It's not unreasonable for a GM to require some kind of roleplaying reason for certain multi-class options - If a character wants to take a level of wizard or cleric my own GM requires players either have some sort of appropriate backstory or make an attempt at seeking training.
This doesn't have to be a horrible thing - it can add to your character. You could have your dwarf announce that he has reached a landmark age and his culture demands that he must go on a pilgrimage to a sacred dwarven site. When he comes back he has begun a journey of enlightenment and has a level of cleric.
Of course a GM can go too far in this - I once had a GM that required 5 years training to take the first level of wizard.
You know, thinking about this either flurry or armor choice, it doesn't seem like much of a choice. In armor, a monk is a 3/4 BaB class with only a minor bonus to attack and damage rolls, while also rolling with a d8 HD, only 4+Int skills a level, and not much else going for you other than a really cool mount (if you buy one), and a high init.
I really don't understand the point in giving the sohei an armour proficiency if they can't use their monk abilities while wearing it.
This is the sort of ranger you can see in any number of westerns - the hardened scout and Indian fighter who nonetheless has a great respect for his enemy, often more than he does for his own, more 'civilised' side.
The Crystal Shard (Drizzt's first appearance) was released in 1988, AD&D 2nd edition (the first incarnation of the two-weapon figbting ranger) was released in 1989.
In my opinion Drizzt uses two-weapons as that was a schtick of drow back then, and I don't think he influenced the 2nd edition ranger.
But then again where DID the idea come from? As said before the classic ranger is Aragorn.
A character with Reflexive Shot or Snap Shot can make AoOs with a bow, up to his dex bonus + 1 if he has combat reflexes. For those characters drawing and nocking the arrow is a non-action - otherwise they could not function.
Well you can use two-weapon fighting in your round, then make an AoO in your enemy's turn with either of those weapons at no penalty.
This implies that the combat actions you take in your turn do not have any effect on what you can do with an AoO unless otherwised specified (such as Power Attack)
Also, to reverse the problem, a Zen Archer with Reflexive Shot could use unarmed strike in his turn (holding his bow in one hand, punching with the other) and then use his bow to make an AoO in his enemy's round. Nowhere does it say he has to have an arrow nocked or anything like that. Reflexive Shot and Snap Shot allow a character to draw ammunition as part of an attack of opportunity.
Krodjin I believe that FAQ is referring to making a primary attack with a greatsword and an off-hand attack with armour spikes, it doesn't have anything to do with AoOs - there are no 'off-hands' in AoOs
I always thought the major benefit of this ability was for a non-arcane spellcaster to get access to arcane wands and scrolls without having to use UMD - great for a character who has dumped charisma, for example.
Giving up your favoured class bonus is a similar sacrifice to spending a skill point per level on UMD. Sure, you can only use one spell list of wands and scrolls, but you don't have to make a check for wands and the check for scrolls is quite easy for low level spells at least (a roll of 9 is required for 5th level scrolls).
Unfortunately the only benefit I see for an arcane caster is slightly improved staff-use and slighty easier scroll use.
Reading the back and forth here I'm definitely starting to think the issue is more with casters making other classes obselete rather than their raw combat ability.
Recalling my recent experience with playing a 20th level wizard, he was surely powerful in combat, through save or die spells mostly, but he also had a role in buffing the group to the point that at least half of the warriors' combat ability came from spells, which in turn is also why I guess so many high level monsters have Dispel Magic as a SLA. Dealing with that became a chore at the start of almosy every combat, incidentally.
But it was his utility spells that really overshadowed the others. The ranger had invested all these skill points in survival and so on, he could track a bird in flight and keep a party of halfling peasants alive in any wilderness you care to name. He never got to do any of that through, because as soon as we hit 9th level we were teleporting everywhere. He had a few mounted combat feats but I don't think he even got on a horse after teleport became a feature. Divinations took care of tracking, Charm Monster replaced his animal fu. I can't think of anything he could do that either the wizard or cleric couldn't do better and quicker with a relatively low level spell.
He could fight decently, but really he was no more than magic-buffed mook #1.
Magic-buffed mook #2 (Fighter/Rogue) was the same. Social skills? Easily replacable with magic. Stealth? Invisibility. And so on.
The vast power of magic failed when it came to the monk of course. Even a 20th level wizard struggled to make him useful. :)
There has to be a way that allows people to play non-supernatural fighters alongside powerful spellcasters and for both to be useful and fun. If Gandalf and Aragorn can manage it, so can Pathfinder!
I'm coming from a player's perspective rather than a DM's. I'm well aware that a DM can counter any PC with a little effort.
I've just finished playing in a ten-year D&D campaign, in which I played a wizard to 20th level, and I would say from about 9th level the utility and power of the cleric and I was on an entirely different scale than the monk, ranger and fighter/rogue we travelled with.
We joked they were our henchmen, except it wasn't really a joke. With adventures taking place on different planes, deep in the underdark and spanning continents they were totally dependent on us to teleport/plane shift them.
They needed us to play the game. We found them moderately useful in fights, but we didn't really NEED them.
As a gamer, it didn't feel fair and frankly the kind of magic I was throwing about was way beyond anything I've read about in fantasy novels.
I honestly think that if wizards got Invisibility at 5th level, fireball at 8th and teleport at 13th or even later, people would still play them.
Just thinking about the relative power and utility of full casters, I was wondering how far they would have to be nerfed before people thought they became too bad to play.
What if Wizards and clerics had a spellcasting progression like the Magus, gaining a new spellcasting level every 3 levels, would they still be 'tier 1'?
Partial casters would of course be berfed as well, in proportion.
I'm aware most of the applications of Prestidigitation are at the GMs discretion, but I wanted to know if there were any rules covering these questions:
Can Prestidigitation create noise of any kind?
What type of action is it to activate it after it has been cast and during the hour of it's duration?