Malfus's page

Thanks for the fast reply! No need for expanded discussion then?

Specifically, can a witch use Possess Undead on one of her Animate Dead minions? Possess Undead and the relevant portion of Magic Jar below.

Might I suggest a Minor Ring of Spell Storing with 3 True Strikes in it? Pretty much free auto success (as long as you have greater grapple).

Easy way around dodge bonuses that anyone can use: Feint

In 3.5 yes, but not in Pathfinder as far as I can tell.

Honestly though, I can think of better uses for a tied up creature than coup-de-grace. Explore the possibilities with your group before you kill whatever poor soul was just captured.

For fastest tie up speed, just grab Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler. You can start the grapple as a standard, maintain and pin as a move, and then maintain and tie up as a swift. 2nd round coup-de-grace for anyone who grabs those feats.

EDIT:Rapid Grapple -> Rapid Grappler

Malfus wrote:

So... you are saying you want a better option than other classes for TWF... namely enchanted monk fists? Am I understanding you correctly?

Where did you get that from?

I am saying that TWF or not, the monk's unarmed strike is lagging well behind other prime manufactured weapons in terms of three out of four factors: enhancement, threat range and threat multiplier. Comparing manufactured weapons to one-another, the damage dice are the least important factor in the long run, and enhancement costs the same no matter which one you use. Yet the unarmed strike is expected to be a primary weapon for a combat class.

What I would like is for the enhancement to be brought up to speed so that the monk can at least hit targets as reliably as a full BAB class TWFing and not using it's special tricks. Then the increasing damage dice of the unarmed strike is matched by the greater threat ranges and multipliers available to those with proficiency with martial weapons.

In other words, I want the monk to be as good as the other combat classes when they are TWFing WITHOUT their smites, rages, favoured enemies or weapon training. They then have these options on top, while the monk has his defences and stunning fist.

Two points.

1. Unarmed strike is a single primary weapon, monks have other weapons that they are expected to use for offense, namely all weapons they are proficient with and can use in a flurry. These weapons come with the same perks and drawbacks that any other class using them would have (except fighters).

2. You are effectively +1 down for a single fist when you use a strictly allying weapon approach, not exactly the end of the world, plus you can use the weapon itself for special material DR early on.

EDIT: Originally had 3, but I couldn't figure out a good wording for the 3rd.

Malfus wrote:

There are also finessable weapons you can use...

Why a dex based monk anyway? You get TWF for free and you get your full str on offhand attacks...

...and an AC that sucks to combine with your d8 hit dice. I know it's not a huge difference from a d10, but with MAD your con is likely less than a full-BAB class, so you will suffer if you cannot keep your AC up.

I've generally found dex & wis based monks more survivable than strength based monks (ie they actually can survive without a caster buffing them to heaven), while Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers allow their attacks and maneuvers to go unhindered. Damage output suffers, but I was never a believer that the monk should out-damage the fighter anyway.

Plus, nine-foot tall muscle-bound hulks just don't fit the image of the shaolin priest for me. The monk is supposed to be about skill and precision, not brute-force and ignorance - there are fighters for that.

Oh, and the finesseable weapons a monk can use are either 1d6 20/x2 or 1d4 20/x2. Overall, better off fighting unarmed above 4th level.

So... you are saying you want a better option than other classes for TWF... namely enchanted monk fists? Am I understanding you correctly?

There are also finessable weapons you can use...

Why a dex based monk anyway? You get TWF for free and you get your full str on offhand attacks...

At low levels your fist don't do that much more than the weapons you can use. For instance, you only surpass the Temple sword at level 8. Enhance a temple sword up to that point and give it allying after you break the threshold. Or just be patient (as all monks should be :D) and accept that you are going to be +1 behind people with weapons other than fists for a few levels. You will eventually surpass them though (speaking strictly of cost-benefit comparisons).

Malfus wrote:

Until that happens I will keep the monks of this board informed about all of their options.

I am making a Master of Many Styles and might have to use this idea. "luckily' for me I lose FoB so I dont have to pay for two weapons. Might enchant my temple sword with it and see how things go...or a cestus.

Temple sword would probably be the best idea, as you can enchant the temple sword with other stuff and have a good selection between your AoMF fists and temple sword. I prefer cestus for pure monks because I personally find the idea of magical combat gloves that enhance your martial prowess to be very fitting.

Until that happens I will keep the monks of this board informed about all of their options.

But you use the AoMF to get bonuses other than EB, such as ghost touch or flaming. Added together you get the +10 total that other weapons can achieve for less than 3/4 the price.

EDIT: I agree, it is wonky, but it is a legitimate way to get the +10 fists that all monks (well, REAL monks :D) want, for far less gold than the average TWFer would have to put up.

Two things:

1. The price of all these weapons together is 269k. This would function at the same level as 2 +10 weapons, which would cost the average TWFer 400k.

2. It is debatable whether or not you need to attack with them at all, considering the wording used in the text of the "Allying" weapons entry. Even if you have to attack with it, you don't necessarily have to burn your useful attacks with them, just toss them in at the end of a routine. Barring that, just pay some schmo a few copper pieces a day to swing wildly at the air while passing your fists the bonuses due to the weapons.

They don't stack, but you need a separate weapon for each fist you use during a flurry. Also, I advocate applying the bonus to the fist beneath the cestus. If your GM doesn't like it, apply the bonus to your fingertips instead, say hello to Sir Pokerton. Failing that, just apply the bonus to your elbows.

EDIT: lol, ninja'd

I agree, being forced to jump through hoops is silly (see my fix for how to deal with the "necessity to attack"), but I also want monk players to realize all the options they have, one of which is an +5 allying cestus on each fist. Very thematically appropriate, in my opinion.

What, I suggest going for non EB on your AoMF, so that it stacks with your allying weapon EB. You effectively get the +10 (+5 EB, +5 other stuff) weapon that everyone wants for 3k less.

In the end, an allying weapon + AoMF is cheaper than a +10 weapon. You win some and you lose some.

Dabbler wrote:

You know I find it amazing that after Paizo (via the devs) have said again and again that they will not replace the AoMF, and an item fix will not be considered, people still propose them.

Just give use an item that only effects unarmed strikes or a single natural weapon.

Boom. Both AoMF and whatever the new item is are both viable for separate builds (AoMF for something with multiple natural weapons, new item for Monks).

I keep saying that an allying weapon is 100% legit for this very purpose.

1) Are you your own ally?

Yes

Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10

2) Can you 'wield' the weapon without making an attack with it?

It is debatable, but it would appear that you can get away with using your last attack for the weapon that transferred the bonus. Note that allying says that you must allocate the bonus at the start of [your] turn before using [your] weapon. Good 'ole skr likes to say that you must attack with a weapon to "use" it, and since you must use this ability explicitly before you have had a chance to attack (or move for that matter), you first allocate the bonus, then you go about getting in your requisite attack, at some point.

Fact is, the AoMF is a sucky item for the monk. It's way too expensive not just in gold but in the slot it occupies, and the extra cost racks up over levels to keep the monk comofrtably +1 to +2 behind equivelant weapons up to around 18th level, compounding the monk's MAD problems.

I disagree. As I pointed out earlier, one amulet plus an allying weapon = +5 fist with +5 worth of amulet stuff for the price of 197k compared to 200k for a comparable weapon. Sure you build up slower, but by the end you are even, and it is an even better value to pick up a second +10 fist, as long as you share the same amulet buffs between them.

If he took part in the fight, he gets xp. That's the rule I play by. GM can do what he wants, but xp is just an abstraction for becoming better through experience, and imo, he experienced the fight with the boss, he didn't get KB, but only one party member got KB anyway, so I would expect him to get as much xp as the next guy.

By the same token, someone with say, 3 dex and str could still be a top notch dancer. Perhaps it is merely an abstraction that takes into account a person's perception of the dancer himself, for example, if you saw someone in full plate doing a dance, you wouldn't expect the same range of movement as from, say, a person wearing a leotard, so his performance with restricted movement draws the same reaction as his dance without, simply because observers only expect a certain amount of mobility.

In the topic of the OP, I would like to point out that a +5 AoMF (statted with non EB) and one +5 Allying Weapon costs 197k, whilst one +10 weapon costs 200k.

For Improved Unarmed Strike, they can attack with their feet, so yes they threaten. It is different for claws. If the creature has claws on his hands, then he has to choose to not wield his bow at the end of his turn. This frees up one hand while the other merely holds the bow. If he has claws on his feet, then he can wield the bow and threaten at the same time.

I thought about intelligent scroll that communicates by rearranging its letters around instead of speech.

Would that mean it could prolong its life by jumbling up the spell so it couldn't be used?

I would like to point out that as an Oracle of Lore, any pre-reqs for item crafting go out the window as soon as he picks up focused trance (+20 to any single int based check, CHA times a day).

Malfus wrote:

you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.

I meant wield, since that's what the property states.

Sean K Reynolds (Developer) wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

(...)
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.

The first seems redundant, "If you hold and attack with a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." The second seems non-nonsensical, as it appears I would not threaten with a reach weapon unless I attacked with it that turn...

Malfus wrote:

Wield or use?

Allying: "An allying weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to one weapon being used by an ally of the wielder. The wielder must have line of sight to the intended ally. As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus. The bonus to the ally's weapon lasts until the allying weapon's wielder's next turn. The enhancement bonus from the allying weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus on the ally's weapon (if any)."

From the Defending weapon property FAQ: "Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits."

I already knew of that FAQ, but you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.

You would still have to wield the allying weapon that round, still, that could be a decent use of your last iterative or off-hand.

Wield or use?

I think it is very similar to the enchanted handwrap idea myself.

22K more expensive.

On topic, why not just let monks, and only monks, enhance their fists? Price it as a double weapon and only have it work when wearing no armor and I see no issues.

Using an allying weapon + AoMF is actually 2k cheaper than a single +10 weapon. Using two allying weapons and one AoMF is far cheaper than 2 +10 weapons.

The lesson, just use an allying weapon or two.

Just get an allying weapon to give one of your fists an enhancement bonus. Stop worrying about overpriced amulet slots.

You mean +18 when flurrying. And that is also up to 4 attacks at +18. He can also use an allying weapon, much cheaper than the amulet at higher EB's. So he is just 2 behind a martial class, but he does have a slightly more expensive weapon (+6 price vs +5).

If they can hit, which is the bigger issue than damage as they are a 3/4 bab class that can at attack bonus to the primary iconic weapon of the class.

I do not understand the bolded part.

Perhaps I am jaded by my long exposure to the 3.5/3.p system, but I am more than accustomed to the need for magical items. A monk doesn't need such things, as he has 2d10 fists at level 20, which is high enough to counteract some DR's through sheer base damage differences. But to defeat high magic foes, one generally needs some high magic of his own.

Hold/Dominate Person/Monster. Iconic Enchantment Spells.

Can we all agree both are ridiculous?

Meh, I think you carrying your own allying weapon can be quite thematic, especially when using close fitting weapons such as a cestus.

Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.

Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.

Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?

A closer situation would be thus: you were killed by someone you were trying rob, who then goes down on you to suck your blood. Are they irrevocably evil? Not necessarily, but if he has a penchant of getting robbed and in equal proportion a penchant for sucking the blood of those he slew for robbing him, then yes, he might be evil.

just so you guys can play with it, the speed of sound at sea level is roughly 1,100 feet per second, or 6,600 feet in six seconds (1 1/4 miles) or one round.

So if you can get faster than 6,600 feet per round, you will generate a sonic boom.

Already did, check two posts above yours.

rabble rabble rabble. yes, it is ridiculous. yes, monks need help hitting things. i'd carry an oversized Q-staff it it meant i could kick better.

Is it as ridiculous as your friend carrying the quarterstaff that makes you kick better?

Name: Varian
Race: Human
Classes/levels: Oracle 6
Adventure: What Lies in Dust
Location: The Summoning Room in Delvhaven
Catalyst: Trying to solve the Summoning Door
The Gory Details: Varian, being the curious Knowledge (planes) specialist that he is, decides to try his hand at opening the door. Moments later a Skeletal Hellcat appears and proceeds to attack him. Varian's AC is 9, so getting hit was a given, and his CMD was 10, thus being grappled was also a given. After one round in the hellcat's grasp, his last words were to the group's multirole inquistor, Hsaar. They were as follows, "Move next to me and flank it!" During the hellcat's next turn, Varian was killed outright, and the group proceeded to kill it.

Luckily, Sevrin (the group's rogue and Varian's ward) knew of a druid who had previously brought back an NPC as a favor. After a week of travel to the west, Varian was returned to life as a half-orc.

Name: Sevrin
Race: Human
Classes/levels: Rogue 5, Assassin 1
Adventure: What Lies in Dust
Location: **Under the summoning room**
Catalyst: Trying to grab the artifact
The Gory Details: Both Varian and Daven (the group's Barbarian) had just been blinded upon approaching the artifact and Limey (NPC Gnome packmule) had just activated the artifact's much more powerful defense. Sevrin decided that he would be able to approach it safely (Reflex save of +12 and evasion). He successfully dodged the first beam, but the ensuing burst hit him full on (he rolled a nat 2, 14 total). In his blinded state he was unable to locate the artifact by the end of his turn, and he was killed on his next turn when the amulet bursted him again.

His final fate is yet to be decided.

I do not agree with your interpretation. For instance, a fighter can automatically confirm a critical hit, no roll. I believe that coup-de-grace is assumed to be an automatically confirmed crit.

Death or Glory is also a terrible, worthless feat and you'd be better off throwing your feat slot away for literally nothing than taking Death or Glory and actually using it instead of full attacking.

Sorry, but since the OP was actually asking about the feat, public service announcement is apparently needed. :)

It can be pretty fun with crane style/wing. Attack him using the feat, then laugh as he tries to hit you back. Still not particularly powerful, but at least useful at that point.

Ki leech says you have to score a critical or reduce them to 0 or fewer hit points.

Coup-de-grace is an automatic critical hit.

Level 20 half-elf synthesist (quadruped):

4 feats are Extra Evolution
4 feats are the Eldritch heritage (Stormborn) line (skill focus bonus, 3 eldritch heritage feats)
3 feats are fleet.

All evolutions are in the Flight evolution. 35 pts total (26 base, 4 from bonus feats, 5 from choosing 1/4 ev.pt. every level as a half-elf). That makes a fly speed of 715 ft (40 base, 660 from extra points, 15 for fleet)

As a full round action, he can travel 7150 feet in 6 seconds through the sky. That is ~1192 ft/s. The sound barrier is ~1116 ft/s. He can travel faster than the speed of sound for 2 minutes every day.

EDIT: hasted bumps the speed up by 30. 745 base fly speed, 1242 ft/s for 2 min. a day.

Cloud step has a maximum distance of 50 feet.

I find the idea that a Paladin can't ever do anything that's not 100% purifying pure pureness rather unrealistic unless the GM is running a completely black and white campaign where the only moral choice are things like "You can either go punch evil in the face, or murder babies just because you're evil."

If it's a more realistic campaign where there are shades of grey, a Paladin kind of has to deal with some level of moral ambiguity. Trying to follow a black and white code in a grey world can make for a very fun roleplaying experience, but it kind of falls apart if one posits that Paladins can't handle that kind of thing.

I should expand and say that the act of killing then consuming your foes for sustenance opens up the door to questioning what the paladin's true motivation is. As long as the paladin kills only to slay that which is irredeemably evil or protect his group/charge/cause, then he is in the right. However, if the Paladin is able to benefit by merely killing a sentient creature, then who is to say that the paladin didn't slay the last foe because he needed to grab a quick snack. Only the paladin and GM could say, and sometimes not even the paladin is sure himself. I suggested what I did to remove any possible questions as to the paladin's motivations.

RAI is extremely unclear in respect to allying and defending weapons. SKR claims that you must actually attack with the weapon to get the bonuses to work, whereas the ability descriptions claim that you choose at the beginning of your turn, before you are able to attack.
As far as using the weapon in an... unintended manner, I say monks need all the help they can get, and it is technically legal so I await errata before I deny a monk the ability to have an affordable magic fist.

EDIT: I find it odd that you would be so skeptical of legality, when you yourself suggested changing the rules flat out.

EDIT EDIT: I should mention that my preferred weapon is a cestus as I can transfer the bonus to the underlying fist and attack with the fist that has the cestus, but refrain from actually using the cestus for damage.