DougyP's page

DougyP wrote:

Rather than starting a new thread, I'll bump this one and ask a question.

How are people treating the spell they can spontaneously cast from their bonded weapon.

As it stands, I'm saying that I can spontaneously cast any spell that I've prepared for the day. Other folks are saying you can spontaneously cast anything in your spell book. The rule just doesn't seem very clear to me, and I'd like some clarification, or at least opinions on how to do it.

The text says "any spell that you know and can cast." "can cast" is a the term that really trips me up.

For a sorcerer, they can cast any spell they know, so there's no problem.

For a wizard, they can know spells that they cannot cast. It's easy enough to grab a spellbook from a higher level wizard and presto, you know spells that are too high level for you to cast them.

I do not read "and can cast" as meaning that a wizard must have prepared the spell today in order to use his bonded item to cast it. I read it as "are able to cast".

This lets wizards prepare a little bit more for battle. They don't have to memorize Knock in case we find that one door the rogue can't open. They don't have to memorize Comprehend Languages in case we meet a potential ally in the dungeon but can't speak with him. Etc.

It's their once/day "oops, I didn't prepare that spell" get-out-of-jail-free card.

Sure, if they don't prepare any of these spells, they could easily find themselves needing more than one of them in a given day.

But with this interpretation, they can be more specialized (say, with combat spells) and still get one freebie usage of some utility spell without having to fill half of their slots with spells they might need "just in case".

Compared to sorcerers always having exactly what they need when they need it, letting wizards do that once/day seems fairly trivial, and at least to me, seems to be the spirit of what Arcane Bond was trying to convey.

Interesting. I like this interpretation, I'll run it by my DM this week and see what he thinks.

Rather than starting a new thread, I'll bump this one and ask a question.

How are people treating the spell they can spontaneously cast from their bonded weapon.

As it stands, I'm saying that I can spontaneously cast any spell that I've prepared for the day. Other folks are saying you can spontaneously cast anything in your spell book. The rule just doesn't seem very clear to me, and I'd like some clarification, or at least opinions on how to do it.

The text says "any spell that you know and can cast." "can cast" is a the term that really trips me up.

My DM tends to do this, but there doesn't seem to be a set rule that he follows for when you are going to hit someone friendly. As a result, I'm scared to death shoot rays into melee with my wizard :(.

I don't like it in the first place to be honest. Give the -4 to hit, leave it at that. It doesn't really add any enjoyment to the game, and just penalizes people who play a ranged class in a way that melee classes don't get penalized.

My DM just through a maze of Solid Fog at us this past week. And the parts that weren't solid fog were filled with regular fog.

And in the middle he put a minotaur which he decided would not be slowed by the fog.

We lost half the party. Now, he told us afterwards that it wasn't his goal to knock half the party down. I think he vastly underestimated the effect this would have though. Now, some of this can be attributed to use not playing the encounter meta-gaming, so our characters didn't always know what they were doing exactly.

In any event, might be good to look at the spell.

My confusion is on the wording "capable of casting" Does this mean that I can cast anything in my spell book? I am certainly capable of casting anything in my spellbook. Or does it mean anything I am capable of casting AT THE MOMENT, which would mean that only spells that I have prepared and HAVE LEFT for the day.

I was assuming the later, or is it something else entirely?

Neal Quigley wrote:

Better yet, just have a GM who has the guts to say "No, that is ridiculous."

I think that's far too simple, Nigel. Obviously hard, fast, clear and explicit rules are needed on saying, "No, that is ridiculous."

lol

Yeah, this is basically what is needed. I think the problem is a lot of people go BY THE BOOK. I've never been one of those players (or DMs). We are playing a game here, the rule book is a guideline, not gospel. Rules can be bent, ignored, shaped, changed etc, based on what makes for the most fun game for your group. If just cutting through walls is ruining an adventure, the DM simply needs to say, nope, its not working, and it isn't GOING to work, I don't care what the rule book says.

"House rules" have a strong tradition in D&D, so every DM needs to do what is best for his group/campaign.

As for a little bit of a story:
In my game last week we were clearing out a temple, and we got to a room with a puzzle involving levers. We got locked in by a set of bars that came down from the ceiling and blocked the doorway. We basically got stuck in there for a while, dealt with a combat, and then had to figure out how to get out. (We eventually figured out the puzzle and got out) However, in the mean time, we tried several things and the thought of busting a hole through the wall did come up, it was sort of a last case scenario. The group actually happens to have an adamantite dagger as well, so it would have aided us (though I think at that point we would have been better off cutting through the bars rather than the wall).

Anyway, our DM basically would have made the thing immune to it if he didn't want us cutting through. Our DM is not afraid of making a decision about something and sticking to it. Quite frankly, thats fine.

I'm going to have to say no to this.

The bottom line to me is this: Would this change make an appreciable positive change on the game? I just don't really think that it would.

I am already feeling strapped for hit points as a monk. Acrobatics and Climb are in combat skills for me a lot of the time, so I need t make sure I keep upping those. I am at the front of the party quite a bit now, so I need to keep my perception skill up. Add in escape artist, and I don't really have much left in the way of skills to allocate. Monks are all about their speed and mobility on the battle field, having a high initiative is one of those things that helps that. Right now I am at a solid +9 (+5 dex, +4 improved init). Make a skill, and now I'm going to struggle to keep up, and wthout improved init, I'd fall quite low compared to a monster with the skill.

Secondly, we have to ask, is the current initiative system really broken (enough) to warrent fixing.

Initiative has been working fine in my game, with classes that would logically respond more quickly generally going first (bad rolls aside). If in the end, the skill would not really effect the order that people go in, would it really be worth changing a mechanic that would cause a lot of classes to have to dig into their skill pool and find some room?

No monks have manuever training which gives them their level for CMB instead of BAB that means it's 20+10=30, unless you are suggesting that instead of the current version they get half their level as a bonus, which means that when they get it at level 4 they'll have a +6, that's actually quite a good suggestion, it's always slightly better than the fighter while at the same time not being significantly better.

I like this a lot, good show.

Yeah, I meant instead of the current version.

DougyP wrote:

I think it would go a long way if I monk could ADD his level to his CMB bonus rather than replacing his BAB with his level. Full BAB classes would still start out better (assuming they had a high str), but monks would overtake them eventually, making them the kings of Combat Maneuvers in the mid-high levels.

This has been my main problem with monk, actually. When I was originally planning my monk I intended to specialize in grappling, but after playing a few sessions, i realized my character would never actually get very good at it, and decided to scrap the idea. Instead, I'm going to specialize in acrobatics and climb to get fun "wire effects" type stuff going on, cause thats pretty much the only niche I can fill in combat, the fighter and barbarian (yes we are melee heavy) in the party can do pretty much everything I can do, only better at this point (level 4). Hit more often, deal more damage when they hit, etc.

LOl. So by lvl 20 monks would have a +20 bonus on CMB. And since their BAB is +15 by then and fighters +20 they would be at a +15 difference??

The difference should never go over +5.

What you propose is completely unbalanced and overpowered.

Ok, make it add 1/2 your level then. At 20th monks with have 15 + 10 = 25, fighters will have 20. Makes it into your +5 parameters.

My current Pathfinder group is Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Cleric (yes, a lot of PCs, but it works for us).

Our cleric plays mainly the buffer/healer and enjoys the role.

I enjoy a similar role when I play cleric. I think the pathfinder rules already expand the role of the cleric compared to previous editions. channel positive energy is a fantastic class ability now. The cleric also carries around a wand of cure light. (we are low level). Between channel positive energy and the wand, he can memorize buffs/debuffs and other spells which allow him to heal plenty when he needs to, but save enough spells for things besides healing.

Here is the thing though, most people enjoy making numbers go down, rather than numbers go up. I almost always play a healer or utility class when I play RPGs, but I understand that most people don't think that it is as fun as playing a damage dealing class.

There isn't anything to be done though, thats the thing. In 3.5 ed rules, you essentially need people who can cast healing spells, someone has to do it, whether that load falls to the cleric or spread out among other characters isn't really the point here. The point is that healing is a requirement in order to survive, and so if noone wants to do it you are in trouble. In 4th edition they got around this by changing the way healing functions to make parties less reliant on healing classes. Now, regardless of what you think of 4th edition, pathfinder doesn't do this (and I like that personally), which means, SOMEONE has to cast healing spells at some point, whether from class spells, scrolls, wands, potions, whatever, people are going to be wasting actions making themselves not die.

I'm not really sure what my point is, other than I think the cleric is fine, and that if people don't like the cleric to the point that not a single person in the group wants to play it, then you really need to figure out a different way of playing the other classes to fill in the gaps.

I'd say just give monks slowfall as it stands off the bat and then have it increase quicker, so that it maxes out maybe around 12th or 14th.

I don't like the idea of monks being able to free fall without taking damage, as it doesn't really fit with the class. It certainly is a very specific class ability, but monks are generally fairly good at climbing if they train into it, being able to fall down a fall you've just climbed (thus charging/landing on someones head), and taking no damage yourself is pretty handy.

I think it would go a long way if I monk could ADD his level to his CMB bonus rather than replacing his BAB with his level. Full BAB classes would still start out better (assuming they had a high str), but monks would overtake them eventually, making them the kings of Combat Maneuvers in the mid-high levels.

This has been my main problem with monk, actually. When I was originally planning my monk I intended to specialize in grappling, but after playing a few sessions, i realized my character would never actually get very good at it, and decided to scrap the idea. Instead, I'm going to specialize in acrobatics and climb to get fun "wire effects" type stuff going on, cause thats pretty much the only niche I can fill in combat, the fighter and barbarian (yes we are melee heavy) in the party can do pretty much everything I can do, only better at this point (level 4). Hit more often, deal more damage when they hit, etc.

I've been playing a Monk for about 4 levels in my weeky Pathfinder game. I'm just now starting to come into my own, and my +to hit does seem low at times.

I don't know that they really need to be full BAB. I think the monk Flurry progression is good in terms of when the monk gets attacks. However, I would like to see some changes to get the monk a little bit of love. Possible options: Monks get the feat(s) Weapon Finesse and/or Weapon Focus(monk speciality weapons) at level 1 or 2.

I know that monks bring some utility to the game that fighters don't, and they shouldn't play exactly the same, which is why I resist the idea of just giving a monk full BAB. However, I do feel like monks are a little gimpy right now. At fourth im flurrying at +5/+5 and a fighter with cleave in my group can take two attacks at +11.