Ari Lev's page

Even with their reduced cost, amulets of might fists cost nearly twice as much as any other piece of always-available equipment (save some items made of special materials). The always available list is there to give characters of all levels a list of relatively inexpensive items regardless of Fame. I'm not keen on making exceptions regarding where the line is drawn in terms of what's on the list and what isn't. The always available list has served the campaign very well for 5 years and the change in price of one wondrous item doesn't necessitate the reassessment of the list.

Mark, thank you for the 30,000 foot view.

I do believe this discussion has diverted significantly away from a PFS purview to a Game Design one. We are not the ones who decide how the game works, that's Jason Bulmahn's territory. If you don't like the way monk's work, we can't help you the way you're asking us to.

Daniel, I am very happy with the changes to monk and the reduced AMF price was an unexpected treat. I am grateful to have developers who listen and take their time to make sure they are making the correct decision.

We probably shouldn't pick apart others' arguments for or against such a change. There are several legitimate reasons on both sides, and--as you pointed out--that part of the discussion should be left to the developers.

Perhaps we should start a new thread, but I don't see this discussion as unhealthy.

Andrew Christian wrote:

If you want a magic weapon, buy a monk weapon that is enhanced.

I see no reason why amulet of mighty fists should be made always available

This was kind of what I thought when the request was made. If the amulet was strictly a monk weapon, and they didn't already have the same access to magic weapons that other classes had, I could see making an exception. However, monks do have the same access to enchanted weapons as everyone else. And, they can select weapons that apply to FoB as well, so they are not out of luck. Can a justification be made for making it always available? Sure, but I suggest that much of the same logic could be used to justify adding additional items that are "essential" to other classes as well. Personally, I'm not a fan of exceptions-based rules, so the fewer we have the better. Just my 2cp

A monk's unarmed attacks are the only manufactured weapon that aren't always available as a +1 weapon. Monks are already at a disadvantage because an AMF +1 costs a lot more than a +1 weapon and uses up their neck slot.

We don't see AMF as an always available item because of status quo and its category, but if it were "+1 fists" it wouldn't sound like such a strange request (aside from magical fists being strange). Yes, monks can use magical weapons, but if I were playing a level 8 monk (let alone a level 12 monk), you'd be saying that I can't have my primary weapon be +1 unless I've played particular scenarios at higher tiers. I'd have to use a 1d6 quarterstaff (or equivalent monk weapon) instead.

If any other manufactured weapon was deemed too rare or exceptional to be always available at +1, a fit would be thrown. "Yeah, your fighter uses an elven curved blade, but we've decided that a +1 elven curved blade is too rare/powerful to be always available, so how about you use a +1 longsword instead?" That wouldn't fly, and so should be the same with unarmed attacks, even if that items comes as a wondrous item and not as a weapon.

TL;DR:
I second Kyle's request because:
1. AMF is already a disadvantage to monks due to the cost and neck slot use.
2. Their classification as a wondrous is incidental, and its inclusion on the list should be evaluated on the grounds of its effect, which is functionally equivalent to being able to purchase/upgrade-to +1 weapons.
3. No other class suffers by not having their primary weapon (or any standard weapon) on the always available list.

Thanks for hearing us out.

Rending Claws is a feat. We're looking:

Rend (Ex) If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus.

Format: rend (2 claws, 1d8+9); Location: Special Attacks.

*phew!*

For a second there I thought I might not be a complete newbie :D

Which guide is that from? I did Ctrl+f on the Combat section of the PRD, but I didn't find anything. I kinda wish all the combat rules were on one page :-/ Why would they use a different mechanic for Rending Claws and rending? Would rending just be too powerful for a feat?

All that aside. The description says it's the "rend special attack", as in, it could choose to not use rend if it wanted to [unlikely]; that it's not simply the two attacks being so powerful as to cause extra shredding damage. So, here I am, with both my claws buried into Chaosthecold's chest... now how do I perform a power attack exactly? Why would I have to declare the rend as a power attack before even being in the position to declare that I'm going to rend? Why would I, a "brutal combatant driven by hunger", even choose not to declare power attack on my rend? How exactly am I sacrificing accuracy for strength in this scenario where there is no accuracy involved?

There's a lot more questions along those lines, but none of them seem to imply that power attack is added to rend.

This isn't the case at all if rend damage isn't optional. Now perhaps when it says "the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage" it means "perhaps you role a 6 [tremendous damage!] or perhaps you role a 1 [not tremendous damage...]" but that doesn't seem likely to me.

Maybe the rend benefits from the power attack from the previous two hits. But as I said before, that would imply that rending damage is caused by shredding from the other attacks, not an independent attack. But wouldn't that imply that more than two successful hits should add to the rending?

Too many questions. If rule provokes too many compromising questions, then it probably needs to be clarified or reworked.

Ron Lundeen wrote:

Really? I never thought so: Power Attack adds to melee damage rolls, and rend is a special attack. Do you also add Power Attack to other "rider" damage effects, like Powerful Charge damage rolls?

(Upon looking over the rules a bit further, I think Power Attack would definitely apply to rake attacks, as those are expressly called out as extra melee attacks, but I wouldn't think it applies to rend or other "rider" damage effects.)

I would based on the "to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls." Of course this is my interpretation (backed up by asking several other GMs/Coordinators/VCs) and I would expect variation w/o an official ruling by Jason. Which, funny enough, if he had brought up to me at the table I could have asked Jason since he was at Dragon*Con.

Ummm... am I just a complete newbie or hasn't Jason already ruled on this issue:

Rending Claws (Combat)

Your claw attacks do greater harm to your enemy.
Prerequisites: Str 13, two claw natural weapon attacks, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: If you hit a creature with two claw attacks in the same turn, the second claw attack deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. This damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit. You can use this feat once per round.

I didn't see this mentioned at all in this thread, nor in the James Jacobs thread (though he was in agreement with this feat's description).

I don't have the stat block for X, but I think this mitigates some of the damage. No critical bonuses because it's precision damage. No power attack because it's precision damage. And no 1 1/2 STR bonus for two hands on a single attack because "the second claw attack deals an additional 1d6 points of damage", so it's only one claw doing the rend damage, giving it a standard STR bonus. Right?

Thanks for the information guys.

Urban/Ports works pretty well for my tengu's background, but it's good to know thet The Shackles and Tian Xia are options too.

I'm trying to make a back-story for my tengu bard(archaeologist), but I don't see any mention in the Advanced Races Guide or the Inner Sea World Guide of where Tengu usually reside around the Inner Sea. So, which regions of the Inner Sea do Tengu usually live in?

Yeah Nolen, I just added my character and I'm gonna (try and) not sweat over one point in linguistics ;-)

As far as the race/blood argument goes, I guess I was just trying to say that aasimar/tiefling isn't cut and dry like other races. They can just pop up at any time for a number of reasons unlike most races that appear to be more Mendelian in Pathfinder.

Thanks for your responses everyone.

kdk86, Riddler, Starglim I'd assume that all the rulings would go one way, i.e. if you can't take traits then you can't learn languages either.

Mystic Lemur, I'd argue that aasimars and tieflings are more human than a half elf. The companion materials seem to indicate that they have much more human blood; Blood of Angels even says outright that aasimars are not close to being half celestial. There are also indications that no non-human blood needs to be involved, that a tiefling ancestor could have made a pact with a devil or an aasimar's family might have been blessed by a celestial. Also, an aasimar/tiefling and a human pairing will often result in a normal human child, while a half-elf and human pairing would result in a quarter-elf (yes? no?).

Since the PFS rulings usually lean toward simplicity and balance and most people seem to be saying "Yes, aasimars/tieflings have ethnicity, but they don't gain any of the human benefits from it" I'll assume that Paizo will rule similarly, unless I hear from them otherwise.

I was interested in playing an aasimar monk who grew up in the Mwangi Expanse. However, that led me to a questions about aasimars and ethnic languages:

Do aasimars know the ethnic language of the ethnicity they grew up in?

I asked several knowledgeable people here in Boston and I got conflicting answers. My Venture-Captain, Don Walker--who worked closely with Paizo on the 4.2 PFS Organized Play Guide--didn't know definitively and encouraged me to post here. So I am :)

The reason I've gotten so many different answers is probably because it doesn't appear like there is any such rule on the books and I couldn't find anything here on the boards. I bought Blood of Angels and the Advanced Race Guide, but no luck. Below I'll discuss the evidence I've found on the topic, most of it supporting the notion that aasimars know their ethnic tongue:

The simple argument against aasimars knowing their ethnic language is that 1. Aasimars aren't human and the 4.2 rules clearly state that "you gain free languages granted by your race, ethnicity (for humans), and class" 2. Aasimars can't have an ethnicity (at least the books don't say they can have an ethnicity).

However, the first line of the aasimars section in the Advanced Race Guide states that "aasimars are humans with a significant amount of celestial or other good outsider blood in their ancestry". Unlike half-elves and half-orcs, who don't automatically know ethnic languages, aasimars have a significantly larger proportion of human heritage (otherwise they'd be half-celestials), so it's not clear if they qualify as "human enough" or not from this passage alone.

Some might say "but aren't they outsiders? How can they still be human?" Yet no one would argue that a monk can't know their ethnicity's language after attaining Perfect Self (regardless of Tongue of the Sun and Moon).

But what about aasimars having an ethnicity at all? This question probably deserves another post and answer, but I should mention that no one that I asked thought that my aasimar couldn't learn Polyglot, just that she might have to take a rank in linguistics to do so. There was consensus on this point even though the Advanced Race Guide and Blood of Angels do not list any of the ethnic human languages as accessible to aasimars.

Also, the level to which an assimar can assimilate into their local society would indicate that they can speak the ethnic language. Blood of Angels says that "Most aasimars are born to human parents and live in mainly human settlements. An aasimar might spend a good portion of her childhood thinking of herself as human". Zenj don't know Polyglot because of their Zenj blood. They know Polyglot for the exact same reason that I know English, because they grow up speaking it. It would be odd if my character grew up in the middle of the Mwangi Expanse, considered herself to be Zenj, but found herself incapable of learning any Polyglot.

So, could someone at Paizo please answer these for me:
1. Can aasimar have an ethnicity? If not, please clarify why the evidence given above does not apply.
2. Can aasimar gain any or all of the benefits of being a particular ethnicity (languages, traits, etc.)?
3. If "No" and "No", can aasimar learn ethnic languages with ranks in linguistics?

Left Field question:
4. If "No", "No" and "Yes", could my aasimar know Polyglot and Celestial but not Common or do all PCs have to know Common? I suspect PCs don't have to know Common because deaf oracles don't have to know Common, but it would be good to have that clarified. Not knowing Common would probably make more sense given my character's background and she only has 10 Int, which is why I ask.

Thanks! :D

Edit: Another question:

5. Do all of the above answers apply similarly to tieflings?