Myth? "Monks' unarmed enhancement is more expensive"

[oneplus999]

leo1925 wrote:

That's exactly what i meant, you can argue that the DC of a permanency is 15 from a scroll but much much higher from a 20th level wizard. I am not sure if this works but it's a thing that someone could argue working.

And you need only to name the spell in order to target it's DC so as long as the one dispeling knows that you have a permanency on a GMF it can work.

Normally, DC is 10+spell level+ability mod, and I believe when you do it from a scroll you assume the minimum ability mod (+2 in this case). So, yes, I suppose that's a weakness to be aware of.

However, any sane caster is going to be doing much scarier things than trying to dispel your permanency, which they can't even be sure that you have or what benefit its giving you. If this does manage to happen a few times, it's still well worth it. If it happens over and over again... fire your DM >_>

[Ravingdork]

leo1925 wrote:

Bhrymm wrote:

How is anyone dispelling Permanency or a Permanencied Greater Magic Fang? Dispel Magic can only cause a spell to reach the end of its duration. Permanency and Permanencied Greater Magic Fang's duration has no end.

You pay too much attention on the wrong words, look at the "as if".

Also permanency clearly says that it can be dispeled.

True, but keep in mind that a permanencied spell can only be dispelled by a caster that is higher level than the permanent spell's caster at the time the spell was made permanent.

If you are actually able to get a 20th-level caster to do this for you, then no one will be able to dispel it except near-epic characters with orange prism ioun stones, the spell specialization feat, or something similar.

This also means that you aren't likely to be spending big bucks to restore it time and again (like many posters have stated).

[oneplus999]

master arminas wrote:

And quite frankly, I am leary of anyone with UMD pretending to a 20th level caster for the purpose of scrolls. It just feels wrong and I will...

Well of course its your game, but that seems pretty arbitrary to me. Spellcasters can clearly use scrolls of higher CL, and with UMD a rogue should be able to too, but you would add this cutoff to the rogue? So a Level 10 rogue and a level 10 sorc can both use a CL10 scroll without too much trouble, but the rogue suddenly becomes incapable of using a CL11 scroll while the sorc still has a good chance of activating it?

Unless you are saying that the L10 sorc can't use a L11 scroll either >_> and in that case you're definitely going against he rules.

srd wrote:

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

* The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
* The user must have the spell on her class list.
* The user must have the requisite ability score.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully.

[oneplus999]

Ravingdork wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Bhrymm wrote:

How is anyone dispelling Permanency or a Permanencied Greater Magic Fang? Dispel Magic can only cause a spell to reach the end of its duration. Permanency and Permanencied Greater Magic Fang's duration has no end.

You pay too much attention on the wrong words, look at the "as if".

Also permanency clearly says that it can be dispeled.

True, but keep in mind that a permanencied spell can only be dispelled by a caster that is higher level than the permanent spell's caster at the time the spell was made permanent.

If you are actually able to get a 20th-level caster to do this for you, then no one will be able to dispel it except near-epic characters with orange prism ioun stones, the spell specialization feat, or something similar.

This also means that you aren't likely to be spending big bucks to restore it time and again (like many posters have stated).

Sadly, my initial reading of permanency was wrong ;_;

srd wrote:

You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast the spell.

So it's only spells that you make permanent on yourself that are immune to dispel by lower level casters. Getting perm from someone else has no such protection.

[leo1925]

Ravingdork wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Bhrymm wrote:

How is anyone dispelling Permanency or a Permanencied Greater Magic Fang? Dispel Magic can only cause a spell to reach the end of its duration. Permanency and Permanencied Greater Magic Fang's duration has no end.

You pay too much attention on the wrong words, look at the "as if".

Also permanency clearly says that it can be dispeled.

True, but keep in mind that a permanencied spell can only be dispelled by a caster that is higher level than the permanent spell's caster at the time the spell was made permanent.

If you are actually able to get a 20th-level caster to do this for you, then no one will be able to dispel it except near-epic characters with orange prism ioun stones, the spell specialization feat, or something similar.

This also means that you aren't likely to be spending big bucks to restore it time and again (like many posters have stated).

That is true for personal permanent spells not for permanent spells cast on others (like greater magic fang).

[leo1925]

@master arminas

The UMD user isn't emulating any caster level in order to use the scroll, the DC for UMDing a scroll factors caster level.
Also GMF doesn't let you bypass any kind of DR other than magic, although you are correct about the amulet of mighty fists.

[oneplus999]

master arminas wrote:

As to the material DR point; any +3 enhancement bonus amulet or greater magic fang (not +3 worth of special weapon properties, but an actual +3 enhancement bonus) allows unarmed strikes and natural weapons to overcome DR/cold iron and DR/silver. A +4 amulet (or greater magic fang) overcomes DR/adamantine. A +5 amulet (or greater magic fang) overcomes DR/alignment. The key here is the wording under damage reduction, which states that an enhancement bonus of this level can overcome this DR (I am paraphrasing here). And in the amulet description, it says the amulet applies the enhancement bonus or special weapon property to unarmed strikes and natural weapons. So, it overcomes those types of DR, just like all other magic weapons.

Sadly, GMF does not get this benefit, as spelled out in the GMF description:

srd wrote:

This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

So a +5 AOMF would give you this benefit, but a +5 GMF would not. This is why I propose these alternate solutions to the problem. All forms of DR can be overcome using other means except for cold iron (unless there is some kind of "silversheen" equivalent for cold iron that I'm not aware of).

[oneplus999]

hah hah back to back ninja'ings :)

[oneplus999]

So, I think people are running out of problems to point out, thanks for the help, and I think this strategy mostly comes through intact.

Problems:

1. can't take 10 on UMD Whups! True. You can still get around this without too much trouble by finding a L15 sorc in a metropolis with decent UMD. Have them use the GMF scroll then the permanency scroll. There's only like a 5-10% chance that either scroll gets wasted (DC5 wis check).

2. Permancency IS dispellable by low level casters Another bad on my part. The bit about needing a higher level caster only applies to limited perm spell list that you cast on yourself. So GMF by a level 20 could theoretically be removed by a lucky dispel cast by a level 11. Of course, they have to roll really high on their dispel check. By the time this is a serious threat, another 12k to replace it is chump change.

3. What about targetted dispells So it turns out a caster can also choose to TARGET your permanency, and then it drops from DC31 CL check to DC17 CL check. I think your DM would have to be doing some serious metagaming for a caster to decide to do that, since they are basically just out to screw you over at that point and not trying to survive themselves. They have to do some guesswork to even know you have permanency, and they really would have been doing things that are much more useful. If it comes up once or twice in your career, fine, you are still way ahead of the curve in terms of cost. If it comes up more than that... fire your DM.

4. +5 GMF doesn't apply to ALL unarmed strike, it only gives +1 if you want that Incorrect. Unarmed strike is a single weapon, and CL20 GMF would give you +5. The bit about +1 to all attacks is irrelevant, and only applies to natural attacks anyway.

5. can umd be used to emulate higher CL The scroll rules are more complicated than I had realized going into this, but here's how I think it would work:
*DC 40 umd to treat CL20 magic fang as if its a sorc spell (L15 sorc can easily have +38 (+15 ranks, +3 class skill, +6 skill focus, +6 base modifier, +3 headband of cha, +3 circlet of persuation [yes diff slot from headband])
*No ability score umd check needed. GMF is a summoner spell, and can therefore be cast with Cha as the base stat.
*now looking at how scrolls work, the sorc can treat GMF as a sorc spell and needs to make a DC21 CL check
*finally, casting perm from a scroll takes another DC21 CL check

The only parts that actually talk about spell failure resulting in a wasted scroll are the caster level checks. Only in the case of a mishap (failing the CL check AND failing the DC5 wisdom check) does the scroll get wasted. This is a vanishingly low chance, and doesn't even matter that much for the GMF scroll, since it is not worth much compared to the Permanency scroll.

offtopic:

This raises a point I hadn't realized before... I guess non-casters with UMD can't use scrolls at all? they have no caster level so I don't see how they can do caster level checks, unless they are allowed to do a straight d20? This is because umd doesn't actually let you "use" a scroll, it just lets you treat a scroll as if it's on your spell list. The "use scroll" rules then apply, which requires a CL check still. But that's a different issue :)

[master arminas]

Oops; I was in error on the GMF and damage reduction. Sorry about that.

Scrolls: I don't think the intent of the rules is let you use UMD to 'add' a spell to your class spell list. It would be a straight roll of DC 20 + caster level (which I still don't think should be allowed to exceed your own, but hey, it's your game) to successfully cast the spell from the scroll. If the scroll is an arcane summoner scroll, then yes, you don't have to emulate an ability score and you are done (provided that you are a sorcerer with a Cha of 13 as above). But if the scroll is a druid divine scroll, it doesn't matter if the spell appears on anyone else's list--it is a druid scroll. And you would have to emulate Wisdom if your own ability was not a 13 or higher. That is only a DC 28, so it may only be a tecnicality, but it is still there.

Master Arminas

[oneplus999]

master arminas wrote:

Scrolls: I don't think the intent of the rules is let you use UMD to 'add' a spell to your class spell list.

I agree, but the UMD rules aren't clear. It looks like you do UMD to treat it as a class spell, then follow the normal spellcasting rules from there. It's not clear whether or not you still need the CL check after that, and it's not clear what happens if the UMD check fails. My inclination would be that the CL check is still needed (otherwise it becomes easier to cast spells that AREN'T on your spell list than ones that are, when both are of higher CL than you) and that only a failed CL check has a mishap chance, since UMD never says anything about mishaps. Either way, with a +38 umd it's very low chance of failure. Fortunately this only matters for the relatively cheap 1500g step, so even a DM who adds in extra checks and punishes heavily (scroll is wasted) on failures can't do too much damage.

master arminas wrote:

It would be a straight roll of DC 20 + caster level (which I still don't think should be allowed to exceed your own, but hey, it's your game)

I see absolutely nothing in RAW that would prevent it... so hopefully it's not just "my" game, but most other ppls too :p

master arminas wrote:

to successfully cast the spell from the scroll. If the scroll is an arcane summoner scroll, then yes, you don't have to emulate an ability score and you are done (provided that you are a sorcerer with a Cha of 13 as above).

Yeah I may have referenced a druid scroll GMF in previous posts, but getting a summoner-based version just makes more sense, and there's zero difference in the cost, so both should be found with 75% success in a Large Town or larger.

[oneplus999]

oneplus999 wrote:

then follow the normal spellcasting rules from there

meant to say SCROLL casting rules... which would mean a CL check.

[The black raven]

oneplus999 wrote:

TLDR:

Seems like people always complain that Amulet of Mighty Fists (AOMF) is so expensive, penalizing monks much more than normal martial classes. A +2 AOMF is 20k, whereas a +2 weapon is 8k, +3 is 45k vs 18k. But as far as I can tell, CL20 permanent Greater Magic Fang would cost ~12k and be just as good as a +5 AOMF. I see no reason you can't get AOMF on top of that, stacking the +5 from GMF with AOMF giving a cheaper enhancement cost at all but the lowest levels, when compared to weapon enhancement costs.

Basically I'm trying to figure out if there is any validity to the idea that monks are screwed over by the cost of AOMF, or can we lay it to rest?

2k gold: your fighter buddy gets his +1 weapon
5k gold: you get your flaming amulet of mighty fists
8k gold: fighter gets +2 weapon
18k gold: fighter gets +3 weapon, you get +5 flaming unarmed strike
137k gold: you have +10 effective enhancement and your friends only have +8.
200k gold: friends finally catch up and have +10 weapons.

And it's really not even as bad as that, since you ought to be comparing yourself to the TWF buddy who is getting his +1/+2/+3 at 4k/16k/36k...

Is there something I'm missing here? I've been thinking about this a couple days now, additional thoughts below.

** spoiler omitted **...

Actually, you did miss something : for the exact same cost as your CL20 permanent Greater Magic Fang, your fighter friend can get a CL20 permanent Greater Magic Weapon.

Thus you should not compare the cost of the combo including AOMF to that of a +X weapon.

Your scale becomes :

2k gold: your fighter buddy gets his +1 weapon
5k gold: you get your flaming amulet of mighty fists
8k gold: fighter gets +1 flaming weapon
18k gold: fighter gets +3 weapon, you get +5 flaming unarmed strike
21k gold: fighter gets +5 flaming weapon
137k gold: you have +10 effective enhancement and your friends only have +8.
140k gold: friends catch up and have +10 weapons.

The difference in the end is a mere 3k, rather than 63k, and, for this amount, your fighter friend gets his +1 to attack and damage 3k earlier (which is indeed a huge amount at low level but not so much later on) and has the option of adding properties that you cannot get for Unarmed Strike (Keen, for example). Or he can use a bow and have completely different options available.

The TWFighter is still screwed though.

[oneplus999]

The black raven wrote:

Actually, you did miss something : for the exact same cost as your CL20 permanent Greater Magic Fang, your fighter friend can get a CL20 permanent Greater Magic Weapon.

Nice try :) GMW isn't permanencyable.

[wraithstrike]

oneplus999

Lets try this again. PERMANENCY is not an item that you can buy. The spell would have to be cast personally. That(permanency) is what I am saying would be dispelled. Since a metropolis only has an 8th level caster how are you getting a 20th level one to cast it for you.

So once again how is this +5 going to happen?

Is anyone else having trouble understanding the point I am making?

[wraithstrike]

oneplus999 wrote:

So, I think people are running out of problems to point out, thanks for the help, and I think this strategy mostly comes through intact.

Problems:

1. can't take 10 on UMD Whups! True. You can still get around this without too much trouble by finding a L15 sorc in a metropolis with decent UMD. Have them use the GMF scroll then the permanency scroll. There's only like a 5-10% chance that either scroll gets wasted (DC5 wis check).

2. Permancency IS dispellable by low level casters Another bad on my part. The bit about needing a higher level caster only applies to limited perm spell list that you cast on yourself. So GMF by a level 20 could theoretically be removed by a lucky dispel cast by a level 11. Of course, they have to roll really high on their dispel check. By the time this is a serious threat, another 12k to replace it is chump change.

3. What about targetted dispells So it turns out a caster can also choose to TARGET your permanency, and then it drops from DC31 CL check to DC17 CL check. I think your DM would have to be doing some serious metagaming for a caster to decide to do that, since they are basically just out to screw you over at that point and not trying to survive themselves. They have to do some guesswork to even know you have permanency, and they really would have been doing things that are much more useful. If it comes up once or twice in your career, fine, you are still way ahead of the curve in terms of cost. If it comes up more than that... fire your DM.

4. +5 GMF doesn't apply to ALL unarmed strike, it only gives +1 if you want that Incorrect. Unarmed strike is a single weapon, and CL20 GMF would give you +5. The bit about +1 to all attacks is irrelevant, and only applies to natural attacks anyway.

5. can umd be used to emulate higher CL The scroll rules are more complicated than I had realized going into this, but here's how I think it would work:
*DC 40 umd to treat CL20 magic fang as if its a sorc spell (L15 sorc can...

1.The book limits caster levels at 8 barring GM intervention. Since the GM can pretty much make anything he wants if you are relying on GM niceness this entire thread is pointeless.

2. See point 1.
3.Not at all. If some band of heroes are disrupting operations divination spells, and mundane detective work can get you information on them.
4.True unarmed strike is one weapon, but point 1 is still an issue.
5.You still have to have that 15th level sorc to hook you up. See point 1.

[wraithstrike]

I see misread your post, but you still have to get someone to UMD it for you which bring us back to GM Fiat.

[wraithstrike]

The UMD is 40 as you pointed out.

Let's say the die roll is a 10. You now need an NPC who has a modifier of 30.

The bounty hunter ranger in the GMG has a Stealth +24. That is a primary skill using his primary stat. It would be safe to assume that your 15th level sorcerer idea is correct, but now how do you get one to help you out.

[oneplus999]

As I said above, getting a sorc to UMD for you is the only part of this that isn't completely RAW, but you can hire 15th level spellcasting by RAW, so getting one to UMD shouldn't be much of a stretch for any DM. Some fee would be in order (I proposed half the cost of the normal spellcasting, 5*Caster Level*Spell Level, since it doesn't take them a spell slot, and for 12 seconds of work is pretty good pay :)

[wraithstrike]

oneplus999 wrote:

As I said above, getting a sorc to UMD for you is the only part of this that isn't completely RAW, but you can hire 15th level spellcasting by RAW, so getting one to UMD shouldn't be much of a stretch for any DM. Some fee would be in order (I proposed half the cost of the normal spellcasting, 5*Caster Level*Spell Level, since it doesn't take them a spell slot, and for 12 seconds of work is pretty good pay :)

Where is that by RAW? 15th level spellcaster are pretty rare in most worlds that are not FR(Forgotten Realms).

Since he is still casting the spell for you, but only using a scroll to do so why is that 8th level caster level limit not applying? :)

[zagnabbit]

Wraithstrike,
I agree about the availability of high level casters. The argument works against the entire idea of buying magic items though. If the only "available" casters are capped at 8th level, where do all of the other magic items in a metropolis come from? Most published cities have named NPC casters of high level built in. Being required to perform a quest for those casters is hardly a waste, it's RPing.
I'm not a fan of "magic mart", but most people are and the RAW consider it the norm. Limiting hirable casters to level 8 cuts into all kinds of things player parties need. You have lost access to emergency teleport services, resurrections, major healing and regeneration and the rare Legend Lore type stuff that a stumped party falls back on.

I've actually done what's described here. I hate the cost on AoMF, I really hate that it's in the same slot as the natural armor amulet. This is the smarter way to go, even with it's liabilities. I was never once targeted with a dispel magic prior to doing this the first time, who dispels a monk? I was repeatedly dispelled after. So often in fact that the party spellcasters would pay for the reenhancement. I was soaking up dispels that should have gone to them. The DM wised up after a while.

[wraithstrike]

The issue is that debunking commonly held beliefs can't depend on a GM being nice since not every group plays the same. The only common factor for a debate is what the rules allow.
As for magic item, most worlds are very old, so there is no way to tell how old a magic item really is, and while I am sure a campaign world will have casters above level 8 in a big city that is not the issue. The issue is how many casters above level X are willing to hook the PC's up.
As an example you might find a level 8 casters in a small town, but if he is an important official he may not be able to help you due to time constraints. I am imagining the casters above level 8 in the metropolis have the same issue, assuming they are willing to see some people they might not know in the first place.
I hate the cost of AoMF also, but if he is going to use the RAW to get scroll made by a 20th level caster then he can't just abandon the RAW to complete his idea. That is just GM fiat which could also be used to just let the monk apply his unarmed damage to brass knuckles.
Part of me debating him was to see if he had found something everyone had missed so players could use it without depending on the kindness of the GM.
There is also the issue of deciding or figuring out the earliest level this idea becomes possible. How long until you meet a caster that could dispel the scrolls, and so on. What happens if the monk dies? At that point he becomes an object. Does the permanency come back if he is revived? Does it deactivate completely because a corpse is an object?

PS:I do admit the idea is neat though, but it is not something that can be expected to work, at least not yet anyway. I have tried to think of way to make it work since resorting to the temple sword kind of kills the idea of fighting unarmed.
The other issue with unarmed strikes is that they can't be sundered or disarmed, among other things. I guess that is why the price is so high, but that is really speculation.

edit:clarification and spelling

[oneplus999]

?????

I feel like I'm posting the same rules over and over... none of the things you are citing violate RAW.

Quote:

This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town.

Quote:

Type Modifiers Qualitites Danger Base Limit Purchase Limit Spellcasting
Thorp –4 1 –10 50 gp 500 gp 1st
Hamlet –2 1 –5 200 gp 1,000 gp 2nd
Village –1 2 0 500 gp 2,500 gp 3rd
Small town 0 2 0 1,000 gp 5,000 gp 4th
Large town 0 3 5 2,000 gp 10,000 gp 5th
Small city +1 4 5 4,000 gp 25,000 gp 6th
Large city +2 5 10 8,000 gp 50,000 gp 7th
Metropolis +4 6 10 16,000 gp 100,000 gp 8th

Metropolis doesn't have 8th level casters, it has 8th level SPELLS. Which means that it's got to have 15th level casters. And as for the 20th level scrolls, again, that is COMPLETELY RAW that you can find them.

Quote:

Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week.

75% chance that ANY item is available, so if your DM says that you can't find CL20 GMF, he is deviating from RAW.

The ONLY part of this that is not completely RAW is getting the 15th level spellcaster to do a UMD check instead of the spellcasting you can already hire them for. This should be affordable around level 8. A level 11 caster has a 5% chance of managing to dispel this, and, unless your DM is metagaming, should happen very rarely.

[Ravingdork]

oneplus999 wrote:

I feel like I'm posting the same rules over and over... none of the things you are citing violate RAW.

...

75% chance that ANY item is available, so if your DM says that you can't find CL20 GMF, he is deviating from RAW.

...

The ONLY part of this that is not completely RAW is getting the 15th level spellcaster to do a UMD check instead of the spellcasting you can already hire them for. This should be affordable around level 8. A level 11 caster has a 5% chance of managing to dispel this, and, unless your DM is metagaming, should happen very rarely.

I can't stand it when GMs don't seem to get this.

What about my rights as a player? According to page 460, paragraph 5, sentence 3 of the Core Rulebook I am ENTITLED to be able to purchase magic items of my choice of the given cost or lower 75% of the time. It's RAW. It's my right.

Why don't they understand this simple fact of the rules? *shakes head in frustrated disbelief*

:P

[Sowde Da'aro]

So why cant monks use their unarmed damage with brass nuckles?

[wraithstrike]

oneplus999 it is highest spell level so I apologize since I misread it. If it is not RAW however you still can't claim it. When on the boards and in debates you can't assume a GM will or won't do something the rules do not allow. 15th level casters are rare, and to assume they will help you out is now relying on GM fiat. Would I allow it, sure, but I have also met GM's that would not allow it, and if they told me to show them in the book where I can get people to do favors for them I would have no leg to stand on.

RD:The magic item part has been settled. We are in agreement on that. The issue now is getting a 15th level caster to do you a favor by the rules.

PS:If you can pull this off the community will love you. :)

[oneplus999]

Sowde Da'aro wrote:

So why cant monks use their unarmed damage with brass nuckles?

Despite this one item fixing everything that makes monks weak, it was erratad to no longer do unarmed damage.

http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfin derCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550

[oneplus999]

wraithstrike wrote:

If it is not RAW however you still can't claim it. When on the boards and in debates you can't assume a GM will or won't do something the rules do not allow. 15th level casters are rare, and to assume they will help you out is now relying on GM fiat.

Sadly, yes, I realize that this the one bit that isn't 100% RAW, as stated in my very first post.

However, we already know how to find a 15th level spellcaster, so to say they are rare is not quite correct. We already know how much it costs to pay them for more costly tasks (spellcasting, which actually uses a spell slot), and so we aren't getting a "favor" from them, we are paying them for a job easier than other jobs they are already willing to be paid for. The worst case your DM can argue is a) you have to pay just as much as if you had them cast the spell itself, and b) their UMD check isn't optimized, which means about ~10% mishap chance on the CL20 GMF, and even assuming those, the expected cost works out to maybe 15000, still very cheap.

If your DM recognizes that there are 15th level spellcasters for hire, but says NONE of them have ANY ranks in UMD and are willing to do this while getting paid just as much as they do for harder jobs... he's just trying to screw you over at that point. If he's that much of a hardass, hopefully he's at least as much of a hardass on the other characters in your group, in which case you don't have to worry quite as much about being weak power-wise.

Keep in mind that my plan is necessary for a CL20 version, but even a slightly optimized L8 umd'er in your party could do the exact same process with CL12 scrolls for +3 with pretty low failure chance, and you still stay ahead of martial progression for a good amount of time. Repeat this when you feel their UMD and CL checks are good enough for CL16 then CL20. In fact, this might be a decent defense against lesser dispels, since I think both spells would stay in effect, but of course the higher GMF would override the others most of the time. I haven't looked at the rules closely enough to be sure if that would work.

[Sowde Da'aro]

oneplus999 wrote:

Sowde Da'aro wrote:

So why cant monks use their unarmed damage with brass nuckles?

Despite this one item fixing everything that makes monks weak, it was erratad to no longer do unarmed damage.

http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfin derCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550

Truly i wish no insult to Sean and the rest of the dev team, but i still think that rule is stupid. And im not going to show it to my dm ;-P

[AM BARBARIAN]

WAIT. AM SAYING MONKS ALSO RUN AROUND WITH NO ARMOR, MULTIPLE MAGIC AURAS?

HUH.

BARBARIAN MAY OWE APOLOGY TO AT LEAST ONE MONISTARY.

[Ashiel]

oneplus999 wrote:

Amulet of Mighty Fists and Greater Magic Fang :) maybe I should go back and replace some acronyms...

Basically people look at AOMF price and freak out. I'm saying get permanent GMF instead, then get a nice AOMF after that.

Rather pointless. Permanent greater magic fang can be dispelled, making it nothing more than a long-term temporary buff. Likewise, warriors can also have greater magic weapon cast on their weapons as needed (it has been a common strategy since 3E came out in 2000 to simply grab a +1 weapon with sexy enhancements like speed and then GMW your gear to +5). By the time it's relevant, your party's spellcaster (any cleric, wizard, or paladin) can just dump a 3rd level spell to turn it into a +5 weapon for an entire day.

Basically what you are describing is just another example of monks overpaying.

[oneplus999]

Ashiel wrote:

oneplus999 wrote:

Amulet of Mighty Fists and Greater Magic Fang :) maybe I should go back and replace some acronyms...

Basically people look at AOMF price and freak out. I'm saying get permanent GMF instead, then get a nice AOMF after that.

Rather pointless. Permanent greater magic fang can be dispelled, making it nothing more than a long-term temporary buff. Likewise, warriors can also have greater magic weapon cast on their weapons as needed (it has been a common strategy since 3E came out in 2000 to simply grab a +1 weapon with sexy enhancements like speed and then GMW your gear to +5). By the time it's relevant, your party's spellcaster (any cleric, wizard, or paladin) can just dump a 3rd level spell to turn it into a +5 weapon for an entire day.

Basically what you are describing is just another example of monks overpaying.

You can afford this at level 8, which means it will be a long time before anyone can dispel you. Meanwhile, your fighter buddy is using up friends spells, multiple if he wants it all day, and for only +2 or +3 for a long time. By the time dispels are a significant threat, you can easily afford to redo the enchant and still be ahead of the single weapon fighter, and WAY ahead of the twf'er.

If your DM is dispelling you every other session all of a sudden, call his ass out on metagaming.

[master arminas]

And having a +5 bonus to hit and damage at level 8 doesn't strike you as a little bit out of whack?

I'm out of here.

MA

[TriOmegaZero]

I have never seen any spell made permanent in any game.

[oneplus999]

master arminas wrote:

And having a +5 bonus to hit and damage at level 8 doesn't strike you as a little bit out of whack?

I'm out of here.

MA

If this is the most broken thing you've seen suggested, you haven't been reading these boards very long.

Worst case, if it strikes your DM as being a little too wacky, do the exact same thing at CL12 or 16 for +3/+4.

[oneplus999]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I have never seen any spell made permanent in any game.

Enlarge Person and See Invisibility are handy ones. It doesn't come up much because people are so paranoid about the dispel chance, but really, unless your DM is going to metagame it, the chances ought to be pretty low.

[TriOmegaZero]

I think it doesn't come up because no one thinks about it, save for casters who actually read the spell. I doubt more than one or two of my players know it even exists.

[wraithstrike]

oneplus999 wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

oneplus999 wrote:

Amulet of Mighty Fists and Greater Magic Fang :) maybe I should go back and replace some acronyms...

Basically people look at AOMF price and freak out. I'm saying get permanent GMF instead, then get a nice AOMF after that.

Rather pointless. Permanent greater magic fang can be dispelled, making it nothing more than a long-term temporary buff. Likewise, warriors can also have greater magic weapon cast on their weapons as needed (it has been a common strategy since 3E came out in 2000 to simply grab a +1 weapon with sexy enhancements like speed and then GMW your gear to +5). By the time it's relevant, your party's spellcaster (any cleric, wizard, or paladin) can just dump a 3rd level spell to turn it into a +5 weapon for an entire day.

Basically what you are describing is just another example of monks overpaying.

You can afford this at level 8, which means it will be a long time before anyone can dispel you. Meanwhile, your fighter buddy is using up friends spells, multiple if he wants it all day, and for only +2 or +3 for a long time. By the time dispels are a significant threat, you can easily afford to redo the enchant and still be ahead of the single weapon fighter, and WAY ahead of the twf'er.

If your DM is dispelling you every other session all of a sudden, call his ass out on metagaming.

It does not have to be every other session to get expensive. I use the spell as a GM and as player so I know it would get expensive in my game. I have some variety with my casters, but I don't know to many casters not taking dispel magic. In short even if you somehow get this 15th level sorcerer to hook you up, outside of his normal day to day activities, keeping the ability will still be an issue for the monk. A player can try to say I am metagaming, but since I play a certain way he would be wrong in this case. The problem has not been solved.

[Revan]

oneplus999 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I have never seen any spell made permanent in any game.

Enlarge Person and See Invisibility are handy ones. It doesn't come up much because people are so paranoid about the dispel chance, but really, unless your DM is going to metagame it, the chances ought to be pretty low.

In most high-level games I've been in, Permanent Arcane Sight has been a high priority for the party wizard.

[oneplus999]

wraithstrike wrote:

It does not have to be every other session to get expensive. I use the spell as a GM and as player so I know it would get expensive in my game. I have some variety with my casters, but I don't know to many casters not taking dispel magic. In short even if you somehow get this 15th level sorcerer to hook you up, outside of his normal day to day activities, keeping the ability will still be an issue for the monk. A player can try to say I am metagaming, but since I play a certain way he would be wrong in this case. The problem has not been solved.

CL20 scroll = DC31 caster check to dispel.

[Alienfreak]

oneplus999 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

It does not have to be every other session to get expensive. I use the spell as a GM and as player so I know it would get expensive in my game. I have some variety with my casters, but I don't know to many casters not taking dispel magic. In short even if you somehow get this 15th level sorcerer to hook you up, outside of his normal day to day activities, keeping the ability will still be an issue for the monk. A player can try to say I am metagaming, but since I play a certain way he would be wrong in this case. The problem has not been solved.

CL20 scroll = DC31 caster check to dispel.

By that time everyone has a Great Dispel. And that one targets a lot of spells on a person and thus everyone will try to check on your permanent spell...

[Zilvar2k11]

wraithstrike wrote:

It does not have to be every other session to get expensive. I use the spell as a GM and as player so I know it would get expensive in my game. I have some variety with my casters, but I don't know to many casters not taking dispel magic. In short even if you somehow get this 15th level sorcerer to hook you up, outside of his normal day to day activities, keeping the ability will still be an issue for the monk. A player can try to say I am metagaming, but since I play a certain way he would be wrong in this case. The problem has not been solved.

As a player, I would ask you what in-world, in-character cue a specific caster might use to target a monk with Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic instead of another character or spell?

Does a permanent greater magic fang at CL20 leave a glowing sign over the monk's head? Are monks of any given build and level so common that the amount of damage they can reasonably be expected to dish out is common knowledge to that specific caster (or the world)? Did the paladin get dispelled when he whacked on his smite target (and does that have an obvious visual effect)? Do all monks in your campaign world subscribe to the notion that they really need the damage and hit boost and this is the most common way to get it? (If so, is there a union you can join for a discount?) Did they, perhaps, to concentrate with Detect Magic for 3 rounds, or is a permanent arcane sight (and the oddly glowing blue eyes) a commonplace feature in your worlds?

Obviously it is very unlikely that you and I will ever have the pleasure of sitting down at a table with one another to play the game, but I'm fairly sure that without knowing the answers to at least some of these sorts of questions, it sounds like metagaming regardless of it being the way you play.

[Malfus]

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

stuff

1. The GM is incapable of metagaming :D

2. Greater Dispel and Mage's Disjunction will both be able to rid the monk of his enhancement without knowing he has it
2a. If you have access to CL20 scrolls, then the enemy does as well (see greater dispel and mage's disjunction)
3. If it were common for a high level monk to permanency GMF on himself then he would be a common target for targeted dispel.

[TriOmegaZero]

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

As a player, I would ask you what in-world, in-character cue a specific caster might use to target a monk with Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic instead of another character or spell?

Permanent Arcane Sight, as mentioned up thread.

[oneplus999]

Alienfreak wrote:

oneplus999 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

It does not have to be every other session to get expensive. I use the spell as a GM and as player so I know it would get expensive in my game. I have some variety with my casters, but I don't know to many casters not taking dispel magic. In short even if you somehow get this 15th level sorcerer to hook you up, outside of his normal day to day activities, keeping the ability will still be an issue for the monk. A player can try to say I am metagaming, but since I play a certain way he would be wrong in this case. The problem has not been solved.

CL20 scroll = DC31 caster check to dispel.

By that time everyone has a Great Dispel. And that one targets a lot of spells on a person and thus everyone will try to check on your permanent spell...

CL20 from the scroll, which is going to be affordable about level 8.

[Zilvar2k11]

Malfus wrote:

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

stuff

1. The GM is incapable of metagaming :D

2. Greater Dispel and Mage's Disjunction will both be able to rid the monk of his enhancement without knowing he has it
2a. If you have access to CL20 scrolls, then the enemy does as well (see greater dispel and mage's disjunction)
3. If it were common for a high level monk to permanency GMF on himself then he would be a common target for targeted dispel.

1. heh

2. Of course they are capable, but the question remains...'Why target the monk with these spells?' I believe that actions are valuable in combat. What in-game reason does the opponent have for spending an action on dispelling a monk of his buff rather than the fighter that cleaved a mook in two, or the paladin that single-handedly dispatched that demon, or the wizard that has arrows bouncing off his skin, or the cleric standing in the back keeping people alive (or standing in the front, 8 feet tall and farting thunderbolts), or any other character in the party?

2a. See above.

3. Sure. And if the answer to 2 includes 'Monks cast GMF/Perm so often that it's just common practice to dispel them', I'm going to ask where my reasonably priced amulet of unarmed strikes is (because someone's GOT to be tired of paying for the reapplication), then I'm going to tell the casters to buff away because every enemy caster out there has a good chance of wasting an action dispelling me regardless of whether or not I need it. (oh, and someone will have to cast magic aura on my really nice gloves once every few days so that I LOOK like I'm a valid target, just in case the enemy has arcane sight or something similar). I'm also going to ask about the Union of Monks Needing Buffs, because if it's being cast that much, someone's GOT to be bucking for a volume discount!

[Ashiel]

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

As a player, I would ask you what in-world, in-character cue a specific caster might use to target a monk with Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic instead of another character or spell?

Because dispel magic and its greater equivalent are incredibly good spells, and they shut stuff down. That's what they do. They're really common, and casting them on PCs is what NPCs do.

Quote:

Does a permanent greater magic fang at CL20 leave a glowing sign over the monk's head?

Why yes, yes it does. At least for anyone with detect magic, which incidentally can be made permanent as well for really cheap. At 9th level.

Quote:

Are monks of any given build and level so common that the amount of damage they can reasonably be expected to dish out is common knowledge to that specific caster (or the world)? Did the paladin get dispelled when he whacked on his smite target (and does that have an obvious visual effect)? Do all monks in your campaign world subscribe to the notion that they really need the damage and hit boost and this is the most common way to get it? (If so, is there a union you can join for a discount?) Did they, perhaps, to concentrate with Detect Magic for 3 rounds, or is a permanent arcane sight (and the oddly glowing blue eyes) a commonplace feature in your worlds?

Not saying it's just the monks. Quickened shatter following a targeted dispel magic is a problem for everyone.

Quote:

Obviously it is very unlikely that you and I will ever have the pleasure of sitting down at a table with one another to play the game, but I'm fairly sure that without knowing the answers to at least some of these sorts of questions, it sounds like metagaming regardless of it being the way you play.

On a side note, permanency is pretty expensive, and can also be dispelled. If permanency is dispelled, then your spell would resume its normal duration and wear off. So if either A) the spell, or B) the permanency is dispelled, then the problem resumes.

[Malfus]

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

1. heh

2. Of course they are capable, but the question remains...'Why target the monk with these spells?' I believe that actions are valuable in combat. What in-game reason does the opponent have for spending an action on dispelling a monk of his buff rather than the fighter that cleaved a mook in two, or the paladin that single-handedly dispatched that demon, or the wizard that has arrows bouncing off his skin, or the cleric standing in the back keeping people alive (or standing in the front, 8 feet tall and farting thunderbolts), or any other character in the party?

2a. See above.

3. Sure. And if the answer to 2 includes 'Monks cast GMF/Perm so often that it's just common practice to dispel them', I'm going to ask where my reasonably priced amulet of unarmed strikes is (because someone's GOT to be tired of paying for the reapplication), then I'm going to tell the casters to buff away because every enemy caster out there has a good chance of wasting an action dispelling me regardless of whether or not I need it. (oh, and someone will have to cast magic aura on my really nice gloves once every few days so that I LOOK like I'm a valid target, just in case the enemy has arcane sight or something similar). I'm also going to ask about the Union of Monks Needing Buffs, because if it's being cast that much, someone's GOT to be bucking for a volume discount!

Points 2 and 2a: Those spells have an area of effect version that I was referring to :P

[oneplus999]

Malfus wrote:

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

stuff

1. The GM is incapable of metagaming :D

2. Greater Dispel and Mage's Disjunction will both be able to rid the monk of his enhancement without knowing he has it
2a. If you have access to CL20 scrolls, then the enemy does as well (see greater dispel and mage's disjunction)
3. If it were common for a high level monk to permanency GMF on himself then he would be a common target for targeted dispel.

2. Greater dispel vs normal dispel is irrelevant. It doesn't chance the DC31 CL check, which is going to take a long time.

2a. So he's going to do DC21 CL check in the middle of combat to use the scroll, risking a mishap, then still only have a 50% chance to pass the dispel DC? All to dispel a level 3 spell, when the wizard in your party is doing much scarier spells right in front of him? And please don't mention a level 9 spell in dealing with something a level 8 is going to do >_>
3. Ehhh smells like metagaming to me. Pretty hard to say whats "common" or not here.

Really none of this deals with the issue that casting a dispel on the monk is not going to turn the tides of battle, especially since a caster is going to only expect it to be +2 or +3 at mid levels, and any caster with a decent chance of passing the DC31 CL check is going to have many much more useful spells they could have been casting instead.

From what I can tell, magical auras are based on spell level, not caster level, so with arcane sight the bbeg is seeing your wizard friend with several level 4+ spells (greater false life, age resistance, etc) and just put out a black tentacles and summoned a triceratops, and yet he's going to dispel a level 3 spell on the monk??? Your DM is metagaming.

[Zilvar2k11]

Ashiel wrote:

Because dispel magic and its greater equivalent are incredibly good spells, and they shut stuff down. That's what they do. They're really common, and casting them on PCs is what NPCs do.

again. The question remains...'Why target the monk with these spells?' I believe that actions are valuable in combat. What in-game reason does the opponent have for spending an action on dispelling a monk of his buff rather than the fighter that cleaved a mook in two, or the paladin that single-handedly dispatched that demon, or the wizard that has arrows bouncing off his skin, or the cleric standing in the back keeping people alive (or standing in the front, 8 feet tall and farting thunderbolts), or any other character in the party?

Quote:

Why yes, yes it does. At least for anyone with detect magic, which incidentally can be made permanent as well for really cheap. At 9th level.

Not unless and until they have stopped and studied the monk and his compatriots for 3 full rounds. Arcane Sight gets around this (somewhat). Greater Arcane Sight gets around it completely. Both are a significant investment in the WBL for an NPC through 14th or 15th level (if permanent) or use up an action and a valuable spell slot.

Quote:

On a side note, permanency is pretty expensive, and can also be dispelled. If permanency is dispelled, then your spell would resume its normal duration and wear off. So if either A) the spell, or B) the permanency is dispelled, then the problem resumes.

After talking to my DM, if a spell that has had permanency cast on it, with perm recently dispelled, will end. This puts the behavior of post-perm spells somewhere in the house-rule/DM adjucation territory, and makes it a question that someone should ask before spending the money on it.