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

nicklas Læssøe's page

353 posts (412 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

deck of many things can only make all of your items disappear permanently, that does not actually mean destroyed just somewhere you cant find them. Which would mean that it cant actually destroy artifacts, only make u lose them


so let me go through them each

rod of cancellation - lacks the wording from mages disjunction to destroy artefacts, so no it cant.

mages disjunction - ofc as the spell says that it can

wish/miracle - no, because the things those spells can do is clearly defined within the spells, and this is not one of those things.

orb of annihalation - i would go with yes, because artefacts are destructable in general, and an orb of annihalation destroys everything. But i would still leave it to GM discretion because imovable meets unstoppable thing.

lesser God/ greater God - cant see why they should be able to destroy them in another way that regular mortals, but its probably up to the specific game world to decide how powerfull the gods are. In my game world they cant, unless they cast mages disjunction and might then lose all their spell cast levels.

and cant think of any other method to do it


If you do indeed multiclass and gain the ability then yes.

Remember that u dont actually override dexterity, you still use the eidolons dex to determine stuff like skills and initiative, but with regards to armor class then yes it would indeed function like that.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Cannibis is not addicting.
I know plenty of past addicts that disagree with you. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence -- it's anecdotal. If you were to say for some people cannibis isn't addictive then you would be right, but as an universal statement about the qualities of cannibis you are not.

*puts on Psych Major hat* Having actually studied this, and based on research not anecdotes, you're both sort of right. Cannabis (which, for reference is technically a mild hallucinogen, not a depressant) is in no way physically addictive. There are no physical symptoms of withdrawal and your body will never become dependent on it. This is actually true for all hallucinogens.

That said, the experience of being on these drugs is potentially psychologically addictive in the same way as any pleasant sensation (gambling isn't physically addictive either, but people still get hooked on it) and so should likely be avoided if one has an addictive personality...but no more than non-drug things people tend to get addicted to.

So, yeah, marijuana in and of itself is basically harmless (at least when used by adults...there's some evidence of it having bad long-term effects on still-developing brains, like those of children or teenagers). Or at least significantly less harmful than alcohol (which is potentially physically addictive, as well as psychologically so, and generally more damaging to the body in the long run). Other hallucinogens are also harmless long-term...but their short term effects are potentially problematic (and would certainly level significant penalties in something like Pathfinder).

EDIT: Ninja'd, but I think my explanation is more complete. ;P

yes completely true.

You should probably add on that cannabis does actually destroy your short term memory, and if taken over a long period (frequently) you will begin to develop difficulty in learning new things.

As a one off thing it is not (much) worse than regular alchohol, but it stays in your body for quite a long time, and can thus impair memory weeks even months after consumption, depending on the amount you take. Fortunately this is not permanent damage, but i would still sugest quiting it in ample time before the exams.

Atleast this is what my neuro science (studying of brains) told me about it.


I would actually claim that both of the characters are completely fine. If we look at the monks "vow of peace" then he is not even required to stop slaughtering people that he feels cannot be converted to a peaceful member of society, something that it definately can be argued that evil goblin pirates cant.

I do realise that DnDs allignment system has many flaws, and we can discuss stuff like that for ages.

But if we look at the wizard deed, if pirates are executed like they were in the real world, then executing them is actually a lawful deed, because that is what the law would do.

As for killing evil creatures while bound i would say it can be roleplayed both ways, but killing creatures that are generic evil in dnd is actually a good deed (you save people from getting hurt), so i would let him get away with it.

In my mind you have to let DnD be very black and white allignment wise or their allignment system is simply going to give to many problems, and the paladin code of conduct would suck even more.

an example would be a paladin hell bend on erasing evil from the world, engaging and killing anything that lights up with detect evil (or is known to be evil). possibly with the restriction that in a city he would try to get the law involved first. This paladin could definately be played as a zealus lawfull good type, just very extreme, even if we modern people would think him evil for butchering a goblin village of women and kids after taking out the men.


sounds correct.

The enlarge person and strong jaw should all increase the damage dice of the monks unarmed attacks, because strong jaw doesnt actually increase your size, and as such is not covered by the restrictions in enlarge person.

This would make the arrows do (assuming 2d6 base)

base 2d6
enlarge from 2d6 to 3d6
strong jaw from 3d6 to 3d8 to 6d6

so you would deal 6d6 damage per arrow when spending a KI.


Mike Lindner wrote:
Quote:
If your opponent is ever outside your reach, you must spend a free action to let go of your weapon or pull it out of him.

Since the action required to remove the weapon was already described I read this as "you must spend a free action to let go of your weapon, or pull it out of him [as an immediate action]."

Reversing the cheese: So the monk impales a creature with both hands, let's say a troll for fun. The troll, not liking this, moves away. The monk uses an immediate action to pull out one hand, but does not have another immediate action to remove his other hand. Since he can't let go of the weapon/his hand the troll makes a strength check to rip off the monks arm. Now that is abusing a feat!

The reason i asked in the first place about the action thing, was because its what i originally read too, hence the confusion.


The Red Mage wrote:
Kali ma! Kali ma!

+1


btw i forgot to write that in order to do this you will need to either be a fighter multiclass (boring) or a monk weapon adept (picking unarmed attack) to gain the weapon specialization necessary for the feat.


KenderKin wrote:
I am thinking that if you are up to your arm-pit in some guys stomach, don't grappling rules apply? ;)

only if you get the improved version :) in which case he needs a grapple check to pull your arm out, or move out of range.

Though he cant really move out of range, because he is going to be staggered and sickened (leaving him with one action), and prone on the ground, and with the improved feat he has half movement so even the prone movement action to move 5 feet would be reduced to 0. So basically you can completely lock him down with trip and the improved impale feat.


@ mergy

No where did i actually say that the feat is broken. This is definately using it for something that is a little outside its original intention, but besides being pretty darn good it would never make the monk OMG OP.

It would mean that he can actually compete with the fighters about doing damage, but i guess that is probably it.

Would also function pretty well with dimensional dervish to get close to any target and then start impaling.


Mergy wrote:
nicklas Læssøe wrote:


Also good luck casting any spells when you have taken 50 damage in your own turn already, whats that a dc 60 + spell level check?

The wizard takes a move action to remove the weapon and takes x damage. Whatever. Since the continuing source of damage is now finished, there's no need for a concentration check. He then takes a 5-foot step back and casts dimension door; then let the barrage of spells begin.

EDIT: Even without removing the arm, the continuous damage is only the damage dice + bonuses on the weapon. If we give our monk a flaming, frost, shocking amulet of mighty fists and a monk's robe, we've got 2d10+3d6, so on average 21.5 damage.

Continuous damage concentration is only half the damage. I have no idea how you got 50 damage from the damage dice and weapon properties, but please post your math.

That means the concentration check is DC 25 + spell level. Now with an intellect that's probably 24 at least, we've got a concentration check of +22, +26 with Combat Casting; that means a dimension door is pretty easy to pull off. He also needs to cast defensively which is DC 15 + double the spell level; also easy.

I don't really see an issue here.

The damage was for multiple arms in the mage, each doing 2d8 + 2d6 damage.

I still think it is one of the sicker combos, because you can actually get damage done on the mage during the mages turn, thus forcing the concentration check. But this thread isnt really to argue if mages are more OP or not.

So back on track with the subject, what happens when the monster moves away from the monk?

It requires an immidate action from the monk to pull out the weapon, or a free action to let the weapon go. Since he cant let his arm fall away, and he only has 1 immidiate action per round, what happens if he managed to land 3 crits and are thus impaling the monster 3 times? what happens then? does it get ripped out as a free action, is the monk moved with the creature or what?


Also good luck casting any spells when you have taken 50 damage in your own turn already, whats that a dc 60 + spell level check?


Distant Scholar wrote:
A 15-level character doing an average of 100 damage to a monster in one round is insane? I think you're missing a lot of possibilities out there.

Hmm considering the opponent can easily also be prone and staggered, meaning it cant do anything at all, then the monk completely negates one opponent.

Also he would have 10 attacks in his own turn to hit the opponent, each doing something like 2d8 + 1d6 + 2 + 12 = 26.5 damage if they hit, a lot more if he uses power attack.

I just think that doing 100 damage to someone when it isnt even your turn is nothing to sneeze at, especially since having your hand inside someones guts is simply freaking awsome.


Even better, what happens when the monster moves outside of the monks reach if he is impaled 5 times?

It is an immidiate action to pull out a weapon from the opponent, but since the monk only has 1 of those then he cant pull out all 5. Since he also cant drop his weapon, then what is he supposed to do? or would it just be a free action to rip all of the weapons out?


But this can actually get a little insane if we say unlimited. he can achieve 10 attacks by level 15, and with a 19-20 crit and hitting each for 2d8 + 1d6 + str stuff, means that if he gets a little lucky he can impale the same creature 3-4 times in a round. If we say 4, then the monster would take 8d8 + 4d6 = 50 damage in the beginning of its turn, another 50 on average if it moves outside of the monks reach. Thats pretty insane actually.


So pressume that we have a level 15 monk with an attack sequence just around 10 attacks (6 fob, 1 haste, 1 ki, 2 medusa), with critical focus, impaling crit and either boar style or humutulusa (or something similar), making his unarmed attacks piercing and thus qualify for impaling crit.

Impaling crit:
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with the selected piercing melee weapon, you can impale your opponent on your weapon. While your opponent is impaled in this way, each time he starts his turn, you deal damage equal to your weapon’s damage dice plus the extra damage dice from your weapon’s properties. As an immediate action, you can pull your weapon out of your opponent. If your opponent is ever outside your reach, you must spend a free action to let go of your weapon or pull it out of him. Your opponent can also spend a move action to pull your weapon out. When the weapon comes out, your opponent takes damage as if starting his turn impaled. While you impale your opponent with your weapon, you cannot use it to attack, and you must hold on to it.

So my question is this, since you cant attack with a weapon that is impaling your opponent, but the description under unarmed attacks say you can attack with any part of your body, and with the resent ruling on FoB indicating that each part of your body counts as a different weapon.

Then how many times can the monk make an impaling crit in one round, without pulling out the weapon of the opponent?

are we talking
2 times, 1 for each arm
4 times, 1 for each arm and leg,
8 times, 1 for hands, elbows, feet and knees
9 if we include the head..
technically he can also use his body for body slam and still deal piercing damage....

By the rules i cant think of anything actually restricting the monk as unarmed attacks are never specified in how many parts of your body you can attack with.

I guess i am mostly leaning towards either 1 (whole body counts as 1 weapon even if resent FoB clarification kinda screwed that over), or 5 (head and each limb), what do you guys think about RAW and possible RAI.


Hey guys, i just stumpled over something i found rather odd in the sohei description and since i couldnt find any other threads on it, i wanted to hear what your interpretation of the rules is.

For the purpose of this thread lets assume that sohei can actually flyrry with a bow (using all attacks) though it doesnt really matter to this rule point.

Lets look at a sohei wielding a normal longbow doin 1d8 dam. The sohei has 14 str and 16 dex, and at level 6 he picks bows for flurry. As soon as he does this how much damage will his bow give?

is it 1d8 + 1 (weapon training), or 1d8 + 1 (weapon training) + 2 (str)?

The reason for this is the specific wording in flurry of blows that allows monks to do str damage to all weapons used in combination with flurry, and since this is a specific rule then it should overwrite the "no str to damage on regular bows" rule. Just like the sohei doesnt recieve 1.5 str damage when using 2 handed weapons in his flurry.

Now lets take it one step better, if this would work on a bow, then he should also be able to make it work with a crossbow right ? Just thinking that this fact alone might make the sohei the best crossbow man in the game, assuming it works ofc.


Also its a samurai, he doesnt really need any help with the saves. He can just use power to roll 2 dices for will saves, and/or gain +4 to the roll. Saves wise samurais kinda rock.


Raje wrote:
Any reason for going Vital Strike over just the standard fighty stuff? Because I assume you are aware that Iaijutsu Strike and Vital Strike doesn't stack. They are both attack actions.

Was just gonna say that... unfortunately they dont stack, would be cool if they did though.


@ cheapy

Just about your AMY ALCHY build.

Have you cosidered taking 2 levels of ranger in the build? so going something like alch 17/monk 1/ranger 2. This would net you 2 levels of full bab, favored enemy (what ever u like), wild empath (meh), and a style feat.

The trick would then be to select natural weapon style, and pick aspect of the beast to gain 2 more claw attacks, in effect having claws on arms and feet and then a bite attack.

Another way to do this would be the changeling race, but you would run into the problem that the rest of its bonusses are really not that great for an alchy.

It could also be done with the variant tiefling rules, taking fiendish heritage you can pick +2 str and +2 wis -2 cha, and with a nice gm you would not have to roll on the chart provided and you could take the claws ability, again gaining 5 natural attacks.

IMO then the surest way to do it would be to use ranger, but with a nice GM i would go for the tiefling. Changeling is great, except for the absolutely crap racial stats for the alchy, but i guess you could always dump 7 in cha and wis then, and just buy the str and int for it.


Just because you are asking for blatant rules cheese, i think i will give a stap at that.

So how do you feel about playing monk ?

So here is how you go cheesing with relatively small use of the 3.5 rules.

1. Build a PF monk, and take all feats in 3.5 and monsters manual that increases damage dice on unarmed strike as if you are larger. there is one in monsters manual and one in eastern classes or something (the 3.5 asian classes core book).

2. Mix in some of the 3.5 prestige classes such as psychic fist.

3. use spells to further enhance your unarmed attack dice, as if larger.

4. use power from psychic fist to turn into dire bear, and insist on using 3.5 rules for shapeshifting.

5. Enjoy a direbear with 140f speed and hitting for roughly 1000 damage a hit (192d8 + str) i think is max.

6. You should be able to enter and finish the fight before any of your party members get there, and then simply enjoy untill you get them to agree in playing standard pathfinder.

complete build can be found here.

I dont really condone it, but i wouldnt condone mixing 3.5 and pathfinder anyway, because this is what you would get.


at low levels where you dont have those extra feats anyway, then you are right they are pretty bad. But the challange at levels 5+ is to actually find a rope that can hold a dragon/barbarian/large monster or anything of those types. This means that at some point you will have to start hitting them even while they are pinned, so generally i like chokehold for that.

Also the feat that lets you move the grappled opponent in front of an enemys attack so he hits his friend instead is pretty awsome, just cant remember what it is called.


Tarondor wrote:

A paladin has Smite Evil declared on a target. That target is not yet dead. Paladin wants to use a second Smite Evil on a second target.

To be clear, I am -not- asking if he can have two smites active at once; I think it is well settled that he cannot. The question is whether he can switch Smite targets like that.

I see nothing in the rules preventing it, but it seems wrong to allow the paladin to get multiple "first rounds of smite" (both targets are demons). If this is allowed, what is to prevent him from using a third smite to go back to the original target and get a second "first round of smite" on it? It seems broken to allow this.

Pretty much nothing to prevent that, except the extremely limited number of smites he can do per day.

Also remember that its not first round of smite that gets the bonus, they errataed that, its the first hit only, so its not really that big a deal.


Natamanchuk wrote:

If a character is engaged in melee and is shot from behind at range. Can they “react” to the attack? I always thought that your Dex bonus was basically due because you were moving around on the balls of your feet so to say bobbing and swaying in combat. If you are focusing on the monster in front that is trying to kill you , you can’t be focusing on what is happening 30 ft behind you.

Losing Dex bonus to AC is not that difficult.

Change to situation to a melee one. The rogues move in behind the PCs flanking him. If they get for example two attacks, they should both be considered sneak attacks, no?

As others have said then there is no such thing as facing in pathfinder, so no matter where they stand and shoot can they flank their target with ranged weapons.

The will give about the same damage as above (if you dual wield weapons in melee) if you are flanking your target, but ofcourse then he also still has dex to ac, and it can then be pretty hard for the rogues to actually hit something with their weapons.

If you really want to do it from ranged, then you basically need greater invis, as obscuring mist will also create concealment and you cant sneak attack through that. Thats why mist is the best way to counter a sneak attacking sniper rogue. He cant sneak attack into a mist.


I agree crossblooded is bad in most cases, that -1 spell known per level can be pretty bad.

BUT and its a big BUT, you get +1 damage, another class skill, better lineage powers (because you can now choose which one to pick), and if you intend on being a boomstick anyway, then you want to throw fireball or 2-3 other spells most of the time anyway. Not that bad of a trade i think.

You can also really get around that penalty on spells if you choose to go human sorc and get level bonus to spells, then the only way you will really feel it is at the highest level spell slot you can cast.

Ofcourse if you decide not to play human (or goblin actually), then playing a sorcerer with crossblooded sucks a lot, and then i compeltely agree with you.


TheSideKick wrote:

I can't see anything in the Sohei archetype that lets them flurry while in armour. Is that an errata I've missed somehow?

yes they can, but thats a different thread, so lets not digress this one any more then it already is.

Care to give a quote or a faq reference? because if we go by what is written in the book then he cant.


Sir Dante wrote:
evilash wrote:

I have a level 4 blaster sorcerer for Serpent's Skull, and here's his build:

** spoiler omitted **

Looks like a great build :)

Those offensive spells especially seem like a great choice IMO.
How do you get it to 7d6 and not 4d6 with that fire arc? Spell focus? Varisian tattoo?

its virisian tatoo and spell spezialization that adds +1 and +2 levels respectively, making it count as if you are level 7 when casting it and is thus doing 7d6 damage. Then imagine stacking both draconic and elemental (or orc) for 7d6 + 14 not too bad in aoe.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Neo2151 wrote:

What is this nonsense about Sohei wearing armor? Yes, they're proficient with Light Armor, but that doesn't mean it will stack with their (unmodified) Monk AC bonus (just as it won't stack if a regular monk buys the feat for proficiency).

Also, ditto what MS just said above me. Nothing in the text suggests that a Sohei in armor can still flurry. His proficiency stipulation doesn't change, even though he gains a proficiency he didn't have before.

Yah it is actually pretty funny. They allow sohei to wear lightarmor through proficiency, but dont include anything that would make them retain wis to ac/cmb, monk armor bonus or flurry of blows. That makes the proficiency a terrible choice for him, because without flurry and the rest of his AC bonus, he cant really do anything.

They should probably errata that part too, to include a paragraph that says sohei counts as a normal monk wearing no armor whenever he wears light armor. But unless that gets errataed its pretty stupid.


because technically all of your attacks deal sneak attack damage, if the target is caught flat footed or is denied dex.

If they just wrote the attack does sneak attack damage, then it wouldnt overwrite the specific rule that sneak attack damage can only be given to creatures denied dex to ac. Now with that extra twist to the wording you get a special ability that automatically grants the bonus damage independent on if the target is actually denied dex.

This also means that they still recieve their dex to ac against your attack roll.


willhob wrote:

Half-devil, the character is NE and will quickly come to the conclusion that if he is to survive he must cooperate with the Paladin. Same idea for the the Paladin, LE has to work with Evil sometimes in order to destroy a much greater evil. The group I am running seems a bit bored with "by the book" so I have attempted to create an off-the-wall campaign with custom traps, souped up undead and letting people generally play what they want.

I told the Paladin he can be Lawful Neutral if he still upholds the Paladin code, he seems to be toying with the idea of playing an OCD perfectionist Paladin that simply regards evil as unsightly and a threat to his personal need for order and control. Having a group of hippie NG humans going around to save the world gets a bit stale after awhile in my opinion. In any case, I am only concerned that I will have to resort to cheese of my own to properly challenge this party. Is there a way to avoid that?

While i am all for the "lets give PCs nice toys to play with that can make them feel nice and special", then you should keep it in line with what the rest of the party can and what the rules say.

Basically you have created an environment where the book is nothing more than a rough guideline, and while you probably can challange them with regular monsters (just let them meet the terasque), it will almost certainly result in a TPK. If you want to challange them without killing them, then you should use just as much homebrew on monsters, as you do on the players. give them a blessing from what ever evil god (could give max hp +X to saves, hit and damage, wierd resistances and so on), but you only have your self to blame for throwing out the book.

My advice would be to tell the party that they can be all of this (or most of it) but within the rules. Require the half devil to be a tiefling instead, and you could get the same fluff story. (btw if he is half dragon and half devil then he doesnt have a race, he should merely be an X demon with half dragon template or dragon with half demon template, thats by the book anyway). Also a general thing to note, you will find it a lot easier to challange and have fun with a party that doesnt just break the rules, so i would simply tell my party to repick something better or do it relatively in the rules.

I do think however that stuff like LG paladins only is boring, my world always has paladins of all alignments, but small stuff like that isnt really gamebreaking.


Stynkk wrote:

Ello! This is a grey area so you'll be getting varied responses.

Ironballs wrote:
is it legal? should he be able to both use acrobatic AND stealth check in the same move action?

Yes, a player could use stealth and acrobatics in the same move action, but Spring Attack is a Full Round Action that is also considered movement(technicalities, yes, but perhaps important for the discussion).

Spring attack is supposed to be thought of a continuous move with an attack in between. It is unclear (to me) if you can make multiple stealth rolls for a single instance of movement.

well you dont really need to make multiple instances of stealth. Assuming he is already stealthed then he can just move using acrobatics to avoid AoO and then stealth after the attack sequence.

But since both stealth and acrobatics can be done as part of any movement, then the above combo is in fact legal. Just remember that he only get the sneak attack on the first attack when he attacks from stealthed, as the enemy is only caught flat footed on that first attack (has been ruled like this is FAQ). But the combo can be pretty awsome if used correctly.

Be glad that he didnt do the same with a whirlwind fighter though, that is pretty insane. (he just restealths with a 5 foot step after each full attack action.


actually you should completely remove sleep and then take color spray instead. That spell is really one of the absolute best spells you can ever have, is has so much more cc capabilities than sleep.


Grizzly the Archer wrote:
I too am not in pfs, however, I still never saw an answer for the zen archer. Is it now gimped (4 atks like other normal martial classes) or can it flurry of bows? I looked through three threads and I think there was a statement stating they were going to clarify the zen archer, but I never saw if they did. Help?

well it does seem reasonable to expect that they will change the wording of the zohei and zen archer to include the flurry changes so that they can flurry anyway, but there has been no official statement regarding them yet. (atleast to my knowledge)


master arminas wrote:
With the AoMF, Nicklas was referring to the original thread where this topic came up: the Ultimate Equipment guide. The thead was asking what do you want to see in UE? And on that thread, there was a large discussion about AoMF, monks, unarmed strikes, that then culminated into the clarification of flurry of blows. I will just refer you to that thread.

Yes exactly that, i believe it started because a developer commented on people talking about that aomf is mostly useless because u can just use a weapon, and wanted something similar to aomf just cheaper in UE. So in basics i believe that the comment was made to simply say that aomf isnt at all useless, because u cant flurry with one weapon, which then has all the following repurcusions.

Ofcourse i dont try to make excuses for people calling names, yelling or otherwise trying to herass the developers, i think the developers deserve a lot of respect for making a fantastic product. I do believe though that poeple need to hear critizism if they make a big mistake, else how would they know that it is made, and im just saying that i understand some of peoples frustrations in that some of their bought material is now completely obselete.


Some Random Dood wrote:
nicklas Læssøe wrote:
i might also be mistaking, but should u have 2 level 2 spells? 1 from bloodline and 1 from high cha?

You get the 2nd lv bloodline spell at lv 5, and you don't get an extra spell known for high charisma, only an extra spell per day.

True but you could put all the elemental bonuses towards lightning element attacks if the person wanted too. But fire would probably be the best general choice, though you would want something to do against those that are immune to fire.

DOH. Yah i missed that one.

Yes you could put them towards lightning, but in general there is a lot more fire spells, and scorching ray rocks with all those bonusses. The reason i suggest the metamagic feat that changes element to fire (or select fire element bloodline), is that you can then take a cold damage spell and convert it to fire most of the time, if you run into fire resistance simply dont change it.


i might also be mistaking, but should u have 2 level 2 spells? 1 from base and 1 from high cha? (make that spell schorching ray)


Actually my main reason for doing fireball is that all the elemental bonusses goes to fire damage (orc, draconic or elemental), and as such it is much better.

Ok if you want to work with what you have, then i would definately drop toughness feat and get spellfocus instead. Then get burning hands and scorching ray at next level for damage spells.

I still think the harrower prestige class gives a lot of oomph for the levels, starting from when you can draw strenght cards at level 3, so maybe that is something you can work with.

You could also consider getting the tatooed sorc archtype (awsome bonusses), instead of the pretty horrible corrupting touch from infernal type. I personally think that the fluff of a tatooed infernal sorc could still be pretty cool, but depends on what you are willing to do ofc.

anyway you need the following feats

Varision Tatoo (get that free with archtype, choose evocation)
spell focus
greater spell focus (never underestimate +1(+2) to save DC)
Spell penetration (you have that)
greater spell penetration (pretty meh, but if you have the extra feat)
metamagic feats (stuff like highten and enlarge are always good)

cant really think of anything else right now.

PS would really change cha to 18 with a 25 point buy.


you can also use the primal elemental (fire) bloodline for the same +1 dam/dice bonus, if you like that fluff idea better than dragon or orc.


well firstly it depends on the amount of boomstick that you would like to bring :)

One thing you could do is to throw out the infernal bloodline, go tatooed crossblooded sorc with orc and draconic bloodline specializing in fire (evocation) spells. If you at later levels select the metamagic feat to turn element to fire you dont really have a problem. Then use the human levels to get bonus spells, and feats for spell focus and penetration.

If you want to go even further then you can take harrower prestige class (honestly sorc really doesnt do much in terms of bonusses later), and then you can start doing serious hurt.

Orc and draconic each adds +1 dam per dice, and with strenght cards as a harrower you gain +1 per card of them you draw (can also increase save dc and vs spell resist, all in all pretty solid).

This can really make you boomstick jump, just imagine level 8 sorc (3 harrower) throwing fireball, base dam is 8d6 + 16 = 44 but with harrower it can add up to another + 24 to that. Pretty solid aoe damage.

Spells to concider with this build, burning hands, scorching ray (must have) and fireball (also must). Also you dont really need toughness feat when you have 14 con, so go with spell focus instead.

Ofcourse any of these things can be added to increase the boomstick a little, so if you dont like orc for example, then dont go crossblooded and jsut stick with draconic (still tatooed imo).

with 25 pt buy i would also start with 18 char, possible lowering wis or int to get it.

Anyway thats my 2c


Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

I do completely agree that the current level of hate towards most of the paizo staff has gone completely overboard and is mostly ungrounded.

I personally dont expect paizo to never make a mistake, they are human after all, and they have also managed to create my favorite pen and paper RPG of all time. My only problem in all this is that when people make mistakes, then i expect them to be able to admit it and possibly fix it as fast as they can. This was done with the tetori monk, that lacked 3 of the feats he was given completely, but just got given new feats pretty quickly and even if its slightly annoying to now have a book with the wrong feats, then im not the slightest mad about it, because as you say mistakes happen.

Where i see people get angry at paizo, is in my eyes more because one ruling, made to not obselete the amulet, resulted in most of the published material breaking down. What i would like to see in the monk matter is a quick FAQ/errata that explains this "new" ruling, and what the implications are with the zen archer, zohei and weapon master monk, to not just make a change that invalidates their own material, without atleast explaining what these archetypes then are meant to do. It can be a little infuriating to spend a lot of money on a new book, only to get told that this this and this doesnt work, but i completely agree that there is no need to start insulting anyone because of it. Unfortunately that is one of the downsides to the internet.


Well the "exploit" in the monk is not even a real exploit, it barely made him ok no matter who you compare him to. Now the charging pouncing lancing barbarian is a whole other matter, but that is an exploit and it is actually legal, how about they use their energy to fix stuff that is broken, and not take my poorly made ugly but in the end nice toy and jump on it again.

The thing is, i like monks. I think they are a cool flavor class even if they dont work system wise, but i just hate feeling like a 3.5 bard in combat if i am going to play him.

Honestly i cant understand all those nerf changes to FoB from 3.5, because unless you started cheesing with the psychic monk and about 3 other Prestige classes, then he was also sub par back then. Ofcourse if you went completely off the grid with that huge dire bear psychic monk, then he was extremely broken but what in 3.5 couldnt be cheesed to extreme degrees.


Azten wrote:
A Monk's entire body counts as one weapon. If you could take your hand off and let someone else use it, then Unarmed Strike would make your body more than one weapon. Which is why things can get weird, since it's the only non-double weapon you can make main and off-hand attacks with.

Actually as per RAW you cannot make offhand and main hand attacks with your body because it counts as a single weapon, and nowhere in the rules does it say that your body functions like a double weapon. Technically flurry of blows alows monks to break this rule, and make both main and offhand attacks with their body, but unless you are a monk then you cant dualwield fists (atleast by RAW which is kinda dumb).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kakitamike wrote:

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

Yah, god i feel dumb for reading the rules as if Zen archers can actually fire 6 arrows at level 20 with their bows and not have to fire 4 arrows, and attack twice with their feet or whatever. Especially if we also throw in that they cant use manyshot or rapidshot, then it seems really obvious that such a limitation is not to prevent them from having upwards of 9 attacks per round, but instead because anything more than 4 attacks at level 16 is cheese. Oh wait that doesn't make sense...

The only thing this "faq" did, was to explain how monks are not supposed to be using any type of weapons, though i must say that i dont understand why they did it. Even letting the monk flurry with one +4 weapon (worth 32 k) compared with the fighter/ranger/barbarian using two +3 weapons (36k) he is still inferior.


Well actually this is a pure theoretical question as i have no chance at playing in PFS due to my geographical placement outside the states, but i jsut really felt like investigating if it was possible or not.

I was thinking of letting the one item he can have be the Kusarigama, because 10f threatening zone and lots of AoO's seem pretty decent, especially because he can just trip on all of them.

The reason i didnt want the belt of physical perfection, is because he could reasonably get a wizard to cast permanency str, dex or con on him, and if that fails then try to find someone to craft magical tatoos on him giving him loads of bonus stats.

The smart thing with the magical tatoos is that they arnt actual items, and as such he wouldnt be limited to them, one possibility is to spend a feat on the craft magical tatoo's, and then get your party to procure the colors and stuff for you. That way he can get seriously more buff, just think +2 str, dex, con and wis, then a constant shield and magearmor on him (which he can craft for 2k in materials each) and a +2 resistance saves tatoo.

Material cost for all this i 24k which his party needs to procure and let him use. But would result in +10 ac, +3 all saves(due to stat increase), more CMB and CMD, more hp and all that. So i would say that he should probably throw out crane style for the magical tatoo feat if he can get some party members to start buying those materials.

with those bonuses he would reach 34 ac even though he swapped out crane style. Not to shappy without any "real" defensive items.


how about doing this for feats instead:

1M: Improved Dirty trick
1: agile manouvers
2M: Improved Trip
3: exotic weapon proficiency (Kusarigama (sickle and chain))
5: combat reflexes
6M: Greater Dirty Trick
7: Dodge
9: crane style
10: Greater Trip

My idea is that he can then use his weapon, which is the only item he has, in making both dirty trick and trip attacks at the opponent. I would have liked to give him a weapon that is light, so it can be used with weapon finesse, but the kusarigama offers the monk reach and a non reach weapon, thus making it possible to threaten both 5f and 10f squares.

If we also give him the quingong monk archtype, he will actually have
10 + 5 (dex) + 2(monk) + 2(wis) + 1 (size) + 1 (dodge) + 4(f defensive) + 3 (barkskin) = 28 AC
hp is 79.

if he can get a wizard to cast permanency cats grace on him he would look even better.

As for his weapon he can spend pretty much all his alloted gold on it, so a +3/+3 weapon seems extremely attainable he could get a base of 10 + 3 + 4 + 5 - 2 = + 20. Which seems pretty reasonable.

Ofcourse he cant actually injure someone, so we might aswell give him vow of peace too, which gives him a ki pool of
5 (base) + 2(wis) + 5(vop) + 2(vopeace) + 2(vot) = 16

plenty enough to use in the combats, and on the few spells that he can.
Ofcourse i would also have him be a weapon master in that kusarigama, but since paizo have decided to restrict weapon master monks to effectively 4 monk weapon (way to go), he cant use perfect strike with the weapon, and as such it is probably better wih just plain monk manouver master.


Recently i noticed Ogre's guide to ramping up the difficulty level in PFS, and i would like to see if anyone has a reasonale build for running it on nightmare mode.

Here is the link Ogres guide.

And basically to run on nightmare difficulty you need to have either a gnome/halfling monk, or a vow of poverty monk. Personally i believe that just the gnome/halfling monk would be too easy, so here is the challange.

Build a VOP monk under PFS rules, and good enough that he wont burden the rest of the party. There is bonus points if you also build him halfling or gnome.

It should be a good way to determine if it is actually doable without gimping your party too much.


I think too much homebrew is when you specifically go against the rules for a story reason. Mind you this can be ok if the GM goes out and makes the changes known to everyone before the campaign starts, but simply adjusting everything on the fly is not good because it can make players feel like you are targeting them specifically.

Make a standard lich wizard BBEG and then giving him "immune to grapple, or +50 CMD" feature, then the tetori monk is gonna feel royally screwed.

Make a fighter BBEG deathknight that has +40 to all saves because it is boring if he gets blinded/nauseated/cursed/dominated or the like, and the wizard specializing in that is gonna feel pretty sad.

So i think what im trying to say, is that as long as the PCs dont feel like you are targeting them on purpose, then i think it is ok, as i dont think any PC would make a tetori monk if all important enemys are immune to grap. That is why the rules are important to follow as good guidelines, so that everyone knows what to expect. Ofcourse giving monsters some unique extra abilities for fluff can be really cool, even if the abilities dont exist, so a little homebrew is always ok in my book.


wraithstrike wrote:
It was a half-Ogre which is not a standard class. Two of the mental stats were probably already bad.

DOH!

Yah somehow i read it as half-orc. With a half ogre the stats could match.


Maxximilius wrote:


Ok, I guess I probably misspoke or there is a communication issue, since you're preaching to a converted.
There is obviously nothing wrong with "min-maxing like a pig" (litteral translation of a french expression that puts heavy emphasize on something and not meant to be offensive as you probably felt, btw) if you have a fun roleplay and everyone in your group shares the fun, and I guess that's where you seem to believe our opinions digressed. And they don't. We've had our share of min-maxed characters in our table over the last two years, myself included, and yet a fellow half-ogre barbarian was the best, funniest character I ever saw in game, with base stats looking like 18/16/16/5/5/13....

Yah it does sound like those stats could be pretty fun to play with, and you could definately have some sick fun roleplaying wiht him if your group doesnt mind having someone that f*!%s up a lot. Could actually see myself throwing it at my group.

But i do have one question, how did you get those stats ? i mean 2 fives is impossible with point buy unless you play a full blood Orc. So i am genuinly curious.

1 to 50 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 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.