Ganymede425's page

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

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'd like to see fewer classes.

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.

I suppose if you hate martial classes it wouldn't be bad. It would be the best thing for nerfing them into uselessness aside from outright saying they must have 14+ in all stats.

Ok cool, I'll add "It inspires unconstructive hyperbole" to the list above.

Here is a fun roleplay opportunity I stumbled upon.

Basically, you run the game like any other. The main difference is in character creation. All characters start at level two. Each character is multi classed to two different, randomly-determined classes. Once the classes are determined, each player can customize his or her character in any manner they choose. In between character creation and the first play session, the players each take an opportunity to "make it work."

The whole point of the exercise is to open up some novel and interesting roleplay and thematic opportunities that might not ordinarily exist. What do y'all think?

And again it sounds like you're expecting to have the rewards of dedication when you're dilletanting. You expect to go half one class and half the other and wind up with three quarters or seven eighths of both?

The system is as the Blizzard folks say... "working as intended" It's a class based system not a build your powers point by point. You've got a bunch of options. If you want a mix of arcane and divine without losing effective caster level, you go the witch route. Choices involve making tradeoffs. And due to the nature of the system, they're not going to be as granular as you like.

There are effective ways to multi-class. You're harping on one of the worst choices that a person could make the Cleric/Wizard even split.

And you seem to willfully ignore the fact that I pointed out that the game has a choice to make that combo not suck, mainly the Mystic Theurge PrC which bridges both. The smart person then realises that pitfalls of a Cleric/Wizard split are ameliorated to a large degree by going Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge.

Similarly the Fighter/Wizard is the one who wants go Eldritch Knight.

See? I told you that there were only so many ways you could say, "things are fine the way that they are."

I appreciate your feedback here and look forward to your contributions in other threadsm but you are kinda done here. Have a good day.

Ganymede425 wrote:

I have trouble having my monk hit his target with a stroke after my monk trips him prone. Uh duh!!!

Do you honestly have trouble having your monk hit his target with a strike after your monk trips him prone?

I'd like to see what you're doing wrong with your monk.

No, I don't.

Now that tangent is over, let's get back to the subject at hand.

One: while trips, grapples, and disarms are certainly a part of the martial arts, I'd be loathe to conclude that they were far more characteristic than single strikes. A front kick is just a part of the martial arts as a knee sweep. After all, Daniel Laruso certainly didn't score his final point in the All Valley Tournament with a well placed grapple.

Two: Yes, the monk is bad at single attacks and individual strikes. In fact, all of his abilities encourage him to spend his time doing something else. I find no balance or thematic reason that justifies a monk having this unique drawback.

Ganymede425 wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm saying that the monk class is designed so that full BAB flurry is combat option they spend only part of their combat time doing - just like every other combat option they have. The fact that the monk is like a swiss army knife with multiple options (from full BAB flurry to tripping) none of which the monk just spams, is a feature.

I do not see how being uncharacteristically and unjustifiably bad at single attacks can be considered a class feature, let alone something that gives monks their essential character.

That's a ridiculous over-generalization. The monk is not "uncharacteristically and unjustifiably bad" at most single attacks (trips, grapples, disarms, etc. - the kinds of attacks most characterstic of martial arts).

One: while trips, grapples, and disarms are certainly a part of the martial arts, I'd be loathe to conclude that they were far more characteristic than single strikes. A front kick is just a part of the martial arts as a knee sweep. After all, Daniel Laruso certainly didn't score his final point in the All Valley Tournament with a well placed grapple.

Two: Yes, the monk is bad at single attacks and individual strikes. In fact, all of his abilities encourage him to spend his time doing something else. I find no balance or thematic reason that justifies a monk having this unique drawback.

Does the rogue takent Minor Magic satisfy Arcane Strike's prerequisite that the character be able to cast arcane spells?

Remember, activating the Diehard feat is not mandatory. If the foes you're facing are the type that would kill you if you were still standing, you could simply choose to fall unconcious as normal. Additionally, you could pretend to fall unconcious and use the flexibility of still being concious to 'slink away/heal/suprise them' once their attention has been drawn away.

Ancient and medieval people of our own real world had many of the exact same fears as the inhabitants of the imaginary worlds of Pathfinder. Many different cultures feared that their dead might rise as zombies, vampires, and any number of undead beasties.

While this threat was a great cause of concern, people just didn't have the resources to cremate every dead body. It took a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources to burn a body to ash. It'd be equally difficult to do such in a fantasy world. What our ancestors did instead was undertake little rituals that would prevent the conversion of their dead loved ones into the undead.

For example, some medieval cultures would place a bundle of needles in the hands of their dead. The practice was intended to prevent ressurection as a vampire. Other cultures would bury the dead with a coin in their palm, or a pair of coins on their eyes, a ritual designed to speed their passage to the afterlife.

Naturally, these superstitious acts don't actually do anything; magic doesn't exist in our world. On the other hand, one could probably say that these acts have real and genuine beneficial effects. The peoples of Pathfinder might feel comfortable with grave yards due to these precautions. And, even if they don't work, these rituals will at least give the living peace of mind.

I was working on a new character concept earlier today, one about an orphan that was raised in a monastery but ran away to join a circus as an acrobat and strongman. Essentially, his first level would be in monk with all subsequent levels in fighter.

A monk is not proficient in any armor, but I was thinking of putting him in a suit of leather armor anyways. I understand that it'll negate my Wis bonus to AC, as well as my flurry of blows. But what about other penalties? I know that, when you aren't proficient in armor, you take the armor check penalty and apply it to all attack rolls. But what about armor that has no armor check penalty, such as leather armor or padded armor? Other than limiting certain class features of a monk, is it true that you can essentially wear this armor, even non-proficient in its use, without any penalty?