Ganymede425's page

if you cant tell i find this VERY annoying, and something i hadnt ocnsidered when i made my char. Using just the core rulebook is there anway to overcome this crap? or to at least alleviate its pain somewhat?

Play in lower level adventures. Most of the real wackiness of the game tends to disappear when you play at levels six or below.

The Pathfinder pantheon of gods is actually ruled by an overgod named Jason Bulmahn. These gods embody their virtues because the Jason commanded it.

Ganymede425 wrote:

Honestly, this is one of the most glaring conceptual flaws of the monk class: it simply doesn't know how it is supposed to fight. On one hand, it is given a gradually improving ability to fight bare handed. On the other, it is presented with a selection of unusual and highly stylized weapons that other classes don't get ready access to. The odd level progression makes these monk weapons more useful at earlier levels, but their unarmed strikes grow to outshine them (much like the monks of Final Fantasy 1 fame).

Personally, I'd love to see an updated monk that allowed a fighting style track akin to the ranger's choice between weapon styles. This would allow a much more coherent vision as to how the monk is supposed to fight.

Disclaimer: The above applies to only the Monk features and upgrades in the core rulebook.

Yep, monks become a bit more fun if you give some clans/groups a different set of weapon proficiencies. These use polearms, these use blades, these use ranged. I had fun doing it in my setting.

I honestly think that monks would benefit by being partially divorced from their canned Asian flavor (heck, even the iconic Pathfinder monk is just some Asian guy). At their core, a monk is someone who uses discipline and rigor in order to let their mental strength influence their physical form and the world at large.

We can see shades of the monk in the protagonists of the movie The Matrix. The Jedis of the Star Wars franchise also strongly embody what a monk stands for. There is even a real world western analogue in the Flagellants, Catholics who used fervent belief in order to endure incredible amounts of self-inflicted pain.

Honestly, this is one of the most glaring conceptual flaws of the monk class: it simply doesn't know how it is supposed to fight. On one hand, it is given a gradually improving ability to fight bare handed. On the other, it is presented with a selection of unusual and highly stylized weapons that other classes don't get ready access to. The odd level progression makes these monk weapons more useful at earlier levels, but their unarmed strikes grow to outshine them (much like the monks of Final Fantasy 1 fame).

Personally, I'd love to see an updated monk that allowed a fighting style track akin to the ranger's choice between weapon styles. This would allow a much more coherent vision as to how the monk is supposed to fight.

Disclaimer: The above applies to only the Monk features and upgrades in the core rulebook.

I'm not familiar with the magic missile tale. What's that?

Have y'all ever had one of those weird moments in the game that left everyone laughing or shaking their heads?

I was reminiscing on one I experienced ages ago. I was a wizard in a group of adventures, and we had just discovered a modest horde of treasure. The DM announces to us our booty, "Inside the chest are three garnet gems, a tapered wand made of bone, and a chain mail tonic."

I reply, "I take the chain mail tonic and drink it," assuming it was some sort of protection granting potion.

He retorted, "Don't be dumb, you can't drink it."

"Well, I'll unstopper it and rub it on my clothes instead."

"What?"

I explained, "Yeah, I rub it over myself like a magic oil."

"You can't do that, it is like a shirt made out of chain mail."

"Ohh, a tunic!"

We all had a good laugh.

Guy Kilmore wrote:

My NPC mobs, human and otherwise use vital strike all the time. Works great there. Damage gets spikey, lets my NPCs be mobile and makes for dramatic moments at time.

You send mobs of Humans after the PCs? Do you use a swarm template of sorts?

By "spikey" do you mean piercing? That sentence makes no sense.

No. By mobs, he meant an NPC criminal mafia.

And when he said spikey, he meant that the damage was covered with sharp protrusions, much like a popular gel-assisted hairstyle.

I made a liberator type character by just multiclassing a CG Barbarian with a Cleric with the Travel and Liberation domains. He was one speedy mofo.

The permanent, unchanging choice mentioned here is the choice between an arcane bond or a familiar.

The full quote, which shows the proper context, is as follows.

"At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object. A familiar is a magical pet that enhances the wizard's skills and senses and can aid him in magic, while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed."

Some might say that they chill with the Lady of Blades in Sigil, the City of Doors.

Ganymede, check the rules for dealing with Gaze Attacks. Keeping your eyes closed gives you the 'blind' condition as long as you do so.

I think you are making a weak extrapolation from the gaze attack rules. Note as follows...

"Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent."

The situation above describes shutting one's eyes as a way to achieve an effect analogous to wearing a blindfold. Closing your eyes, taking a swing, and opening them a second later is not doing so in a way analogous to wearing a blindfold.

Additionally, the above is exclusively in contemplation of a situation where a person's vision is impaired over the course of several rounds (or at least one full round). It seems hamfisted to extrapolate rules meant for encounter-long actions to be used for free actions within a single round.

I've always interpreted the unerring strike of a magic missile to be the ability to hit a target no matter how quick, obscured, or concealed the target is. Mechainically, I've seen it as the ability to automatically pass the attack roll, and to automatically pass the concealment miss chance.

To contrast, I never saw the magic missile as having an innate intuition to ferret out trickery or illusions. As such, I'd have a hard time seeing a magic missile sift through the mirror images to get to the real spellcaster. The spell still strikes unerringly, it just happens to strike a decoy.

But hey, that's just how I do things.

Ganymede425 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

I guess that settles the issue. A warrior who closes his eyes still has the ability to see the figments, so would not count as blind.

Last time I checked, I was unable to see anything with my eyes closed.

If a character wants to deny himself the ability to see, he is free to do so, with all the associated benefits and penalties.

Ahh, but you still have the ability to see if you close your eyes; you have not been blinded.

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

I guess that settles the issue. A warrior who closes his eyes still has the ability to see the figments, so would not count as blind.

What is this nonsense about pounce being uncommon? If you want pounce, nearly any build or class can get it.

Ways to get the pounce ability specifically:

- Druid: Via wildshape
- Any caster: Via Beast Shape 2+. Be a Samsaran if it's not on your list, or pick the right domain/patron/mystery/etc...
- Barbarian: Greater Beast Totem, level 10
- Alchemist: Beastmorph archetype, level 10
- Summoner: Eidolon gets it at level 1; you do instead if a Synthesist
- Monk of the 4 Winds: At a high level and 1/hour, though. Poor monks.
- Oracle: Battle mystery has a revelation to move and full attack a few times/day

Options that aren't literally pounce, but are effectively the same:

- Magus: Bladed Dash w/ Spell Combat is "like pounce, plus an extra attack, oh and you can use it to hit and withdraw as well"
- Any mounted PC: With Mounted Skirmisher feat (available to Ranger 10, Sohei Monk 1, or anyone else 14) can move and full attack.

So no, pounce is actually pretty damn available. I guess less so to those unfortunate pathetic mundane classes than to spellcasters, because spellcasters are clearly supposed to be the kings of melee combat (sarcasm), but it is most definitely not hard to get pounce. There may be more to list, that's just the ones I could think of.

That's a lot of fun stuff that isn't in the core rulebook.

Ganymede425 wrote:

What's interesting is that the new edition essentially rolls in Vital Strike and its associated feats as a native ability of any martially inclined

What!?

Yep. Instead of iterative attacks, fighty types accrue weapon damage dice, which basically lets you roll one or more extra dX of damage every time you hit with your weapon.

What's interesting is that the new edition essentially rolls in Vital Strike and its associated feats as a native ability of any martially inclined

I'd like to see fewer classes.

I'd argue that by closing your eyes, swinging, then opening them again, you aren't actually blinding yourself (at least from a game mechanic perspective). Essentially, it isn't anything distinct from an especially long blink.

If your character concept is a barbarian with a dip of sorcerer, you already are doing just fine within the PF multiclassing system, but if you wanted to be a real barbarian/sorcerer, the system tends to let you down.

This is exactly the dynamic that I hoped to address with the proposal.

I think this is due to the fact that the power progression of class levels isn't linear. It is closer to exponential; each level provides more and more synergistic benefit to the class. Sacrificing one level in order to dip in another class is not much of a tradeoff, but sacrificing ten levels in order to get ten levels in another class is a very significant tradeoff. Basically, the benefits of level 11-20 are vastly more potent than the benefits of level 1-10.

Ganymede425 wrote:

What the heck is a Ninja?

Ninja

That's horrible. Might as well just make the class: Black Guy.

I would agree that, inherently, multiclassing into spellcasting classes is far more problematic than multiclassing into martial classes. While the abilities of most martial classes can stack reasonably well (you can rage while using a ranger's fighting style and a fighter's bonus feats), such is not the case with spellcasters. The ability to fight in combat progresses no matter what level you take, but your ability to cast spells immediately halts when you take a level in another class.

Also, it is important to remember the distinction of a multiclass dip and evenly distributing levels. While the former can offer some new abilities with a minimal downside, the latter is what is problematic. I do like Peter Stewart's proposal that limits the bonus to half of the class level. This would allow a level 10/10 to gain the full benefit, but would drastically limit its usefulness for those who only take a couple levels in another class.

What the heck is a Ninja?

Hmm... the application here seems most managable when applied to an evenly divided multiclass, and most prone to weirdness when applied to dips.

I could see a way to throttle down the skewing of dips by putting a cap on the benefit. For example, you might only be able to benefit from a number of effective levels equal to your actual level in the class. That would mean an 18/2 would be treated as a 19/4 instead of a 19/11. That could be a fair way to manage it considering that it is often very painfull to miss out on the level 20 capstone.

But would those examples really be more powerful than a straight-up level 20 character?

Both travel and liberation are great. Travel's abilities are great no matter what level you are, and even one round of Liberation's freedom of movement can be a lifesaver.

This would make martial dips more appealing. Two levels in monk gets you some really nice stuff that would be even better with scaling.

Yeah, because of the way the rounding works, it would seem like it'd make a two level dip the norm. The second level in the dip would get you the same benefits of taking the level in the original class, but would also net you the benefits of that dipped level as well.

But would these benefits be too much?

I suppose you could look at the craziest example, a level 20 character with two levels in each of ten different classes. For each class, you'd have 18 non-class levels, meaning you'd get an effective bonus of +9 levels to each class.

Would a character with the abilities of 11th level in 10 classes be as powerful as someone with 20 levels in a single class?

this would significantly increase the power level of a multiclass character over single class characters.

A Fighter/Wizard 4/4 would have a BAB of +7 and 3rd level spells but a strait up Wizard 8 would be at 4th and the Figher 8 would only be one ahead in BAB.

He'd only have a BAB of +6, the same as a similar character under the current rules.

But in either case, are you saying that a 4/4 character with the class features of a 6/6 character would be more powerful than a level 8 character in either class?

Imagine that, when calculating the abilities of one class of a multiclass character, you could add half of a character's non-class levels to his class level. In other words, if someone was a 2/2 Rogue/Cleric, he would have the abilities of a third level rogue and a third level cleric.

Naturally, this would only apply to abilities that aren't directly stackable between classes: BAB, saves, HP, etc.

What would be the in game implications of such a paradigm?

I know it's a different game, but in 4E this topic came up and someone quoted...

Prone: This condition affects limbless creatures, such as fish and snakes, as well as amorphous creatures, such as oozes. When such a creature falls prone, imagine it is writhing or unsteady, rather than literally lying down. The game effect on that creature is the same as for other creatures.

See bold.

No reason why you can't think of prone in Pathfinder the same way.

While that is one way to handle the problem, there is a compelling reason to go in the other direction. Mainly, the Pathfinder rules for prone take a far less abstract position.

"Prone - The character is lying on the ground."

The rules of 4e have a high level of abstraction, much like a wargame. Pathfinder's rules aren't as abstract.

Ganymede425 wrote:

To contrast, the prone entry specifically mentions that "the character is lying on the ground."

Yes, all except for the actual title of the condition which is flat footed. I hate to be contrary and contentious, but in order to be "footed" in any way one must first have feet. Which is, again, why the designers put the rules in the hands of capable people. Rules as written need a person with common sense and logic to adjudicate them.

As I mentioned previously, flat-footed is an idiom for being caught unaware. It is much like how having a green thumb is an idiom for having significant gardening skills or being caught red-handed is an idiom for being discovered in the middle of a salacious act.

Yes, but there are ways, other than being tripped, to acquire the prone condition.

I understand that common sense and logic dictate a snake cannot be knocked "off its feet." But this is a rules forum thread, and many times the rules, logic, and common sense are vastly separate from one another, as Shar Tahl pointed out.

To be fair, the original poster is not asking a rules question. He indicates that he knows the strict rules answer at the begining of his first post. Instead, he is looking for advice on how it "should" be played. Whether that is appropriate in this particular forum is a different question.

An interesting corroboration for this theory of mine is that every snake stat block that I looked at lists a flat footed armor class for the reptile in question. Clearly we all know that snakes (at least in our world) don't have feet. So to be "flat footed" is impossible. Yet there it is in in their stat block, which lets us know that the absence of actual feet, does not negate all foot based mechanics.

That's my 2cp anyway.

Flat-footed is not a foot based mechanic. Its entry (which is linked to in your post) mentions nothing about feet at all. The term itself is just an idiom for being caught unprepared.

To contrast, the prone entry specifically mentions that "the character is lying on the ground."

When you're asking for an exception to established rules, the burden of proof falls on the asker needing to point out why such an exception is necessary.

Whether or not this notion is true, when someone asserts an opinion, it is only tactful for that person to supply a compelling reasoning to back it up.

As I mentioned previously, an argument supporting the application of the exception was already articulated. The fact that a reasoned argument exists renders your accusation of arbitrariness moot and puts the ball in your court to explain why such an exception is a bad idea.

I've given you my reason for denying it.. consistency and the fact that Pathfinder is not 3.5. I play Pathfinder with the explicit intention of leaving a lot of 3.5 behind.

You've given your reasons, but you've neglected to explain why they are compelling or even logical.

I'll agree that Pathfinder is not 3.5. That said, such is not a very compelling justification for any specific rule change. Differetiation for its own sake is simply a weak rationalle.

But regarding your assertion that rule consistency is an important goal, the rules have many exceptions to general principles. In this particuar case, do you have a justification for why this particular exception to a general rule is a bad thing? Do you feel people would be confused by it? Is the exception too complicated? Does it produce game-breaking unintended consequences?

Hmm... I wonder if being bound to an obligation makes someone helpless. If so, I feel bad for those who have Geas/Quest cast on them.

Note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

Jupp wrote:

Whale_Cancer wrote:

Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.

im sorry but this is absolutely wrong.

webster's dictionary:

a : a limiting line : boundary —usually used in plural
b : something that limits or restrains <beyond the bounds of decency>
2
usually plural
a : borderland
b : the land within certain bounds
3
: a number greater than or equal to every number in a set (as the range of a function); also : a number less than or equal to every number in a set

all i need to do to you is prevent your ability to move... which pinning does.

Ganymede425 wrote:

You're forgetting the word "otherwise."

This means that those in the preceeding list are merely examples of when a character is completely at the mercy of his opponent.

no or dictates an alternative. otherwise allows for a specific, but different, set of circumstances for the event to ocur.

so you can be bound or (in a different way or manner)completely at an opponent's mercy

You're misusing the word "otherwise." The word refers to alternative ways to reach the same end result, and it is the end result that we care about: being completely at the mercy of an opponent. The phrasing is there to ensure that all ways to make someone helpless are included in the rule, not just those specifically listed.

You're forgetting the word "otherwise."

This means that those in the preceeding list are merely examples of when a character is completely at the mercy of his opponent.

The 5-foot step is not a mode of movement. Modes of movement are your speed, swim speed, fly speed, burrow speed, etc. You can increase these modes of movements to as high as you want, but you'll only ever be able to take a 5 foot step during a 5-foot step.

and yet you're forgetting the only actual qualifier for helpless is to have the listed condition(s) OR, at gms discretion , have the opponent at your mercy (an example of gm fiat is dominate monster "stay still and look that way, dont move at all" -coupe de grace.)

it does not say "in order to be helpless you must have a dex of 0"

You're misreading the rule. Note the rule's text, "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy."

"Otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy" informs the interpretation of the sentence. It means that being helpless entails we are completely at the opponent's mercy, and the preceeding are examples of when this would happen. They are not two mutually exclusive groups. Also, note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

The helpless rule does indeed say "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)," and this line informs the interpretation further; it explains the mechanics of being helpless. If a target is treated as having a dexterity of anything other than 0, then it, logically, can't be helpless.

It appears that you're saying that the reason why a pin doesn't make someone have a dexterity of 0 is because it would make the pin virtually impossible to escape.

This line of reasoning openly assumes that a pin doesn't reduce a model's dexterity to 0. As this state doesn't reduce the dexterity to 0, and being helpless does, a pin can't be the same as making a model helpless.

Ganymede425 wrote:

Jupp wrote:

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?

no that's not what i said at all.

Ok, but the rules state that "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)."

If a character that is pinned by a grappler doesn't have an effective dexterity score of 0, it can't be helpless. The fact that a character pinned by a grappler is explicitly noted to have an effective dexterity of something other than 0 strongly indicates that they are not helpless.

On the other hand, if the pinning somehow reduced the model's dexterity to 0, I'd allow the finishing blow.

The original poster is evidently a whimsical dude, a colorful study in contradiction. Maybe he's chaotic neutral.

That's what it seemed like to me.

He acknowledged that a strict reading of the rules conflicts with a sense of fidelity and coherence to the game world, and asked if how it should be played in light of this conflict.

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that is pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?

Ganymede425 wrote:

I doubt your contribution here has any value in answering the question of the original poster, especially considering I already pointed out that the models lack a "Immunity to being prone" special quality.

Saying "According to RAW, the rules work this way" is akin to saying "In an alternate dimension where people are made of candy, being eaten by ants is a serious concern."

Yeah, this is the rules forum. Rules forum. This is where we discuss the rules. Like, you can play monopoly and invent house rules for investing in pork belly futures, because this makes sense in the real world... but that is not a part of the rules of the game.

Rules Forum wrote:

House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.

I don't get why so many people don't understand this. House rules can be mentioned in passing, sure (I would certainly houserule most of these creatures as immune to being knocked prone if they cannot be tripped); but actually figuring out what the rules mean by RAW is what this forum is for.

Also, you gave examples that were even by 'house rule' logic incorrect (animated trees; they have legs made out of their roots, that's how they move around). Such an incorrect statement shouldn't be left to stand for others to read and be confused by.

[as a note, I certainly could be wrong and would enjoy having this pointed out if it were the case]

The original poster indicated clearly in his post that he already knows that a snack lacks the "Immune to being knocked prone" special quality. He is not disputing this central tenent, and is instead asking if this 'should' be the case. You ignoring his central question by repeating what he already holds to be true is imminently unhelpful.

If you want to flag this entire thread to go to the house rules and suggestions thread, you are welcome to. You seem like you have the free time.

That does not bolster your reasoning.

While it certainly bolsters your premise that you can shift between the iterative attacks of a full attack (a premise that is not in contention), it does not lead to the conclusion that you can shift in the middle of a whirlwind attack.

Your logical challenge is to make your premise lead to the conclusion, not to further reinforce your premise.

Ganymede425 wrote:

Being immune to trip attempts does not necessarily being immune to being knocked prone, but it could indicate such depending on the circumstances. For instance, while a beholder could be knocked prone even though it can't be tripped, it is doubtful that a gelatnous cube could be knocked prone.

Gelatinous cubes are handled the same way snakes are. They are immune to being tripped, anything more than that is a house rule. Knocking prone flying creatures is still a grey area for me. The prone condition indicates you are on the ground; what happens if you knock an eagle prone at 360 feet up in the air? Or a dolphin underwater, for that matter.

Quote:

As a more specific example, consider an animated tree. Even though such a foe doesn't have an "Immune to being knocked prone" special quality, it is still immune to being knocked prone.

Animated trees being immune to being knocked prone is a house rule (or a judgement call, if you will; either way, not supported by RAW). Animated Trees (as animated by a treant) have a move speed and thus walk about and can be tripped (just as you can trip a treant).

I doubt your contribution here has any value in answering the question of the original poster, especially considering I already pointed out that the models lack a "Immunity to being prone" special quality.

Saying "According to RAW, the rules work this way" is as helpful as saying "In an alternate dimension where people are made of candy, being eaten by ants is a serious concern;" neither statement does anything to help the original poster.

while pinned YES you are helpless.

pinned: "A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions"
helpless: "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy"

The above quote seems to imply that, in order for a binding to render someone helpless, the binding must completely render the bound figure to the opponent's mercy. Being pinned by a grappler does not render someone completely at an opponent's mercy.

Being immune to trip attempts does not necessarily being immune to being knocked prone, but it could indicate such depending on the circumstances. For instance, while a beholder could be knocked prone even though it can't be tripped, it is doubtful that a gelatnous cube could be knocked prone.

As a more specific example, consider an animated tree. Even though such a foe doesn't have an "Immune to being knocked prone" special quality, it is still immune to being knocked prone.