IkeFromSpain's page

Bump.

This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool.

But every vow benefit reads like

A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 5 monk levels (minimum +1).

A monk gets that, and any other user? should I replace monk by X class? is there some text missing? (plus questions mentioned above)

While you discuss if you can possess Zero of something and how do you own the incredible ammount of zero Ferraris, mark it for FAQ, plz: Link to UC Errata Thread

Trivial, if the rocky ground, stone floor or similar surface has got SR it can use its SR, let grounds and floors have nice stuff!.

ENHANCEMENT BONUSES (TO ARMOR/SHIELD AC)

I'm not sure if it's worth an errata, but certainly it's worth a FAQ entry or some improvement in the core rulebook wording.

Summing up, the problem could be expressed with the question, if a wear a +2 buckler and I cast the Shield Spell, my AC against physical attacks is (ignoring other bonuses): 14? 16?

--
The issue:

Back in the 3rdEd/3.5 days enhancement bonuses, and all bonuses, were explained in detail on some page of the Dungeon Master Guide. Unfortunatelly that description was never written in the d20 SRD.
Actually it isn't a big problem because most bonuses follow the same rules, but there are exceptions.
Enhancement bonuses, which is the problem here, is one of those exceptions.

The explanations about how enhancement bonuses work are different in different places of the book, and all the info is scattered. The wording about how enhancement bonuses to AC stack with other bonus to AC is sometimes terrible.

The issue isn't often asked, as many 3.5 veterans already know how it works, however it's confusing (even for experienced players) and I'm sure that many new players and GMs are doing it wrong... and don't know it.
Some past threads about the problem:
Link1.
Link2.
Link3.

As we know the enhancement bonus of an item doesn't apply to the user, it actually enhances a bonus granted by that item, subtle but big difference (for further info: Articles in the WotC site, look for "Does It Stack?" ).
I.e. My wizard wearing a +2 padded armor casts Mage Armor, his regular AC (ignoring everything else) is 14. It is NOT 16, the +2 enhancement bonus raises the padded armor's armor bonus to AC from +1 to +3, that's all, +3 armor bonus from the padded amror and +4 armor bonus from anything else (i.e. the spell) won't stack.
My wizard using a mithral +1 buckler casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 14 again.
If my wizard uses a +5 buckler and casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 16.

---

The wording:

Chapter 6 Equipment/ Section Armor (page 149) says that armor grants a armor bonus, shields grant shield bonus. And obviously a shield bonus to AC won't stack with another shield bonus to AC, same for the armor bonus. No info about enhancement bonus to AC, but works for me.

In Chapter 8 (Combat)/ Section Combat Statistics / Armor Class/ Other Modifiers (page 179), there's a nice text:

Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

As happen often in the Core Rulebook armor is used for "armors only" in some sentences and "armor and shields" in other sentences. Writting "They apply to the armor (or shield) to increase the armor (or shield) bonus it provides" instead, wouldn't hurt.

In Chapter 15 (Magic Items)/ Section Armor(page 461) the following sentence tries to explain:

Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses [...]

Regular armor bonus? What's a regular armor? or a regular bonus? What's not a regular armor bonus?

In page 462 shields are "explained".

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

So, shield enhancement bonuses don't stack with a shield bonus? Do they stack with ANY shield bonus? maybe... magic armor means "armor" in some sentences, "armor and shield" in other sentences?

On a side note, "All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.", the same should apply to shields (nothing said in the magic item section), as explained somewhere in Chapter 6.

15th

BUT I enjoyed an specific epic level campaign STARTING at 20th level.

Fun
Nice multiclass rules
Rules to make very different characters
The GM tools
More or less balanced
Because I can use the huge core rulebook as an improvised weapon able to knock out any punk.
Not as gamey as other games (yes 4e, i'm looking at you)
Tradition (something very important in my county, where we sacrifice the weak and offer virgin blood to the gods)
Because we can buy PDFs from Paizo

Paizo, remove the Monk's naked perfect muscled oiled chest, it's sexist and makes me feel fat. And ugly.

"I don't know what kind of dices or cards D&D5E will be played with, but D&D6E will be played with sticks and stones"

-Some silly guy

Kick 'em in the teeth where it hurts! Kill! Kill! Kill! Filthy bastards! Wizards! I hate ' em, I hate 'em! Aaaah! Aaaah!
( Monty Python ftw ).

From this thread:

Culverin rules in page 137 of UC (Firearm Descriptions)
The Culverin wording is different that the wording used for other scatter weapons, there are doubts about how it works and contains a few errors.

A culverin uses 4 doses of black powder and grapeshot.

1st. No grapeshot stats in UC, for firearms the rules say pellets.

2nd. The usual wording is something like "uses a bullet or pellets and a single dose of black powder or a single alchemical cartridge as ammunition." (from Blunderbluss).
The question: Can the Culverin use bullets to target one creature as stated in the Scatter Weapon Quality description? is it designed to make scattering shots only?

3rd. What's the size of the Cone when making a scattering shot? Other weapons state the size of the cone in their descriptions, looks like we have to use the Culverin range as the cone size.

I only think that making it 'light' would invalidate the iconic sister blade of the katana, the wakizashi, which would be a bit sad IMO.

'findel

I agree, finessable yes, light no.

Even the rapier is NOT light.

Giving katanas the same TWF penalty as wakizashis, shortswords or daggers (-2 instead of -4) does actually modify the game and doesn't make the game more realist. If someone wants a character wielding two one-handed-weapons without penalties there are options in the APG.

Answering the OP: The game hates most Dex-based builds, if you want to houserule it and make all one-handed weapons finesable, go for it.

As I see it, the rogue relies in teamwork and the DM preferences, since most players hate teamwork and don't want to depend on the DM preferences the rogue hate is guaranteed.
You need allies ready to help (move that 5' step to flank the enemy) in order to use SA with efficiency.
The party wizard can be very useful casting invisibility (and later Improved Invisibility) on the Rogue.

If the caster doesn't want to hear about support magic the Rogue can use UMD to buff himself, very easy for him. But the wands cost money and casting greater invisibility is very expensive (scrolls only). If it is a low magic game you better go for a rogue/fighter, because a high level rogue without UMD would be useless.

Evasion is an important ability... but some DMs don't use Bestiary creatures that use that kind of magic and don't make use of enemy wizards. If the DM makes Evasion useless then one of your few advantages over most other classes is useless and you better forget about the rogue or choose an APG archetype.

Some DMs just ignore skill challenges, if the campaign is about combat then being one of the characters with more skill points and class skills in the game is useless.

If you want to make use of Acrobatics you need high Dex. The game hates high Dex. builds, and you need to convince the DM to make mithral stuff available (and houserule Celestial armors).

-------

In ideal conditions the rogue can be very useful both in combat and out of combat. With the new APG talents, SA+invisibility or greater invisibility allows you to deal a huge ammount of damage, it isn't true that it "doesn't deal so much damage", it actually DOES so much damage in ideal conditions.
But getting invisibility or GI isn't guaranteed(specially GI, needed to be competitive at high levels). The rogue is rellying to much on magic, on allies, and DM preferences, which isn't a problem of game balance, it is a problem of game design.
A rogue can be balanced without house-rules, but only if the game is played as it was tested, it suffers too much from any problem with the DM or the party's spellcaster.

The Ninja, instead (talking about the playtest Ninja, haven't seen the final version yet), has got most of those things guaranteed. No spellcaster, no UMD? No problem, use talents to become invisible (even greater invisibility). It doesn't make it much better than a Rogue that gets the same with magic or magic items, but the Rogue won't have that magic in many campaigns, the Ninja will, so making those Ninja Tricks into Rogue Talents doesn't seem a bad idea.

There isn't a single correct answer to that question any more than there's a single correct answer to the question of "What's your favorite flavor of ice cream" (which has wrong answers, at least from the perspective of wanting to get ice cream that you like).

Actually, now that I think about it, there is a single correct answer to that question. It is chocolate.

In my country we throw chocolate-haters off a cliff, only aliens in disguise, mutants or psychos with too many Y chromosomes like things like strawberry ice cream.