Kyaaadaa's page

Jumping into the fray!

I'm going to concur with the individual who earlier posted a Medium grappling/pinning a Huge creature should only be able to grapple a portion of the creature, not the whole, especially because a character who occupies a 5x5 area trying to maintain complete positive control over a creature occupying a 15x15 (note, thats 225 square feet) is pretty improbable, even if it was just a huge human. Now think about a dragon, who has at least 8 appendages you're trying to keep pinned (Head, Left Arm, Right Arm, Left Leg, Right Leg, Left Wing, Right Wing, and Tail) for a total of 4 different type of attacks from 7 different sources (Bite, Claw x4, Wing buffet, and Tail Swipe). Unless your pin condition is contingent upon a living rope, your remaining party members using regular rope or a net, or you growing a vast amount of limbs at will, I as a DM could argue that you can apply a grappled condition with no problems, but never a pinned condition, no matter what the rules state. Since Pathfinder has a tendency to throw logic out the window in favor of written rules that must be followed to the letter, my pure opinion is to agree with the written verbage on Breath Weapon, and that it can be used.

It seems that people are thinking about this a little too rigidly. A metamagic'ed spell uses a spell slot higher because of two reasons:

1: Game balance; the spell would be too powerful if left in its original spell slot modified thusly, so it is increased to a higher spell slot.

2: Because the modified spell requires the mental ability, magical aptitude, and raw arcane (or divine) power of a character who can use those slots.

Being able to cast Magic Missile and being able to cast an Empowered, Maximized Magic Missile are two completely separate undertakings. A metamagic enhanced spell is just too complex to be performed by a character without the ability score. In essence, an Empowered Magic Missile is just as complex and just as strenuous on the mind as a Fireball or Lightning Bolt. You can't cast those, you can't cast Empowered Magic Missile.

But they are only good 'mage tanks' if they can physically access said mage - hence the earlier point about most DM's not letting you near enough to grapple, an archer is a bigger threat to a mage in my experience.

Oh good, I knew someone would bring this up.

Mages have access to so many spells to hamper and frustrate archers that Archer vs Wizard is a complete one-sided slaughter in favor of the arcane. Wind Wall, Obscuring Mist, Protection from Arrows, Sleet Storm, Resilient Sphere, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone, and on and on. 3.5 is even worse, spells that reflect arrows back to the archer, reflect them at the archer's allies, make them explode on the archer after release. WotC was no fool, and neither is Paizo. Archer's are the obvious mage killers, so mages have access to plenty of resources to frustrate them. On top of that, most archers are Rangers or Fighters, with a few Paladins sprinkled in. Aside from the Pallys, both Rangers and Fighters have crap Will Saves. Hold Person, Suggestion, Sleep, all those wonderful "F U" enchantment spells to knock the front liners right out work on the archers. Not so much with the Monk who gets a decent Will save, has WIS as a useful stat, and +2 to Enchantment bonus ability at 3rd level.

You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason.

Heh, I like this. But here's the flaw. Detect Evil is whenever you want, as long as you want, on whomever you want, without limitation. Smite evil is limited to only a certain number of times. Balance issues aside, there's also a philosophy behind it. An evil person can be evil at heart and perform 0 evil acts his entire life. A Paladin would not smite him. He is, despite his alignment, innocent.

One thing the OP didn't mention, and many people here have automatically assumed, is that the people in the cells were evil, had committed evil every waking moment of their life, and would do so again in barest second when given a chance. Who said they hadn't been born here? Raised here? Kept here for amusement and would ultimately die here?

Smiting is limited because "see evil, smash evil" on reflex is a downward spiral into the murky quandry many actively evil persons live in.

I meant WITH maneuver training, actually. The monk loses out when flurrying when other classes do not. They still apply their special features to maneuvers: barbarians get their bonuses from rage, the fighter gets his Weapon Training, the paladin his smite bonus to hit, and the ranger his favoured enemy bonus.

That makes all of them as good as the monk at worst, and better than the monk any other time.

Monk's flurry uses level instead of BAB, so their flurry would, barring stat differences and weapons, be exactly the same as TWF.

The point is that the monk does not have proficiency with a lot of the weapons that boost CMB, so he doesn't get them, end of. If he's going unarmed, they have cheaper enhancement.

Was never aware weapons enhanced CMB. I was talking STR boosting equipment like belts and such.

If the monk wants the greater versions, he has to get Combat Expertise and 13 int (on an already MAD class) or suck at it. Having the Improved feats as bonus feats isn't actually helping him much.

I would take Combat Expertise just for the feat. On a class that won't be wearing armor anytime ever, every bit of AC I can get is a welcome reprieve. The drawback of the negatives can be offset by flanking at lower levels (if the monk isn't doing this nearly 100% of the time anyway, he's doing it wrong), and if the feat isn't necessary at the time, don't use it.

I do agree with Dex-monks, but they come with a feat-tax. I'd rather the monk could base off wisdom myself, then he'd be on a par with other martial...

The bonus feats they get at 1st and 2nd level should offset this, as Weapon Finesse is usually taken by most support classes. I hardly ever play a non-human monk, and since DEX is such a useful tool to the monk (CMD, Initiative, their skills, and AC) taking Weapon Finesse is just too easy a choice. Agile Maneuvers can wait until 3rd level as most everything 1-3 is weaksauce.

Ranger gets 6 ranks/level, monk gets 4 ranks/level. Monk has the same skill ranks as the barbarian, average.

I do stand corrected.

A ranger with longstrider cast on him or a pair of boots of speed can achieve as much and more.

I never take into consideration any equipment when I make my builds because its ultimately out of my hands what my character possesses, and into the hands of the GM. The spell is decent, but +10 movement compared to a 4th level monk having it 100% of the time with ki points waiting to add another 20 trumps it.

As far as being able to do more, rarely do I make a melee ranger. Fighters are much better at it, which would make my ranged Ranger a poor choice for running into melee.

Everything the monk can do, somebody else can do better, is basically what it comes down to.

But no one can do everything that a monk can do, and I would argue that this is a point in its favor. It is a support class. As a support class, it holds its own very well as a party rounding class. The monk I play in my current Pathfinder game is a valued member because it sneaks like a rogue, has the AC of a tank, and can open the battlefield by eating up AoO. No, he's not built for dealing threshold damage, we have a fighter for that. No, he doesn't deal sneak attack damage or find traps, we have a rogue for that. No, he doesn't heal or cast spells, we have the cleric and sorcerer for that. What he is good for is flanking the hard to hit or tough in HP mobs, grappling the threats, or engaging the enemy backlines because his speed allows him to get there, his acrobatics allowed him to tumble through, and his Mobility allowed him not to get hit.

Will monks be the best of all the classes? No. Its support. Its situational. But it also performs well enough that the other classes doesn't have to shore up on themselves what I can do for them.