Kared's page

As a DM, if you want to emphasize combat maneuvers, either use feat tax rules, or use more humanoid enemies. The beastiary contains mostly, you guessed it, beasts. The creatures are meant to be stronger bigger and faster than the PCs. But if you think of most fantasy stories, for every monster you fight, there will be at least one human enemy, often the BBEG. Those human enemies are where combat manuevers will absolutely dominate compared to straight DPS. what is the Barbarian gonna do when the PC steals his sword, or throws sand in his face.

For one, weapon training is based on class level as it is a class feature. All class feature are based on class level and unless they say character level. Your build probably has other holes in it that have not been found yet.

Rynjin wrote:

I don't play PFS, and you can't spend over half your WBL on a single item.

Why not?

After a masterwork weapon, every heavy armor combatant I've ever played has sprung for masterwork fullplate when their total wealth was 2k or so, making it 80% of their wealth.

In the core rules there is a section that says you probably shouldn't spend more than half on a single item. But that is just a guideline and has no actually rules. For example, that section also say you should spend about 25% of you WBL on consumables.

I want to see some of the offensive numbers for these monks. It isn't hard to get high defense for a monk. But it is harder to do so while maintaining offensive effectiveness.

I'm curious how other people build monk AC. My 13 Dex, high Wis PFS monk usually had either the highest AC in the party or was very competitive with an extremely tanky other character (counting her qinggong barkskin power as active, as well as her wand of mage armor). Is that not usually the case for other people? I've seen a few posts here saying that they agree that monks usually have high AC and a few saying that monks usually have low.

I'm curious, what are his stats like? My monk build has a decent Ac with Mage armor and barkskin. He is easily outclass in tankiness by the paladin and swashbuckler. His hp is also rather low, having only 12 Con the allow for high str+wis.

wraithstrike wrote:

Silver Surfer wrote:

Rosc wrote:

Clerics are high magic as all get out, but they have a strong connection to the divine that allows them to embody the prowess of powerful war gods, through weapon proficiencies, domains and amazing buff spells. It wouldn't make sense for them to have d6 and 1/2 BAB despite their powerful casting.

Completely disagree.... a genuine gap that has never been filled in PF is that of a D6 divine caster

D6 divine caster isn't a concept.

Divine Wizard equivalent. Take the martial out of the Cleric and give him a spell list and features that let it function without the martial backbone.

The thing is, clerics already have a lot of spell casting power and are only held back by their spell list. This can be supplemented by domains and theologian. If you gave clerics a wizards spell list as well as the clerics instead of bab proficiencies and HD it would be too powerful. Mechanically d6 divine caster isn't needed. Thematically, for the divine wizard, just play a wizard or a wisdom based sorcerer (forgot the name). Then just worship avid and act like a priest,. Problem solved.

The cleric spell list is very defensive and buff oriented while the wizard spell list is normally more offensive. If you want one, you cannot have the other.

From what I have seen of the new monk, I am disappointed with the reliance on ki for everything. The powers that used to constant now cost ki. Monk s also do not get enough ki powers for my taste. One at level four and one more at ever other. In order to get sudden speed and slow fall, both were old powers gained by the old monk at level our, I have to wait until level six, and I miss out on a lot of the cool new options for the link. But really, ki for slow fall. The only caveat is that some of the abilities are better than before. The old monk was filled with abilities no one used, but now they have a bunch of options no one is going to pick because they cost too much ki and there are better options. I just cannot see anyone pick slow fall know over other things like barks in. I thought this monk was supposed to be better.

One of my major gripes with the new monk is that it's madness hasn't gone down much. They need slightly less Con now, but they still need Str for accuracy,. Full bab didn't help THAT much. There Ac hasn't gotten better, and they have more reliance on wis for saves and ki. They also need Dex if they don't want to kill destroyed from low AC.

I'm in playing a high level game with a Dragon disciple and spells that are level 5+. Buffs and no saves spells are best because my DC's are not very high.
Thanks in advances, the great minds of the Pathfinder forum.

Snowblind wrote:

How are you getting 27AC. Also, how much wealth did you stick in it.

It wasn't hard. 10 +4dex +3wis +1monk +3barkskin +1deflection +4mage armor, +1dodge = 27 AC / 20 Touch / 22 Flatfooted.

As I said - it wouldn't have been hard to get higher with a better dex/wis (but needed 18 Con for Swift Drinker), or a tiefling with Armor of the Pit or some such.

The only wealth is a +1 ring of protection and a wand of mage armor.

A fighter can get up there too without much more difficulty. 10 + 11fullplate +3shield +1dex +1deflection +1nat armor = 27 AC. A bit more wealth spent (+1 armor/shield & the AoNA vs the wand), but no bonus feat involved. (And his weapon is cheaper than an AoMF.) And again - it could be higher if feats were spent or a tower shield is used. (I don't like the Pathfinder towershield though - was nerfed since 3.5) For sword & board, a 24+ AC is basically a gimme by 4. They can hit 23 with no magic or feats at all.

You say getting 27 AC isn't that hard. But you have a character that has a 18 Dex and Con, and at 16 least Wis, and Str(assuming +1AOMF). How can you get all that by level 4. And barkskin doesn't give +3 AC until lvl 6. Your claim of a +7 to hit is also requires you to have weapon focus, a feat of questionable worth.

The DM should be aware of all the characters and what they can do... just because it is 'by the rules' doesn't mean it is appropriate. I submit as an example the 'young' and 'advanced' templates... net cost of zero levels, but grants HUGE bonuses overall...

Mythic is balanced, as long as the DM scales to account for it. I am currently running a level 19/mythic tier 9 campaign (started at level 8/mythic 0). I treat the party as CR 25 or so (it works pretty well) and they often have multiple encounters per day. Mythic creatures are 'bosses' and non-mythic is the norm.

Rogues are 'sucky' if played improperly. The problem character in our last game was a basic rogue. He was two weapon fighting and basically dominating the game because he would sneak up and explode things to start an encounter...

The rules don't need to be altered to have a balanced game, but character design needs to be monitored closely. Having a balanced party won't happen with one OP player and a bunch of concept based roleplayers...

In my current game, someone plays a Fighter/Druid capable of doing nearly 300 points of damage with a standard action using Mythic Vital strike, and using Mythic rules, can take another standard action in the round... If you sit down and do the math, you can make a non-mythic caster that can do this at a range, so I argue that mythic on its own is balanced...

You are aware that any character can only make one attack in a surprise round. If he was using TWF his to hit would probably be low unless he is above WBL. A lot of rogues would have trouble hitting the flatfooted of many level appropriate encounters.

While i do like your system na dhope you keep working on it, I feel that sneak attack is under valued at 1 point. while it is very circumstantial, i dont know why anyone with alot of attacks would choose to not get sneak attack.

Kared wrote:

i mean, you do not see wizards asking for a spell to let them reuse any scroll they want.

First scrolls exist from every level, potions only 1-3.

Second, you do not see alchemists create demiplanes, casting wishes and the like. Using the wizard as an example why some other class' feature is too strong is absurd.
Edit: And besides: Sorcerers can get an item that allows them to reuse scrolls. The mnemonic vestment.

But the things you listed only occur at level 13+ for at the earliest for create demiplane. The alchemist can have acess to +5 Ac from barkskin and stoneskin at level 4. Stoneskin for one was never meant to be a potion. Most campaigns do not reach the level at which wizards break the game so hard you might as well just walk away. ALchemical allocation is so good it is better than every other alchemist extract, including level 6. It is a level 2 spell that scales so well for so little cost.

I personally do not allow alchemical allocation because alchemist is a incredibly useful, strong and versatile class without it, and unless you house rule how and what potions can be bought/made, you will run into problems. i mean, you do not see wizards asking for a spell to let them reuse any scroll they want. A lvl 5 alchemist can get +5AC from a potion for less than the cost of a +1 amulet of natural armor and stoneskin for only a onetime cost. Stoneskin has a 250gp cost for a reason, it isnt huge but it prevents PC's from spamming it in all of their spell slots. An alchemist can use stoneskin all the time and only pay once. Also, alchemical allocation is better than the spells of higher level for the alchemist. Just think about it, the infusion of alchemical allocation be handed around followed by the potion of stone skin/barkskin. That is not fun for any DM.

Would a spell storing weapon work in conjunction with blessed hammer? I know it would take a lot of spell slots but it might be worth it for the added burst damage.

Improvised weapon. If I were running it, I'd treat a pistol as an improvised light hammer, doing 1d4 instead of 1d6.

I said 1d6 because a pistol is a one-handed weapon while the light hammer is only light.

At that point it would be an improvised weapon doing 1d6 damage.

Certain combat maneuvers can be applied through weapons, gaining bonuses such as weapon focus, or the enhancement bonus on the weapon. They include trips, disarm, and one other. However, it isnt Dirty Trick.

The way my table ran was that you picked a monster out of the bestiary with the correct number of HD and then make it a zombie/Skeleton. Never says it has to be Human. This make the ability apealing,but not gamebreaking.

One LN character doesnt have to be the same another. To the monk Lawful only means that he has self discipline and follow the code of their order. Just like a LN HellKnight wont act the same as LN Commoner from Taldor.

Try loking up the 3.5 splatbook heroes of horror. It has some nice rules and prestige classes for a aberration/cthulu based adventure.

Net and trident. 'Nuff said.

@The secret fire Do any monks play in your games? because i cannot imagine building one. You have to take the worst of the three options, and you are still rolling for one of the stats your class needs: Str, Dex, Con, or Wis. Even if you rolled well you still have terrible starting stats for a class that needs a optimized stat array to be effective.

Also, the two 16 option is by far the best one available. it provides the versatility that the 18 lacks, but gives classes enough raw power in their main class features. Unless of course you are a monk. combat focused rogue or alchemist, etc. Your system screws 6th level casters that want to be able to fight in combat without their spells if needed.

In no way is a 12 int the minimum. You can easily make a skald with a 10 int. the only skills you need are climb, preform, some knowledge, perception, UMD, and spellcraft. Depending on party line up you might need social skills to be the face. But you dont even need to max out climb or knowledge so you could fit in a diplomacy or bluff with an int of 10 once you get a few lvls. Some builds might want more int, but you can deal with 10.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Quick question: with Brawler's Flurry, can I take Two-Weapon Feint? Do I count as having Two-Weapon Fighting?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

SO it seems to be working as expected by the dev's...

quote by Jason

Does this mean that monks can grab feats that require full bab but only use them while flurrying? If TWF feats from flurry counts for prereqs then why not bab.

And tbh, a lot of people want monks to have full bab anyway...

Quote:

1. The Arcanist-
2. The Bloodrager-
3. The Brawler-
4. The Hunter-
5. The investigator-
6. The Shaman-
7. The Skald-
8. The Slayer-
9. The Swashbuckler
10. The Warpreist

1) This is just worse than a wizard half the time, no trade off just worse at all odd levels. At even levels it's a trade off. I assume you ban wizards too.

2) I ran some numbers on this. With the exception of a whopping two bloodlines (arcane and the impossible to model aberrant) it's just worse than barbarian outside of archetypes. The primalist archetype looked broken to me before I realize how much you give up for spells. By level 12 when you get CoaGM for both it's 12 HP, 5 DR and 4 fire/cold resist along with either 2-5 rage powers (which are statistically stronger than all bloodline powers but either the 4th aberrant or the 8th level arcane power if you have no hasters) It's incredibly flavorful and fun but anywhere from the top of the pile. I should know I really like this class.

3) Brawlers are just full BAB unarmed characters. They're not that strong HOWEVER a new feat makes them and monks MUCH better. Pummeling style/Charge which lets unarmed characters finally compete.

4) Me and my friends literally laughed at this. It's like a strictly worse druid. Only's it's ACTUALLY a strickly worse druid not just pretending to be one.

5) This class is cool. It finally lets you play a sneaky rogue without sucking.

6) This class was once good. Then the spell list happened. I don't know how to feel about it's abysmal spell list.

7) This class is boarderline broken at some levels in terms of abilities it gives you. Cast haste then do your rage song and give superstition and Come and get me away. Proceed to STOMP the world.

8) Very good replacement for the base fighter and rogue. Well written and good damage.

9) On the weak end until signature deed comes along at which point they become cool again.

10) The base WP is just worse than the base cleric in every way after level 7....

ofc course teh hunter is worse at spell casting than a druid but thats not news. The hunter AC is much better than the druids due to teamwork feats and hunter get ranger spell like lead blades at lvl 1 and others like animal at an earlier lvl combine that with free outflank and you are pretty nasty. Animal focus gives a nice buff to the companion and can save you some money. The hunter is also good from lvl 1 unlike a druid. expecting te hunter to compete with a druid in spellcasting is absurd. but it can compete in melee quite easily.

@under a bleeding sun
i agree idk y people hate the hunter so much before even trying to make it work. because it does
@Squiggit
hunter has to same/better buff a druid does due to ranger spell level/list. hunter is much better at combat(melee) than a druid and allows for builds with the pet as a core of the class. the team work feats are simply amazing. outflank or lookout combined with bodyguard AC archetype are great combat buffs.dont forget pank flanking, cavalier/hunter only adjacent flanking with AC

Lol, fair deuce Bruce.

People can indeed enjoy the game whichever way they want, even if sometimes passes over the whole RP part of the game.

Though I do feel that if you are dipping cheese you also need to accept the parts you do not like.

Just as the paladin-code is in part (mechanically) a tax for some nice dipping (smite and Divine Grace), the same goes for the monk.

I would absolutely be on the lookout if this happens at my table and if somebody has a character playing extremely chaotic I would not allow them to take levels in Monk.

Nevertheless, as for advice; Combat Style Master at 9th helps the build. So does dipping at level 2 for asap access to Pummeling Charge is smart. Consider MoMS/Monk of the Sacred Mountain for natural armour and Toughness. Second Style Snake Style I reckon? And get an agile AoMF.

On the code of conduct, if he is playing chaotic the only penalty is not being able to take anymore monk levels. he does not lose monk abilities. ofc if he was chaotic before being monk he couldnt get it

It would lead to an increase in people playing martial characters, especially spellbreaker or ranged type fighters that could readily win initiative against the 1/2 BAB caster classes.

This means the wizard would often become injured before attempting to spellcast in combat. With a 1/2 BAB, said caster would be less than effective with a weapon, and would likely fail a concentration check for casting due to being injured.

It might also devalue Improved initiative feat as 3/4 BAB classes would need it just to keep up. 1/2 BAB classes would only gain a benefit in the first 6 levels, then it becomes useless. Full BAB classes would already win most initiative races (save for Inquisitors), so improved initiative becomes a method of rubbing it in.

i think that is part of the point. nerfing casters is never bad

Kared wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Undone wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

PIXIE DUST wrote:

But there is no such thing as a "wisdom bonus"... that is the problem...

This is incorrect.

Ability Score Bonuses

Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

Just because they didn't take this and then spell out "strength score bonus" "Dexterity score bonus" etc doesn't mean that its not a wisdom bonus.

It MAY be incorrect. Because rules have to be spelled out it's possible that stats do not provide typed bonuses. This is literally up to the developers and they can easily rule it either way. Until it is FAQ'ed there is no DEFINITIVE answer. There is only conjecture. I'm still of the belief they aren't typed because it's not called out that they are typed.

It isn't specifically called out that Trait bonuses are typed either.

It isn't specifically called out that Insight bonuses are typed either.

It isn't specifically called out that Luck bonuses are typed either.

Should I go on?

sry for double post, but while trait are not called out as types, but insight and luck are as i have said before look here.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.html

Yup, if you've been following this thread from the beginning, you'll note that I was the first one to link to that information.

Since it is in Ultimate Magic and not the Core Rulebook, does not include Trait on that list (despite I think everyone agreeing that Trait bonuses are typed), and is only discussing how to design spells, that list cannot be used as an exhaustive list.

i know its not exhaustive but what is on the list is on the list. not every bonus type is on the list, but the ones that are on there are called out as typed. Being in ultimate magic does make it any less RAW than any rule in the CRB unless they are written as optional anything from APG UCand UM are just as binding as anything written in the CRB.

Undone wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

PIXIE DUST wrote:

But there is no such thing as a "wisdom bonus"... that is the problem...

This is incorrect.

Ability Score Bonuses

Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

Just because they didn't take this and then spell out "strength score bonus" "Dexterity score bonus" etc doesn't mean that its not a wisdom bonus.

It MAY be incorrect. Because rules have to be spelled out it's possible that stats do not provide typed bonuses. This is literally up to the developers and they can easily rule it either way. Until it is FAQ'ed there is no DEFINITIVE answer. There is only conjecture. I'm still of the belief they aren't typed because it's not called out that they are typed.

It isn't specifically called out that Trait bonuses are typed either.

It isn't specifically called out that Insight bonuses are typed either.

It isn't specifically called out that Luck bonuses are typed either.

Should I go on?

sry for double post, but while trait are not called out as types, but insight and luck are as i have said before look here.

Loengrin wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I'll be keeping my eye on this thread for a few days.

If anyone comes up with any new actual rules language for me to consider, I'll think about popping back in.

Until then, I'm out.

I look forward to seeing actual cited and copy/pasted rules language. I won't be responding to baseless opinions in this thread anymore though.

Uuuh ? We can't come with an actual rule since no rule exist on the subject

There's no official complete listing of sources... So you can think what you want but you can't point me in the rule a statement that ability modifier is a source...

Your right. Because the word "source" has absolutely no meaning.

I can, and have pointed you to the rules that show that Wisdom Bonus is a bonus of the Wisdom type.

Where in the rules does it clearly state that wisdom is a typed bonus? Any example you provide cannot be open to interpretation or else what is RAW is unknown.

Seranov wrote:

Andrew, you're free to have your own interpretation. That doesn't mean you're right, though.

I will freely admit it doesn't mean we, with dissenting opinions, are right, either. But you cannot, in all good conscience, sit there and tell me that your reading is objectively right. Because without developer input on the matter, nobody knows for sure.

And the fact that my reading is not nearly as restrictive and allows things to work that just otherwise 100% would not (when they are pretty obviously intended to work) I'm going to err on the side of not trying to shut down options that aren't in any way overpowering. A MoMS 2/Sacred Fist X with Dragon Style/Ferocity and Pummeling Style/Charge is hardly an unstoppable, unmatchable goliath, even with double Wis to AC and Dragon Style/Ferocity stacking. It's probably on the level of a well-built Inquisitor or Bard.

The only thing I'm not 100% positive on, is whether the terminology "bonus equal to <ability modifier>" means that its an untyped bonus or not. I can see that interpretation working either way. I'm actually kinda leaning toward I'm wrong on this one, because the wording is very specific in this case.

However, nobody has actually posted any actual rules text that refutes that ability bonuses are typed.

And I've posted a ton of rules text, including a link from the d20 SRD for v3.5 (which pathfinder was based) that shows ability modifiers as being a typed bonus.

Since there is absolutely zero language in any Pathfinder rulebook (unless someone here can go research and find it--I couldn't, and I did check) that indicates ability bonuses are not typed by the ability, then I don't see any logic that would indicate otherwise.

Prove me wrong.

Simply saying, "I don't interpret it that way." Is like me saying, "I don't interpret Insight Bonuses as typed, because there isn't anything saying that an insight bonus is a type of bonus."

Or me saying, "I don't think halflings should be able to wear armor, because...

You havent stated anywhere where it says ability mods ARE typed. Ability mods being typed or not is not in the rulebook anywhere. you just assume that it works in your favor.

Also, just because the list of bonus types is in ultimate magic doesnt make it less official. insight luck and inherent are typed because the book says so. I said that the list wasnt all bonus types possible and it could be added to, but whats on the list is on the list.that is why those bonus are typed.

Seranov wrote:

Yeah, I don't read it that way at all, Andrew. The way you present your argument makes sense, but it hinges on the concept that each individual ability score is its own bonus, and this isn't stated anywhere in the rules. You can claim that the rules don't say that they aren't untyped, but it also doesn't claim they're typed, either.

Until Paizo claims otherwise, people are not incorrect as reading ability bonuses as untyped. There are a number of abilities that people have mentioned (like Dragon Style/Ferocity) that simply would not work if the rules worked as you claim. And that leads me to believe that it is fully intended to be able to double-dip, except when it specifically says otherwise.

The rules don't state anywhere a comprehensive list of any bonus types. There are like two bonus types mentioned in the rules about bonus types. So by your logic, because insight, inherent, and luck are not specifically called out as typed, they aren't.

We both know that isn't what you are saying.

But until Paizo clarifies otherwise, RAW, ability bonuses are typed, because the bonus has a name.

Feats and class abilities have to be read individually to determine how they work. We all know that Paizo uses imprecise language at times, and don't do a real good job of maintaining rules continuity when getting stuff written by freelancers. As for dragon style and ferocity, they work fine. On your first unarmed attack you get 1-1/2 strength damage instead of strength damage. With Ferocity, you need to look at its intent, understand the imprecise language issue, and realize you aren't stacking it with Dragon Style. It just makes all your attacks 1-1/2. The first does not become x2. Some classes can take feats without prereqs.

Umm.. do you realize there a list of bonus types on the PRD. While this is not all possible bonus types ever, insight, inherent and luck are listed. So they actually are called out to be typed by the book.

Just letting you know that improved share spells allows you to cast personal spells with your companion. the feat says that "whenever you cast a a spell o yourself..." Does not exclude personal spells so go ahead and take bodyguard AC

Im not sure what you mean by stacking when talking about two SLA's. They obviously would not grant double the temp hp if used in a short time but the number of times per day would stack. otherwise you are saying that a aasimar lantern bearer would not get the daylight SLA from both race and class. Sp Su and Ex are not sources they describe sources but are not the source them self.

While a single class should not be locked in to one build to be effective, a combination can such as Sorc/Monk. If you are multi classing in two classes specifically to get 2x wis to AC Wis should be your primary stat. Besides u can make up the lost danage with buff spells such as divine favor. Dex/Wis is the way to go with Monk/Sacred fist

Can a Grenadier Alchemist with the Explosive missile discovery using kirin strike shoot a bolt with a bomb and alchemist fire attached and deal an additional x2 int to damage with kirin strike?
The build look like this:

Human Alchemist (Grenadier) 9

Str 7
Dex 20
Con 14
Int 26 (30)Cognatogen
Wis 13
Cha 7

+2 Crossbow +13 1d8+2 +6d6+32(40)

Feats
1 Point blank shot
1 Precise shot
1 Throw anything
3 Whatever
5 Whatever
7 Kirin style
9 Kirin strike