http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/classOptions/summoner .html
This website has a runaway link across most of the page. Suspect there is no [/link] at the end of "shaman".
Search Posts
Hehe. Sure, we have cookies and pie and sky cake. To be fair though, I wasn't defending the position that it SHOULD have been added at all, merely collecting opinions from the masses, which I got. A select few cheers, mostly jeers.
I'll be honest, not sure if my DM is going to go for non-Paizo PRD listed material, but I'll ask him. While I personally won't benefit from a lot of the spell as I've either the same or better for most of it, the darkvision and low-light might come in handy; the extension to other people for the AC +4 bonus on saves and lesser invulnerability (for those pesky anti-paladin's) might keep other people alive.
HOWEVER... Hero's Defiance and Angelic Aspect (Greater) are GLORIOUS spells that should always be prepared in all situations. Hero's Defiance is a given, but I don't see Angelic Aspect in the PRD.
Yeeeaaah... it would most certainly be for inside combat scenarios. Sacrificial Oath, Litany of Vengeance, King's Castle, Litany of Escape, and Stay the Hand all spring to mind. Litany of Escape and King's Castle especially for their use in getting my companions out of harm's way. Having more uses per day since I am essentially the first and last line of defense would be a blessing. A fighter with 18 Intelligence doesn't get bonus first level spells. Why should a paladin? ;P Little bit of straw man there, since Fighters can't cast AT ALL, while Paladins can and do cast divine spells frequently.
The spell slot would exist, but couldn't be used until the character took the Improved Spell Capacity, which opened only one level higher than previously cast (First time granted one level 10 slot and any bonus spells slots, 2nd opened 11, and so on.) You never automatically received your 10+ spell levels unless your DM and players were unaware of this. While I can agree on the sentiment that granting Paladins additional spells per day CAN be overpowered; but forcing them to wait until 21st level, then burning a feat for 5th level spells, something that Clerics received 13 levels earlier just seems rather painful. But since it is RAW/RAI, and as a majority of the people here seem against it, going to dismiss it. Thanks for the input and feedback.
If your GM vetoed leadership which is in the rules, then they will likely veto this extremely overpowered house rule you are proposing. If you wanted more spells, you could have made an oradin instead of a paladin. I can agree, though I don't agree with the reasoning behind the veto of Leadership. He said, and I quote "since no one else is playing two characters, I don't think I'm going to let you either." which was after saying "only one person is allowed to have Leadership." So... While I assume it was from the standpoint of a level 20 game being overly long with the action economy, it was still a little bit of a low blow.
Before I begin, I'll admit, didn't take one look at the class, but here's some pointers I've noted from bringing beginners into any game: Duration abilities are balanced in that they grant bonuses to PC characteristics, and lots of people can relate to them since they've usually got some other game experience under their belt, whether thats WoW, Elder Scrolls, or w/e. However, limit the number of abilities they can use at any one time, and often times make it so that the ability doesn't become overbearing to keep track of. Something along the lines of: use three times per day, lasts for 5 minutes. This usually means three encounters, use it and forget it. Simple for beginners to grasp. Toggle abilities are also easy for beginners. Much akin to duration abilities, only these aren't as impacting to gameplay. Things like Power Attack and Combat Reflexes are toggle, either they're on and they're working, or they're off and their not. No duration, no hassle. But another variant (and mind you I just made this up on the fly) is: "Sweeping Style: Player can either choose to gain +2 to CMB on trip attempts forever, or +2 bonus on CMD vs trip attempts forever. Choose which at the beginning of an encounter." Again, no duration, its either one or the other. Lastly, static enhancements. Small boosts picked up along the leveling journey that enhance a characters capabilities. Stat growth, bonus to attack rolls, bonus to damage, bonus to skill checks, or increase in HP, these abilities require little to no thought, they're always active, and always a part of the character sheet. Obviously these ideas are incredibly dumbed down for experienced players, but until a fresh newbie can pick up the basics, these are a few things that can make a player feel like their character is advancing, while still giving them some options on what they're building.
Thus, I wouldn't allow it unless the mixed casters in a party needed something to bring them up to the power level of other characters. I see your points listed above, though I've chosen to highlight just this as: my Paladin is currently a Hospitaler, and the only individual of the group who has any healing capacity. Granted, I do have 22 uses of Lay on Hands, and since I took Extra Channel once (I have Channel Smite and Alignment Channel that I need to fuel) I have 17 uses of Channel Energy; thus I had no intention on using the extra slots for any kind of healing. I was going to use them for Paladin's Sacrifice and such in order to better protect my comrades. I believe of the four of us, I am also the only real front liner (AC and HP to withstand the charge of Balor's that I can only assume is coming), and it makes me leery going into a 20th level mini-campaign to be the one trying to protect everyone with fewer resources. Since I see the question coming: Why don't you take the Leadership feat and get yourself some help? My GM specifically vetoed it. I had a Warpriest rolled out to stand alongside the Paladin, but it got tanked. Was going to be a good duo too; double tower shields, Covering Defense, Shield Wall, Body Guard, and Swift Aid for some nice front line AC, backed up by dual healing/melee damage. I was ready to GO!
Sorry, maybe I should clarify, this is a level 20 paladin with a Charisma of 34. I get bonus spell slots up to level 9, but essentially all level 5 through 9 spell slots simply vanish. This is kind of sad, and rather a waste.
So I'm playing a high level Paladin for a few weeks who has a rather high Charisma. According to the Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, he would get spell slots above fourth level. How absurd would it be to allow any spell slots that are essentially "lost" due to Paladin's unfortunate lack of clerical spellcasting ability to simply be able to prepare more spells of their already known levels? It would seem appropriate, since were this a Sorcerer or Bard, I'd have gotten those spells anyway; and I hardly see it as overpowered since I'm not increasing the Spells DC, nor preparing a spell of fifth or above. For example: If my charisma grants a bonus 5th level slot, being able to put a 4th level spell or lower in it.
Adding in something like "only natural 20 rolls that result in a rolled crit confirmation are automatic hits while crane wing is active. This produces a critical strike as it would if cranewing had not been in effect." would probably be enough to make it appealing. Keep in mind there are magical items, spells and abilities that make crits into regular hits automatically, does this by extension convert it to a miss as well since it didn't confirm?
Sounds like that wonderful grey area where people on one side shout "RAW!!" while people on another side shout "RAI!!" and still others like me shout "GAME LORE!!" but no one hears because that's not a breakable platform to build OP characters on. Simply put: If the rules you are trying to use were written such that you require loopholes, word lawyering, or a redefining of terminology to get your build to work, it probably isn't viable. BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!! Wizards/Sorcerers in Pathfinder do not gain the ability Summon Familiar. This was eradicated when 3.5 became Pathfinder. It is now simply: Arcane Bond. The prerequisite for Adept Channel is explicit to the class Adept, which is the only way to acquire the "Class Ability" Summon Familiar, as Cevah pointed out. The verbage on Adept Channel is clear and binary, you either have that exact class ability, or you do not. If you should choose to ignore this with the reasoning that like abilities should spawn like prerequisites, I would counter with this:
All of it... Wow... catch your breath. As far as my experience goes, it wasn't the Crane Riposte that made my DM upset, it was the Snake Fang + Combat Reflexes with a Dex mod of +7 that he really didn't like, Riposte was just another extra attack that didn't consume an AoO on top. Add in Duelist's own Riposte and Parry maneuver... well you get the idea. Mirror Image would have been a nice touch though, as would Shield, Mage Armor, Blink, Displacement...
The template takes away the creature's Charsima ... Balls.
SO since I actually read Ravingdork's posts in their entirety, and he asked specifically for RAW, here is mine:
You can 100% ready an action to attack a blinking creature as he enters the material plane, but since his spell effect has not ended, he is still entitled to the effects of the spell. I use this next part specifically to qualify this reasoning: Any individually targeted spell has a 50% chance to fail against you while you're blinking unless your attacker can target invisible, ethereal creatures. Any individual who can cast a targeted spell must have LoS and a valid target, thus the character blinking must have been in the Material Plane at the time of casting, otherwise the spell would fail... which it has a 50% chance to do. Since Blink does not state if this is because the Blinker winked out of existence before he completed his spell, or if the Blinker did so just as the spell was coming at him and missed, it would assume that its probably a combination of both, leading back to my previous post: an attack aimed a Blinker is still doomed to fail 50% of the time by mere random chance.
Kyaaadaa, if you should ever find yourself in a similar situation again, you could point out that your GM was so busy looking at the monk's unarmed strike rules and arguing that they made the unarmed strike count as a weapon for Sundering, he forgot to go back and check that the being a 'weapon' is what lets you Sunder something in the first place. Sunder doesn't require that its target be a 'weapon' - it requires that it be an 'item held or worn by your opponent.' While a monk's unarmed strike is treated as if it were a weapon when adjudicating beneficial spells and effects, it still is not an item. It also is neither held nor worn. Which was what the long and arduous debate between myself and the DM was. In the end, to just move the game along, I went with it, and ultimately he never managed to kill my character, but I used that story as a bit of a warning to individuals who crank up the AC. Your DM shall find a way to combat maneuver your tanky CW user, whether its non-stop tripping, grappling and beating into submission. Also, drowning works, can't Crane Wing water in a cave...
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.
In reality I would think that anything occupying the space that you are returning to would swap places with you, hence a portion of your sword (hopefully the cheap disposable one) is now in the Ethereal, and no longer attached to your blade, much like moving a blade half-in and half out of a portal... SLICE. But a much simpler solution is the shunt, though a sword wouldn't be ample enough material to cause 1d6 damage... maybe a whole tower shield, but even then, I'd just adjust the individual with Blink 5 feet randomly with no damage at all. Focused more on topic, though it seems the issue is settled: Blink is not only took random, but possibly too fast, for a readied action to work. By the time you swung sword into space, Lord knows you might miss air due to the time it takes to swing. Your readied action could easily make your chances WORSE than 50%.
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.
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks. No, and this was what eventually pounded my MoMS monk. My GM essentially went "AHA! They errata'd Crane Wing!" and told me the rules, but it really didn't matter since my AC was high enough anyway. So instead he browbeat me with a rather ingenious (and much argued) ruling: A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons... Thus the opposite should be true, and Sunder means I break your arms or legs or head... He then proceeded to CMB me and deal full weapon damage + Strength to individual limbs i.e. my HP total for every encounter. Also, since it is a dodge bonus, if it becomes too much; DM's can simply flat-foot your CW user with whatever viable option necessary every round to remove the poor fool.
I might have missed it, but I believe you also forgot DR 5/Bludgeoning and Immunity to Cold damage. Also, though not that it really matters, but Improved Initiative. Edit: CHA bonus to HP instead of CON, so it might still get bonus HP.
I would try it if you think you have the narrative skill to do so, but try to avoid the old Player's Paradox of "Just because you know it doesn't mean your character does / Your character only knows as much as you do." I would play it as such: If the meaning of your puzzles doesn't become apparent to the party within a real life time frame of a set amount, allow them skill checks to provide hints and clues. Especially ones that deal with recent or semi-recent events in your characters personal struggles (encounters with like foes, similar organizations, the same deity or cult, or members of a nation's society/culture). Barring their lack of success on that front, perhaps before sending them into your temple, have a cleric guide NPC who is pretty much just a fall back to keep things moving, or jog their memory (and maybe try to murder them all later). As Cuup said though, don't make puzzles, traps, secret doors, or like items a mandatory event without SOME way of relatively quickly overcoming or bypassing them, because I've done it, and its a disaster. Events hinged upon the party overcoming these obstacles themselves just become lost in translation as the story sweeps them forever onward. Last but not least, I applaud you for trying something outside of pure combat and mindless story telling to enhance your campaign! Much good luck to you in your endeavors.
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. Not to mention that few wizard fights take place in the outdoors. Wizards are stereotypically fought in their sanctum, with a ceiling overhead restricting their height. +20 Acrobatics and the ability to perform standing jumps as though they ran 20 feet makes grabbing and flooring those flying wizards rather easy. What? 3d6 points of fall damage? Oh monks get Slow Fall too. Guess that's just for the enemy wizard. Try that again, free damage is always fun.
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.
Going to post my monk since someone asked me to. Currently level 6, though the end result is going to be 8 MoMS, 3 FHF, 9 Duelist. Monk 4/Fighter 2 STR: 11
To clarify: DM did not, obviously, use the 20 point buy system, thankfully, since that system is weak. Feats: Snapping Turtle Style (a horrible decision in hind-sight, should have first went with, and did pick up Crane Style, but since this was my first Pathfinder Monk, its was a lesson learned)
Traits: Exile (+2 Initiative) and Suspicious (+1 Sense Motive) In possession of an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 and Bracer's of Armor +3. My standing AC is 25. Fighting Defensively puts me at 29. Combat Expertise puts me at 31. He does have his flaw in that he doesn't hit hard, which I knew when I made him. He wasn't meant to, though I know that sounds like complete lunacy to DPR fanatics. We have a Fighter and a Paladin for that. This guy eats up AoO allowing those two to get at whoever they want, and then buddies with the Rogue so he can Sneak Attack strays. If all the melee enemies are playing happily with the two front-liners, then I go after the spell casters. My touch AC is incredibly hard to hit for a wizard, and while an 8 Reflex save isn't overly high for a 6th level character, its no slouch either. I eat spellcasters, and have consistently. My only downfall currently is if I'm caught Flat-footed since my AC is almost entirely Dodge. That rarely happens. My feat progression is going to continue with style feats, going for Panther and Snake. End result is a Dervish of two attacks against every foe who AoO me when I run past, and beasting 1v1.
Woots! Someone else gets it! inb4: "but other classes can do it too", "being good at one thing doesn't make them good", "they're not good at anything else, and barely good at this one thing"
Oh, and as for solutions, the general consensus is that some archetypes are playable, I'll go with that - why play a 'standard' monk when you can play a Quiggong Monk? I go with that too. Zen Archer is nifty also. MoMS for free style feats as a couple level dip, especially for Duelist ramp up.
A note to all "These <x> classes are better." Did the class exist before Monk was written in 3.0 D&D?If the answer is no, then you have a power creep, and it would be obvious why Monk fell down the ladder. A LOT of classes used in the previous posts fall into this catagory, including every single one of Paizo's creations. As for changing what DEX and WIS does, this would cause catastrophic gameplay issues since it would upheave everything about every class, re-prioritizing all the stats for every class across the board. If you meant "for Monk only", that is possible, but also wouldn't make sense, since Monks are styled off the Shaolin Monks, who favor Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution and to an extent Intelligence. Obviously this is a challenge to a system that refuses to allow such extremes. And for Paizo hating Monks: they didn't make the Monk as is, they copy/pasted it from 3.0/3.5 D&D. Not changing them shows lack of creativity and laziness, not a hatred toward them.
Did I post Post #666? Bwah ha ha!
I've participated in these threads over and over and tried (though I'll admit boorishly and failing) to defend monks. Here's my question. To the monk haters... what are you guys trying to get out of flaw picking Monks? The end result being no one ever plays Monks again? All your rage will make Paizo change Monks even though they were built in 3.5 this way, possibly giving an automatic 18 in STR and WIS? Are people ranting just to rant? I don't know what the masses are hoping to gain other than trolling on a weak class. Enlighten me. I've pointed out Monk's strong points, which were undermined and I got "other classes have those too so Monk sucks." and "they have nothing original and specific to themselves, which makes them worse than the other classes." What change(s) can anyone make to build them up? Put a solution to all these problems.
I like this one. "You didn't system master, so your whole party is full of fail." I didn't say I'm the only one being effective, but I'm not playing my Monk as a pure DD. I lead the charge, eating up AoO before parking myself usually by the enemy spellcasters/archers/cleric, and let the Pally/Fighter go in. By the first swings, most enemies miss me, and focus on the easier to hit fighters or go straight for the mages.\ And no. I'm saying the Monk, with more HP and higher AC than the wizard, should be the one benefiting everyone else by flanking and doing his damage. And no, I'm not saying that Monks are the only class able to do this, pointing out that they can, and are good at it. Pets, Rogues and such doing the same tend to get smashed easier when they attempt it, and if the Fighter is playing that role, they're really not tanking and tactics are going floppy.
Did you miss the memo? Wizards get a full d6 now. Forgive that slip, only been playing Pathfinder for a little bit, still a 3.5 player at heart. But 1 more HP average per HD? I'd still cave his skull in. And yet to see an argument against Monks vs Wizards that isn't 100% accountable to every other DD class out there.
I like this one. "You didn't system master, so your whole party is full of fail."
I'll ignore the Mirror Image and Displacement arguement, since that affects everyone, not just Monks. Monk MAD issues are flaws everyone is familiar with, and they won't be going away. However, I usually don't pump STR or CON, opting for DEX and WIS instead, and dropping CHA. As for Grappling wizards in the first place, they're only a d4 HD. Flurry the schmuck until he's face first and move on. With high DEX and WIS, a Monk's Touch AC is much higher than a Fighter in plate, and with Evasion Fireballs/Lightning Bolts are a laugh. Except for the universal protections wizards can put on themselves, Monks are more equipped to deal with them than other classes are. P.S. Someone bring up Ranged attacks against flying Wizards, that will be a fun one to debunk.
After a certain level, its because he is flying/invisible/something else you can't do diddly about, not because the DM is a jerk.That's a pretty hateful DM, though there are probably no shortage of those. Invis is one thing, flying is another. Unless you're in a wide open field with the sky above you, you're usually fighting a wizard in his dungeon, with wonderful walls to jump off of and a ceiling for the wizard to be restricted by. Doesn't Monk get +20 Acrobatics check and a running jump even standing still? As for mirror image, everyone, OP Fighter included, is hampered by that. Its not a slap in the face for just Monks, so I don't see how its Monk-hate specific.
My Monk (currently never felled) has the highest AC of our Elven Paladin (who hits the deck almost every fight) and Dwarf Fighter (who tanks with his face), so "fragile" is speculative. "But the GM hits the Fighter/Paladin because they deal the damage." He stopped swinging at me when he found out he couldn't hit me. Anyone can flank, but the Fighter is usually in the mix deep enough the Rogue/Ninja doesn't want to be near it, what with Alchemist explosions, Fireballs and baddy Cleaves going off. Monk and Rogue tag teams to pick off strays require two bodies, and no Arcane or Divine caster is going to take the Monk's place in the mess. No, Monk doesn't pull anything special, except the flank wasn't possible without him. And before someone says "The Rogue should just go in after the Fighter to flank with him." Most DMs eat alive anything squishy in the melee, so as soon as the Rogue gets in range, he'd be mauled before his next turn. Its what I would do as a DM. Druid Animal companions are easily my second target for every baddy and his brother. Squish. Right after wizard familiars. Oh please do send him to attack. I understand the frustration. I wish I had a 200+ DPR on my Monk with 300 HP and an AC of 50 too. If you don't want to play Monk in favor for something else, go for it. But I've never ever seen a Monk who enters combat and does absolutely nothing for 15 rounds, which seems to be the over all view of how Monks play.
That's a pretty hateful DM, though there are probably no shortage of those.
Flurry mimics 4/4 bab with the restriction of must use 2WF. so all the 2WF classes i mentioned are a fair comparison. If it didn't mimic 4/4 BAB, no one would ever use it, especially since its nickname is Flurry of Misses anyway. This doesn't legitimize it since most 4/4 BAB can opt not use TWF and still have 4/4. Monk, more skill points? their extreme MAD, and their lack of int synergy makes them horrible skill monkeys. plus 4+int isn't really a lot. The normal comparison is "Fighters vs Monks" in most conversations, and INT's only real synergy with any class is arcane spellcasters. No spells, clearly not a caster Of course. no real support abilities, not really a team player Faster movement speed to get to enemy spellcasters faster, slow fall to dive into combat from hieghts without taking damage, evasion to avoid AoE from spellflingers, and unarmored AC to rival light and medium armored fighter/ranger. Ki pool to allow increased movement, increased AC, and additional attacks.
Of course they are, but they're not designed like a fighter/ranger/paladin, so they shouldn't be treated like them.
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves. I see Monks compared to Fighters more often than any other class, which is the comparison.
And Monks AREN'T their own niche, that's the issue. ^ What I'm trying to change is this thought. Everyone plays a Monk with the idea "I'm going to be an unarmored fighter" or "barbarian with fists!" or "Flurry with arrows like a ranger!" and never "I'm going to play this Monk as a *gasp* Monk." Build a Monk to add onto what the party's Fighter is doing, what the Ranger is doing, or the Rogue is doing instead of trying to BE those classes. Every character only has so many actions in a round, so if the Fighter wants to do two things at once but can't, the Monk takes over the other, and vice versa. Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most. Says it perfectly, aiding allies wherever they're needed. They make great flank buddies with everyone, add additional damage to already weak foes, and use their MAD in the form of adding WIS to CMD (for a total of three stats) and AC (instead of just DEX) Asking them to be just as good as Fighters, Rangers, etc. undermines those classes and puts Monk in a bad view when they don't perform. If all you want is DPR, make a Fighter, its why its there. Monks aren't underpowered, they're usually just played wrong.
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves. Putting Monks into the same catagory as SAD classes when Monks are MAD is also a falacy. If anything, Monks should be compared to Rogues and Ninjas, maybe Bard though they get no spells, and not much else. Monk's are party rounders, performing actions during a turn other people could perform, but don't have to since the Monk has it covered. Expecting them to produce combat statistics on par with the above mentioned classes is asking unjustly from a class that simply wasn't designed to do it. It can be done with mucho tweaking, but is better put into the hands of the 4/4 BAB classes tailored for those tasks. Its a topic I've been trying to push for a bit now, as some people might know, that Monk's are their own niche, instead of trying to "round peg/square hole" them into other class' definitions.
And with both of them, if you're below level 10, means 1v1, your opponent won't land an attack against you, and even at 20th level, means their highest chance is at BAB 10. Also to note, both Attack of Opportunities made for Crane and Duelist Ripostes are made at the highest BAB for the Duelist, a very fair trade.
Crane style is potentially interesting, but doesn't synergize well with Duelist's Parry and Riposte. Actually this is far from the truth. Crane Parry and Riposte can and does stack with Duelist Parry and Riposte, allowing a one-on-one fight to be rather one sided for the Duelist. Parrying two attacks, and counter-attacking on those attacks, is a tasty thing. For the OP: I have a Duelist in the works, I went starting out with Master of Many Styles Monk, making my DEX and WIS my primary stats with INT last so my unarmored AC is high. I ignored STR, CON and CHA altogether. I started with Snapping Turtle style, though this was in hindsight a mistake since I was new to Pathfinder Monks, for the increase in AC. I would, instead, go Crane first, into Snake, and finally Panther. Panther and Snake styles stack with Mobility and Duelist Improved Mobility for some serious AoO. Move around the field, provoking AoO at +8 AC, using Snake Style to counter-attack their AoO, and attacking again on a targets of your choice (Panther style AoO are not true AoO, and the number of attacks is based on WIS mod, not DEX/Combat Reflexes). This will not only allow you quite a few attacks in a single round, but also open the field up for your party to maneuver into position for flanks and targeting the weak members of the enemies. Free Hand Fighter is the fighter variant I went with since it compliments Duelist well, being that it uses only a single weapon (as does Duelist) and builds on AC. The downside is BAB is low, for a low to-hit unless you max DEX and weapon finesse, and the feat taxes to get those AoO leaves you without Weapon Focus and Spec. If you're attempting something a little harder hitting, this isn't so much your bag, but if you're looking for a very tactical support character beasting 1v1, it should do well.
While this may be true, I'd end up running in either case just to be sure the guy killing people doesn't kill me. I don't know how many people think someone bludgeoning someone else in public is common practice, but I'd be terrified. This applies to Paladins going around killing every evil person as it does Blackguards going around killing every good person. Its still a man with a mace crushing skulls. I'm getting the hell out before they come for me. And where does Neutral fit into that? When does a Paladin think that Neutral is only a single step away from evil and start after them? Only the most ardent society of the strictest goodie-goodie rules in existence would condone such a display. (Ok, a little Straw Manned, but only a little)
You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass. Aha, I do stand corrected. Truthfully, I haven't really played a rogue except one or two briefly since 2nd edition, and that was usually in Baldur's Gate II (still love that game) so my knowledge behind that subject is a little lacking.
I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.I usually tell the one from the other by which deity they pray afterwards and what kind of sacrifice they offer them. Seems a little flimsy, especially if their's is a god that practices compassion over smiting. My point was that if onlookers couldn't be able to tell the difference between the two during the act, maybe the difference isn't really there. If I'm horrified by a bloodletting taking place, then I hear prayers to a benevolent diety in the aftermath, odds are I'm not going to start thinking positively about the gore covered champion, but instead maybe rethinking that the deity in question isn't so benevolent after all if this is how their champions act.
You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass. With the exception of going into classes that mandate an alignment other than LG (chaotic for Barbarian and Rogue, Neutral for Druid, etc) Paladins can multi-class all they want.
They removed the blurb about multi-classing Paladin (and subsequently Monks) out of Pathfinder when it ceased being 3.5. Mostly due to the fact that lots of people realize these classes are great dips, and that 90% of the useful abilities come with the first 4 levels of a class, and many characters won't have those levels consecutively.
The big argument I see from players is "if it doesn't fulfill every aspect of Paladin-ness, then they Fall." Walking the path of righteousness is not supposed to be a cut and dry path of "smash evil." Its a daunting challenging walk, constantly testing the Paladin (and the player's roleplaying capacity) during their travels. They most certainly do hold themselves responsible for the actions of an evil person if they made the choice to let them live, but that doesn't mean their soul is dropped into the murk. Often times, a veteran Paladin is haunted by the decisions he's had to have made, killing one person, letting another go to jail instead of the chopping block, or allowing the one to escape. As long as the character remains true to his deity, his cause, and his morals, he's not Falling, he's roleplaying. Detecting Evil is a starting point, not an end all. Its a good tool to get a point of reference when dealing with suspect people. That clerk skimming coins is a good example. If the Paladin is buying his new Long Sword +2, and he feels he's getting the rip, he can pop the Detect, and take a more firm stance in his haggling. It doesn't mean the sword comes out of the scabbard.
Monks are more support than Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers because A: they're MAD, and B: they don't have the same BAB. Normally, support characters focus on more evasion, mobility, and tactics than clubbing things on the head, and DEX allows this much more than STR. As such, its usually the higher stat, and people capitolize on Weapon Finesse for that. Also, you can deal damage while Grappling on the second round of the Grapple, provided you managed to hold on to your opponent.
Just be aware, big creatures get grapple bonuses, multi-armed creatures have sick Grapple bonuses, and NPCs can have Improved Grapple. Its still do-able, maneuver Monks are always an option, but it is situational. As for style feats, Snake+Crane is tasty when fighting defensively. Riposte the first attack and AoO, then dodge the subsequent attacks and AoO again. Then take your turn, and attack. Repeat process. Yammer has not created a profile. |