and during which the game can be loosely called balanced?
I mean I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other but it seems to me if your main selling point is I'm slightly more useful at using one spell at level 11+ you should probably rethink the argument.
Edit: Personally I find Sorcerers to be more fun as specialists and generally I find them easier to play at the table because your options are limited and you don't need to plan things out but I find Wizards to be more effective and versatile and imo more fun to play in a campaign with a broader scope of styles of play or in which you lack a true varied spell caster(I think parties work best with either a Cleric or a Wizard to bring a large spells known swiss army knife to the party although well planned spontaneous casters with backup scrolls or some of the non core classes can also do this) Wizards of course are also better crafters which is nice.
And if you're a wizard you're not allowed to buy scrolls which mysteriously disappear any time a wizard walks by but are conveniently on hand for every sorcerer.
An option that can work for wand spells although not for Shield if he's using that.
Also remember ki buffing AC is one round per ki point spent and he should only have about 9 total for the day cut out 3 or so for Barkskin when adventuring and that leaves him with around 6 to split between bonus attacks and 1 round AC boosts should be pretty easy to bleed them off.
Frankly it's the hugely inflated stats that are giving him so much power, I mean we play with a 30pb in my group and that is still obscene in comparison. Not to mention it's really unlikely sure it happens but double 18s with two other solid scores is pretty suspect if you don't see the rolling yourself although that's besides the point I suppose.
Flat footed touch still hits him pretty hard(loses barkskin mage armor and dex which would knock him down 10AC), I think you're at a level where greater invisibility could show up and that should knock him down a peg.
Alternatively fast flying enemies with ranged attacks give him very few options he might not die at all but he'll feel real useless.
Aldori Swordlord(Probably Str based but given higher starting levels dex based could work)
Dervish Dancing Arcane Duelist Bard
Black Blade Kensai Magus
Trip Focused Spear fighting Lorewarden Fighter(unless you truly mean swords only in which case give him a sword even though it's less thematic for me)
Toss in a Dirty Fighter feat using Fighter
A Invulnerable Rager is always good.
Maybe an Inquisitor or Cleric of Gorum for good measure?
And DR/- and DR/Slashing and DR/Piercing. All things a monk has trouble getting around and getting his full bonuses against depending on build or things he literally can't get around at all and suffers badly against unlike many other "Tanks" who concentrate their damage more than a monk does.
Show me 4 PCs of various classes all of which have DR and I'll believe you DI.
Besides that there's the FACT that the GM is in fact cheating (since he's moving and flurrying in the same round, as well as double stacking racial options which can't be taken together) sure it's the GM's perrogative to cheat if he wants to but it's the players option to leave giving him the soft ball version of just refusing to play his encounter is the nice way of showing you're not really happy with the way he's running things.
Besides that what is strong for a PC is not at all similar to what is strong for an NPC enemy. A great many options are infinitely more powerful in the hands of a GM who doesn't have to deal with maintaining a party after all if you kill his sidekicks he can just bring sidekick#2 who coincidentally has exactly the same stats abilities levels and gear of the original. Party members don't have that option.
Well given that he's just cheesing you could always just leave and ignore anything he says about the monk. Teleport out to another section of the world if you have to or plane shift and just do it every time he tries to bring up his pet character until he gives up or rage quits the campaign. It would amuse me to see that.
If you actually want to play his game the answer would be Fighter, Zen, or Paladin Archers who will eviscerate him unless you guys are 10 levels or 150 thousand+ gold behind him in which case refer to option A and wait for him to give up.
The Beard wrote:
Frankly I think we all know that casters have too much class to tear out someone's spine it would be like the pansy slap people who can't pull off fatalities use to end the match.
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,"
Ah sorry I probably just got confused when I was reading because you and Rorek have the same icon and well I haven't slept enough. I think the idea with tiger was mostly to get tiger pounce but that doesn't synergize at all with panther style so that's another bit of weirdness.
I agree to an extent but I don't really see a reason to go past 2 levels of MoMS while doing this, you get fuse styles and all of Dragon Style's prereqs are pretty easy to fulfill and the good feats are front loaded on that style while Snake's are pains in the ass which you use bonus feats to bypass.
After that I don't think you gain as much continuing in MoMS as you would getting Barb. levels or Fighter levels, which means he can dump his Wis and use armor instead to get a sizable AC advantage in the early game.
He has 4 pluses from levels which means he's level 16 and as I understand it PFS cuts out at 12.
His level 1 AC is 15 and he has 9 or 10 HP so chances of him dying in the first few levels is pretty high, his overall hit points are going to stay bad with a 12 Con and a D8 HD so you better pray nobody skilled at fighting shows up.
He took Power Attack once at 5 and once at 7.
And given that common AC benchmarks for a high AC are 20+lvl if he isn't fighting a mook he's aiming at something with a 32ish AC in which case he needs a 12 or better on his best attack assuming magic items.
The immediate action is for a second attack on top of the one you get as an AoOp.
Anyways making up for flurry BAB isn't winning you anything since it puts you 2 points to hit behind the guy who went Base Monk 8/Brawler 3 and you get two less attacks per round now with snake or panther you can make up for the lack of extra attacks to a degree assuming they want to focus you but the further you go into MoMS the less reasons you give the guy to focus you hence why I really think it was made exclusively for people to dip into.
Right but that's the thing even Snake style relies on the enemy wanting to hit you and MoMS makes you a less effective fighter if you go 100% into it which encourages the enemy to ignore you, I just think you'd be better off going into something that puts out more hurt to encourage them to try to respond instead of going all the way down MoMS for 15 levels or so.
Hmmm that's fair although if you go into MoMS your full attack is just a normal 3/4 BAB set up which means you're probably on par with 2 handed weapon Rogue damage, no?
Eh that's the AoOp response build isn't it?
I've always considered it a pretty boring one trick pony, after all nothing forces the enemy to attack you and once they see you do it once or twice an intelligent enemy will just let you move and then focus your friends who don't have those benefits and if you're the one attacking your ability to do damage is even less impressive than a normal monk's.
Eh if I was going into MoMS I don't really see the benefit in going 15 levels into it no flurry, no real uses for your ki(since you can't get the extra attack without flurry) until you trade out stuff for it with qinggong at most I might go to 8 if I really wanted a third style fusion but it's not really worth it.
MoMS & Drunken Master 4/Brawler 3/ Drunken Brute&Invulnerable Rager Barbarian 13 would probably be better although even then both the Drunken archetypes are pretty bad in terms of value.
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?
Indirect risk doesn't count that's like saying you can't take 10 for perception because there's a risk of missing a trap and dying.
Here's the problem this doesn't need a bad GM to happen, all it needs is one half way optimized wizard with a player who isn't trying to be a nice guy and let everyone share the spot light. And even assuming there isn't a glory hog wizard who just tosses the creature with DR into a pit full of acid and then rains fire and brimstone down upon it while the Fighter sits in the corner and cries or maybe picks up a bow(which he didn't specialize in and plinks away a few times for 2 or 3 damage), this still doesn't solve the issue that DR is an inherently unbalancing mechanic that unduly punishes players who already didn't pick the best optimization option for their characters.
Increasing the amount and the difficulty to bypass DR is essentially just straight out telling your players yeah you're going to lose a minimum of 10% of your damage(assuming you have the material in question, it's enhanced to +2 less than your primary weapon, and you're playing a strength based character which isn't unduly punished for losing their weapons unlike say an agile weapon user who full on loses 50+% of their damage if they have to switch to a non agile backup weapon) And if you had the gall to not pick the best options in the game because I don't know maybe you had a FUN concept you wanted to play well you can just go ahead and lose 30+% of your damage because nobody likes you.
It is very rarely a player's own spells which confuse them ... okay I'm lying but it is less often a player's own spells which confuse them but if you have 4 different buffs up from 3 different characters which may or may not have the same typed bonuses or stack in different ways it can get confusing even with a fairly simple starting point.
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.