CosmicKirby's page

Mysterious fits him well, after all.

Hi there. Reading through Absalom City of Lost Omens, and in the NPC section, we meet Reginald Vancaskerkin, part of the infamous Vancaskerkin bloodline.

But uhh, he's a bit of an odd one. He is devoutly evil, worshipping Norgorber, but also he is a massive level 18 NPC with Wizard/Inventor levels. He stands out quite a bit compared to his CN middling level kin (of whom only one was also evil aligned iirc).

But they mention absolutely no relation to the Vancaskerkin family at all. IS he related?
Are any of y'all even half as interested in this rarely-yet-frequently referenced family? I might be guilty of being biased here, we share a name.

Full deity? That's tough and I bounce around a bunch, so I list the main favs.

Erastil, Irori, Iomedae, Shelyn, Cayden Cailean, annnnd, MAYBE Desna. My love of them pretty directly linked with how much RP I've gotten with characters religiously invested in them.

Iomedae being the one my favorite character worships, yet I never get to play that character, ironically.
Erastil because he brings along a very pure of heart and good 'traditionalist' type of grit to the morality. Even going so far as to 'gently encourage' partnerships that produce offspring over those that don't. Like as good aligned as possible while still having a bit of what the audience would view as 'bigotry' to him.
Cayden Cailean is just the perfect god for any fun-loving adventurer. Easily fits onto any character you wanna add some pizazz to.

Now, Demi God's? Oh boy.

Ng the Hooded (N) Eldest. Having a homebrew where he and Norgorber are spatting over a true 'God of Secrets'. Having Ng be rather upset with 'the pretender' as he does NOT know his identity, but has an undeniable feeling that he did as some point.

Ragathiel (LG) Empyreal Lord. I feel Paizo loves this guy a lot too, putting him on book covers and giving him his own prestige classes and what have you.

But, gods I WANT to like more but don't?

Chaldira (CG) Demigod. She's halfling themed, I LOVE halflings, she's good aligned, I like good aligned gods. But her visual design just isn't what I like at all, and her portfolio is... Just not doing anything for me. Luck? Obvious. BATTLE... And she is just out there in no armor and a short sword like Bilbo, who would NEVER be described in a way involving 'battle'. And mischief, personally not my thing. She's also VERY much the +CHA type of halfling from first edition, and just doesn't mesh with the +WIS Halflings of 2nd ed.

Reading through the preview blogs on each class, and then looking over the classes in my Playtest book, I can't help but shake the opinion that they highlighted basically all the cool or interesting stuff in the blog posts, and the options or things they didn't bring up are considerably less impressive.

Like a comedy movie trailer that spoiled the best jokes.

halfling getting a wisdom seems to go against decades of lore. changing their stats just because all the other small races had the same block seems amazingly meta gaming to me.

Against 'general' Halfling convention? I'd agree. Against 'Golarion' Halflings? I'd say there's a very real argument that their typical behavior and manner of living points towards WIS more than CHA.

I'd also argue against it being 'meta-gamey' to want the three core small ancestries to not all have +CHA.

Mark Seifter wrote:

If I remember correctly, there was a stage of PF1 beta where Jason had been considering giving halflings +2 Wisdom instead of Charisma to be more different than gnomes but it got changed due to passionate feedback in favor of Charisma, so there's certainly precedent for changing the ability adjustments due to feedback!

I hope so, because having all three small races having bonuses to Charisma is a little too much to bare. I would be on board with giving Halflings a bonus to Wisdom (resist the One Ring!) and Gnomes a bonus to Intelligence (illusionists!). Anything that made the small ancestries feel less "samey" in their stats. While the floating bonus can be placed anywhere, people aren't going to be getting their impression of the ancestries from floating numbers, but from the hardwired bonuses.

I would have a bit of a vested interest in Halflings getting +Wis/+Dex. As my favorite Pathfinder character is a Halfling Monk.

But, I mean. I'd be all for that.

After finding out all three small ancestries have +CHA, I feel this blog came up short.

They're really under selling ancestral diversity.

I'm not trying to speak little of them, I just think it can use some small adjustments.

As someone who has probably a soft 90% of my characters being halflings, and two others being Goblins.

For the love of all that is holy, please don't launch 3 small ancestries all having CHA.

And only Goblins being fast? I could barely make a Halfling that didn't take Fleet of Foot, being slow isn't fun, especially if one is trying to melee, which seems to be a direction that's being considered with the unifying of weapon size damage dice.

Part of the fulfilling fantasy of choosing one ancestry over the other is feeling like your choice was different. Out of the gate all three small ancestries have something in common other than being small. At the very least Humans and their half-breeds have a similarity in being dissimilar.

Given the sheer volume of spells and options at a Wizard's disposal. I think the 'intended' answer at almost all times is. "Everything else."

Upon entering a complex situation, the party looks at their sheets, and almost always the Wizard has the most options to look over and consider.

The Rogue wonders if he can use a skill for it.
The Cleric wonders if he can heal it, then looks over a smaller potentially relevant spell list.
The Fighter wonders if he can fight it.
The Wizard is wondering how he can justify circumventing the rule that makes the situation a problem in the first place.

The other roles are the name-brand solution to various typical problems. The Wizard is the Yellow Pages.

Halflings.

Although I jumped at the chance to play small 'animals' Either via a Druid's wildshape, or an adventurous GM letting me play an Awakened Catburglar or Dog-Bard.

Dragon78 wrote:

What feat was that?

Human spirit. He put a link in one of his posts above.

Am I alone in being baffled at how bad Human Spirit is? Or how long Cunning seemed to be purposely be held off and still isn't quite as good as Toughness?

I can't think of many builds I would do where that extra Skillpoint is worth the feat. If I wanted to skill monkey, I'd be playing Rogue or Investigator and be drowning in them already.

Did they not want the odd/rare jack of all trades filling in for the skill monkey's slot in the party by throwing away his FCBs and a feat?

It's sort-of Toughness, but for Skillpoints.
(Slightly worse actually, as you just gain Skillpoints equal to your total Class levels. Toughness lets you get 3HP even if you take it at level 1, Cunning would only give you 1 Skillpoint.)

I just find it bizarre that it took this long for a skillpoint counterpart to Toughness to exist. It sounds like something that should have been CRB.

I believe Deadmanwalking put it best. There can be other narrative reasons why the person is trouble is in that situation. It isn't always a matter of "Well, they're a princess" though sometimes that is the case, and that is where the trope visibly shows problems. If a character is in trouble because they lack a certain strength, ability, or item, and they need the help of another person who does not also lack the feature, their gender isn't always relevant.

If "handicapped people are helpless" stereotypes were grossly overused in fiction, I could certainly see a reason for being concerned. They aren't. The actual problem is the massive overuse of "female bodied = simpering helpless reward object with no agency". That is an insanely common storytelling device.

It really is a major and pervasive problem in fantasy literature. Trying to divert attention away from that problem by saying that showing her as physically limited rather than suicidally gender stereotyped might be insulting to handicapped people is, for lack of a better term, lame.

Further, I don't fully grasp where you're trying to go with the quoted segment above. It seems that you're of the opinion that female-gender related issues are more important, which is fine. But the point I was trying to illustrate earlier is that our reflections of media are certainly going to vary from person to person. Simply because you do not find the representation of the handicapped to not be as problematic as the representation of the female gender, it does not follow that others who find the inverse to be the case are incorrect in their findings.

I find that the crux of the argument of volume that you're making relies on weighing what is worse, a "negative" portrayal of a type of character, or the volume of portrayals of that type at all. Women are included all the time in media and stories, whereas it's a fairly rare occurrence that the handicapped are included in media at all. What is worse, to be both well and poorly portrayed often? Or to almost never be portrayed at all?

I don't find that there's a proper and obvious answer to that, and thus I'd find the interpretation that focuses on negative portrayals of the handicapped to be equally valid to the negative portrayals of women.

In short, what you find to be lazy story telling in princesses, I find lazy story telling to simply hand wave the handicapped as incapable. Although I'd reiterate, that I don't necessarily find lazy story telling to be "problematic" either.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you think you can write or even find a coherent, engaging story that won't propagate any negative messages to any viewers I would be interested in seeing it.

Super easy with only minor tweaks. When this story needs a cheerleader who recognizes and approves of the hero's deeds, no problem - that cheerleader can be a mother or father giving their approval, a strong warrior of either sex, or a mixed group of cheering bystanders. Use your imagination rather than going with the "helpless simpering female" stereotype that is tired and outdated.

When the story needs a helpless victim to be saved, that helpless victim can be a boy, a puppy, a kitten, a toddler, am injured or handicapped person, or an elderly person of either gender. An able bodied young female of the same age as the hero should not be assumed to be helpless for no better reason than her gender. If there is a reason that a princess character has to be helpless, show the reason. Don't just use "princess" or "young female" as storytelling shorthand for "helpless" by default. If she needs saving, then show the reasons why it is beyond her ability to save herself.

The princess who offers to marry the hero for no better reason than to be a reward for his brave deeds is difficult to replace in this story for plot reasons. However, she could easily be shown to have developed a liking for the hero on her own rather than offering for no reason other than a princess being the designated hero reward.

Telling a story that doesn't hurt and insult people is actually pretty easy. It's about respecting your characters and showing that they are real people with ability and decision making agency. Unless they have actual reason to lack ability or agency other than hurtful race or gender stereotypes. Showing those reasons and building those characters adds to the story rather than detracting from it.

Consider what this story would look like if every African-American character in it was shown as helpless or as lacking...

I think Wolf is alluding to the idea that interpretations of media can be so varied that you can reach almost any conclusion you wish by focusing on certain aspects.

A large part of how a reader interprets the intentions of the author or the message of their work is subject to the initial biases of the reader. In the same vein that, I myself as an amateur writer might give the writer the benefit of doubt in why they described a character in a certain way because I'm aware of how difficult characterization can be, I can also suddenly grow a distaste for a story once I'm more aware author as an individual, such as with Ender's Game.

An equally valid interpretation of the stereotype of rescuing a "princess" is the idea that royalty are generally seen as foppish, or in a more negative sense incompetent. In an interpretation such as this, the gender is irrelevant to the station of the princess, that of a noble politician.

I'd disagree that writing a completely inoffensive story is easy, especially if one favors brevity. A principal reason real people have depth is because they have an entire lifetime of experiences. Now you can either replicate this reality by telling us a lot about a character, or you can try to evoke an experience from the reader that they can they apply to the character themselves.

I could simply call Vinny the Biker a scumbag, I can tell his story in more detail, or I can briefly describe how he mistreats the custodial staff at the drive-in. They'd demand different amounts of time and attention to tell. Now imagine that your audience is full of children, and your trying to keep their attention. Or imagine if either Vinny or the custodian is a minority, how might that effect how a reader reflects on the situation?

Certainly, works can be offensive, and diversity in the presentation of media is a good thing. However, I'd disagree that aspects of media that are open to interpretation are mainly indicative of issues that we find important today in society, as I also find the intentions of the author and the overall message of the story to be important in how I reflect upon it. Nor would I agree that every story has to be "written well", or that they should be.

And I quite enjoyed the story, I think it made its point well.
Apologies for being both off-topic and long-winded.

kestral287 wrote:

Or two feats, since we've established the Gunslinger feat as a viable and pre-req free alternative to Deft Shootist.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore that feat... yeahhhhhh...

Considering I've had mixed, usually poor, success convincing my DM to let me bring 3.5 Pathfinder Setting stuff in, I usually grab Deft Shootist. The prereqs are both moderately useful anyway.

williamoak wrote:

I tend to play a lot of intellectual types (cause that's easy for me).

CosmicKirby wrote:

About half of my characters are female halflings, two of them being mid/late teens. (And all of my favorite characters have been female actually.)

These are the 2 people who posted before me, and I feel like their profile pics perfectly encapsulate what they're saying about their characters.

Also, my characters tend to be outgoing friendly types, and I like pirate themes, so my pic pretty well represents the characters I play as well (and I chose that pic coz it looks like me).

I wonder how many people are in the same boat? Where their pic says as much about them as their play-style?

I would imagine that most people choose their avatar because it represents or is a character they like. Or in the very least, has an aspect that they think properly represents them.

Considering that my other avatar was the Deathless Initiate, (female monk) and that I hope every day for the Arcane Pretender, (female halfling fighter from NPC codex). I'd say that you're fairly correct about my taste in avatars.

I can almost never play non good aligned characters, and despite the situation, I try to avoid conflict first if possible.

Both myself, and my characters care WAY too much about the other PCs, and a vast majority of my deaths have been trying to save others, even if it's their fault.

About half of my characters are female halflings, two of them being mid/late teens. (And all of my favorite characters have been female actually.)

I've gone out of my way to try and not have myself or my character talk so much that I feel I'm talking over other player's input, only to inevitably do it anyways. Quite hilarious when said character was mute and had to hold up notes to speak.

Honestly, I think it reflects me pretty well. I'm usually the last person in a group to get the hint that someone in the group is disliked, I go out of my way to help friends, and I like being animated when around my friends but hate feeling like I'm the center of attention. And despite being 6'5", I want to be short, I guess?

kestral287 wrote:

Honestly, I find the notion of Cayden kind of silly. What did he do that was worth worship? He got tanked and got lucky. Okay? I went through college at a party school. I have no respect for drunkards.

He knows he's silly, and he's fine with that. Cayden's a god for (good) people who don't particularly care about the gods, I think; he doesn't expect much of anything from you other than to live happily and do good by others, and if you do then you can hang with him in Elysium if you want.

His 10 commandments are literally designed to be hung from a bar's walls. I don't think any of his followers think highly of pageantry and tradition.

First Steps, Part One (the discontinued introduction to society play)is fairly kid friendly. There's some fairly easy puzzles and problems to solve, one human encounter, no really violent themes, and a good intro to the idea of playing a character.
There's a couple of alcohol references in there you might what to skip over, but for the most part it should serve well as intro.

There's an Arcanist archetype, (White Mage) that lets them cast cure spells now as well.

I agree with the general consensus that divine casters being the only ones with healing spells doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If they're the best at casting them, then they are doing their job right.

CosmicKirby wrote:

Joe Homes wrote:

Gunslinger. Getting rid of AoOs with guns for the price of one feat is, just, really strong.

Deft Shootist is the feat.

Not what I was referring to, but Deft Shootist certainly does the trick if your GM is canny enough to ban feats from the 2008 Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. (Obviously, I wasn't.)

Gunslinger is the feat from that one, and it removes all AoOs, no questions asked, whether you have a grit point or not. You need a +4 BAB to qualify, though, so you may be able to get Deft Shootist first.

Apologies, didn't know there was a feat just called Gunslinger.

Rynjin wrote:

Meanwhile, the Half-Orc's Sacred Tattoo IS a Luck bonus.

Sweet, sweet Luck bonus. Mmmmm.

I can't be the only one bugged by this. Half-Orcs get a luck bonus from a tattoo while Halflings get a racial bonus from an ability that has luck in the freaking name.

At least they get adaptable luck, but still, that tattoo should be a racial bonus!

Yeah, it's rather wonky. Although, to be frank, this sounds like a distinction between the two that was made without accounting for a trait doubling the bonus entirely.

It's corner enough that I'd probably be able to ask a GM to change it at any table. However, I'd then have to explain that I want it because Fate's Favored is broken. And I'd probably get turned away for pulling the same thing with Sacred Tattoo as well.

CosmicKirby wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Fate's favored is pretty broken.

I didn't know this trait existed.

This would give my halfling a free +1 to my AC thanks to a Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier.

Yoink. That's going on my sheet.

Throw in a luck stone and stick divine favor on yourself.

+1 to EVERYTHING.

So good.

For a second, I thought it worked with Halfling's "Halfling Luck" racial for +1 to all saves. Unfortunately, despite having luck in the name, it's a racial bonus. That would make it almost mandatory for halflings though.

Fate's favored is pretty broken.

I didn't know this trait existed.

Yoink. That's going on my sheet.

Gunslinger. Getting rid of AoOs with guns for the price of one feat is, just, really strong.

I know it's not as powerful as some of these other ones, but it certainly makes my life miserable when I'm running combats with my 2-gunslinger party!

Deft Shootist is the feat.

I find that Signature Deed + Up Close and Deadly from Pistoleros was far more effective than Deft shootist though. Jaunt Boots and 20 feet of space to hit against touch attack made it pretty easy to avoid provoking in most circumstances anyway.

The most important element.

With it, I can always attack first! And, uhhh. Not sure what else, but the first turn of combat ought to be fun.

Even if you were a paladin, you seem to be playing the code pretty well in the first place. Further, the code of Torag's paladins would only conflict if you had first given these guards your word, which you didn't. Protecting innocent slaves and your people easily rates over letting a probably evil ritual sacrifice happen.

Still hilarious that he tried to take your perceived Paladin powers away. Always fun to play a religious character without being a divine caster.

I say Paizo has a bit of a size fetish.

Anyone who has played with me would say I also have a size fetish, but for small characters.

And for the most part I agree. You can very easily make a small sized character intimidating, strong, powerful, hopeless, deranged, dangerous, almighty, or anything in between. But it's really hard for some people to take the concept seriously, despite writing supporting the idea, and that really discourages trying to use them as anything other than their stereotypes.

Take a single glance at say, FF14 or WoW. Punting and eating jokes abound, simply because the races are small. Gnomes are literally a joke race that can never be taken seriously by their actual writers (in WoW), Goblins as well just in a negative light.

Hopefully Peter Dinklage's Tyrion will change that. Even in the books I felt like this is really the first little person I've seen that is written just like any other character. It informs him and his experience but doesn't define him. And Peter Dinklage is awesome in that role as he is in every roll I've ever seen him in.

Considering two of the most iconic and popular pieces of fantasy settings, Lord of the Rings, and GoT, feature small characters prominently, and yet the common perception is still this way, I doubt it will change.

Say what you will about the 3-part Hobbit films, they did make me want to play a Halfling Burglar for a bit.

Rising DP's, Whirlwind Kicks and Hadoukens?

You're right, they should have just added Ryu. Maybe swap out Quivering Palm for a Raging Demon.

@Ventnor: Put Throwing on an Amulet of Mighty Fists. "Throw" some punches at people.

CosmicKirby wrote:

I agree heavily with Tels on Water Sprint and Light Step. The fact that they're two separate Ki powers is a rather bizarre choice, especially considering that if you want to be able to sprint through difficult terrain and walk on water, you also have to take a feat that lets you keep your balance, (which I've seen rolled in all of one module.)

On one hand, I sort of understand. You're getting a Ki Power at the same rate the Rogue gets talents, so you get quite a few of them. But on the other hand, there's a lot more rogue talents that I'd consider to be competitive choices when compared to Ki Powers as they are now.

It's been pointed out so very often thus far, but I imagine that this problem will be solved with more books adding more Ki Powers. Which, I find rather disappointing, as none of the other unchained classes feel "incomplete" in the sense that there's no real breadth of options to choose from as they removed archetypes. It's been mentioned that Qinggong Powers were added as a fairly last minute decision, and I can't imagine how limited the Unchained Monk would feel without those.

I'm honestly pretty disappointed that, after waiting quite a while to play an Unchained Monk, I'm going to have to wait even longer to play the Unchained Monk that I had in mind, as I find the current lack of choices and variation too stifling.

It's a pity, as this isn't a problem that the Brawler had at all.

I also agree here. water walk ,requires lvl 6 but light steps, the less mystical of the two abilities requires 8 AND another ability? That feels off to me.

I also think there is something off about the style strikes. considering their power level, I can see why they are so limited, but you get more strikes than you can actually use in combat. it makes one feel like they have an awesome ability that they can't actually use because another ability takes priority. maybe a future archetype would take care of this (though probably at the expense of ki powers).

I'm hoping they revisit the Martial Artist in future material, the Non-lawful no-ki pool monk archetype. They could focus them on the Stamina pool system and give them a bigger focus on Style Strikes.

I agree heavily with Tels on Water Sprint and Light Step. The fact that they're two separate Ki powers is a rather bizarre choice, especially considering that if you want to be able to sprint through difficult terrain and walk on water, you also have to take a feat that lets you keep your balance, (which I've seen rolled in all of one module.)

On one hand, I sort of understand. You're getting a Ki Power at the same rate the Rogue gets talents, so you get quite a few of them. But on the other hand, there's a lot more rogue talents that I'd consider to be competitive choices when compared to Ki Powers as they are now.

It's been pointed out so very often thus far, but I imagine that this problem will be solved with more books adding more Ki Powers. Which, I find rather disappointing, as none of the other unchained classes feel "incomplete" in the sense that there's no real breadth of options to choose from as they removed archetypes. It's been mentioned that Qinggong Powers were added as a fairly last minute decision, and I can't imagine how limited the Unchained Monk would feel without those.

I'm honestly pretty disappointed that, after waiting quite a while to play an Unchained Monk, I'm going to have to wait even longer to play the Unchained Monk that I had in mind, as I find the current lack of choices and variation too stifling.

It's a pity, as this isn't a problem that the Brawler had at all.

Personally I see all the "top tier" martial classes have access to all around amazing saves. Paladins and Barbarians (what I consider to be the most viable martials) have Divine Grace and Superstition+rage to make their saves very high.

The Unchained Monk comparatively does less damage in most scenarios, so I find it odd that they have worse saves than either of them. Additionally Paladin and Barb can be considered more "long lasting" in terms of ability to be relevant through a long adventuring day and have more versatility due to spells/rage powers being amazing.

It's a shame the devs didn't use them as the reference point.

Edit: That said, I did enjoy the rest of the book very much.

This is how I expect my own feedback to be. I was unfortunately slighted by my local means of obtaining a copy, (And uncomfortably pressured to not purchase the book via other, more convenient means) and thus have to wait a bit longer.

A Human Fighter with horrendous intelligence and a sword fixation.
A Human Wizard who is probably the most evil being in existence.
An Elven Rogue who spends more time robbing people than fighting.
A Human Magus who is obsessed with optimizing and non-linear thinking.
A Human Cleric who tags along and tries to fix the mess the first four leave.
A Human Monk who tags along with the Cleric and dies tragically.

Ventnor wrote:

No one's still managed to figure this one out yet...

Ventnor wrote:

Hm... here's another one.

This chaotic evil goblin* enchanter likes to take control of other evil creatures, buff them up, and then set them against his enemies, though his control is sometimes not as complete as he believes it is. His current goal is to bind a powerful djinni to his command, but again he probably underestimates how much control he will actually have.

* Well, he kind of looks like a goblin anyway.

I could've sworn I'd answered it already. Ash Ketchum, I choose you!

----

In a rather odd sci-fi game, the character are:
A male medium-sized Ettin Aristocrat with an Alchemist discovery or two.
An Android Expert who can't gain any positive emotion effects
A male Human (close enough) Bard writer
A female Human Expert and a male Human Commoner.

The characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Television one:

An arcanist with a focus on buffing and debuffing.
A armor-based fighter with a tower shield and sword.
A ninja with heavy focus in sneak attacks.

Joining them are:
A catfolk swashbuckler with max skills in Profession (Cook) and Dual Wielding.
A cleric who uses abjuration spells and buffing.
A samurai who wields a katana.
An evocation/blasty sorcerer.
A bard who uses a lute.

A favorite: The cast (and guild members) of Log Horizon.

Shiroe
Naotsugu
Akatsuki
Nyanta
Minori
Tohya
Rundelhouse Code
Isuzu

CosmicKirby wrote:

I'll throw one out here.

NG Human Male Fighter, specializing in two-weapon fighting.
LG Human Female Heavens Oracle, Foretold curse. Loves dogs.
CG Half Elf Male Sorcerer Arcane Bloodline, Arcane bond with a toy.
CN Aasimar Male Ranger, Sword and Shield style. Hired help.
LG Half Elf Female Ecclesitheurge Healing domain, related to the Sorcerer.
NG Human Female Master Summoner. Acts like a ninja.
N Human Male Demagogue Bard, Sword and board, womanizer.
N Human Female Fighter, specializing in two handed weapons, dumped CHA.
LN Human Male Monk with Vow of Chains. Only uses their feet.

Pretty sure someone did the cast of Tales of Symphonia already. But...

Lloyd
Colette
Genis
Kratos
Raine
Sheena
Zelos
Presea
Regal

Bah, must have missed it then. Apologies. Let me get another one then.

CG Human Male Corsair. Two weapon fighting with cutlasses. Known for looking good in blue, staring his own pirate crew, and running a ship that can fire freakin' lasers.

I'll throw one out here.

NG Human Male Fighter, specializing in two-weapon fighting.
LG Human Female Heavens Oracle, Foretold curse. Loves dogs.
CG Half Elf Male Sorcerer Arcane Bloodline, Arcane bond with a toy.
CN Aasimar Male Ranger, Sword and Shield style. Hired help.
LG Half Elf Female Ecclesitheurge Healing domain, related to the Sorcerer.
NG Human Female Master Summoner. Acts like a ninja.
N Human Male Demagogue Bard, Sword and board, womanizer.
N Human Female Fighter, specializing in two handed weapons, dumped CHA.
LN Human Male Monk with Vow of Chains. Only uses their feet.

Edymnion wrote:

This Synthesist Summoner started with a Medium sized bipedal eidolon and a habit of casting Create Pit using a focus of a gold drillbit that he wears as a necklace. As he leveled, he spent as many evolutions as possible to create an ever larger eidolon, surpassing even Colossal. He later multiclassed into Bard in order to Inspire Courage through Speechcraft after getting the rest of his party to multiclass into Synthesist Summoner as well.

The main character of Gurren Lagann, Simon.

Here's one:

A LE Human Strategist Cavalier fighting an equally LE empire in a cyberpunk setting. Made a deal with a mythic witch to gain the ability to use Dominate Person once per person on any target he can actively see.

EDIT: Most of his followers are CG and don't realize he's LE.

I always saw Lelouch as a CG himself. Albeit a borderline insane one.

As an extension, I saw the series as an interesting conflict between Suzaku (LG) and Lelouch (CG) trying to accomplish the same goal.

This looks like fun!

Another that comes from video games (probably easy):

A group of six mercenaries.
1) Fighter? / Gunslinger / Synthesist Summoner who carries a very unique longsword
2) Brawler / Synthesist Summoner
3) Arcanist / Synthesis Summoner who wields Nunchacku
4) Sorceress / Synthesis Summoner who wields a whip
5) Druid? / Synthesis Summoner who wields a chakram and has a dog companion
6) Gunslinger / Synthesis Summoner who prefers rifles.

The cast of Final Fantasy 8.

Kalindlara wrote:

I don't remember the prerequisites perfectly, but I seem to recall them including "domain, mystery, or blessing class feature"... none of which the paladin has.

Multiclassing Paladins do, and they can gain Blessings and Domains via Archetypes.

For instance, a Sacred Servant Sword of Valar Paladin loses Divine Grace but gains a Domain, and therefore can take Divine Protection at lv7.

Whoops, misread the semi-colon. That's correct though. You'd need 2nd level spells, and then one of the three listed. (Blessings, Domains, or Mystery.)

I don't remember the prerequisites perfectly, but I seem to recall them including "domain, mystery, or blessing class feature"... none of which the paladin has.

Divine Protection requires: "13 CHA Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature."

If you have 13 CHA, 5 ranks in Kno:Religion and can cast 2nd level divine spells, then your good. So, by level 7/8 A paladin that doesn't have Divine Grace can qualify for Divine Protection.

Lance Manstrong wrote:

From the paizo blog in case anyone hasnt seen it. The topic was PFS play for unchained so this may only be for PFS.

"The unchained monk does not qualify for any archetypes, save those in future publications that specifically cite their compatibility with the unchained monk class."

The book says that by default it doesn't qualify for anything prior. That said, in a home game, it shouldn't be hard to assess which ones you want to include and make small tweaks (or in some cases almost no tweaks) to include them.

I'm personally hoping for a new take on the Martial Artist. It still fills a nice void because the mystic martial and the brutish Brawler. A disciplined but down to earth monk-type.

As is, with the new focus on Ki Powers, it would be a considerably large task to properly swap out the Ki abilities for something comparable.

To paraphrase Deckard Cain
"I know way too much about the story and current events than I have any right to, considering I died within the first act! How in the world did my pages make their way to heaven?"

I'm really disappointed that Monk didn't get any needed item love in Unchained. Especially considering there is ample ground to make their money problems worse, they could have just introduced items that are so good you'd have to buy them before shelling out an absurd amount of money on work-arounds to improve your unarmed strikes. (Or more seriously, a competitor to the Monk's Robe, perhaps one that granted more Ki rather than improved unarmed strikes?)

JonathonWilder wrote:

Wasn't the whole point of Unchained was giving up old 'sacred cows'? Would not Monks having all three good saves be an example of such a 'sacred cow'?

I don't see a problem with them having one poor save...I will admit though I like the idea of saves working like a paladin and monks getting a bonus to saves equal to Wis bonus.

Them having all good saves wasn't just a "sacred cow" (which refers to something that is left in SOLELY because that's how it's always been, like the Lawful alignment restriction which STILL holds the class back for no reason), they were thematic, and one of the few real advantages even the Unchained Monk would have had over similar classes.

My first Unchained Monk is either going to be a LG, or I'm going to try and beat the new class with a ugly stick and try to make the Martial Artist archetype work (just so I can be a non lawful alignment). Going to be real difficult with the Ki Pool missing though.

Ravingdork wrote:

[ooc]Formless Mastery (Ex):

Indeed, so unless your GM custom builds people to use style feats, chances are likely this ability will never be useful (outside of the Ruby Phoenix Tournament). Formless Mastery is, basically, designed to be used by the GM against the players, because it's far more likely to see them with a style feat, than generic NPCs.

Imagine if the Androids specifically designed to kill Goku, were actually really bad at trying to kill anyone else, so Android 19.

That season would've been a lot shorter. And Vegeta would've actually saved the day for once.

Rynjin wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Don't forget that it's also only against people who ARE using Style Feats.

Formless Mastery may well be one of the worst abilities ever printed. It actively nerfs you, highly restricts your build options, costs a resource to activate, and gives a negligible defensive boost against >1% of enemies you may face.

Just saying, I know the summary of the ability in this thread is that it gives +4 to AC, but that's not even the half of what it gives.

Yes, it also gives a bonus to attack rolls and a massive damage boost, against...nobody.

Granted I recently (last night) fought a guy with Style Feats (as he was an NPC build-wise inspired by my character, who in his backstory was inspired by this character to learn martial arts), but if I had had Formless Mastery instead of my Dragon and Snake Styles I'd probably be dead since Snake Fang AoOs were what gave me the damage edge required to beat him (it was a close fight). +13 damage is kinda trumped by 3 hits worth 2d8+30 apiece.

I also really dislike the "I spent a feat on Style feats... Now I'm worse against Monks!". I hate that an ability in which I invested a resource into can make me weaker against certain enemies... It's pretty stupid that a 4th level Monk is better off fighting a guy using Formless Master than he'll be at 5th level, when he grabs a new feat. That's like making it so that when you grab Power Attack every Fighter deals double damage to you... Why would you do that?

Ugh... This ability is terrible design.

I'm fairly certain that, as written, you must currently be in the stance from the style feat to qualify as the target of Formless Mastery.

And you're not in a style's stance until you spend a swift action to do so, which lasts for the rest of combat. So this feat, in theory, doesn't even work on flatfooted/surprised style users, as they are not in their stances yet.

So would my Halfling Monk be considered a Krillin then? Or am I stuck with Kid Gohan/Goten/Trunks?

She used to be a slave, and uses her old slave chain as a weapon. So she is quite literally unchained.

Yeah, it's just Flurry except at some levels it gets less attacks, but all at a higher attack bonus.

Think of this less as a new Monk, and more as the Brawler with some magic tricks.

CosmicKirby wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

CosmicKirby wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Why can't we just get a Monk that can Fly. Monks should be able to fly if they try hard enough.

Because thats TOO anime. Next we'll have yellow haired, energy shooting, flying monks!

At least two of those are already possible.

Just working on the third.

And mechanical limbs for Alchemists.

We haven't even seen the monk's final form!

What did the scanner say about the Unchained monk's power level?

I believe it is somewhat less than ten thousand.

Less Goku, more Krillin.

At least it ain't Yamcha.

Krillin strongest there is!

I liked Tien more. He basically killed Cooler once.

And then Cooler was basically a high level wizard and made a million clones of himself. I need a DBZ campaign now...

Mark Seifter wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

CosmicKirby wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Why can't we just get a Monk that can Fly. Monks should be able to fly if they try hard enough.

Because thats TOO anime. Next we'll have yellow haired, energy shooting, flying monks!

At least two of those are already possible.

Just working on the third.

And mechanical limbs for Alchemists.

We haven't even seen the monk's final form!

What did the scanner say about the Unchained monk's power level?

I believe it is somewhat less than ten thousand.

Less Goku, more Krillin.

At least it ain't Yamcha.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Why can't we just get a Monk that can Fly. Monks should be able to fly if they try hard enough.

Because thats TOO anime. Next we'll have yellow haired, energy shooting, flying monks!

At least two of those are already possible.

Just working on the third.

And mechanical limbs for Alchemists.

p-sto wrote:

I will say the best thing about my PFS monk is her respectably high AC. Even if I decided to forgo the wand of mage armor, at level 8 she would end up with a AC of 28 when fully buffed, which isn't bad. Mage armor of course brings that total up to 32.

Getting more on the topic of Pathfinder Unchained, I have to say reading this thread I'm a little disappointed. It does sound like there have been some improvements over the core monk but from the sounds of it pretty much every gain comes at a trade off and the overall class is still so much worse than the sacred fist at unarmed combat that there's really no point in not playing a sacred fist if I want to play an unarmed combatant (though proficiency in monk weapons is a minor boon that's hardly worth mentioning since it can easily be cheesed with a one level dip in unarmed fighter).

I'll reserve my judgement until I have the opportunity to see the full class details but I have to admit that I was willing to buy this book just for the improvement to monks and rogues but at this point I'm starting to feel that these classes being meaningfully weaker than every other class is simply part of the design philosophy at Paizo and there's no point in waiting for that to change.

It's a psychologically built-in bias for us all to increase our perceived value of losses of something we already have (it's part of how sacred cows come to be). I think (but of course, one can never be sure) that if you read it yourself, you will agree that there is a net gain for both classes (also in particular, if someone is telling you that the rogue was weakened, or that it had to trade out for what it got, you should be very skeptical of that person, as to my knowledge, the rogue strictly received new benefits and still has all its original features).

Not trying to imply anything here, but I'm curious.

At one point during the development of the Unchained Monk, did you also feel it was a good idea or consider giving them a net gain similar to the Unchained Rogue?

From what I've seen, it looks like the Rogue was considered to already have a niche, but needed to be better at it. Namely to help compete with the Slayer, Ninja, and Investigator, who all did the Rogue's job as well.
While the changes to the Unchained Monk suggest that the goal was to give them a different niche compared to other melees. Namely, one that relies on a resource pool more heavily than others in order to do things that were better than the usual always on or less versatile resource pool mechanics.

Overall, I feel that the Unchained Monk is certainly better than the CRB version, especially for how I plan to play one. But the areas I was expecting or hoping for improvement, namely the MADness, weren't really changed.