Jupp's page

I believe because braces of armor are a force effect they apply to your CMD also, just as deflection and dodge bonus, ect.

only against incorporeal attacks

i cant see why someone cant fluff and armored belt into a different kind of armored belt. role-play is only limited to your imagination.

and no this is not min-maxing, its optimizing, there is a big difference between the two.

the poll post and the linked post were not the post i was referencing, if i can find it, i will post it.

but i noticed this post was more resent then the one im talking about, by about a year. so maybe they came to a solid rule of no in that time.

If you pick up the Eschew Materials feat you can just true strike your way out of the grapple as a grapple check is an attack i believe.

you would still need to succeed on a concentration check.

corrected, i guess it didnt delete for some reason.

Take the reach weapon exception. It vanished and many 3.5 to PF players never realized it. You cannot hit the diagonal squares 2 squares away with a reach weapon in PF.

- Gauss

sean k renolds, i think, actually said that it was ok. i dont know where he said it, but i remember reading it.

first he said that the rule worked as gauss said, then he changed it later in that same post.

The ebon acolytus was not an issue. It got a grapple off twice, both of which were broken by a liberating command. It never even got close to sacrificing someone.

im trying not to jump to conclusions, but 2 liberating commands? i have to assume that meta-gaming was involved. i dont think i've seen a character use that... ever, let alone 2 times.

* "the npc casts fly"
* "you guys are fighting a hydra"
* "wizard casts ray of enfeeblement"
* "you guys are fighting a ghost"
* "the npc has wings"
* "npc has monkey stance"
* "the npc trips you"
* "the npc has earth glide"

they have soooo many ways to shut a trip based character down past 6th level. the one thing you really need to focus on is not throwing to many at him. many times you will toss npc's at him, ot the AP will have npc's, that will invalidate his character already.

i say let him have his fun now, because once he hits tenth level he will have a bunch of feats and class features that will be USELESS(!!) against most enemies.

i've come to the conclusion this is trolling. im washing my hands of this discussion. good night for real this time.

Bound as in the context of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If they meant bound as in pinned they would have said so (or would have pinned give the helpless condition).

Edit: Wooo... read this:

"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."

This supports my argument that bound - as in the bonds mentioned in the last sentence - is meant to be in relation to rope (rope with a CMD check too high to escape from results in a binding condition; it should be noted that a natural 20 will always let you escape from a pin, so you are never as screwed in a pin as you are when bound by sufficient...

im thinking you guys are trying really hard to troll me now... it states specifically in the discription of "tie up" that it functions as PIN. so if tying someone up with rope allows a coupe de grace then so would the pinned condition!

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.

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

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.

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.

you missed the "or" which means "used as a function word to indicate an alternative" so "you are bound or ..."

you have the alternative , which i gave an example of above, at gm discretion of other options.

im trying to go to bed stop making me continue this conversation.

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.

thats your opinion, i respect that.

my opinion is that "bound" qualifies it for helpless.

Jupp wrote:

ok to counter that point let me throw a hypothetical situation at you.

im a dex based character who grapples, or is grappled. if grapple stated you have a -4 ac AND a -5 modifier to dex you would never be able to get out of that pin... ever.

Grapple imposes a -4 penalty to Dex so an effective -2 penalty to escape artist checks. A pinned character loses any bonus granted by Dexterity. If you have a good escape artist check, you should still have a rather good chance to escape.

All of this has nothing to do with whether you are helpless or not in a pin.

Jupp wrote:

escape artist? nope you have a -5 to dex for that skill, that means you have your character level -5 to your attempt to get out of that grapple.

opposed grapple check? nope you have a minus 5 AND what ever your bonus is. so if you had a +5 dex, you now have a cmb and cmd that is 10 lower then what it was, and an additional -4 for the prone effect. so a minus 10 on top of your normal check, which grapple is the hardest to raise, and a -14 to your cdm... you die, or good luck counting on that D20 to save you.

" A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."

"A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. [...] A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check."

Your math is way off, as far as I can tell.

Jupp wrote:

its my opinion that these rules are to the contrary of helpless dex manipulations for the sake of giving the target a fighting chance.

Yes, these rules do give the target a rather good chance to escape. I believe this is deliberate as grapple could be and was abused quite a bit in 3.5.

my math isnt off at all... reread the post, i was assuming you gain a 0 dex mod for the sake of pinning in that post, you know how i prefaced the statement with "hypothetical situation". i was giving you my opinion about the question you asked in a previous post. let me grab the post to prevent confusion.

"But you haven't supported this properly. No where does it say this and there is evidence to the contrary. Why does the pinned condition give a penalty to dexterity if helpeless treats your dexterity as 0? If it were the case that pinned causes you to be helpless, I believe it would say so outright and not have different dex penalties for the different conditions."

Good night

ok to counter that point let me throw a hypothetical situation at you.

im a dex based character who grapples, or is grappled. if grapple stated you have a -4 ac AND a -5 modifier to dex you would never be able to get out of that pin... ever.

escape artist? nope you have a -5 to dex for that skill, that means you have your character level -5 to your attempt to get out of that grapple.

opposed grapple check? nope you have a minus 5 AND what ever your bonus is. so if you had a +5 dex, you now have a cmb and cmd that is 10 lower then what it was, and an additional -4 for the prone effect. so a minus 10 on top of your normal check, which grapple is the hardest to raise, and a -14 to your cdm... you die, or good luck counting on that D20 to save you.

its my opinion that these rules are to the contrary of helpless dex manipulations for the sake of giving the target a fighting chance.

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.

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"

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.

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.

"Petrified

A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character's petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation."

*edit* unconscious causes helpless, but this doesn't say the target is helpless. just like pinning causes helpless even thought it doesn't say its helpless

well we're going to go back and forth for ever not getting anywhere, im reading it as RAW that it does cause helpless, once im able to find a post from someone who has the authority to clarify something like this its just going to be a gm call in my games.

if anyone has a link they can provide i would greatly appreciate it.

"A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."

if you cannot move and are bound, how would you be able to avoid the blow of the coupe de grace?

both RAI and RAW support coupe de gace from a pin.

as helpless requires the target to be bound, it is considered helpless until it escapes the grapple.

very simple, slick armor with ranks in escape artist.

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"

this qualifies them for helpless. but no you cannot coup de grace while grappling or pinning because it requires a standard action to maintain the pin. a second tiger can coup de grace but if its only one, then no.

"Pinned" and "Helpless" are two different conditions with different effects. I suppose that RAW the dire tiger COULD tie his pinned victim up with a rope and THEN coup de grace him -- there are no rules specifically forbidding it.

helpless isn't an actual condition you can apply to a target. helpless is a condition as a direct result of a different condition that qualifies the creature as helpless. for instance any ability that knocks a target unconscious doesn't say he is also helpless

example:

suffocation

as you can see it says for the first effect of the spell "On the target's next turn, he falls unconscious and is reduced to 0 hit points" it does not say "the target is considered helpless" but they are in fact helpless.

the trick is to drain there int to 0 then leave the comatose body in a safe location. ring of sustenance and a soft bed is all you really need. as a paladin he will have great saves, but you should be able to cast bestow curse enough times to nuke his int to 0 on a roll of 1.

i mean who has a pally with higher then a 10 int?

I think they are only as hard as the player makes it. You can make a standard prep list and never change it out, removing all the hard decisions except 'do I save this spell for later or use it now?' Divine casters are even more forgiving since a bad choice can be swapped out the same session you realize it, rather than having to wait for the next level up to do so.

i helped 2 people who were new to the game who wanted to play clerics. the entire game they were trying to read and understand what the spells i gave them did. most of the time i was telling them "you should cast this spell and move here" so it was more like i was running 2 characters at the same time.

at that time i realised that maybe new players should stick to non casters, or maybe classes that have bard like spell progression. fewer spells perday, but they still get that feeling of being a spell caster.

in home games i convince "newbies" play sorcerers because they usually like to cast damage spells anyway, so why not just let them play a blaster sorcerer. they have fun and they have fewer options as to spell choices.

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

so you dont want your RPG(Role Playing Game)to be realistic? im in favor of a realistic system of not carrying 8k gold and 6 different max level awesomesauce swords in my inventory, unless im a merchant.

i like the idea of having to party to go explore.

i love the idea of playing a bandit and ganking players for cash.

and i especially love the idea of having a penalty for failure, and a reward for success in pvp, other then just gear currency. im looking at you wow,& swtor.

2. a half giant can wield a larger weapon at no penalty, but a huge bastard sword comes at -2 to hit. and you cannot spend more power points than you have manifester levels.

actually being medium and wielding a large size gets a free pass on the oversized rules, but the wording would make a medium sized character wielding a huge sized still gets a -4.

oh i misunderstood. i would still suggest mobile fighter over archer spec, but if some aspect of the archer is appealing then i would suggest focusing on the CRB feats first, then adding in aditional feats like clustered shots later on.

the best archer feats are CRB feats.

a TWW is a good choice in some aspects for a twf fighter, but i would tell your friend to just roll a standard fighter, it would be a better choice and youw ould only really lose the ability to use your bow for maneuvers.

and even better choice then a standard fighter is a mobile fighter. you can build for both melee and ranged and lets you really jack up the field.

that's a very weird character...
it look solid for what you are trying to do, but i will warn you that past 6th level tripping becomes very difficult to pull off. so if you wanted to wait until 8th level to trip people maybe change that aspect of your character for something like sunder, disarm, or ignore the maneuver completely and change over to a weapon master fighter?

also food for thought, if you really like vital strike, then i would suggest dipping into barbarian instead of ranger for furious finish.

**edit** and im not sure vital strike and felling smash will work as one attack just to toss that out if you were trying for that.

So the situatios is this:

The green dragon used fly by attack and grappled a PC and then move again. At the end of its turn the dragon relaese the grapple as a free action, the question is

Is there any way for the Pc to avoid the 150 ft falling? like do not letting the dragon to end the grapple or something?

ok so there are issues with what happened. if you look at the grappled condition it says " you can not move", and when you grapple someone you gain the grappled condition. so that means the dragon would have to land to grapple you, even if he has grab or improved grapple.

he can then move on his next turn IF he succeeds on a grapple to maintain.

now for your question, no. once you fall you fall. you would need a spell caster or magic item to prevent that damage.

here is the error of your counter argument:

1. so a fighter is more easily dominated then any other class... would you like to make a bet on that? if a fighter can fail a will save so easily, then he can do it twice you would agree? then why wouldn't your caster cast any number of spells that target will or reflex to stop that fighter? create pit is a second level spell that will knock that fighter out for a few rounds. do you see how biased your mentality is?

2. perception can be gained by a trait. paladins dont get it, wizards dont get it, so im guessing they have s@**ty spell lists also? any social skill can also be attained by a trait selection. you want diplomacy because you dont have a rogue to fill that role GET THE TRAIT! if i had an amazing spell list then rogues and bards would be useless, use your brain man.

3. dispell magic is so important that you should buy a wand for your wizard. who ever in the party can cast dispell magic is the person who should be doing it. the fighter does not need to have it, BECAUSE ITS A TEAM GAME, other classes help you fill in your faults. sounds to me like you want one class to rule them all.

4. see answer 3

5. only monks have good saves across the board. so you would be turning them into monks. if you cant see that then im sorry, but you're proving your bias, so keep up the good work.

6. please explain to me how anyone is a "drag on the party" perhaps you are misusing a word or phrase but in no way is a fighter unable to role play with npc's. you dont need to be a CHA based character to role play with an npc, and as long as you have your bard, rogue, paladin, ect with you he can make all those diplomacy checks for you.

and now for the lesson.

this game is made with the concept of teamwork in mind. i cant do diplomacy so that teammate does it for me. i dont need to do everything to be successful i only need to fulfill my role in the group. the fighters role in the group is to be a fighter. that means not the face, not the healer, not the trap smith, it means im the FIGHTER. if you dont like that aspect of the class then you choose to not play that role.

now to counter your arguement that a barbarian bring more to the table then a fighter, everything your barbarian can do i can do as well.

you want a pouncer? play a mobile fighter, they can even "pounce" with a bow.

you want spell sunder? fighter get that now with the ARG release.

i can keep going but ive proved my point and you are using fail logic and your own prejudice as a basis for your argument. that means having a rational discussion is impossible, and we will go in circles getting no where.

hell yes fighter is my favorite class behind monk.

monk >fighter >eldritch knight(archer >paladin >sorcerer

i love fighters because they can do all of the combat roles, for mundane fighting, all at the same time. so amazing knowing you can shoot something hard or slap it in the face with a great sword, and you dont need to make one of them useless.

The UE has 2 different items you are looking for. one is a blindfold that grants improved blind fight, and the other grants blind sense. then you can eventually upgrade to dragon sense with a third item.

im sorry i dont have the names of these items but they are in there.

i know a person who went with a Whirlwind fighter nd was very successful in his game. in pfs the gm will just need to hand wave the potential hitting of a teammate.

you could also go with a caster, but you would be useless beyond using buff spells, as you cant shoot AOE, because of the risk of hitting a friendly, or targeted spells without being able to see.

i will tell you that i played a blind swordsmen in 3.5, and while it was fun it was a hard character to play at times. my one piece of advice is stack your perception to 1000 if you can.

bard would be a great choice, since you will have a blaster, most likely, a bard would bring good utility to the group.

oh one thing about fury's fall, you cant use agile maneuvers and furys fall together. so you need to make strength your main stat or take furys fall at level 1 and have dex be your main stat.

link

i would suggest that you choose a secondary form of attack, once you hit 6th level and higher you will encounter ALOT of monsters you cannot trip.

as a staple i would suggest a maneuver master monk, you get a free trip maneuver with every full attack, and would let you choose a secondary maneuver, like dirty trick, as a fall back for when you cant trip something.

traits i cant think of anything other then heirloom weapon which would let you gain a free +2 when using your weapon of choice, i love bolas.

feats that you should make room for no matter what would be combat reflexes, improved trip, greater trip, vicious stomp and fury's fall.

**Because other classes when they fail their saves don't chop into the rest of the party quite so thoroughly as the Fighter does, and they usually have class features which help their will save.

**why does their skill points and skill list suck so bad?

**A fighter in combat MUST have the dispel for that dominate, which will have a 50% chance of success

**your +7 Will save fighter from butchering you, you're not stopping the BBEG from doing something else.

**It's this vulnerability to being turned against the rest of the party so easily, or being put out of commission and forcing the rest of the party to spend the actions to get the fighter out of trouble that tends to grind on the party as a whole. Generally speaking, you have to do this a lot less or none at all with paladins.

Fighters have no class features that help with any form of recovery, no class defenses outside of a bonus to AC which doesn't get actualized until late levels, and precious little for any social interaction. They simply have to rely on what anyone can do...and if they have to do that, then why be a Fighter?

**A good way to fix a Fighter is all good saves and 4 skill points. That gives them mundane defensive strength that perfectly matches the rest of them, and 4 skill points gives them the ability to spend on non-class skills without penalizing anything key, even if they have an Int Penalty. All good saves would give them strong defenses without actually being imbalanced...and make them better then a warrior.

**But saying that a Fighter is strong because the rest of the party can take care of him is ignoring the fact that the rest of the party is not a class feature, and the rest of the party having to care for him drags on the rest of the party. Sure, the fighter is better against some niche foes during the day, but every round spent not dispelling the dominated fighter is a round spent tearing down the enemy throwing the dominates. It's the cost to the action economy of the whole party that tends to annoy the other players, not the fighter's damage output (or the paladin's, for that matter).

im seeing quite a bit of fallacy in your arguement.

1 any class that gets dominated will disrupt the party drastically.

2 there skill list does not suck, it gives you everything a fighter would need. survival, climb, knowledge engineering, dungoneering, ect.. there skills list fits there role.

3 any group that does not have a dispell magic available is going to fail no matter what, because if there was no fighter the rogue would be hit by it, or the ninja, or the cavalier ect..

4. thats why the standard group consists of 4+ players to keep the BBEG busy while they deal with any other threats in the area.

5. making them monks is not going to fix the fighter, especially since its not broken.

6. so your concept of a strong character is one that is completely self sufficent? i hate to break this to you, but even a paladin needs a group to survive an adventure.

and who are these players that are so annoyed?

all in all i feel like you didnt contribute anything in your post, but your own prejudices. fighter are a good class, so are paladins one is not better then the other.

My 17th level Barbarian has taken both Clear Mind and Improved Iron Will. They have proven invaluable.

As I always say: you can never have too many re-roll abilities.

at 17th level you have surpassed every organic campaign i have ever been in. i have never once been in a 1-20 campaign, they usually stop between 6-14.

not to say i haven't played in an epic level game or a game that levels excessively quick. by 17th level you have all the feats you need as staples, powerattack and what have you, to do that but before ten i wouldn't think many barbarians would do that.

let alone the fact that fighters are one of the few classes that willingly take improved iron will as a feat choice. if i saw a barbarian do that i would question it.

while i agree that combat is the focus of 3.5, i will also say that roleplaying makes this game great. i dont need a skill check to roleplay, i only need to be in my characters mindset. the need for diplomacy can be sated by having a non fighter in the group, and nothing stops me from attempting an assist for that diplomacy roll with my -5 cha and 0 skill ranks in diplomacy.

fighter "hail, how are you today?"

npc "good, how are you?"

Do you see how this works?

vuron: i dont know about that...

only scary thing a Succy has in pathfinder is a once perday SLA dominate, which can easily be dispelled at 5th level.

Nicos wrote:

Even if all what you say is true, exactly why people have to build fighter for one sinlgle thing?

Building a fighter to do 3 or 4 things, means the fighter is good at none of them.

this isnt true...

a fighter who builds for ac, damage and ranged damage can be very effective characters. i mean they alone get to wield tower shields without massive penalties, and just having access to one gives a massive net to ac and survivability.

Reading through it, however, I immediately thought of the rogue and monk as two problematic classes; they don't fit any of the primary roles. They might be good secondary hammers but they will not be anvils or arms.

dont think for a second that a monk cant pull its weight in a group. its a misconception that they cant contribute to an encounter. my monk is 6th level now and im a wrecking ball that the gm has to implement counters to so i dont trivialize encounters. only anti grappling mobs or freedom of movement casters stop my monk from pinning them while the rest of the group coup de grase the target.

my monk, cant speak for damage dealing monks in pathfinder, is a great controller for big bad targets.

on the other hand i have a rogue (ninja) that i use as a scout for encounter preperation, i relay whats "in the next room" so the party knows what resources to burn. i contribute enough damage and mobility to make my spot worth having.

my opinion of the discussions on these boards are that they are flawed, only that they assume the GM is a robot. a gms responsibility is to build encounters that challenge you, not just pull random things from the bestiary and say ok fight this dinosaur that pops into reality from the megaverse, even though you should be fighting a bandit.

so unless you have a gm with very poor philosophies on how to run a game you can run 5 fighters and have fun.

yes they do. paizo buffed the neutral cleric quite a bit from 3.5.

i have one critique, you suggest quick learner as a feat without the improvisation chain. if you only want the skill point then you should invest in toughness and not quick learner.

only way to get dex to damage is to wait until either 3rd level (second if a fighter) for dervish dance, or wait until you can afford agile (insert weapon here) and that takes longer, not until 5th level or so.

so all in all it sucks having no damage and banking on that damage comming at later levels when its less important to gain a +2-4 damage on a strike.

i wouldnt bank on it unless i was playing a character that didnt need extra base damage because of other factors, like a rogue or a magus.

i dont understand why people get into these pissing contests on these message boards... i guess its just internet culture.

anyway a fighter and paladin are both amazing characters. nither are godly and nither completely make the other useless. a fighter is the master of mundane and paladins are self sufficient.

personally i would take a fighter over a paladin, because i cant play lawful good for to many session before i get board. not to mention that i like having flexibility in how i fight, i hate only being ranged or only being melee.

level 20 ninja would do the trick.

but my choice would go to ranger. they would have the best static modifiers to damage, attack and areimo better at killing dragons then paladins.

yes it does
well actually you can get around that by using a reach weapon, or attacking from a hard corner.

i would stick to easy classes, but ask her what she wants to play. once she has an idea of the type of character she wants to play flavor a fighter, bard, or cleric (stick to more healing spells, makes spell casting easier).

make sure you tell her to ask you for help when ever she is struggling, ask everyone else NOT TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS!! as more then one person talking at once will confuse her more.

let her slide and try not to over burden her with "heavy rules lawyering".

i went through this same thing with my wife, but she is getting better every session.

what level are they?

if they are high level you should have custom zombies created that scare the hell out of them. rust zombies would be scary as hell for a high level fighter lol.

the one issue with zombies in PF is that they are the most common enemy you go up against at low levels, so they feel like the generic enemy they should be facing. you may want to change the idea of zombies to something a little more scary like low cr deamons, devils, or abetrations in high numbers. things that will force them to run, like stirges.. /shudder a swarm of those things will make even a level 20 character run and hide.

ooo ooo zombie stirges, my god that would suck.

Jupp wrote:

i like her idea more because it would prevent the monk from exceeding a base of 18. with your idea dabbler the monk with an 18, what ever, at 4th level would gain a +2 to that score.

At no level does any score gain more than a +1. This could be modified, so it only kicks in at 8th level, perhaps, but either way it's simple and doesn't require as much bookkeeping.

ok so let me change my original statement, i missexpressed my concern,

you have this:
At 20th level +1 to Strength (to +3), Dexterity (to +5), Constitution (to +3), Wisdom (to +5), Intelligence (to +2), and Charisma (to +2).

that means over 20 levels you gain :
+5 to dex ,which is what a normal character would be able to max using the normal system of 1 per 4 levels, +5 to wisdom, + 3 to strength, +3 to con, +2 to cha, and +2 to int.

thats what im talking about. its a horrible idea because if i play a tengu in PFS then my tengue with a +16 dex and a +16 wisdom, gets a racial modifier of +2 to each. your tengu would net a +21/21, at 12, in those stats... as your base... it would never be allowed at my table.

Ilja's system obeys the rules of point buy, meaning you will never have more then an 18 base + racials on any skill. thats why i like her system more then the one you proposed.

i like her idea more because it would prevent the monk from exceeding a base of 18. with your idea dabbler the monk with an 18, what ever, at 4th level would gain a +2 to that score. Ilja's version would allow a monk to max out one score to an 18, or more, and then have lower scores that would be offset as he levels. at 8th level Ilja's version would net a +5 to her point buy, which could raise a low stat to a more respectible number, for instance:

a 20 point buy, the stats are unlisted so put the numbers in the attribute you like most then add what ever racial you would have to that. i would change it to +4 per for levels with 0 in the pool at level 1.

17 (13)
14 (5)
14 (5)
13 (3)
8 (-2)
7 (-4)

with her method it would change those scores to something like:

18
16
14
13
8
7

then at 8th it would be:

18
16
16
15
8
8
or something to that extent. i think this would prevent minmaxing of the "best stat" and allow you to have a good STR,DEX,WIS,CON by 8th level. you would be able to maintain that highest score, while bringing up the weaker ones if you choose to.

with that system you wouldnt even need to change the core of the monk to get the necessary bonuses to hit to stay on par with the rest of the front line classes.