Pounce + Grab gives you a ridic opener. Next round go into full grapple mode.
Still, cherry picking Human for racial heritage to get catfolk archetype with a polymorph effect (which gives you pounce/grab) and stacking with Tetori (which is already OK) illustrates the issues everyone is talking about: You have to trade out everything on the base Monk to even start to look impressive. So can you even call it a monk anymore?
Monk is bad. FoB/fast movement is a bad combo. Pseudo-BAB is confusing and wastes class features. Stunning Fist requires too much effort become effective. Too MAD. Overly specific class features that don't do enough. Reliant on specific magic items. The list goes on and on. The monk doesn't fit the lore at all.
Archetypes bring Monk up to where most classes start out as. Despite what a select few think, that is not a feature. Its a bug. It stifles creativity when you immediately have to worry about mechanical effectiveness as soon as you select your class. It's not "strategic" if in order to play it at all, you need to over-invest in system mastery. That's a cop-out for bad design.
(And the fact that people quibble over giving Monks stuff as common sense as full BAB (on a frontline, martial arts class) just further illustrates how divorced from reality some are. Pseudo-full BAB is a giant waste of rules and class features, and directly contradicts all monk fluff. Urg.).
I'd say Wis/Dex are more important than Con to a grappler. Need to be able to hold onto your targets. Str > Wis/Dex > Con > Cha/Int
Half Orcs have a pretty good favored class ability (not sure if "resisting a grapple" includes enemies making CMB checks against your CMD to escape while in a grapple... but 1/2 a stunning fist is pretty handy), and have some nice alternate racial features.
Not sure if they are PFS legal, but Oread are Str/Wis with -Cha.
EDIT: Unlike trip, grapple has no size or body/limb restriction. You can grapple a god if you are feeling up to it, just beat its CMD.
Need I remind you that I was not arguing that 4e is a more risky game? I objected that you claimed heroes has plot armor, and broke down your one-sided examples of 4e. I don't care how long you've been playing 4e when you are presenting a extremely biased opinion. Here, I'll break down your one sided noise again (not that I need a refresher on 4e mechanics. Notice how all of my examples were in reference to claims you made, and not a spam of 4e mechanics?).
"1: You start off with, and get per level, more hit points than any in other edition."
You start out with more HP (10-15 + Con score), but you no longer gain Con Mod (or favoured class bonus) to HP, instead gaining a flat 4-6, depending on class. There are very few HP increasing items or feats. See how that's a different picture from what you painted?
"2: Healing Surges. Everyone has healing that they can use to heal during and after battle."
Limited by class and Con mod, making HP a finite resource. This means you endurance for a total adventuring day is measured, and you can't just open a bag of CLW wands.
"3: Second Wind. Everyone get's this ability once per encounter which allows them to spend a healing and gain + 2 to their defenses."
As a STANDARD action. You give up doing anything useful for a round, typically to not die.
"4: All healing begins at 0 no matter how far in the negatives you are."
Yup. Saw that the first time.
"5: Three death saves per short rest which is only 5 minutes."
Heh. Some people really do play it like a board game and automatically assume these kinds of things, I guess? I can't count the times where a short rest was not an option, meaning Death Save Throw Count remained where it was (chase or chased, dangerous environment, on the clock).
"6: You have to get to negative your bloodied value before you die."
That's one way to die, I already pointed this out to you (as well as CDG).
"7: Every class has a power than will enable them to spend a healing surge."
Taking these power means you aren't gaining something else, and these powers are extremely varied in nature (many limited to once a day, or only available at higher level, or both). 4e was designed with the goal in mind that you wouldn't have a pocket cleric and could still go adventuring. Mission accomplished.
"8: Spend your healing surges after every encounter and 5 minutes later you are back to full health."
Only IF you get a short rest, and only until while you have surges. Unlike CLW Wands.
"9: "Everyone" use the Raise Dead ritual and it only costs 500gp."
Rituals are DM dependent. This is like claiming you will have access to all magic items at all time. Makes for fine theorycraft, but completely up to the DM.
"10: Lot's of powers grant temporary hit points."
Again, if you take a power that gives you THP, you lost out on something else. And again, this is part of the "No one class required" design.
"11: A natural 20 on your death save actually allows you to spend a healing surge."
Yup. 1/20 chance while you are bleeding out to stumble to your feet. Assuming you have a healing surge left.
Again, you aren't posting (too much) factually inaccurate information, but presenting it in such a way that anyone else with experience with the system is going to call you on it.
4e is less risky than PF. The system was designed that way, so that encounters weren't decided by the opening initiative test. This is different than "plot armor". I can continue to present the full side of the system all day long, if you want. Or you can stop making one-sided claims.
I never understand why in a game of great heroics there should be severe penalties for death. Missing a some moeny and a good portion of a fight even at high levels (which can mean a good portion of the game-evening) and likely even more game time in lower levels is penalty enough for me.
If you want a gritty, "one wrong step and your done for good" approach, then make a houserule.
The great thing about Pathfinder is that supports different playstyles and one of the playstyles is playing a hero but there are also games whete you're not a hero.
I never understood the whole "hero cannot equal death" but I'm assuming people are calling themselves heroes before they've done anything. Your legendary status as a hero is written after your adventure ends.
Wrapping yourself in "heroic" plot armor shouldn't be used to trivialise death for the default of the game. 4th edition did that and it is horrible.
1. I don't recall having this plot armor when I played 4e.
2. Stop talking as if your opinion was somehow a fact, cuz it isn't.
Then maybe you should brush up on 4th edition. Go and take some time to read through the DMG 1 & 2.
Save or die are gone, you go down to - hp total before you drop, healing starts you always at 0
and works from there so it doesnt matter if you are -200 and someone heals you for 10, you are now at 10 hp. You also have to fail three death saves.
So yeah, 4th edition is designed for playing heroes and having plot armor.
So others that are less experienced with 4e aren't lead astray by a clearly biased opinion...
-PF you remain standing when you hit zero hp. 4e you drop and start dying. Pretty sure that makes PF "safer".
-You die in 4e after 3 failed saving throws, instead of bleeding out 1hp per round that you fail you Con check until you reach your Con score. This means in 4e you could be dead in 3 rounds, where in PF you could be bleeding out for 10 and get saved. 4e gives you a reliably limited clock, where PF could be very short to very long.
-You also die in 4e once you reach your bloodied value (half your total HP) in -hp. It is not possible to have 400 HP, even at level 30 with all the bells and whistles. So good luck getting to -200 before you can reset to zero (a mechanic I don't care about either way, but it certainly helps keeping players involved in situations where players are in a tight spot).
-Death saving throws don't reset until you've had a short rest in 4e. If you drop, fail 2 saves, get up, drop again and fail 1 more? Dead. Again, PF "safer".
-Coupe De Grace is easier in 4e (standard action instead of full, doesn't provoke) and has instant death as the standard rule (half HP in one hit during CDG = completely dead), instead of an optional rule as in PF. PF safer.
-Save or die being a good or bad thing is completely subjective. Simply because a system decides not to make a character regularly dodge character ending falling rocks doesn't mean they have "plot armor".
In short? 4e may not be as rocket tag as other game systems, but you paint a pretty inaccurate picture. It is very possible to die in 4e, moreso with the updated damage expressions that were released later on. Naturally, overall I would agree that with the assumption the threat of death in 4e is LESS than PF, but that's a far cry for death being trivialized.
Combat expertise is as it has always been, a feat and stat tax to block access to higher tier, more useful feats. The stat req of 13 INT is no different than 13 DEX for the dodge tree or 13 STR for the power attack tree. It is of marginal use, but is by no means devoid of value nor is it in need of "fixing".
Cause fighters need another dump stat, amirite?
Throwing rubbish in the feat tree causes players to get less enjoyment out of the game, at lower levels, where feat choices are arguable more important. Honestly, who enjoys leveling up, gaining an extremely situational tool while every else gets a new toy that they actually wanted? Sucking off the start so you can be good later on is poor design. And frankly, the things Combat Expertise is blocking access to aren't even all that great, in the grand scheme of things.
Also, the game doesn't revolve around Fighters. Monks, for example, would welcome the option to not be forced into a sole dump stat (Cha), as everything else under the sun is needed. Heaven forbid the player want to play a Charismatic character that also likes to Steal/Disarm/Trip/whatever! Only INTELLIGENT characters can do that.
People that swear by it's usefulness can still take it if it truly is the bee's knees if it got axed as a tax. No skin off my back. I'd rather not half to burn stats and feats to gain access to something as simple as a MANEUVER. Being forced to jump through these ridiculous hoops is frustrating when feats are very often the lifeblood of martial effectiveness.
Yea, I'm not really seeing the "always must be evil" factor here. Can it be? Of course. But I'm not buying "swallow's the attacker's blood and his eyes light up with joy and he gets stronger for doing so, that's evil" as the default, because, well, that's not whats written in the ability. You could write up Power Attack with the same description and suddenly it becomes evil ("You cackle with demonic glee as your increasingly inaccurate yet more powerful blows reduce your opponents to a bloodied mess.") Sounds pretty evil to me, guys, Paladins can't use Power Attack.
The taking of blood could be something the character despises doing, but does it for the sake of survival. It could be a complete non-issue ("Hey, you tried to kill me and now you are dead. A man has gotta eat..."). It could bring them joy, and something they look forward to. That seems like something the PLAYER should decide.
Plenty of cultures in fantasy/history have consumed the flesh of fallen foes. There are countless tales of people forced to resort to cannibalism in dire situations. While it might be seen as barbaric, uncultured and a last resort, I wouldn't write it up as evil unless the act of obtaining it was evil. Defending yourself from someone trying to shank you is pretty much the status quo of D&D, so I don't see obtaining as an issue here...
I don't approve of widespread handwaves of "the right way" to kill your enemy. Plenty of people wont agree with the use of traps, poisons or assassination (cough PALADINS cough cough), but that doesn't make these things "evil". Absolutes will always fall flat.
I see no reason to throw away what you describe as a good game because of what I assume was an isolated incident. Use this as an opportunity to develop the party, not an excuse to break out the heavy handed DM tools of stripping of powers and alignment changes. It would have been nicer if the act was slightly less troubling, but work with what you got. Remember, you can "punish" the party in many ways, and in ways that don't run the risk of upsetting an already successful game. Many players react poorly to DMs that they feel have outright "screwed" them over. Remember, they enjoyed the session. Find a way to keep their interest up without telling them "You had bad/wrong fun!".
- Instead of stripping powers from the cleric and paladin, describe it as distant/tainted/cold, where before it was a beacon of faith. Perhaps even growing more distant the longer time goes on (diety abandoning a follower that doesnt right their path).
- Spirits of the villagers.
- Insanity/nightmares/etc.
- Reputation. Even if no one knows what happened for sure, someone will have suspicions. Then the rumors start...
Even better... give your players horrible dreams. Ask THEM how their PC feels. Justified? Remorseful? Hasty? Give the ones that are trouble/remorseful the opportunity to right their wrong, and let the ones that feel nothing begin their slow journey down a darker path...
Don't knee jerk reaction. If you and your players are on the same wavelength on this issue, who cares what the rest of the forums think?
"The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches"
What does this even mean? The intent is because you have 2 claws, you can't TWF, because you are running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round? This is what I am talking about when I say "rules from the nothing". This is just... what? SKR continues to talk about intent, and then goes on to say "And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack." Ok, great, so the rules explicitly allow it, but we are supposed to know about this RAI limit?
Anyways, I tire of seeing that post taken out of context, when he is talking about "two limbs" and "two attack", he is referring to not getting 4 attacks a round for having 2 arms and 2 legs. YOU are choosing to take it out of context and interpret it as "You can't TWF with a 2 hander and a kick, because that is THREE LIMBS". Rubbish. Is a shield/sword + kick fine then? Needlessly making exceptions for some things when the rules themselves are fine the way they are.
Two weapon fighting requires one thing: Two weapons. Paizo needs to not publish off slot weapons and/or state that you can't use two handers if this is not the intent. Because the rules certainly don't prevent it, and an obscure post about tentacles and UAS is not sufficient grounds to completely ignore a huge portion of the published rules.
Found this gem the other day. Poisoner's Gloves, UE, pg 239.
"The wearer can deliver the dose to a target as a melee touch attack or as part of an unarmed strike or natural attack with the hands (such as a claw or slam attack). The wearer can use both gloves in the same round using two-weapon fighting or multiple natural attacks (such as two claws or two slams)."
There you go. Another nail in the coffin that is people arguing you can't TWF with Unarmed Strikes. Unlike the barbarian rage power, there is no wiggle room for what is intended with this game element. As the gloves can only be used with unarmed attacks (or natural weapons), there is zero room for misreading this paragraph when it refers to two weapon fighting. It HAS to be used with unarmed strikes.
I like how you wouldn't let a player use diplomacy (of all things) to articulate something properly (because it isn't explicitly stated in the Diplomacy heading), but you are totally on board with creating new limitations based on ability scores that can't be found anywhere in the book.
Skills are an extension of ability scores. That's why they get modifiers. If a DM looks at my Cha 7 monk and tells me I can't give a convincing speech after making a great diplomacy check and having a bunch of ranks, I'd ask to see the page number. And when the DM fails to provide it, we know what it actually is. A house-rule. My check has ALREADY received a penalty when I added my numbers together. If my low Cha was enough of a factor that I couldn't convince people, it should be because I failed to meet the check, due to my -2, and nothing more (well, maybe I RPed the speech really badly. That's fine too).
Having a low Cha doesn't mean you can't ever be charismatic. You just aren't naturally inclined to those tasks, and have to work on the ones you want to be good at. You won't ever be as good as someone who has a high Cha and puts the same amount of ranks. If you want to 'punish' your players, put them in situations where being a polite Monk isn't whats needed.
'Bending the rules' indeed. That would be you and anyone else that invents new restrictions is doing. DMs making up penalties and bonuses not listed within the rules on the fly sounds like a recipe for disaster. You don't have to be a rippling bag of muscled flesh to have a high Str anymore than you have to be a anti-social leaper with no ability to convince people for having a low Cha. Any DM that says otherwise is basically telling YOU what YOUR character is, and that's a nice neon warning sign right there.
Think of it this way: If a player describes his character as good looking, well spoken, diplomatic etc etc etc and he DOESN'T have the ability score OR ranks to back it up, it's going to backfire in a hilarious way (and having a low Cha could also be explained as being pretty delusional).
Also, you can't "disable device" your way into reflexes, but you can certainly take ranks in Acrobatics/Escape Artist/Stealth, which covers a large segment of what Dex provides (Balancing, deft movements and walking quiently and so forth). Does it cover everything? Nope. And thats why its fine when you aren't great on the things your character DIDN'T work on.
Low ability scores are low. They will hurt you in any situation that requires good ability scores.
If your GM never has situations that effect your low ability scores, they are probably a boring GM.
Quoted for truth.
Quoted for untruth?
Low ability scores already DO hurt you in situations that require good ability checks without imagining new ways to mess over your players.
I can have a low Cha cloistered Monk who is diplomatic, but has no ability to lie or intimidate. I don't need a "good" DM to screw me over in situations where my character has actually developed (put ranks into Diplomacy) because my character didn't have a natural affinity for Cha, but was able to work at a particular aspect of it.
Again, would you make up additional penalties for any other stat? How about making characters with a low Int only read like a word a minute? They can still read, but lets stick it to them 'extra'. Because it's 'interesting'?
Of course, if a player and DM agree to find an additional penalty, and use it as a RP opportunity, obviously that's fine. To assume it as a base is...
It gets even sillier if you start looking at other stats.
Would you severely disadvantage someone with a -Str score, but has multiple ranks in climb? They already have their penalty accounted for. Why double punish?
What else suddenly incurs a special penalty that isnt in the rules that we should be aware of?
I expect the DM to provide a an equally impressive (if opposite) reaction when my 14 Cha (+2) character walks into a bar if a Cha 7 (-2) is such a deal breaker.
Nothing in the grapple rules prevents you from making more attacks that round. Typically you won't have any more ACTIONS to perform any more attacks, but that is not to say that you cannot make anymore attacks. Any creature with the grab ability can obviously get around that issue, as it's a free action. Note that you will take a -2 on any attacks after you use grab to grapple someone (as you have the grappled condition as well), so it is often best to save it until last.
(And if you are going to incorrectly rule that grappling DOES end any further attacks... just use the attack with the grab ability last... Problem solved.)
Again, nothing in the grapple rules says you cannot make attacks after gaining the grappled condition. Thus you can, so long as you pay attention to the rest of the grappled condition (-4 Dex, can't move, -2 to attacks, can't use an attack that requires 2 hands).
Grappled:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
No offense taken. Your interpretation does have some merit to it. The Grapple and Grab (Ex) abilities are poorly phrased. I had not even considered that the line of doing damage could be read as doing damage IN ADDITION to the Grapple damage. But it could be read as such. I just feel that, when you take that paragraph as a whole and consider game balance, that my version is "more correct".
Here's my breakdown, and how I've played it in the past.
Round One
1. Hit with an attack that has the Grab (Ex) ability (probably Bite).
2. Roll damage.
3. Roll a grapple check to initiate the grapple, with a +4, as per the Grab (Ex) ability. -20 to the check if you try to use that terrible option.
4. If it succeeds, both creatures is now grappled (unless you took the -20). If you have Constrict, you do your Bite damage for succeeding on a grapple check.
Round Two
1. Assuming creature did not break free, roll a grapple check to maintain the grapple (with an additional +5, as per grapple rules, for a total of +9).
2. If it succeeds, do your Bite damage. If you have Constrict, do that damage as well.
3. Repeat.
