Grep's page

I remember a reaction from James on monk + gauntlets (boiling down to "not in my game"), but nothing from Jason. Really would be nice if you could track that down.

Victory is mine! Well, maybe. Anyways, this thread seems to be the one you're talking about:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/archives/shouldntMonksHaveGauntletProfiency

James posted this early on:
"Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu."

Not really what I'd call definitive. Nor would I agree, either. I've taken Choy Lay Fut (with a bit of Wing Chun), and I would say the only martial artist who chooses to fight bare-handed in a life or death fight with an armed opponent, when he has a choice of using a weapon, probably has a very short life ahead of them.

Not to say that I object to the class, but Chinese "kung fu" is full of weapons. Shaolin monks trained with weapons quite a bit. Unarmed was so important because most of the society was barred from carrying weapons. Would they fight unarmed "just because"? I seriously doubt it. I know *I* respect edged weapons and address them as "Sir" (Nanny Ogg's knowledge of etiquette is beyond reproach!). But anyways, forgive my slight digression. :)

It would be better than amulet of mighty fists - but that isn't really an issue since then you could use both. Provide a "Holy" bonus with the Amulet of mighty fists, while gaining an "Enhancement/Shocking/Flaming" bonus with the gauntlets for example.

I agree I think it's fairly clearly against the intended rules.

Just going through the rules to see how gauntlets might work with a Monk. I see a number of problems with it.

One, of course, is that gauntlets are not the same as "unarmed strike". They are listed separately in the weapons table. And nothing in the monk class grants extra damage to gauntlets. So they'd pretty much stay 1d3 base damage, I would think.

They're also not marked as a monk weapon in the table, so no flurry of blows. In the Flurry of Blows description, here's the relevant sentence:

"A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows."

Clearly, he won't get flurry with gauntlets as they are neither an unarmed strike or a monk weapon.

Seems like a terrible option for a monk, sadly. Would have been nice to have an option like monks had in Neverwinter Nights 1.

Grep, I haven't considered the wizard or other classes that require preparing spells because I don't think I can get into the spell preparations. It's almost as if you need to be somewhat psychic, since no one really knows what the day will bring.

I can understand that. :) Later on, I tend to use divination spells to help figure out what spells might serve me best, but that's unavailable earlier on, and certainly not a cure-all.

Of course, sorcerer is sort of the same, except that you simply can't swap spells in a timely fashion when you figure out your selection is poor. The trick is to choose versatile spells that are useful in most situations. You can choose similarly versatile spells to prepare, as a wizard, and lessen the "oops, my spells are useless today" problem. Scrolls and such really help fill gaps, as well (for both classes).

Of course, the sorcerer bloodlines look really interesting, and being able to cast a spell or two more every day is rather nice. Both are great choices, IMO. I'm just a wizard kind of guy.

EDIT: Well said, kyrt-ryder. To me, that's a big part of the fun of playing a wizard.

In the past I've played mostly rogues, and a Ranger. I'm pretty new to PF/3.5 (spent a year with 4.0), and I have never played a caster class, so I haven't really delved into the majik rules yet...

Of course, playing a class you think you'll enjoy is the most important thing. But if you're new to casters, you might think about trying a wizard before sorcerer. Or at least make sure your DM will be lenient with swapping spells known as you learn what spells you like best.

The reason I suggest that is because, as a wizard, you can try out pretty much all the spells and get to know them well. That'll help you a lot with deciding which spells you want for your sorcerer.

If you think you'll enjoy the sorcerer much more, then I suggest looking over some class guides to help with your spell selection. I'm sure the rather large spell list must be a bit overwhelming at first.

Hope you have fun!

'Trust'?

The power of magic somes at a cost.

• You need to sleep well.
• You need to protect your spell book.
• You need to protect your bond.

To a certain extent, it is the DMs responciblity to attack these thing occationally, else the wizard is getting a free lunch. Not doing it would be like saying 'yeah, paladin, you can do evil stuff, its no biggy' or 'hey oracle, that curse you have seems like a drag so forget about it.'

That isn't 'being sadistic' it is playing out the consiquences of power.

PS: this is all ofcause merely my opinion.

The "sadist" comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, of course, but it does apply to a few DMs. :)

I'm not saying it's wrong for the DM to take spellbooks/bonded items/etc away. My opinion is that he shouldn't be specifically trying to do so, in general. If the DM wants the party dead, they're dead. If he wants them naked in the cold, they will be naked in the cold.

And if the DM is to take essential items away, it should be done with a certain amount of style, IMO. It should be done in a fair way, and a way that will not ruin the player's fun. And hopefully it can be done in a memorable way.

And by memorable, I don't mean "The Wizard is totally useless through a large part of the adventure, and thus might as well have stayed home". If I was the DM, I'd only do it in certain cases. Like if the player was acting negligent with the item and needs a lesson. And I would expect that it would somehow advance the story, give the party an interesting challenge, or at least provide memorable RP.

It should be kept in mind just how crippling losing your bonded item is (at least at lower levels). If the consequences of the choice are so dire, and it's almost certainly going to happen, who in their right minds would ever take one? So yeah, I'd only take a bonded item if my DM is one I trust not to ruin my fun. Fun being the whole point of playing.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you, here, just clarifying my position. I don't think any DM that takes away a bonded object is a sadist. The DM and the players are really on the same side (just don't let them know that! LOL). We're likely approximately on the same page. Giving the players a free ride is not fun for long.

Say, for example, that I picked a raven as my first familiar and then upgraded to an imp at some later time. Would I keep the bonus from the raven and would I gain another bonus from the imp? I searched the player's guide, but I didn't see anything that mentioned this.

I *seriously* doubt it. That would be extremely broken.

Also:

A familiar grants special abilities to its master, as given on the table below. These special abilities apply only when the master and familiar are within 1 mile of each other.

Other than the fact that your old familiar is no longer your familiar, and you are no longer it's master, it is also unlikely to be within one mile of you.

A comment about Instant Summons. I can think of one big use for this, which is to recover a lost bound item. The item is likely to be in the possession of someone, of course, which means it's most likely to just let you know who has it and roughly where they are. Better than nothing, though!

It's also sort of expensive, but you'd be level 13 when you get this spell, and 1000gp isn't that bad considering you don't need to use this unless disaster happens and it gets taken away from you.

I know you don't recommend bound items (probably why you didn't think of this), but if you do take a bound item, you'd be stupid not to arcane mark the item and cast this, IMO. And you won't need to make a concentration check to trigger it, either. So even if you don't recommend bound items, it's one very good use for this spell. Thought it would be worth making a note of it.

The interpretation, Miralus, would be this, or so I understand. You provoke an AoO from attempting a spell or spell-like ability. This can be negated by a concentration check to cast defensively. Then, when you move out of a threatened square, you'd provoke another AoO. Now, your conjurer is lucky, he won't do that because he's using his class ability. But you can make a case, RAW, for what I just described.

It could certainly be interpreted that way, I suppose. There's nothing I can find that says explicitly that it does or does not provoke an AoO.

That's not how I'd interpret it, though, for a few reasons. The biggest one being: "Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane." It's instantaneous, so logically, the actual travel leaves no time at all in which an enemy could land an AoO.

The caster isn't actually using any kind of move action to travel, he's just reappearing instantly elsewhere. You're not really "moving out of a threatened square", you're instantaneously teleporting out of a threatened square.

Now, whether activating the Dimensional Steps ability provokes an AoO is another question. RAW, it clearly does. It's a spell-like ability, and those do explicitly provoke. The description only says that the movement doesn't provoke, not activating the ability. Which is sort of too bad, since it would have been really nice to be able to move out of melee without provoking, but what can ya do...

Grep Yes, you are reading it wrong. A summoned creature cannot summon more creatures. That is a limitation of the summon ability. When you hear about "Chain Summoning", they are usually referring to calling spells, not summoning spells.

Oops, yeah, I don't know where I got the thought that it was talking about a summoned creature summoning another creature. Rather, it applies to any creature summoned by another creature with the Summon (Sp) ability.

What I missed was the rules for Summon Monster itself:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

Looks to me like they capped the calling spell (i.e. Planar Binding, etc) abuse a bit. Since they tend to use the Summon (Sp) ability, those summons last 1 hour, and cannot themselves use their summon ability for 1 hour. Makes it kinda hard in that time frame.

So what do you guys prefer?

It really depends on your GM more than anything else. If your GM is the kind you can trust not to take away your bonded item, then it's almost certainly the best choice, IMO. Though something that can be easily disarmed might pose problems, regardless. I personally would never make it a weapon.

On the other hand, if your GM is a sadist, and might potentially deprive you of the item, then avoid bonded items at all costs! LOL

It's true about the summons needing the gp for any spell-like abilities that cost gp, no more summoning genies for free wishes.

Looking for that bit of text now. I remember reading that too. So far I've found:

Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just
like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal,
somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and
work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have
no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).

So far, two places where it says spell-like abilities don't require material components.

Ahah! Found it:

Summon (Sp) A creature with the summon ability can
summon other specific creatures of its kind much as though
casting a summon monster spell, but it usually has only a
limited chance of success (as specified in the creature's
entry). Roll d%: On a failure, no creature answers the
summons. Summoned creatures automatically return whence
they came after 1 hour. A creature summoned in this way
cannot use any spells or spell-like abilities that require
material components costing more than 1 gp unless those
components are supplied, nor can it use its own summon
ability for 1 hour. An appropriate spell level is given for each
summoning ability for purposes of Will saves, caster level
checks, and concentration checks. No experience points are
awarded for defeating summoned monsters.

So yeah, there it is. This applies only to spells and spell-like abilities for creatures summoned by your summoned creatures using the Summon (Sp) ability defined in the Universal Monster Rules, as I read it.

So you shouldn't need to worry about your own summoned creatures, but only ones summoned by them. Am I reading this right? I think I am. :)

Have to admit to having a soft place in my heart for Kobolds after playing Neverwinter Nights. Deekin = best henchman ever.

Grep.

You don't practice your sword-swinging, shield-wielding style while focusing on other kinds of classes. Stacking base attack bonus from the fighter class and other classes would be ridiculous.

Hopefully I'm not adding to my sum total of being wrong today (LOL) but quoting from the Classes chapter in the section about Multiclassing:

He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.

So attack bonuses do stack in this way.

Of course, I'm not saying this applies to Flurry of Blows. Just that BAB does indeed add in this way. I can see where it wouldn't apply to Flurry of Blows. If I'm a wizard multiclassing into cleric, I won't get any advancement to my arcane spellcasting from cleric levels, and that ability will get left behind.

It goes on to say:

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

Opinions aside, I believe this is RAW and RAI. It does indeed seem to make multiclassing a monk less desirable, unless it's a PrC that advances monk levels.

Grep, who hopes he's right once today.

With that wording it would count towards your CMB if you used a weapon to perform the maneuver. After all, Weapon Focus counts towards CMB if you're using the weapon.

Just found this piece of text in the Combat chapter:

So without question, I was wrong on that one. It should apply.

In fact, I was wrong on both counts. Another blurb:
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."

Apologies, galvatron42, it appears that I was wrong and the answer is yes to both. Which makes me happy since it makes more sense that way, I think. Going to take me a bit to get all this new stuff down, it appears. :)

Grep, who is indeed wrong from time to time, but doesn't mind admitting it. LOL

Does a ranger add his favored enemy bonus to his CMB against his favored enemy? Also, would a dwarf get his defensive training bonus to his CMD versus giants? I don't have my book right now to check and I'm trying to get ready for the next game. Thanks in advance.

Not as far as I read it. Here's the blurb (for the ranger question):

It doesn't say it's added to the BAB, but just weapon attack and damage rolls. Neither of those are part of the CMB/CMD calculations. So I read it to say that no, it won't apply to CMB/CMD.

As for the dwarf question: "Defensive Training: Dwarves get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype." Since AC is not part of the CMD equation, I'd say no to that one as well.

Would sort of make sense if they did apply, but as I read it, they don't seem to. Could be wrong, but that's how I read it. Hope that helps, and hope you have fun with your game!

Grep.

Can anyone find said post and link it? That makes empower pretty sad on any spell that adds a variable amount to a die roll.

Probably a wasted feat then.

Yeah, I'd love to see it too. There's no way I'd play it any other way than a flat out 50% boost to whatever healing/damage would have been done. Anything else nerfs the feat for no good reason (IMO), and makes it a real pain to use.

I don't usually feel all that strongly about these kinds of things, but in this case, it really bothers me, I have to admit. It would be great if this could be clarified to be a flat 50% boost. I can accept Solid Fog, ranged touch attack AoO, concentration checks, etc, but this one really bugs me.

EDIT: Looking at the 3.5E book it seems clear cut the way it worked: "An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half as many targets, and so forth, as appropriate." I really wish that text would be added back, including perhaps an example. In this case, I much, much prefer what I see in 3.5E.

Grep.

P.S. Treantmonk, I *can't wait* until you make a PF Wizard guide! Your guides are great.

Creator of the new SRD PDFs here. Just wanted to pipe in that yes, the monster PDF does have the Bonus Bestiary monsters as well.

Not entirely happy with some of the layout for a few tables in the Core Reference (mostly in the magic items chapter), but all in all, it's in a pretty usable state.

I hope to get comments and suggestions and put out a new version of the Core in the near future. Note that hyperlinks in the doc still point to Paizo's SRD and that the Core still needs an index. However, those are very big jobs and may take a while to complete, so I figured I shouldn't hold up sharing them until I finish that.

Hope people like them!

Just noticed that the entry for Xorn (at least in the "Monsters by CR" table) links to the Xill. It's in the CR 6 section.

Only thing I've noticed that was wrong so far. Looks like a fine job. Thanks to Paizo for putting this up!