If people don't mind waiting a few days for me to figure out my character concept, I plan on reading over the whole book, and seeing if inspiration strikes.
@Emmie: You can always just hold the spade in one hand while you grapple with the other.
We have til Sunday, right? I have a long way to go towards finishing my crunch, here and elsewhere.
Oh right, since it's a double-weapon, and still can be held in one hand. Awesome! Though I don't think I can attack with the weapon while I'm grappling something, not sure. I can always punch the enemy, though. :3
Oh right, since it's a double-weapon, and still can be held in one hand. Awesome! Though I don't think I can attack with the weapon while I'm grappling something, not sure. I can always punch the enemy, though. :3
When in doubt, punch something in the face.
Or bite it.
Or put an arrow through its knee, crippling it permanently.
I'm not the only one who feels like my chosen avatar helps shape my character's personality, right?
Oh right, since it's a double-weapon, and still can be held in one hand. Awesome! Though I don't think I can attack with the weapon while I'm grappling something, not sure. I can always punch the enemy, though. :3When in doubt, punch something in the face.
Or bite it.
Or put an arrow through its knee, crippling it permanently.
For my size, it'd be far more effective to punch it, what with the 1d8+5 damage. =P Though, depending on the DM's ruling, I could take the opportunity to poison it with mah bite. Oh, this is shaping up to be quite fun!
I believe you take a -4 for not having both hands empty, but you can deal damage with your weapon as part of maintaining the grapple. Of course, you can do that with other weapons you don't hold, such as armor spikes or unarmed strikes.
For my size, it'd be far more effective to punch it, what with the 1d8+5 damage. =P Though, depending on the DM's ruling, I could take the opportunity to poison it with mah bite. Oh, this is shaping up to be quite fun!Oh right, since it's a double-weapon, and still can be held in one hand. Awesome! Though I don't think I can attack with the weapon while I'm grappling something, not sure. I can always punch the enemy, though. :3When in doubt, punch something in the face.
Or bite it.
Or put an arrow through its knee, crippling it permanently.
unfortunately, in DnD and Pathfinder there is a very fine line in theorycrafting - it's either fun or just bothersome. I mean, it's fine to optimize a given character concept, but some people go out of their way to make the most powerful possible thing. I.E. playing a pure GOD Wizard.
I often prefer flavor as opposed to being powerful, though I still like to be capable, at the very least. With that said, I don't generally like bludgeoning weapons, but unarmed strikes are the exception, since a monk can make them with any part of their bodies. That means an elbow to the gut or face. And elbowing people in the gut or the face is awesome. Of course, she's going to bite things at some point anyway, to reflect her transformation.
So... how many people have applied so far?
@Emmie: Would it be totally out of the question to multiclass into Barbarian, considering the "feral instincts" your character battles
On a totally unrelated note, I've never understood how 0 Charisma kills. I mean, do you lose so much force of personality that you just die? or what?
That's a good question, as it'd definitely make sense. I can totally see her losing it at some points and getting incredibly brutal with her attacks. The question is how many levels and at which point to do it...Halp? ;~; I've never multi-classed. >.<;
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian
look at the stock art.
LOOK AT IT.
GREATSWORD AND AXE, BEYOTCH! Also tattoos and leather EVERYWHERE.
@Emmie, I suggest taking 1 more level of Tetori and then multiclassing into the Brutal Pugilist archetype of the Barbarian for two levels, thus increasing your defensive power when being grappled and granting you the ability to Rage.
I'd suggest getting level 4 in Tetori before multi-classing so you can get the Graceful Grappler (part 2) and Counter Grapple abilities.
@Doc: HA! I beat you by two seconds!
So get to level 4 Tetori, then put the rest of the levels into Brutal Pugilist? Won't that mean that I lose out on the rest of the monk features, such as fast movement, Diamond Soul, etc?
@Emmeline - it depends on what you're going for.
If you want to focus entirely on your ability to grapple (and we gain a bunch of levels through the adventure), you might be best off going Tetori 4 then Brutal Pugilist 5, then back to Tetori for the rest.
You could also look into Improved Natural Attack (apparently both your unarmed attack and bite qualify for the feat)
Sorry, Neils, I can only see you as a mighty magical weapon to be pointed at the enemy.
You are very capable, but I'd prefer you be up close to our enemies rather than far away.
Especially so you can keep them away from me.
Fair enough.
Oh, so I can go back to Tetori? That's a relief. @_@;
So it'd basically be:
Character level 1-4: Tetori 4
Character level 5-9: Brutal Pugilist 5
Character level 10-17: Tetori 5- Tetori 12
Character level 18-20: Switch to Monk for Diamond Soul and just continue until 20?
I love Diamond Soul, and I will definitely look at Improved Natural Attack. And yes, a monk's unarmed strike counts, since a monk's whole body is a natural weapon.
Edit: Actually, just read it, and it specifically says "not unarmed strike", so that part isn't applicable. It's also a monster feat, and I'm not sure what Velvet's stance on those are.
So get to level 4 Tetori, then put the rest of the levels into Brutal Pugilist? Won't that mean that I lose out on the rest of the monk features, such as fast movement, Diamond Soul, etc?
Barbarians get fast movement. As for the rest, well, monks aren't very...good. A full 16 levels of Barbarian would certainly serve you much better, though that by no means should determine how you want to build your character. Always remember that you still have a party, so you don't have to be the absolute best. We can always help pick up some slack.
Emme, to go along with the others, it really depends on what you want out of your PC. You could go Barbarian for several levels, and gain the sweet natural attack Rage Powers.
Or you could stick with your current build for awhile and maybe supplement with Barbarian.
Thankfully, its not a choice you need to make right now, and since it would just be taking levels in a base class as opposed to a PrC, you don't need to really plan ahead.
Let the character grow organically, but also investigate the Barbarian, read the Rage Powers, and see if any of it fits your vision for Emme in the future.
Monkeygod pretty much summed it up perfectly.
*hops into a tree and noogies Emmie for no real reason*
Wait Wait Wait. Hold on a second.
Monks can't multi-class into Barbarian. Monks are required to be Lawful, barbarians non-lawful.
Which brings up a question: How the hey did we end up with a chaotic neutral monk?
Wait Wait Wait. Hold on a second.
Monks can't multi-class into Barbarian. Monks are required to be Lawful, barbarians non-lawful.
Which brings up a question: How the hey did we end up with a chaotic neutral monk?
The better question is: Since it's the only class remotely good at grappling, why the hey is the Tetori still alignment-restricted?
murderhobo hack'n'slash
I think this is my most favorite phrase ever.
Wait Wait Wait. Hold on a second.
Monks can't multi-class into Barbarian. Monks are required to be Lawful, barbarians non-lawful.
Which brings up a question: How the hey did we end up with a chaotic neutral monk?
The better question is: Since it's the only class remotely good at grappling, why the hey is the Tetori still alignment-restricted?
Because Pathfinders alignment system is poorly conceived and terrible to boot.
Why is the monk required to be lawful when any monk in an adventuring group would be against the norm of the lawful, monastic monk?
I've always felt they should be along the neutral axis, but I'm not really sure how RVT feels about the odd multiclass and alignment.
You could also go Fighter(Lore Warden) to get a bonus to your CMB and skills if Barbarian or Monk are restricted, though I'm not sure it would fit your concept.
Edit: The Brawler from the ACG playtest is a fun one, too.
@Doc: She's already Chaotic Neutral, so it's fine.
Wait Wait Wait. Hold on a second.
Monks can't multi-class into Barbarian. Monks are required to be Lawful, barbarians non-lawful.
Which brings up a question: How the hey did we end up with a chaotic neutral monk?
Monks, iirc, do not lose their abilities for changing alignment; they are only barred from taking further monk levels until they return to a lawful alignment. The barbarian *does* lose abilities on an alignment change (again, iirc), which effectively means that all the monk levels you want should be taken up front, then you could change alignment and go barbarian (pending GM approval). But you really couldn't go back to monk without sacrificing a lot from the barbarian dips.
I would suggest after going monk 4, just go full barb after that.
@Spidre: she isn't really a monk, she can just punch hard and pin things down. She is ALREADY chaotic neutral.
That's...beyond silly. Yeah, I'm asking the DM if she'd be willing to ignore that, but if not, looks like I'm sticking to pure Tetori.
@Emmie: Which part? All of it?
Why is the monk required to be lawful when any monk in an adventuring group would be against the norm of the lawful, monastic monk?
I've always felt they should be along the neutral axis, but I'm not really sure how RVT feels about the odd multiclass and alignment.
You could also go Fighter(Lore Warden) to get a bonus to your CMB and skills if Barbarian or Monk are restricted, though I'm not sure it would fit your concept.
Well besides the aforementioned fact that Pathfinder Alignment is horrendous, the Lawful "Monastic" Monk is only one option. Lawful doesn't restrict you to following "Monk Laws" so to speak, in fact you don't even have to take vows or anything if you don't want to. You simply have to respect the governmental laws - or, finding those laws unjust, your own personal code of conduct. It has nothing to do with being a traditional "monk" (however I feel the reason RVT banned them in the first place is due to this Eastern Based Flavor which simply doesn't fit the Euro-Fantasy theme)
Monastic Monks are a concept, whereas Monks are Warrior Priests/Philosophers, and don't necessarily hail from a Monastary or religion so much as being well learned and "in-tune" with life, balance, etc. etc. etc.
They could even be Lawful Evil which is based around furthering your own goals no matter the cost, within a set principle. Like destroying a town that stands in your way, innocents and all, and justifying it because they were enemies and refused to stand down.
Is Pathfinder Alignment really that screwy? I always thought they described them rather well.
It's not too silly, yet. I think we should be fine as long as no one tries to backstab with a ballista.
*eyes Arwyne and Xerxes suspiciously*
@Doc: Wow, thanks for the idea! I'm sure with my bowyering skillz I could make a giant longbow... summon a dire ape to help draw it...
Why are you so suspicious of me, doc? *stares innocently*
I just think it's silly, since I only want the class for the Tetori bit. I mean, it's not like I'm going to go on a killing spree, and as mentioned before, it's not the eastern-flavor one. The ki pool is renamed to something like Clarity pool, and all that. So yeah, I'm asking Velvet if she can ignore the "lawful" requirement. It's just that it seems silly that certain classes are restricted by alignment, sans a few like paladin/antipaladin.
Even then, the Paladin should be allowed the full range of Good, and vice versa for the Antipaladin, considering that Antipaladins often have personal codes and agendas and Paladins are often freedom fighters.
So yeah, I see now that Pathfinder has a screwy alignment system.
Is Pathfinder Alignment really that screwy? I always thought they described them rather well.
The history of the entire world has seen the passing of countless human lives, the rise and fall hundreds of civilizations, and the rule of dozens of religions. All of these different views, beliefs, and complex social interactions were constrained into 9 alignments. So yeah, it's screwy.
Take for example, your character. Chaotic Neutral probably reflecting your characters personality. However your goals are clearly of a good nature, something you have already noted in your alignment. So of course it's screwy, since you've had to make note of two separate alignments to express a relatively straight forward view of the world.
Well, if you go with heavy crossbow, you could also have one of you shoot and the other reload every round.
@Xerxes - In the world we are occupying, would you not be suspicious of a talking not-yet-existent fey centaur cat who...
tries to first scare and then charm an old man?
Is Pathfinder Alignment really that screwy? I always thought they described them rather well.The history of the entire world has seen the passing of countless human lives, the rise and fall hundreds of civilizations, and the rule of dozens of religions. All of these different views, beliefs, and complex social interactions were constrained into 9 alignments. So yeah, it's screwy.
Take for example, your character. Chaotic Neutral probably reflecting your characters personality. However your goals are clearly of a good nature, something you have already noted in your alignment. So of course it's screwy, since you've had to make note of two separate alignments to express a relatively straight forward view of the world.
I thought I was just nuanced like that... :(
Well, if you go with heavy crossbow, you could also have one of you shoot and the other reload every round.
@Xerxes - In the world we are occupying, would you not be suspicious of a talking not-yet-existent fey centaur cat who...
[Dice=Will Save]1d20 + 7
tries to first scare and then charm an old man?
I'm a cat. I thought old men were worldly enough to realize that that is a completely normal thing that cats do. We're manipulative like that.
*briefly consoles Arwyne, then goes back to staring scornfully at the old man*
I can't seem to put together enough about the world to create a true campaign trait. Everything I compose ends up being a "me" trait.
Any advice, anyone?
*leans against Xerxes*
Soft...
EDIT: I have an idea for a campaign trait!
Wilderness Runner's Hardiness: Due to their time spent traveling the Wilds, surviving all sorts of dangers, the character recieves a +2 bonus on Fortitude saves.
I can has?
I thought I was just nuanced like that... :(Is Pathfinder Alignment really that screwy? I always thought they described them rather well.The history of the entire world has seen the passing of countless human lives, the rise and fall hundreds of civilizations, and the rule of dozens of religions. All of these different views, beliefs, and complex social interactions were constrained into 9 alignments. So yeah, it's screwy.
Take for example, your character. Chaotic Neutral probably reflecting your characters personality. However your goals are clearly of a good nature, something you have already noted in your alignment. So of course it's screwy, since you've had to make note of two separate alignments to express a relatively straight forward view of the world.
No no, you misunderstand. Alignments really have nothing to do with your personalities, just how you choose to solve your problems. Evil people can still be polite, good people can still be dicks. I'm not saying your character is simple in their personality, just in how she chooses to pursue her goals.
I can't seem to put together enough about the world to create a true campaign trait. Everything I compose ends up being a "me" trait.
Any advice, anyone?
Use one of Paizos pre-created campaign traits.
@Neils: I thought the point of alignments was that they represent your personality and your worldview.
OH WAIT!
They represent your worldview!
...which of course means that the Monk and Paladin's extreme alignment restrictions make even less sense...
@Neils: I thought the point of alignments was that they represent your personality and your worldview.
OH WAIT!
They represent your worldview!
...which of course means that the Monk and Paladin's extreme alignment restrictions make even less sense...
IIRC they are described as supposedly setting a guideline for your personality and worldview, however this causes it to make even less sense than just describing how you handle situations and obsticals. Otherwise all Evil would be mean and nasty, which wouldn't go over so well for say a an Advisor trying to subtly take over. Conversely all Good would be overtly nice, which doesn't work for say Eliah because he'd be required to forgive and forget and wouldn't be prone to anger and such when facing his most hated enemies.
@Neils: I thought the point of alignments was that they represent your personality and your worldview.
OH WAIT!
They represent your worldview!
...which of course means that the Monk and Paladin's extreme alignment restrictions make even less sense...
Exactly. Alignments are for your worldview. Do you want to perpetuate good or evil? Do you want to respect some sort of law or rule or do you act purely by conscience?
But your characters beliefs, their motivations, their goals, their personalities. That's all up to you.
@Neils: I thought the point of alignments was that they represent your personality and your worldview.
OH WAIT!
They represent your worldview!
...which of course means that the Monk and Paladin's extreme alignment restrictions make even less sense...
Exactly. Alignments are for your worldview. Do you want to perpetuate good or evil? Do you want to respect some sort of law or rule or do you act purely by conscience?
But your characters beliefs, their motivations, their goals, their personalities. That's all up to you.
so, again, the restrictiveness of the Monk and the Paladin make no sense. I am totally houseruling that out if I ever GM a game.