PlagueCrafter's page

I've searched around the thread and haven't found a great answer to this: Can I use the Unchained Monk to be an absolute Grapple monstrosity?
I don't mean to ask if I can get a really high Grapple modifier, or if I can achieve an astounding CMD, but rather, I mean to ask if I can do new and/or special things surrounding the theme of Grappling that, say, a vanilla Fighter can't do.
When I had Tetori available, I could Grab, Constrict, took almost no penalties, got to Counter-Grapple, could Grapple through Freedom of Movement, could Grapple a Ghost, and more.
I've been looking as intensely as I can, and I've seen literally nothing to support Grappling from the Unchained Monk so far. Am I missing something? Is this not the class that best represents Grapplers anymore? Is this not the Luchador or the Judoka? Not the Greco-Roman strongman?
Are there abilities that assist Grappling that I just have yet to see? Can I even qualify for the Tetori archetype?
Honestly, I have no qualms about any of the balance changes regarding Unchained Monk; I just really miss this aspect in particular. Grappling was special for a Monk.

Does this mean that Warpriest levels do not qualify for fighter-only feats like Weapon Specialization?

I second this query.

Another question: Sacred Weapon specifies that you must select a weapon by selecting it with the Weapon Focus feat. That's no big deal, because you get it for free, right? Well, if you choose the Improved Unarmed Strike option instead, because your deity offers you Unarmed Strike, you suddenly don't qualify for selecting your fists as your Sacred Weapon.
Are you then meant to take Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) manually after the fact, so that you can then count it as your Sacred Weapon? Is that the intent?

No Spiritual Ally?
C'moooooooooon.

Seriously though, other than that, I'm completely satisfied with the changes made.

Do we have any lore basis on what the Spirit Totem Rage Powers' Spirits are or where they're from?
They seem pretty similar to the 'whispy things that fly around and moan at people'.
They happen to deal Negative Energy damage, which is slightly more likely to be something Undead related, I suppose, but otherwise, they seem to fit the same sort of ambiguous 'Spirit' ideal.
Maybe we can find some sort of precedent in the lore related to this, or potentially even get the ability's dev to shed some light on what they had in mind. That could speak volumes then as to what the Shaman is supposed to deal with.

I still think a custom list is needed.

+1

Ok, why?

You have asked for people to explain their point if view and they have. You may or may not agree with them. Now please explain yours.

I've already explained it by mentioning the 'tragic misrepresentation of his kind', but I think this is a more explicit explanation:

My reason for wanting the cleric spell list is because it is hands down better at dealing with spirits, the thing the class is about.

The Druid spell list can't really affect spirits anywhere near the same level, and it can't ward evil spirits off from locations.

That's the canonical shaman-as-spirit-whisperer spell!

Nobody is asking for a prepared Bard because, uh, nobody likes prepared casting. Or rather, people accept it, nobody is excited by it. Nobody ever says, "Oh man, I'd only play a Summoner if only I could prepared spells."

That's because preparing, while powerful, is tedious--it's not as fun as spontaneous casting. Spontaneous casting is less book keeping and it's psychologically more satisfying since you're not always worrying about wasting a spell or picking the wrong thing or not having the right thing when you could have or wasting slots in a fight when you need them for utility, etc.

I completely disagree and I know for a fact that there are others on my side. A lot of people like looking at an upcoming situation and making sure they have the right tool for the job. A lot of people like book keeping.

I don't think Pathfinder 'needs' a third class working with the Cleric list; I'm not really trying to debate whether that's a necessity or not. I was just trying to figure something out.

If I had my way, the Shaman would have its own spell list that fit somewhere between the Cleric, Witch, and Druid, but I don't have my own way, so it is what it is.

I feel like I hear a lot that only Druids use the Druid list, and I think I understand that complaint, but only Witches use the Witch list, only Alchemists use the Alchemist list, and only Summoners use the Summoner list. It's just the way of things. Side note: If we hang out for a bit, we'll get the Hunter, and it casts based on the Druid list, right? So that's nice.

I definitely agree that the Druid list differentiates the Shaman from the Cleric or Oracle, but where it succeeds in differentiation, it fails in adhering to the Shaman's prescribed fluff. A caster who has contacted and bound a Spirit of Bones who can cast Barkskin, but not Gentle Repose, for example, is a tragic misrepresentation of his kind.

Of the 14 casting classes, excluding Pretige, there are 12 different spell lists, and even among those that share lists, there are specific Oracle only, or Wizard only spells. I'm not sure why it seems suddenly out of the question to create a new spell list, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to understand all the different perspectives of the Cleric fans, the Druid fans, the Witch fans, and the Spontaneous fans at the same time.

I feel that the whole problem could be alleviated with the creation of a new list, despite the work it may entail.

I'm curious why so many people think that we need a spontaneous Druid.

I'm not even disputing the need, really, I just don't see why so many people seem adamant about it.
There's no prepared Bard, but I don't see anyone in the Skald thread wanting him to be prepared.
There's no spontaneous Witch, there's no spontaneous Magus, there's no prepared Summoner, and so on and so forth.

While I can understand an individual wanting to play his Magus as if he were spontaneous, or wanting to play his Summoner as if he were prepared, I'm not sure just 'wanting it' is enough of a reason to think it's 'needed'.

I didn't mean to say that Alchemists were forced to take a Mythic path around arcane magic. What I said was that it's silly to specifically mention Extracts in the Archmage if Alchemists can't use 75+% of the other path abilities.
I would definitely go Trickster, too. That seems like the best part to play. It just seems silly to place Extract related path abilities in non-Alchemist paths. I haven't seen any Sneak Attack related path abilities in Guardian, or what have you.

It seems easy to assume that the Alchemist can grab Mythic Spellcasting to gain Mythic formulae, but are we to assume that this is the only instance in the book in which an Alchemist counts as a spellcaster?
What is the Alchemist supposed to do with any of the Archmage Arcana? If the intention was never for an Alchemist to take the Archmage Path because those abilities are useless to him, why specifically mention Extracts in both the Remixer and Shapeshifting Mastery Path abilities?
Archmage notwithstanding, there are other vague mentions of the Alchemist that just don't seem explicit enough. Does Two-Fisted Drinker allow the Alchemist to down two Extracts? It reads 'potions or other beverages'. It seems like it would have been easy to say 'potions, extracts, or other beverages' instead, so are we to assume that because that wasn't said, that it doesn't allow it?

Maybe I'm the only one confused, but it seems that Alchemist was a tad bit overlooked. I'm honestly not certain how anyone would play a Mythic Alchemist.

Yes, of course it's true that Sicken and Nausea are different status effects, but that still has no bearing on why the explanatory statement is included in Stunning Fist.

Somebody must know something about this business.

Heya gents.
So there's a lot of very obvious information about Fear effects and their progression from Shaken to Frightened to Panicked and what not. Pretty much everyone knows these rules:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html
A shaken character who is made shaken becomes frightened. Makes perfect sense.

No such rules are in place for Sicken/Nausea in the same section, lending one to believe that sickening someone sickened does not lead to nausea, however, this tiny bit of information listed under Monk makes me question the idea:

"Stunning Fist (Ex): .... The monk must choose which condition will apply before the attack roll is made. These effects do not stack with themselves (a creature sickened by Stunning Fist cannot become nauseated if hit by Stunning Fist again), but additional hits do increase the duration."

So what's this supposed to mean? Using Stunning Fist to make something Sickened makes sense, but using it a second time to make them Nauseated instead makes no sense at all considering no rule is in place to say so...So why does this caveat exist under Stunning Fist?

Is that caveat completely erroneous, or is there a rule about the Sickened status stacking in some esoteric place that I haven't seen?

Any insights?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpFdP5yATw0

Wouldn't mind a side of Saffron house at some point too!

In Rule of Fear, there is a map for the Saffron House, and in the small text description of the House, appearing earlier in the same book, there is a list of creatures that likely inhabit the House.

Once you attack with a manufactured weapon, that limb's attack is effectively "spent," regardless of whether the limb is holding anything.

Now, see that sort of makes more sense to me

This brings us to a new question: If he were to activate both of his weapons' Dancing quality, leaving both his hands unoccupied, could he then achieve this?

(although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam)

Like anyone else, I've read that section about a hundred times, but keywords like 'often' lend me to believe there are exceptions.

At what point is it determined what appendages are used to make weapon attacks? At the beginning of the Full-Attack Action? Prior to each individual attack?

So, I've looked all over the archives, and I've found some material that supports the idea and some material that discounts the idea, much like any rules question, I suppose.

Basically, here's the gist: I understand how Natural Attacks work, and what makes them Primary or Secondary, and how they generally work in conjunction with Manufactured Weapons, but I'm at a loss as to this particular fact:

One of my PC's has natural Claw attacks, and also wields weapons in either of those hands. Naturally, his choice is either to attack with the weapons, or drop them and attack with the claws. If he saw fit, he could drop one weapon and attack with that claw in addition to the remaining weapon, causing that claw to become secondary, of course.
Here's the dilemma:
What's stopping him from making iterative attacks with his manufactured weapons then dropping them mid-attack as a free action and continuing to pummel the enemy with his claw attacks, considering them secondary.
I've seen no example of this action in any Bestiary, and the Natural Attacks section of the Bestiary doesn't clear this little tidbit up for me. I did find this, but I'm not sure where it's from other than somewhere on these forums:

Can a creature make a slam or claw attack when both his hands are used for something else, such as holding a two-handed weapon?

As long as the creature can easily let go with one hand, yes. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield in combat, but not to hold. A frost giant could choose to make a slam attack instead of a greataxe attack without having to drop the greataxe.

On the other hand, a frost giant carrying a heavy weight in both arms doesn’t have a free hand to use for a slam attack. He’d have to drop the object (a free action) before making a slam attack.

So, you could make your full normal attack routine, and then make your slam attack at -5.

I realize that Natural Attacks have long been contradictory and rules-heavy, but if anyone can shed light on this subject and explain whether or not this is achievable and why, I'd be greatly appreciative.