Advocate of the Devil's page

When I read the name of this thread, I was hoping Magic: The Actual Problems would be a spin-off version of Magic: The Gathering that uses nothing but reprints of cards that are known to be broken.

Who is this guy?

Advocate of the Devil wrote:

Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?

The Superstitious rage power is core.

Superstitious is an archetype, and it is not core. Core is the CRB.

Superstitious

Many barbarians distrust magic. While most just shy away from magic, others focus their rage on users of such foul arts. These barbarians are naturally distrusting, and develop keen senses to protect them from harm. A superstitious barbarian has the following class features.

Sixth Sense (Ex): At 3rd level, the superstitious barbarian gains a +1 bonus on initiative and a +1 insight bonus to AC during surprise rounds. This bonus increases by +1 for every three levels after 3rd. This ability replaces trap sense.

Keen Senses (Ex): At 7th level, the superstitious barbarian gains low-light vision (triple normal vision range in dim light if she already has low-light vision). At 10th level, she gains darkvision 60 feet (or adds 60 feet to the range of any darkvision already possessed). At 13th level, she gains scent. At 16th level, she gains blindsense 30 feet. At 19th level, she gains blindsight 30 feet. This ability replaces damage reduction.

Rage Powers: The following rage powers complement the superstitious archetype: clear mind*, disruptive, roused anger*, spellbreaker, superstition*, and witch hunter.

Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?

Advocate of the Devil wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Axolotl wrote:

This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.

I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.

I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.

Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...

Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.

How do barbarians have better defense?

medium armor provides more AC for cheaper, superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance. beast totem provides a scaling natural armor bonus. barbarian weapons are cheaper to enchant. invulnerable rager provides massive damage resistance.

Those are archetype bonuses not barbarian bonuses are or we going to assume the monk archetypes count also when discussing the monk?

Axolotl wrote:

This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.

I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.

I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.

Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...

Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.

How do barbarians have better defense?

Mergy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In order, Fatigue, Exhaustion, Non-Lethal Damage, and forced Unconciousness.

Would you show me where that is in the Core Rulebook?

Why do they need rules for common sense fact of biology? There are also no rules for getting pregnant ( but we know how that happens) or no rules saying you can no longer take actions while you are dead.

If it RAW it ain't real. :)

You are empowering the forces of hell by giving them a soul.

In 20 years of gaming you've never learned to use tactics (including running away) to avoid TPK?

Why would one use tactics? My GM is supposed to make sure I live. If he allows me to die then I can't be a hero, and he is impeding on my fun. No good GM impedes on fun.

.

TL:DR "It's slightly more complicated than you make it out to be"

...but you already read it. :)

Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

You guys seem to not understand that you can see something without noticing it...

^^^That^^^

By raw: Failing to notice doesn't not equate to failing an opposed stealth/perception role. Those are two seperate uses of the skill. You know the person is there, but you failed to take note (that is to notice) of them.

Quote:

So you are saying straight up that someone who makes a Stealth check you fail to beat with your Perception gets no surprise on you because you really have seen them, you just didn't notice them?

how is this person in the open making a stealth check?

Do you have any support for this "take note"?

...Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.

Below that is the detail chart with a person standing out in the open.

Below the detail chart is the chart with the modifiers.

Shifty wrote:

Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

Where does it say this? Without referencing that chart for 'fine details', can you give an example where you need a perception check to be aware of a guy with no cover or concealment.

The chart is not for 'fine details', that descriptor is for the skill.

The chart is labelled as DETAIL.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception

So to notice a DETAIL, ie something as obvious as seeing a person, it is DC0. FINER details have higher DC's.

No they don't, read the check section. That 3rd party prd gives the text out of order, the second paragraph of the check entry end with "The following table gives a number of guidlines".

Only the first paragraph deals with awareness, the second one deals with noticing fine details.

They are "guidelines" because the game has number of conditional modifiers. You keep arguing RAI. RAI you are correct. RAW you are not.

It says detail because it is telling you what the details are. The detail is someone is standing out in the open.

The chart has most of the info so of course I can't do it without the chart anymore than you can adjudicate a situation unless you just make numbers up. The chart is a part of the rules.

Then again-->Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.

That person in the middle of the room is observable stimuli. I guess I need a perception check now. The modifiers are only in that chart so there you go.

eXaminator wrote:

If you fail a DC 0 Perception check you are basically blind to the obvious.

Where does it say this? Without referencing that chart for 'fine details', can you give an example where you need a perception check to be aware of a guy with no cover or concealment.

If that were the case, then you'd need to make checks every time you enter a room, if you have a fighter with no wis bonus, he will is effectively blind to 1/20th of the world (more beyond 20 ft away). In combat, he can't tell where many enemies are beyond 10 ft.

That's not what that chart is for, you are using it wrong.

RAW=Rules as Written(don't apply common sense)

We are right in this regard.
Do the rules say it is a DC 0 check to notice someone?
Yes.
Do the rules say that for every 10 feet away the DC increases?
Yes.

The DC 0 check is only there as a point of reference in case you are in an area that is crowed or has other conditions so you have a starting point, and it is not really intended for you to use in an open plan even if the person is 300(DC 30) feet away.

RAI: In a real game a person might be in a thick jungle(I am too lazy to look up actual modifiers). A jungle might have a +10 DC due to the vegetation. The person may be 100 feet away which is another 10, but they are not trying to hide so the DC is 20. The DC of 0 is a reference point in that case. 10+10+0=20

Shifty wrote:

DC0 to see a person.

But the chart is labeled as guidelines 'to notice fine details'.

You are in a hallway, 50 ft down there is a person.

Failing the check doesn't mean you aren't aware of the person, it just means you didn't notice that he was the henchman of that assassin that's been tailing you for months.

I think you guys are using that chart wrong.

The chart says "Notice a visible creature"

You can't become aware of them if you don't notice them.

Noticing him as a particular person is not even a perception check unless he is disguised.

As an example if I make my DC 0 check and he is a henchman I have dealt with before then I know who he is unless he is disguised.

Check: Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others' Perception check results. If you don't draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.

As to my earlier fluff comment. The rules don't come in until after the word "check". Anything before that is just filler.

Advocate of the Devil wrote:

The table is to determine the DC to notice things. It tells you how to mathematically arrive at the correct number using certain conditions.
It is not RAI, but it is RAW.

Well no.. that's what I'm saying I think it is RAI as well. You have just made my argument.

To give a more clear statement. If you fail to 'notice' someone on the other side of the room, is it effectively the same as him being stealthed, even if he is not making a stealth check?

I was never arguing RAI. I was just arguing RAW out of boredom I guess.

PS:I am arguing RAW here*. There is no way(in a real game) I am making someone roll a perception check to see someone out in the open if they are in the same room.

*Nothing better to do right now.

Advocate of the Devil wrote:

You quoted the flavor/fluff, which is not the rules.

This is where I will disagree. There are more rules in the skill description than just the charts.

Specifically, my 'flavor' says " The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the env, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."

So when attempting to notice details, that chart is used. The DC 0 is to identify a face, to have that 'wtf is he doing here?' situation. That table is not the rules for 'how to determine awareness'.

The table is to determine the DC to notice things. It tells you how to mathematically arrive at the correct number using certain conditions.

Advocate of the Devil wrote:

I agree that no cover equals no stealth but every 10 feet increases the perception dc by 1, unless you are just stating house rules.

Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet

Right, but what warrants the perception check? The description of that table says "to notice fine details". The actual text of that skill doesn't indicate that if you roll bad on a perception check you are blind to your obvious surroundings. The raw makes sense and I think people are artificially injecting stealth into a section of the rules that has nothing to do with stealth.

By the rules it is a DC of 0, and by the rules the modifiers apply to the perception DC, not to stealth. There is no stealth DC. There is only a perception DC. The distance adds to it.

You quoted the flavor/fluff, which is not the rules.

I'm placing a 'burden of action' on the stealther.

So to rephrase - If you have no cover or concealment, you cannot be 'stealthed'.

To elaborate, I would use the DC 0 'notice a visible creature' for situations like trying to identify a target from a distance (across a tavern, or across a market). The target isn't trying to stealth, the subject is trying to 'perceive it better':

prd perception wrote:

Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.

And then the table you reference is given.

I agree that no cover equals no stealth but every 10 feet increases the perception dc by 1, unless you are just stating house rules.

Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet

PS:I am arguing RAW here*. There is no way(in a real game) I am making someone roll a perception check to see someone out in the open if they are in the same room.

*Nothing better to do right now.

prd stealth description wrote:

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

If you have no cover or concealment, there is not perception DC. Even far away by raw. The distance modifiers would only come up if you qualified for stealth in the first place.

How is this person 'stealthed' without cover or concealment?

You don't need stealth for a perception DC.

Zuloph wrote:

the only problem is bows aren't being called a special monk weapon. everything else is dead now, the two weapon fighting issue that is. It is just a matter of house ruling it that for the zen archer bows are special monk weapons because that should of been put in but it wasn't. it never states they are special monk weapons at any time, only that the monk can flurry with a bow. it always comes down to the gms word in the end and because he was reading to much into how it worked he got me reading to much into how it worked.

Can... Flurry... With bow. Read it. It doesn't have to be a special monk weapon. Hell, a ZA can't flurry with special weapons, ONLY a bow. I don't see why you refuse to believe the words printed.

Words don't matter. <runs away>