Not had crane wing come up in any of the games I've been in, but it didn't seem overpowered before the nerf. Most enemies you come up against have multiple attacks anyways, and most combats you'll be fighting multiple enemies. Don't really get why it was nerfed. Out of interest though, how are you multiclassing monk/barbarian? I though monks have to be lawful and barbarians have to be non-lawful.
Ex-monks who become non - lawful lose none of their abilities. My character was sent off for monk training to deal with his rage issues as a teen. After returning from the monastery his training hasn't entirely stuck. He still tries to control himself but fails sometimes. He is 10th level and he has only gone into rage 5 times total.
Tonight was our first session since the CW nerf. We are 10th level in Shattered Star, which is being run by a very experienced DM (with an ENnie) to his name. I suggested I could try out the new version for the night and he told me "Hell no, it is fine the way it is keep using it."
I am playing a 2 monk (MoMS)/ 8 barbarian. We also have a sorcerer, rogue, gunslinger/ranger, and bard (archeologist). Over the course of the campaign I have had many opportunities to shine but never overshadowed the group. Tonight was no different.
On a number of occasions I did not bother using crane style because it seemed far better for me to rage and grab my longsword with two hands for the extra damage output. During our climactic encounter of the evening, we fought 6 minions and a high level evil cleric. I did go into crane stance while the rogue and I fought a minion with 2 natural attacks and another minion with 4 natural attacks. I did get a few blocks in but was still pounded into negatives by the minions (and the spells and negative energy bursts of the cleric). Upon being healed I switched to raging damage mode with better results.
Throughout the evening the whole group laughed as we jested about how OP crane wing was NOT in each encounter of the night.
A lot of people seem to love the statistical analysis of any given build and I admit that is a valid method to examine things. However, I think a discussion of actual campaign experience can be just as valid.
Has anyone else been in an adventure path with someone who had crane wing? How did it go?
Due to the fact that my monk is the least of the offensive threats with the fewest number of options for either enhancing the group or outputting offense, I mostly fought the lower level mooks while the main NPC baddies went after the cleric, paladin, and magus.
That's what really makes this all so astounding. Crane Wing looks like a joke compared to doing all that a Magus and Paladin can do during a...
This has been my experience as well. I mentioned i have played crane wing characters in two separate aps. I have also played a paladin in Jade Regent and Legacy of Fire. The paladins were much more impressive. They were durable and could also lay out the damage. The crane wing characters are just durable.
Just to keep the thread on topic. I have played two characters that picked up crane wing early with a two level dip in Master of Many Styles under two different DMs: one in Kingmaker and one in Shattered Star. The characters were extremely fun and flavorful but in no way dominated the game or overshadowed the other players. They were high defense, low offense martial characters that fit in just fine. So I don't think a change was required. Do others have adventure path experiences with this feat? I am guessing the feedback will be different than pfs feedback.
I played a 5th level human slayer in a playtest over last weekend. The rest of the party included a shaman, hunter, bloodrager, and swashbuckler.
I built the Slayer with a 25 point buy and focused on archery as the hunter, bloodrager, and swashbuckler were all melee focused.
My feats were improved initiative, point blank shot, precise shot and rapid shot. For the talents I took deadly range and snipers eye.
The sneak attack damage during the surprise round and first round of combat was a nice little bonus but having only 1d6 instead of the 3d6 I would have had as a rogue felt very weak. Landing 3 quick shots for 9d6 of sneak attack as a rogue always feels impressive. The extra 3d6 of sneak for the slayer was much less exciting.
The favored target bonus was very flavorful. Everyone at the table liked the assassin feel of me studying the target. It was also nice to be able to apply it to any target instead of hoping you fight a favored enemy. However, the decision to use that move action to study was a very difficult one.
As a archer type slayer I wanted to get off as many shots as possible. Passing up one round of rapid shot for future +2 on hit and damage did not seem to be worth it. However, I was not fighting high AC targets. I can see how it would be very useful in that situation.
The deadly range and snipers eye both really did let me get off sneak attacks that I wouldn't have otherwise. We were traveling though the forest and had encounters with creatures that had concealment from the thick underbrush and I actually did have a situation where the DM coincidentally set up the closest opponent 40 feet away as we rolled for initiative. However, only getting 1d6 for those cool powers was lack luster.
On the whole I think the feel was interesting but lacked the impact of either the rogue or the ranger. He didn't that huge first round damage potential of the rogue archer. Compared to the ranger, you might say that the talents and favored target could be a straight up flavorful trade for the favored enemy, favored terrain, and some of the extras a ranger would get like woodland stride and endurance. However, it feels like the slayer is trading the ranger's hunters bond, spells, skills, and the combat style feats for a very lack luster sneak attack.
Of course, this is really focused on a 5th level comparison only.
The character was effective in the game and the favored target was flavorful, but ultimately I the slayer needs to be given a little more power to have it match the ranger.
I would suggest that you specifically allow the study of the favored target to take place outside of combat. This would definitely lend itself more to the feel of the slayer class. It would seem by RAW that this cannot be done.
I would also suggest that you could simply increase the frequency of the favored target upgrade (1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19)
The problem is that saying "could it be that all of you are wrong?" from the perspective of someone who had the simple luck of playing with people who don't abuse the system is just myopic. Yeah, you and the OP had good luck. Lots of us did not and we point out parts of the system which can be easily abused.
I have two groups. One is much more moderate with their characters and the system seems perfectly in tune with what they do. My other group has players who are much more into optimizing and suddenly the system begins to show visible cracks.
Telling me that I am wrong because it never happened to you is what is extremely rude.
Fair enough. I did not consider the OP's statement as to be as offensive as it might have been to some who have had difficulties in their game.
I disagree with the supposition that 5, 10, or 70 posters complaining that something is "Broken" is enough to suggest that anyone who disagrees is ridiculous.
RPGs are played in so many different ways and loved for so many different reasons that, for the most part, specific items are never "broken" for everyone. I disagreed with your casual use of applying your opinion to everyone in the gaming industry.
There are tens of thousands of people who play Pathfinder. A very large percentage of those are more than capable of both generating optimized builds and posting on the message boards. Until hundreds of posters agree that something is "broken" it is likely not a serious problem for the majority of the Pathfinder world and probably doesn't need to be addressed by Paizo. It should be handled by each group individually.
Asking if others have had similar problems, pointing out concerns, and offering suggestions on how to fix things is a wonderful use of this social environment. Demanding an official "fix" probably isn't.
I hope to avoid a threadjack, but I think that for my group "Icy Prison" may be a spell that we want to modify or eliminate from our game. It provides an extremely rare "Reflex save to incapacitate" option that overshadows Hold Monster (similar level spell). Still, it is flavorful and has been fun when we have used it, even if it has resulted in quick ends to encounters that should otherwise have been quite challenging.
Perhaps reducing the duration to rounds per level or ruling that helpless characters can still attempt strength checks to break out (as I believe I have seen that the designer actually intended) could resolve most of the problems.
I understand that I don't want people to tell me I am crazy for having concerns about this spell. So I can see why you might have been offended by calling broken an illusion. However, I think that we all need to respect that other people have very different game types than we do and that having even a majority of posters agree with you doesn't necessarily mean a majority of Pathfinder players do.
Magnuskn it is unfair to claim that the OP is a lone crazy voice in the wilderness. The web is generally dominated by a vocal minority.
I rarely post on the boards, but I have played all the way through Shackled City, Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Carrion Crown, and now am in Jade Regent. I have also DMed Second Darkness and Shackled City.
I have played every edition of D&D since the original basic set. I am with one group that would not go near 4th edition and another separate group that gave it a shot. I have seen plenty of powergers in both groups and could be called one myself sometimes.
So, when I say I rarely have had a problem with anything being "broken" in Pathfinder, it is coming from a position with a reasonable amount of experience. That is not to say it is never an issue, but it has never ruined a campaign.
I agree with northbrb, and I bet a lot of other people do as well, even if they don't post on the boards.
I would like to suggest that the folks at Paizo consider using Storn Cook for artwork in some future publications.
He has a lot of stuff out there in the gaming industry including:
TSR
WoTC
West End Games
Green Ronin
AEG
I think he is great and I also wanted to show off the picture that I commissioned him to do as a gift to my girl....A big "thank you" to her for pulling my character out of Hell.
There are some great items here and in the top 32. So I can see the competition was intense. However, I would still love to get some feedback on the one I submitted. Thanks in advance.
LEERING MONOCLE OF THE JEALOUS CRITIC Aura moderate necromancy; CL 7th
Slot eyes; Price 56,000 gp; Weight –
DESCRIPTION
This circular, crystal lens is framed by a gold band and dangles from a fine gold chain meant to be attached to the wearer's clothing for handy retrieval. The device appears to be an optical enhancement piece normally worn by aged members of the aristocracy. When placed over one eye, it not only lends the wearer an aura of uncompromising distain, but also grants a gaze attack that may be used as a standard action (one target per round). Targets failing a DC 16 Will save are subject to the item’s curse, which causes the victim to effectively roll a 1 on the next skill check they make regardless of when it occurs. The target is unaware of this effect, and may not take 10 to avoid this predicament. However, the curse may be broken as per the methods listed in the bestow curse spell.
CONSTRUCTION Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bestow curse; Cost 28,000 gp
Thank you all for your input. I understand your werewolf comments now and will avoid such encounters in future submissions.
I also agree that I burnt valuable text on Tier descriptions. I assumed that it would help Josh get a quick feel on the author's grasp of mechanics, but I think I will skip that in the future as well. My story intent would be more clear if I had used those words to flesh things out.
For any that are interested - to answer some of the questions -
1. The ship is made from lumber cut from the wounded heart of Darkmoon Wood
2. The ship goes on a mission to Arcadia, does a bit of ravaging, and collects Native American type things including an angry shaman, Nunyunuwi
3. Nunyunuwi is able to use his magic to bond with the spirit of the cut wood that makes up the ship and teleport the entire ship back to where the wood was cut
4. So you have a ship sitting in the middle of a forest far from a water source, with an angry shaman ready to seek vengence against the civilization that is working toward pillaging his land.
I did plan with Falcon's Hollow in mind, but wasn't sure how much to get involved in the established NPCs and plotlines from previous works. So, I just stuck with the issue of logging and the conflict of civilization versus wilderness.
I will have to work more in on non-combat next time. And I have to say, I appreciate your question about how much tier specific encounter detail is required. It is tough to fit things in with 750 words. I started out with over 1000 and carved back from there - probably lost a little in the editing, and I spent over 130 words on detailing the tier specific challenges.
Hope I can still get more feedback from some others as well.
I would appreciate any feedback you folks might offer on this submission.
Everyone else is using spoiler tags, so I will follow the same format.
My Submission:
Home Is Where The Heartwood Is
Introduction
The voyage to Arcadia is not to be taken lightly, but the opportunity to plumb the secrets of an unexplored continent is enough to inspire a brave few. Thus it was that the Pathfinder Venture Captain DeHernando was motivated to undertake a journey aboard the good ship Providence. Given the gravity of the mission, the Pathfinder Grand Lodge maintained a regular schedule of updates with DeHernando. Sending spells tantalized the Decemvirate with news of epic discoveries, including a Fountain of Youth and City of Gold. The halls of Skyreach were anxiously awaiting his return, when suddenly communications failed.
A series of divinations were undertaken to determine the fate of the missing ship, but the only response was the cryptic refrain, “She has returned to the home of her heartwood.” Eventually, the vessel was given up for lost along with its cargo of native peoples, animals and artifacts. Months later, a glimmer of hope returned when reliable reports came in from Andoran indicating that savage skraelings and Arcadian bison had been spotted roaming the outskirts of Falcon’s Hollow.
Summary
The mission begins with the PCs meeting the Pathfinder contact, Clovis, in Falcon’s Hollow. Clovis guides the PCs to a skraeling camp, but betrays them during the encounter. After the battle, the PCs learn that the Providence is nearby and under the control of a skraeling skin-walker named Nunyunuwi. While traveling to the ship, the PCs are attacked by a number of Tupilaq, avenging constructs in the shape of bison. Finally, upon their arrival, the PCs must fight their way through a series of defenses before confronting Nunyunuwi and the spirit trapped within the ship itself.
Encounters
1) Clovis leads the PCs to a teepee encampment full of skraelings and advocates a vicious assault. However, these skraelings are disgusted by Nunyunuwi’s evil and may be easily convinced to ally with the PCs. As Clovis was cursed with lycanthropy by Nunyunuwi, he will attack the PCs in his hybrid werewolf form at some point during the encounter. Regardless of the method, the skraelings will eventually provide the PCs with much information, including the location of the Providence.
Tier 1-2: six first level warriors and a werewolf.
Tier 3-4: six first level warriors and a werewolf with 2 levels in ranger.
Tier 6-7: six second level barbarians and a werewolf with 4 levels in ranger.
2) A number of Tupilaq charge the PCs while they travel through the forest. These beasts will look like bison zombies, but spot checks will reveal that they are bison skin with a wooden frame beneath. The Tupilaq are the equivalent of large animated objects with the trample ability.
Tier 1-2: one Tupilaq.
Tier 3-4: two Tupilaq.
Tier 6-7: four Tupilaq
3) The PCs find the ship in an open field but must fight through a mob of Bakaak to reach it. The Bakaak are equivalent to human bloody skeletons with a fly spell in effect.
Tier 1-2: two Bakaak.
Tier 3-4: four Bakaak.
Tier 6-7: eight Bakaak with bows.
4) The upper decks of the ship are in a state of serious decay beyond what a few months could naturally accomplish. Plant growth and rotten structures make the terrain difficult. The spirit of the ship animates remnants of the rigging to attack the PCs with constricting attacks.
Tiers 1-2: medium animated object.
Tiers 3-4: large animated object.
Tiers 6-7: two huge animated objects.
5) In this optional encounter, the hold is defended by Flying Heads.
Tier 1-2: one vargouille.
Tier 3-4: two vargouille.
Tier 6-7: four vargouille.
6) In the final cabin the PCs encounter Nunyunuwi communing with the angry spirit of the forest. Having spent its anger on returning the ship’s lumber to its home and punishing the crew, Nunyunuwi must work to keep the spirit awake and hostile.
Tier 1-2: a werewolf with 1 level in druid
Tier 3-4: a werewolf with 1 level in druid and the spirit is the equivalent of a shadow.
Tier 6-7: a werewolf with 4 levels in druid and the spirit is the equivalent of a greater shadow.
Conclusion
Defeating Nunyunuwi and recovering the captain’s log ensures future Pathfinder missions to Arcadia. However, the spirits of the forest will still feel the pain of their lost progeny, and who knows what further allies those spirits might find in the untainted wilderness of Arcadia. If the PCs fail to triumph over Nunyunuwi, then nature’s vengeance blossoms anew in the region of Falcon’s Hollow.
I really love the feel of the new poison rules. I especially like the increase in DC with multiple exposures.
I was recently DMing a scene with several giant spiders (size small) attacking the party's 3rd level dwarf fighter. The DC 10 save was trivial so even after being hit 4 times it was a breeze encounter. Yes, it was cool to give the player his feeling of dwarven toughness as he shrugged off the poison but.... I like the idea of the pathfinder poison rules with him now ending with a DC 18 save on the 4th hit - giving the feeling of being swarmed.
I know it is only a preview, but Mr. Bulmahn I am wondering exactly how that DC bump is applied in regards to "cured" exposures.
Example with Wyvern - fighter gets hit on round one immediately makes his first fort save. Round two wyvern misses and fighter makes his second fort save - poison is cured. Round three wyvern hits again..I assume poison is reset and DC is still ony 17? If this is the case, I imagine my spider encounter would not have changed as the dwarf would have just been hit and cured several times over the course of the battle...but at least there is some potential for challenge.
Playing through the Shackled City campaign had been the best gaming experience for me in a long while. That isn't Pathfinder - but it did start me on the path. Then the re-imagining of the goblins in the Rise of the Runelords made me start going head over heels....but I would have to say it was the Hook Mountain Massacre. That adventure with its disturbing tone (read as reimagining of ogres) and huge opportunities to be a big fat hero......that sovereign glued it for me.
What is a sorcerer? That question really nails it because the class is perceived so differently by so many different DMs and Players.
I would like to see futher improvement in the class with more variants so it is more fun to play a PF sorcerer. IMO Paizo isn't quite there yet with the sorcerer class.
Why not play a SRD variant spellcaster or a PHBII Beguiler with backwards compatibility? Both are easier to play than a PF sorcerer since the abilites are fixed or chosen by the player?
CastleMike, I noticed we are in agreement on the Arcane Bond thread and I agree with you here as well.
Personally, I have also been wondering about how the non-OGL classes can be incorporated into the Pathfinder RPG - at least in concept. How far of a stretch is it from the existing bloodlines is it to offer a set of "bloodlines" that more closely mimic the warmage, beguiler and warlock? For the existing 3.5 sorcerer and its fans the arcane bloodline can still maintain the base class.
One of the primary goals of this Pathfinder RPG is to maintain backward compatibility, so the existing sorcerer class needs to be reasonably preserved. Some folks love the spontaneous casting mechanic - enough to overlook any faults with the class, and the untrained, gifted caster type is a hero we need for our stories. The sorcerer really needs to be maintained, but how to make it more interesting? I think the bloodlines are a good direction - but I think the warmage, beguiler and warlock were better.
Additionally, one crazy suggestion in line with the Arcane Bond issue of the wizard: since the wizard arcane bond now steps on the sorcerer’s toes by allowing a spontaneous cast once a day, perhaps the sorcerer arcane bond should step on the wizard’s toes and allow any one fixed arcane spell?
As in, each morning the sorcerer could place in his bonded item any single spell from the entire arcane list of a level he was able to cast (yes if it had expensive material components he would have to provide those to keep things balanced). This would give the sorcerer that bit of flexibility that it is sorely lacking. In the end it would mostly only save the cost of back up scrolls - the same as with the wizard and his bonded item, but I think this makes it more interesting in game - though I have a really hard time coming up with good fluff justification for the mechanic (only one I have is the Sha'ir **and Spirit Shaman** class - ie send out your spirit minion each morning to bring back one spell from the powers that be).
- The rules of 4e have been intended to be easier to learn, deliberately, so that the new players can more easily learn them and grow into the hobby. Wizards have stated this themselves several times.
Face it : they have been built for a younger audience. And this is not necessarily bad either.
I have not looked over the 4E in much depth; however, I personally have the impression that 4E is a game with rules you really need to learn like any complex strategy game before you can play. On the other hand, for past editions I have introduced many people to the game with the idea of "just tell me what you want to do and I will tell you what to roll", then they pick up the rules as they go along.
So, in the end, while it might be easier than past editions for those picking it up without an experienced DM to guide them, I think it may actually be harder for a newbie to jump into an experienced group.
I only did one playtest with a 6th level wizard, but I do agree with all three of Squirrelloid's points.
The free spell per day was powerful. However, I did greatly enjoy the flexiblity of knowing that once a day I could pull any spell out of my book. I think it added to the game experience, and should be kept. Essentially, it just saved me the cost of making a bunch of backup scrolls. Still, it is an significant bump in power and steps on the sorcerer's toes.
The cheap item creation was huge. I like the idea of being able to make one item without having the feats....but making it cheap was over the top.
In the end, I did end up feeling that the wizard was fine before...so with this plus the school powers they were given - they are far outclassing the Sorcerer. Yes I realize that the Arcane bloodline gives a sorcerer this bond option as well, but it doesn't mean as much to the sorcerer as it does to the wizard - the sorcerer never has to worry about not picking the right spells for the day...and doesn't have many to choose from anyway.
So...yes, maybe all of the changes do make the wizard balance better compared to the cleric or druid....but I think he has stretched out his lead over the sorcerer.
I'm very disappointed that the list of monk weapons is as restricted as it has ever been.
After Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero, I think the archetype of the wuxia swordsman is as strong in popular culture as that of the unarmed Shaolin master.
I think some sort of ability (whether as a class ability or a feat) to expand the list of weapons that can be used in a flurry would be very welcome.
I agree and vote for a feat. Personally, while it would be nice to have an open feat that would allow the addition of any one weapon, I fear bizzare min/max combos that might come up and would instead have specific feats for each weapon. Alternatively, I would suggest adding all simple melee weapons to the monk weapon list and a feat that adds any single light or one-handed melee weapon.
Finally, there has been discussion on other threads of allowing monk unarmed damage to be used on any monk weapon. Would this be unbalanced if you added something like scimitar to the monk list with a feat? Using flurry with a keen scimitar at 20th level doing 2d10 and criting on a 15 or higher seems pretty good - but I really don't think it is a problem.
Lacking any ranged attacks is a problem of the monk and my players frequently stock up on Necklaces of Fireballs, Bags of Boulders, Beads of Force, or Iron Bands... or when they play ninja style monks they use poison shuriken.
I had an interesting thought about the shuriken. If you modified the rules to allow all monk weapons to use monk unarmed damage (as was suggested by several others previously on other threads), then including shuriken in that list would give monks a reasonable (if still short range) ranged attack.
*Not to mention the sai - but honestly - who throws a sai?*
Yep Mage Armor and Magic Vestment don't stack, You'd have the +4 armor bonus of the Mage Armor overlapping the +2 Armor (enhancement) bonus to your clothes.
I have been putting "armor" bonus and "armor enhancement" bonus in two separate stackable categories since 3.5 came out with barkskin that had "natural armor enhancement" bonus that stacks with "natural armor".
I am not a fan of the one-on-one comparisons for defining viability of a class, but with “sucking chest wound post” about the monk I thought I would throw out something iconic - a basic comparison of a 10th level Pathfinder Monk versus a CR10 juvenile red dragon. This encounter matches the climactic encounter the whole 8th level party had last session – but is now taken on by the solo 10th level monk.
10th level human monk with high fantasy stats
Str 14, Dex 20 (24 with belt), Con 12, Int 9, Wis 16 (20 with headband), cha 7
AC 34 with ring protect +2 and amulet nat armor +2 and mage armor potion and magic vestment oil level 8
HP 71 with toughness
Attacks +16/+16/+11 (with weapon finesse and greater magic weapon potion level 8)
Damage 2d8+4 (with improved natural attack and greater magic weapon potion level 8)
Saves Fort+10, Ref+17, Wil+15 (with cloak of resist +3)
Using Gorgon Fist and Medusa Wrath
Acrobatics for Jump +30 (+50 with ki point)
-So dragon lands on the second story roof of the Inn in town and from his comfy perch begins torching nearby buildings.
-The monk uses a ki point to ensure he can make the DC 44 jump to the top of the stable and another from the stable to the roof of the Inn landing 15 ft from the dragon in total defense.
-The confident beasts makes a sound that must be a laugh moves forward for a bite attack but at +24 he still needs a 16 or better and is surprised as he snaps only air.
-The monk using Gorgon Fist deftly strikes a pressure point in the beast’s neck as it pulls back at +16 to hit versus AC24. He does 13 points damage and staggers the Dragon.
-The dragon is shocked at the power of this strike but a little befuddled but tries to bite again and hits for 16 points damage.
-The monk follows up with a Medusa’s Wrath attack and uses a ki point for an extra attack on top of that. Total of +16/+16/+16/+16/+16/+11. Four of his strikes land doing a total of 52 points of damage.
-The dragon is now down to less than 2/3 full hit points but is angry and ready for a full attack action. He hits with the bite for 16 damage, as well as one claw and one wing for another 15 total. The monk is down below half hit points but holding on.
-The monk uses gorgon fist again and connects for another 13 points damage and once again staggering the beast.
-Now down to 90 hit points the dragon is concerned and lifts off suffering an AoO which unfortunately misses.
-The monk has no credible attack at range so uses another 2 ki points to heal himself 10
-The dragon roars and swoops by breathing fire on our poor monk and has the nerve to be surprised when the monk skips away with no damage as he only needs to roll a 7 to make the reflex save and has improved evasion.
-Once again with little to do, the monk uses two more ki points to heal another 10, then steps off the burning building landing smoothly on the ground.
-Outraged and certainly a bit foolhardy, the dragon swoops down and lands next to the monk making a bite attack and hitting for 16 points damage.
-The monk hits again with the Gorgon Fist doing 13 damage and staggering the dragon
-The dragon foolishly sticks in and tries a bite and misses.
-The monk does another Medusa’s wrath using another ki point but only hits with 3 this time doing 39.
At this point the dragon is at 38 hit points and the monk is at 28. The dragon has had enough and withdraws living to fight another day (as it did in our session with the 8th level party)
Yes, this is artificial. No, the dragon isn’t supped up – it is vanilla from the MM and overconfident. Could the dragon win easily win with some luck – yes? Could you run an encounter like this with the dragon mopping up the monk by using very strategic battle choices – yep.
But this is a monk solo against a dragon! These are very realistic results of what could happen, which to me show a very heroic and playable monk as is - certainly someone who can contribute to a party in a combat role.
I do think the potions of mage armor, magic vestment and greater magic weapon all show that it is too expensive to get these enhancements that others have easily. I also note that the wholeness of body is a little underpowered…but other than that the Pathfinder monk is fine.
Earlier someone suggested that Withdraw provokes attacks of opportunity. Withdrawing doesn't provoke AoO from your current opponent unless they have reach, or you leave more than one of their threatened squares.
I would really like to see 3.Pathfinder kill off the potion thrower by adjusting Quick Draw. All they have to do is ajudicate clearly that a vial is not a weapon and that the feat does not cover improvised weapons.
I think you are thinking about where I suggested that the Gorgon Fist- Medusa Wrath isn't as easy to escape from as a simple Withdraw because Withdraw is a full round action. After being hit with the Gorgon Fist - Withdraw is no longer an option.
The monk need the enchantment bonus on to hit/Attack rollsPERIOD.
To say otherwise is to ignore Jason's own math.
Look at Monster Statistics by CR, page 124. According to it, a monster at CR 20 should on average, have a AC of 38. Subtracting the Monk's BAB of 15, you get 23 left. As a rule, to say that you have a decent chance of hitting, you should need a 10 to hit on your attack rolls. To do that, a monk must get a +13 to hit. There is no way for a monk to get the mod up to a 13 without breaking into a enchantment bonus to hit. And even then, that with the monk's BEST shot.
And Flurry of Blows doesn't compete with sneak attack in any way. Flurry of Blows is a full attack, where sneak attack can be used with any attack. Even then the monks flurry of...
As you quoted me, I am completely in agreement that the monk should have a competitive method of getting his attacks enchanted with pluses to hit as well as other enhancements. I have even said he should have the same for his AC...the same way the fighter has a +2 chainshirt of fortification the monk should get +2AC with fortification.
Comparing to sneak attack was maybe a mistake....I don't need my monk to do as much damage as a rogue. I just need him to do enough to be interesting and still be a "monk" in the storyline. I think he does that now.
And yes...the opponent can slip away from the Medusa Wrath by running like a scared puppy from my useless monk (not to mention withdraw is a full round action which they can't do so the monk gets an AoO). We play with a group and if the monk can take away an opponents full attack action on a regular basis that alone makes him useful - and it fits so nicely with the flavor of the class.
Finally, I must point out - I am more concerned about the additional enhancements to weapons and armor that others get and monks don't than comparing just the "I need the extra +5 to hit so I can hit anything" because in my experience a greater magic weapon or greater magic fang is standard operating procedure when you have a monk in the party. It is a team effort and the party casters are more than happy to supply these simple LONG duration spells. Yes, I would rather have them not need that work around...but it does the job.
I'm not disagreeing the enhancement bonus helps. I'm saying we all agree, lets stop flogging it and move on.
I'm all for the enhancement bonus, but I think it is worth flogging because beyond that I am not convinced anything is necessary.
Once a monk is on par with a rogue for a successful hit (as well as other enhancements like flaming, vorpal, etc) with his primary attack. Then you need to consider that, for example, a 20th level monk will have three attacks at base +15 compared to the rogues one attack at base +15. The rogue has +10d6 but there is something to be said for the three 2d10 strikes.
I also disagree that Gorgon Fist is lacking. Unless I am reading it wrong, there is no save and it can be done every round. Leaving the opponent with only a standard or move is huge.
Last week my group managed to get a slow spell to work on against a dragon and it made all the difference in the world. Couldn't even fly about and breathe - that is a move and a standard.
No...I could see Gorgon Fist being even over powered if it has no save. Then followed up with Medusa's Wrath.....no this is certainly a great bump for the monk and something I like.
Something i have long wondered/considered, but not actually playtested:
What about allowing the monk to use his 'unarmed strike' damage when using 'special monk weapons'?
It would eliminate the amulet of mighty fists supercost requirement by allowing the monk access to the same priced melee combat boosters as all other classes, plus also get rid of the 'need' to do things like..multiclass to kensai so i can enchant my fist...etc. I think it would allow the monks to get more into the damage dealing level that rogues have because it would allow the stacking of holy, flaming, etc.
Just a thought
Simple and easy to implement. I like it. Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I very much like this idea, as well as the idea of easy to enchant hand wraps. Together they allow for a monk to be played competitively with or without weapons depending on what they player has in his mind for the character design.
Additionally, I have not seen the armor class issue as mage armor and bracers of armor (along with wisdom and dexterity ability boosting items or spells)usually allow a monk to be one of the highest AC's in our groups as opposed to lowest. Still, to handle this perceived issue, I would suggest that allowing some easily enchanted robes, or a monk belt that would have no base armor but could be enchanted to give the +1 to +5 bonus as well as the other various bonuses like "death ward" would be very helpful.
Using the hand wraps and robes or belts is superior to just allowing the monk to have his body enhanced through magic item creation feats because this way he can find these items in the dungeon just like everyone else.
Finally, if the armor class is still seen as an issue I would suggest allowing the monk to operate freely in light armor at 10th level or something like that.
I actually do want to know the answer to this question, because its valid, even if his response is something like oh i don't know,
Controler, striker, buffer...etc...
So I can add to my discussion with my players of, these are the major changes, this is what the classes are supposed to be doing "now".
This is why we should all purchase this product instead of 4.0
This is presenting one of my key points. I'm sure there are some folks in the know who can confirm, but I believe 3.x classes were designed to be.... well...fighters, wizards, rogues, etc. Not to fill strategic combat roles like controler, striker, buffer....
I am glad to see Pathfinder does not appear to be changing that.
It seems clear that if you are making the decision on purchasing Pathfinder versus 4.0 based on these kinds of game play mechanics - you already have your answer.
Yes, it is quite easy to say that you can tell your story on top of any game mechanic, but I think it can be easily argued that some rules support the telling of some tales better than others.
On specifically the issue of fighters - other than just keeping things compatible with 3.5, I want a class that is kept "inherently" mundane. Yes, I want him to be useful to level 20...but I want it to be possible without something that would be confused with a "magic" power.
Can a "mundane" hero survive at 20th level alone? I am sure the answer is no, but that is not the point - he has his wizard companion or winged boots to help out - but at his core he is still a guy with a chunk of steel who manages to fight on against all odds.
I think the Pathfinder fighter is on the right track. One point to make him even more unique - maybe he should be the only class that can use more than one combat feat in a round.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I think it adds a flavor and element that could be a lot of fun (in moderation), and I thought your idea of Fire Giant mooks/meatshields/fodder to be fantastic.
Did you look at my suggested write-up in the Spoiler for all the giants? I listed them with minimum hit points. (1 point per HD, plus CON mod * HD) Thoughts? 70 hit points may still be high but as a CR8 creature serving as a mook/meatshield/fodder, one would assume that the party is 10-12 level - and most fighters, barbarians, archer rangers, and tactical rogues can do 70 points of damage in a single round by that level.
I'm thinking warriors with the seldom seen/used feats like Whirlwind attack will have a blast using these kinds of combat scenarios. It makes cleave and great cleave very highlighted as well.
I think this makes for an interesting set up for a specific encounter - a very nice DM tip, but I really don't see the need to implement some official rule structure to pull it off.
Another vote against minion rules in Pathfinder...
The reasons already have been exposed by a lot of previous posters.
Count me as another vote against them as well.
I want to also point out the glitch that can occur when you have lower level NPC's helping your party. What happens when a few of the town guard jump in to help the PCs against some Ogre Minions? Do the town guard get one hit kills? If not what do you do to handle it? Even making them low hit point ogres is kind of lame because then they aren't as much of a threat to anyone.
I can tell you this kind of thing came up in our game last week. The lower level town NPCs were awesome in the small bit of help they provided us. I can tell you good old Tom the town guardsman is getting a lot of respect and ale in town after that longbow crit against the stone giant.
I don't want to give up storytelling for speed of play.
And...I really don't want to see this kind of "design statement" involved at all. I want a fighter to be a class that can represent a generic swordswinger in the stories we make together.
Okay. That's a clear design statement: the fighter should be designed to be the one generic class in the game. You're not against design goals, you're advocating a particular one.
That is true. That is a design statement. And I am not against design goals. It is a matter of the kind of design statement. For a class design goal - I like my classes to be able to represent the appropriate types of characters in the stories I want to tell. That is the kind of statement I am comfortable with.
What role this class will play in a combat - is it a rock, a paper, or a scissor is not what I am looking for.
Make them desirable to play 1-20. Keep them compatible with 3/3.5 material.
I don't think he had any class x vs monster in mind. I think he was only concerned with making them more playable in the spirit of their old design.
SirUrza is saying exactly what I am hoping for and what I believe the stated purpose of the Pathfinder RPG is. I have no major problem with the 3.5 material and am not looking to move from it. I am happy for Pathfinder in that it will keep the system a "living" system as opposed to allowing it to eventually become a fossil.
So I don't want major changes - I like the little bump that they have given to fighters....though I don't like the counterproductive 1 combat feat per round rule that then tends to weaken them.
I would pefer to see some specific min/max CoDzilla things mitagated instead of the fighter seriously tweaked.
And...I really don't want to see this kind of "design statement" involved at all. I want a fighter to be a class that can represent a generic swordswinger in the stories we make together - not a grass type that is good against water types but sucks against fire types. I think this type of thinking is what has gone into 4E and I am not interested.
Yes...you need to be useful to have a good time...but I have yet to really see this problem with the fighter. Our casters tend to buff the fighter and send him in as opposed to boost themselves. When working as part of a team....I have found the fighter types still have much to contribute.
In both cases, the fighter cannot grapple the fire giant, (which seems to make sense). However, under the old system, the fire giant could grapple the character nearly every time. These rules were designed specifically to make grappling harder to accomplish. This was done because being grappled really limits what you can do and makes the combat quite a bit less fun for the affected parties.
Again...Thank you so much for involving us in this discussion...and I will be playtesting this tomorrow. However, I wanted to point out some more detailed statistics of your example. Assuming 20's and 1's don't mean anything special in either system -
CMB System-
Giant grappling fighter (in first round) - 70% chance "held", 45% chance "grabbed", 20% chance "grappled" and the fighter then has a 15% chance of escape on his turn.
Fighter grappling Giant - 0% chance and if it happened giant has 95% chance of escape
3.5 System-
Giant grappling fighter- 91% chance and the fighter has a 9% chance of escape.
Fighter gappling Giant- 9% chance and the Giant has a 91% chance of escape.
Taking away the opposed rolls takes the "wings" off of the edges of the probability curve that I believe add some cinematic excitment to the game - giving people that "hail mary" shot.
If you used CMB but kept opposed rolls it might work nicer without adding that much complication. You could still use a sliding scale of success and/or give defender bonuses to adjust the likelihood of success.
Not to offer criticism without solutions, I might suggest a mechanic for dicussion based off of reflex saves.
Well, upon reflection reflex saves doesn't seem to work too well. Too easy to grapple trip bullrush big bad dudes with relatively poor reflex saves.
Still perhaps reflex saves could be incorporated via DC=10+(attackerCMB-defenderCMB). Not a lot of difference from the proposed system but a bit more opportunity for variables in the result.
Anyway...perhaps others can brainstorm off of this start for some alternatives....
First, thank you for the efforts you are making and for allowing the general community to be involved.
But on the point at hand, I believe the perceived problems with 3.5 grapple are its complexity and the tendancy for those with high grapple bonus to "own" those with lower bonuses.
The CMB system is very nice for removing complexity however, I am not sure it removes the problems of relative ablity and may amplify them for some encounters.
1. Removing the touch attack is a nice simplification but does give one less chance to escape that nasty grapple.
2. Removing the ability for a successful AoO to cancel the grapple also gives one less chance for escape.
3. This system does not appear to be one that works well with a "20 always wins and 1 always fails" - in the 3.5 rules you could always hope to roll a 20 or the opponent roll a 1 (assuming you used that rule in your grapple checks).
4.By taking out the opposed rolls you give up a nice bend in your probability curve. Opposed rolls make high grapplers succeed less and poor grapplers succeed more than rolls against a straight DC.
Looking at these issues I think you will have a situation (especially at higher levels where it is easy to see a >10 point difference in CMB) where the good grapplers crush the poor ones, and the system has taken away any chance for anyone with out great CMB to grapple at all.
I also think this needs to be examined against the creatures like the tendriculus and other types that constrict or swallow whole. I think it will actually make them tougher than they already are, but perhaps you already have new mechanics for those things in mind.
Not to offer criticism without solutions, I might suggest a mechanic for dicussion based off of reflex saves. It seems to me that we already have a system whereby people are dodging, slipping, and escaping from crazy situations. I would think that applying that generalized mechanic to trips, grapples, etc would be fine. Sure it is different than comparing skill against skill, but is jumping clear of a fireball that much different than avoiding a giants grasp.
I would suggest that these manuevers would instead provoke a reflex save with something like a DC 5+CMB/2. This would allow both a "20 always wins 1 always fails" hope for people as well as a graduated success (as you could implement if you fail by 5, by 10 etc). There could be a feat that allowed one to use Strength instead of Dexterity for this save.
Thanks again for giving us Pathfinder and letting us in on the process.
When you look at the statistics for the escape, it is impossible for anyone to escape from someone who has a CMB 11 points higher than their own (unless 20 always wins). Compare this with the current system in 3.5 with opposed checks the person with 11 points lower still has about an 11% chance of success. And in the reverse, if it is the CMB with 11 higher trying to escape he can do so automatically (unless 1 always fails), while in the current system he will fail 11% of the time.
Still, will you often encounter such differences in CMB? I am not sure. The system is certainly easier, but not sure how well it covers the broad range of possiblities.
We will be trying things Sunday and have more to report.
We are planning on testing the combat maneuver rules in our Sunday Pathfinder game. We had a cliffhanger stop wherein my Paladin failed his will save and is now Charmed into defending the big baddie.
This seems like it will definitely be a time when these maneuvers will most certainly be put into use with the party members tripping, grappling, and disarming each other. So, I did some precalculations to see how it would work out and doesn't really look good.
My Paladin has a CMB=9, the Scout has a CMB=7, the Binder/Wizard has a CMB=3, and the Spirit Shaman a CMB=4. In the grand scheme of things these are really still very close to each other in total. However, a quick check will show that the Binder/Wizard CANNOT Trip, Grapple or Disarm my Paladin at all. He needs to hit a DC of 24 (just to get to the very first level of success on any of these) and only has a +3 on his die roll.
Further than that, the Scout can get a minor success against my Paladin with a roll of 17, but for grapple that is only a "held" condition - she can't do better than that on the first round. On the second round she might be able to achieve a "grabbed" condition - but that is it.
So you might think that the Paladin would dominate in the other direction...but it is not entirely so for grappling (and his numbers are reasonable for the other maneuvers). Against the Scout he needs a roll of 13 to get a "held" condition and an 18 to get a "grabbed" and can't do better than that on the first round or ever get a pin. Against the Binder/Wizard he will need a 9 for "held", 14 for "grabbed", 19 for "grappled" and then might pull off a pin on the second round with a 19.
These grapple rules have a sweet spot where they have reasonable odds of success when your CMB is something like 8 to 15 higher than your target but outside that they don't seem to work well.
Likewise all of the other maneuvers have a sweet zone but in a slightly lower range of -4 to +10.
Opposed rolls may be more difficult to run but they have a much wider range wherein weak opponents succeed and strong opponents fail.
