Shane LeRose's page

I agree with the interpretation that per the RAW of this encounter, the party automatically bypasses the encounter if they all choose to stealth. They automatically get spotted and have the encounter if even one person chooses a different tactic. In either case, rolls aren't relevant so any roll a PC makes would simply serve as their initiative roll in the ensuing combat if they don't all sneak, or would provide fluff for why they avoid notice if they do all sneak.

It's... unsatisfying, but that's how it is presented.

Am I missing something? How is it possible to bypass this encounter just by "declaring" stealth? Doesn't their stealth check need to exceed the Manticore's perception DC? Do they get a perception check to notice the manticore flying around?

I was very surprised that there was no save. If you walk on it, even if you notice it, you automatically fall in. Luckily our Sorcerer cast web on the corner of the quicksands area and the camel critically failed its save. So no one except the Ankheg died in it, and that's only because I ruled it could burrow through, but that's where the last arrow got it.

If dying disabled you, but didn’t immediately make you unconscious, that would be better.

Just be sure the disabled condition makes it genuinely harder to do anything.

To prevent jack-in-the-boxing have someone who was dying retain the disabled condition until healed to at least half hp or whatever is reasonable.

It works as written if the DM allows it. With quickbombs you’re specifically drawing an alchemical bomb. With QuickDraw you’re using the interact action to draw a weapon and attack with it.

Since alchemical bombs are martial thrown weapons it should work out to draw two bombs and attack with them as one action, however! QuickDraw is an action that targets a single weapon with the interact action, quickbomb lets you draw +1 bomb when drawing a bomb, but nothing actually allows you to attack with the second bomb. So a DM could rule that you draw two bombs and attack with one of them, but are still left holding the other bomb.

I think that’s how it should be ruled. It’s still cool and isn’t unbalanced.

Melkiador wrote:

From previous play tests, I suspect there will be a developer post in a few days with errata and clarifications. But we wouldn’t expect them to do much, if any, work on the weekend of the biggest gaming convention of the year. So it probably won’t happen till Tuesday at the earliest.

Fixed that. It's not an ordinary weekend even.

Sorry, no sympathy.

A playtest this important, that had errata, misspellings, and other issues reported SECONDS after release? Yeah, I expected someone to be on hand Day One engaging the public. This is not an unreasonable expectation. It's just good PR. This is not some small indie company, nor has it been in quite some time.

Most of us don't have a lot of time to game anymore. Life, finds a way, , , to interfere in everything. If 4 out of the 6 of us have kids (two with fresh ones and a third with one on the way) then our time together is very precious and if we're going to be spending it improving a product we'll eventually be plunking down money on, then I expect a bit more effort than I'm seeing.

As Murtock would say, "I'm getting too old for this [bleep]"

Ronnam wrote:

Zwordsman wrote:

8. pretty positive its 8.

also various other places on the forums also go with 8.

Thank you!

They should simply say "You start with eight formulas" in one spot. Time to go update my Alchemist :)

No kidding this confused me as well. The way it is worded makes it highly unclear if it is just referencing the four you are listed as starting with or not.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, RAI is 4. Paizo has a terrible habit of inconsistent wording, but it's because they literally expect us to figure things out without their help. No one else starts with 8 of anything, so yeah, it's probably 4.

sherlock1701 wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Very much in favor of minimizing the role of system mastery. I wan't new players to actually have fun without needing to read multiple books first to make a new character.

But that is something I've always enjoyed in a lot of games - I feel like the people who put in the time ought to be rewarded. If putting a lot of time into the system doesn't really reward me, I find it really frustrating, since I'll spend hours and hours circling builds trying to come up with something decent and ultimately failing.

It irks me when someone who slaps together a character in an hour will have something as good as I can make with six or eight hours of effort.

This is not good for long-term retention of new players. If new players see that spending 6-8 hours up front gives you bonuses for weeks and weeks of later gameplay, but they know they don't have that time, why would they play? Just to sit at the table and watch your uber-optimized character outshine their character.

System mastery was a bad idea. Veterans calling out noob-ness just means new players feel like they aren't part of the inner circle.

It boils down to perception. I make effective characters. They are not Gods, rules-breaking or campaign defining, but I just recently got into an argument (over this new edition) with a friend about character creation. He accused me of being an over-optimizer.

I was floored.

We have a friend that I would call an optimizer, but he's only made three "broken" characters in the 12+ years we've been playing. The very notion that I "over-optimize" kind of offends me. I know about broken builds that abuse the game and overshadow everyone else at the table. I've never made one. The friend I argued with makes great characters. He "broke" the magus when it first came out to the point where our DM started randomly giving things immunity to electricity. It was an easy workaround.

Again. Perception. I do not believe making good characters is optimization. In his eyes, I'm not just wrong, but part of a bigger problem.

System Mastery is important to the longevity of a game. So are splatbooks. It should be rewarding for people to spend time learning the game. It should be fun making characters! New players should be encouraged to learn the system.

That being said, the system itself needs to be rewarding to learn.

The biggest problem in P1 was damage. There should've been damage caps (meaning something can only take be dealt damage from a single attack) to prevent much of the lunacy, but also to open up design space.

This edition has a different problem. The content is weak and boring. Hopefully, we can playtest this game into something that's fun to not only play but to learn as well.

Some of us have fun reading pages of fluff, others, pages of crunch. Both playstyles are equally viable.

And if you are playing at my table I will never outshine you, belittle you, or take any action to harm your fun. If you choose to believe that me making a good character hurts you in some way, then try to tell me long before twelve years pass. I promise I'll make adjustments.

And we've been told repeatedly that +1 makes a *huge* difference. You can't have it both ways. If Expert proficiency in weapons matters, then so does an 18 as compared to a 16.

EDIT: Sorry if I seem upset about this, but yeah, we've been repeatedly told by developers that +1 is a big difference in that system, yet they/others also seem to downplay it in some situations. It doesn't make sense, and it's essentially double-speak on their part. Either it matters, or it doesn't, and we need to choose one.

It's fine to be upset. It's all in how you express it. Also, I am not one to talk.

+1 matters, kind of. +2 matters more and +3 is freaking king. An unoptimized character in this edition is only 1 point behind the optimized one. I'm learning to like this. It means you're still effective even if you somehow make a "bad" character. What I'm disliking is the fact that future supplements can NEVER give another +1 anywhere on a character without potentially breaking the system. This heavily restricts design. With no room to breath, you're stuck with a stagnant system.

Just play the test, take exceptional notes, and move the future towards better character options. It's all any of us can hope to do.

I wouldn't mind ancestry feats so much if the power disparity between them was so obvious. You have one or two really good ones per race (usually) and the rest are garbo.

Same with skill feats.

So much book space wasted on things hardly anybody is going to be excited to take.

That was a big problem in 1E and it's already a big problem with 2E, even moreso because a lot of the spells are now boring/nerfed too.

Welcome to the Paizo ten to one. My biggest issue with this whole company!

Here are ten, pre-nerfed, garbage options that no one will take so we don't have to playtest it, think about it, or worry that someone is going to do something surprising with it.

Here's one option that is CLEARLY better than previous options. Thanks for buying our books!

I don't know what I expected. I don't know who these options are for. LUCKILY! In this edition, an unoptimized character is only one point behind an optimized one.

Want to be a dwarven bard? How about a halfling barbarian? Not a problem, they're all viable because we didn't give anyone anything that's too good.

This. This I don't hate.

Honestly, there's nothing I hate as of yet. Am I disappointed? Oh yeah, yeah. Locking a race behind a series of feats I probably won't take? That needs to be better. I'm not interested in playtesting ANY of the races other than human. Races need a favored class or two that they can take class feats in place of racial feats.

And background feats. Here is a perfect example of the 10 to 1. Yes, it is fun to make a character that's from the circus. It shouldn't be every character every time.

What have people found for optimizing performance of various classes and their abilities?

Thank you so much for doing this! It does seem like a fair amount of system mastery is required to optimize, but it's not impossible!

Sadly, I must hide this thread from my players. I need them to suffer for at least a little while.

Reebo Kesh wrote:

I was really hoping the Alchemists bombs would be more versatile and at least have a Healing Bomb, like Ana's Healing/Poison Grenade from Overwatch.

Am I missing something or is there no way to do this with the Alchemist class unless you homebrew it?

I have no idea as I do not play Overwatch but I wanted to comment as I love the idea of beneficial bombs! Probably not allowed due to the weirdness of attacking your own friends but it sounds cool

I don't play, but I do meme so I'm a little more familiar with what he's talking about.

A bomb that healed allies but damaged undead, that would be fun and interesting.

An "antidote" you administer to allies ahead of time gives them a buff when exposed to a particular poison instead of being harmed. Too bad those goblins didn't also take that antidote. . . Or did they?

Finally, an alchemical eyedrop that gives you a bonus against blindness and a blinding flare bomb that the PC's are ready for. So they'd roll their save twice and take the better result with a critical success granting an additional bonus.

The sky's the limit. Currently, there's nothing cool like this in the content available, but nothing says you can't start making your own content today!

given that you gain Class feats that interact with downtime crafting, it makes no sense that you can't do downtime crafting. And you certainly can't pick up a feat you already have.

i interpret it like (random example):

"A fighter gains Power Attack. He can use Power attack to gain +10 damage once every blue moon."

the above means he gains power attack, and can use it as normal, but once in a blue moon he gains something extra.

The problem is it needs to be clear and not come down to interpretation. The fact that a cursory reading can bring the other conclusion and a more thorough reading (yours) is needed to clarify is a genuine problem.

I had hoped Paizo would've learned by now, but they're still in the habit of inconsistent wording. I mean, I love the creatives they have making content for them, but in the corebook it needs to be one unified voice.

it simply doesn't make sense that a missed attack (not an attack that hit but did not damage) wastes the poison. I mean, i can cover my weapon in it, carry it for ten hours, sheath and unsheath it, play with it, etc, and not waste it, but the second i swing at the air the poison is gone? That seems way too excessive of a nerf to a questionable AND quite expensive equipment for no reason at all.

I agree. Considering you start with 15 gold and a dose of centipede drool cost 3 gold I'd say the risk is not worth the reward. This is a new system though, and the presence of alchemists are restricting poison design.

I say we ban alchemists and make poisons great again!

Or, run the playtest as is and maybe try to mark down how often a PC misses with poison and how much this impacts the encounter. It's little bits like this that Paizo needs to hear about.

Why do you even take this feat? Seriously, it doesn't give you an extra attack or anything useful.

Is it so you'd always be "armed"? Is that really that important in this edition?

For me I think they need to have either two to start with, more frequent acquisition of the feats, or the ability to trade others for heritage feats. Also I want more robust heritage feat trees to reward going deeper.

My Gawd this. It looks like they went too far making races modular. I'd love to see racial heritage feats and background feats merge into something that really lets me make a character that feels like their from somewhere and have done/seen some stuff. Stuff that matters and affects later abilities.

One way is to make abilities that you'd "rank" up.

So an elf feat could give a reduced penalty to shoot unseen targets. Basically blindfight, but for bows. You take a 5th level upgrade to that feat and it improves this ability until you can shoot at invisible targets without penalty.

Dwarves could have a "stone sense" that gives them a bonus to perception while underground. They could take a 5th level feat that makes your spells involving stone be better in some minor way, or a feat that lets you fight better underground. Basically something that branches off itself in separate ways.

So far the system seems fine, it's the content that looks flawed. Hopefully playtesting can change much of this.

I really like most things about the switch to Ancestry, but I feel like the inclusion of ancestral heritage should include heritage feats tied to the different ethnicities and that it should reach out beyond just humans. Humans have always had the privilege of being something more than just a race (which is why I like Ancestry), but no one else ever felt as well supported. Even just including 2 heritages for each ancestry and having those tied to something that feels like a heritage (Ethnicity) would go a long way to making the Ancestry system feel more well supported.

To expand on this real quick. The background section needs to be better defined. Backgrounds fit with ethnicities, especially since this can bridge between races. Backgrounds based on regions instead of job type would also be more interesting and may even offer broader options.

For example, your background could also allow you to take feats from a unique list in place of racial heritage feats as you level since you identify with your region more than with your race.

Crumbs to this whole thread. I love the idea of using the cool racial feats or alternate race traits from PF1e as the Ancestral feats. I love the idea of starting out as "any elf" and becoming a Paragon of Elvishness during your adventuring career.

Please don't misunderstand. We all love the idea of Heritage feats and being the "elfiest" elf you can be. The issue is execution.

Your entire race is locked behind feats. Many of which you wouldn't take because they're either useless or don't do the one thing you want them to do.

Long-term the races need to have minor, nebulas abilities that open the door to one or more feats that make your character, their style, and so forth more unique.

So far, that's my take. Races need more qualities that define them as a separate race and then heritage feats that really pop. I mean, you get one at 1st and not another until 5th. If these feats are the baseline we can expect for future designs, then we already have a big problem.

I really like the new multiclassing. Well to be honest, I really think I like the new multiclassing rules. I havent actually used them yet.

I absolutely hated the 3.x and PF version of My character is a 1 fighter/1 rogue/2 paladin/1 monk/1 gladiator/1 super ninja/1 ....... etc etc.

Get away from me with that.

I however dont have any problem with a player who honestly wants to be a 10 fighter/10 monk or what ever. To me, unlike the mess I just listed above a 10/10 character is a valid character concept. The min/max Frankenstein monstrosity is just someone with too many splat books.

As someone who liked making characters like this (done mostly when making leveled monsters to use against the PC"s) I think you need to step off.

You never played characters like this, but you judge them and the people who play them. My fun has nothing to do with yours'. If my style of character "offends" you then maybe you're the problem, not me or the system.

In the current system, you can't stop learning magic, or developing combat abilities, or stop being a thief. It isn't unfair to call that ridiculous. It isn't unreasonable to suggest fixes that improve the system.

This is a non-issue. You can still make a Str based cleric. You'll have a 16 in Str which is more than enough. You don't "need" it to be 18. There's no more times and a half on damage for going two handed.

Also, every 5 levels you add +2 to FOUR different stats. That's an 18 Str and 16 Con by 5th level.

You can even do this with a halfling. You'll have an 18 Str by 10th level instead.

Seriously. Optimization is almost pointless. An unoptimized character is only 1 point behind an optimized one on average.

Yet another thing that needs clarification way too early in the process. I made my first two alchemists (making a character of each race in each class, , , it's, a process) thinking they had to spend money on items at the start of the day, which made no sense at all. Another friend agreed that "regents" had to reference money as well.

C'mon Paizo. This lack of clarity should've never even reached the public.

Oddly, I liken this class system to Hearthstone.

In Hearthstone you make a deck based on one of 9 classes. Paladin, Rogue, Shaman, etc. You have a pool of class cards and then a LARGE selection of "neutral" cards to pick from to build your deck. The best neutral cards, which would be arguably overpowered, would appear in most decks regardless of class. The most flexible neutral cards, arguably best for the game itself, could be used in a variety of decks in a variety of ways.

Right now, P2 has a very shallow pool of cards to play with, but you HAVE to use these cards (feats). Which greatly restricts what characters you can play.

Playing a dwarf? You have to pick one of your dwarf feats to use even though they're all pretty bad. Same with any other race except human.

Backgrounds? As an optimizer it greatly annoys me that Acrobat (getting the steady balance feat) and Warrior (getting the quick repair feat, thus creating the trope of the fighter that spends ten minutes after every fight repairing their shield) are the only options that look like they're worth as dang.

That being said, you could just ignore the backgrounds and not have a skill feat or bonus "lore" skill and just put a +2 in two stats to finish building the character, but that feels bad having an option that isn't used.

We need to get back to races having a wide variety of minor abilities. Have the heritage feats be worth a dang. Give dwarves "stone sense" and then let them take stonecutting as a feat, that they can then branch out into stone magic or stonework combat or something other than the disappointing feats that have been presented.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want a dwarven bard with a criminal background to feel very different from an elven bard raised in the circus. Other than a one-point difference on attacks both characters are almost the same.

With everyone getting their level to attack rolls trained vs legendary is only a five point difference. This means an untrained wizard can attack almost as well as a trained fighter, especially at higher levels.

After playing a few encounters this makes me think that martial characters either need more bonuses or the level attack/bonus to ac should be half the level not the full level.

The math you're concerned about is ultimately fine. A fighter is much better than a wizard wielding that same mace, plus the fighter may have an ability that tacks on a rider. The wizard has no such option.

The closeness in numbers means that an optimized character is only slightly better than an unoptimized character. So even if you make a dwarven bard, or a gnome barbarian, you're only going to be 1 point behind the dwarven barbarian, or gnomish bard respectively.

As an optimizer, I dislike this. I don't hate it, and I'll probably learn to live with it, but today I'm scowling.

Their ability to enhance bombs should be an option between; Bombs - just leave as is, even though it's weaker than cantrips. Poisons - which also need to be simplified since they're currently annoying AF to deal with. Mutagens - "my first mutagen" in place of being forced to use bombs offensively. Potions - just focusing on alchemy itself.

I like that Paizo is removing redundant, almost never used abilities, but turning them into useless feats means there are clearly better options at each level, which is also annoying. I want ALL of my choices to feel good and be relevant. Don't trap me with garbage options or pad things to fill out space. If one feat is blatantly more useful than another than something has to be changed. Immediately. I'm saying that three days in we already need some errata and clarifications. At least let us know they're aware of our concerns.

Almost every race, background, and class has issues, already. It's getting harder and harder to even want to run this playtest if we're expected to run it with something that looks broken before dice are even rolled.

I'm hoping to see an ability to acquire spells from other lists beyond occult. I was also hoping to see Inspire abilities being expanded beyond basic combat.

Maybe a drummer feat that gives a bonus to Shoves and Trips.

Someone on reddit said a GenCon panel confirmed that it was an error not to explicitly list that everyone is trained in unarmored defense.

Paizo needs to say something.

I have no problem running this playtest under the assumption that non-monks not wearing armor are screwed in combat. If this isn't what they intended then they need to say something.

There's more than a few things that need to be addressed. Soon.

Alchemists should replace Empower Bombs with Empower Alchemy. Does the same thing for bombs, if you want, but could be applied to poison instead to make that more viable, or to mutagen to make that more viable. Just a resonable boost that also gives "alchemy points" that can be spent on your focus, at a level much earlier than 9th.

Being pigeon-holed into bombs, and then getting minimal support for them, isn't helping my interest in this class.

So, while looking at Zenith's Guide to Ninja build, I was greatly surprised to see that the two best classes to multiclass with a ninja is the paladin-due to the full BAB, self healing, bonus to saves, and how devastating Smite Evil and Sneak

You mentioned paladin/ninja (which is a combo I've ALWAYS wanted to play, because Batman), but what is the [i]other[i/] class you were talking about?

Quasi and para-elements. Ooze, lightning, ice, magma, and so forth.

Are there archetypes (even among 3rd party) that combine elements together ala the cross blooded archetype for Sorcerers?

Unchained rogue has replaced the base rogue.
Unchained monk and barbarian is only used when it's compatible with an archetype the player wants.
Unchained summoner is ignored.

Ours is a very player friendly environment so there's almost no restrictions beyond self-restrictions. We trust each other so it works out.

If you were a sorcerer with the Impossible bloodline, it would work. Which I've always wanted to do, just to hear:

"Killbot sad for killing. Killbot confused by empathy, but Killbot must smash self in remorse."

Or words therelike.

I plan on playing a kitsune sorcerer with the impossible bloodline in an upcoming Iron Gods game. This should be very interesting.

Thank you. I feel a lot better about this now.

With most save-or-lose/save-or-die spells, I use ability damage, with the effect occurring at a score of 0. There's a system in place for determining ability damage vs. range, spell level, number of targets, and so on.

Dominate person is a 5th level spell dealing 5d6 Cha damage at close range (save for half). At Cha 0, the target is effectively without personal volition and obeys your commands.

Other SOL/SOD spells are similar; hold person is a 3rd level spell dealing 4d4 Dex damage at close range (paralyzed at Dex 0); a Will save applies each round to halve the remaining Dex damage. Finger of death is a 7th level spell dealing 7d4 Con damage at close range (Fort half; dead at 0). Etc.

+1. I also would like more information. I've been thinking of doing something similar for quite some time. I figured the ability damage in question would work like non-lethal damage, but call it non-lethal ability damage. It would heal much faster than normal and doesn't kill/incapacitate you, just pump you with a spell effect and you become susceptible to other effects as you fail your saves.

I was planning on doing this in a campaign with max hit points for everyone and two ability scores for each save type (Str/Con for Fort, Dex/Int for Reflex and Wis/Cha for Will), using the higher of the two at the time. I was also considering AC as damage reduction, no Str or Dex bonus to hit with attacks and a few other tweaks.

I never got around to the ability score damage scale, so I am very interested in what you have in mind.

Shane LeRose wrote:

Thank you for this non-spoilery thread. I'm thinking of making a kitsune cross-blooded impossible/fey sorcerer focusing on enchantment(compulsion) spells.

This could either be so good it's too good (and pisses off my DM).

Or,

This could be so bad I hate playing the game.

Thoughts?

I've run it (so, credibility or something) and while I tend to fall on the side of any character idea being feasible with the right DM and players, I'd probably recommend you away from being singularly focused on enchantment in this AP. While it's certainly not all robots and constructs, so much of it is (and more importantly, so many of the important nemeses are) that you might have some problems feeling useful. If you have a solid bag of other options on the table (like you're a decent battlefield controller or blaster as well) I'd say go with it, but over specialization into enchantment not so much.

Let me rephrase this.

I will have the impossible bloodline (which lets me enchantment compulsion constructs). As someone who's ran this, would you have hated my character or is it just an effective tactic?

I'm now considering the impossible/undead bloodline and then taking coaxing spell to I can affect oozes and vermin.

It also seems I've kinda threadjacked. My B. What else can folks suggest for sorcs in Iron Gods?

Bump

I'm seeing this spell come up in a lot of spell combo threads. If anyone has used this in actual play how was it ruled upon? Did the target get an initial Fort and then Will saves thereafter? That seems a little ridiculous.

I too am leaning towards Fort, but since I'm about to start a character for Iron Gods I'm hoping for Will so that it can affect robots. :3

Thank you for this non-spoilery thread. I'm thinking of making a kitsune cross-blooded impossible/fey sorcerer focusing on enchantment(compulsion) spells.

This could either be so good it's too good (and pisses off my DM).

Or,

This could be so bad I hate playing the game.

Thoughts?

Yeah, it just seems like it should adjust for size.

I'll have to talk to my DM about. Thanks.

Imbicatus wrote:

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

Yes, as long as you took the -4 penalty to hit, or had a feat that turned all damage into nonlethal damage, it could be put on any weapon. Of course, if someone else used the weapon who didn't have the feat, or if you didn't have a feat like that and didn't take the -4 penalty to hit, then the ability wouldn't trigger.

I like this interpretation. It's clean and elegantly makes sense. I fear this is not how it would be ruled upon by Paizo.

I do believe that adding the merciful enchantment makes the weapon viable for sapping, but I don't believe you're able to apply sapping without the weapon having a specific quality (beyond taking a -4 to hit) that makes the weapon non-lethal.

Thank you all so much for your responses. I believe, at least to my satisfaction that this has been settled.

Confusion

Like the title says. Would a large target deal 2d6 damage to itself? Would a tiny target only deal 1d4? This matters for a game I'll be playing in, hence why I'm wondering.

A merciful weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, but all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).

Sapping
This special ability can be placed on only weapons that deal nonlethal damage. A sapping weapon deals an additional 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. When the wielder confirms a critical hit with the weapon, the target becomes fatigued for 5 rounds.

I think you all know what a keen rapier is.

Can I add sapping to a merciful weapon? Obviously when merciful is off so is sapping, but the question is can it be done? Does sapping only work with whips and, , , saps? Am I a sap for suggesting this?

I have a high level NPC in mind and this would be fantastic to use against the party. It also doubles as a nice reward. As DM I can just hand wave the whole thing, but these are the rules we've agreed upon so I'd rather keep everything legit IYKWIM.

Thanks ahead of time!

bbangrter wrote:

Valid:

Ready an action to move if I am attacked.
NPC moves next to me.
NPC declares an attack.
My readied triggers and I move away invalidating his attack.

No. The raw is silent on how this works exactly and thisway of handling it makes the game unplayable.

The immortal dancing kobold readies an action to attack you and then five foot step away once you attack

PC steps next to IDK Declares attack. IDK attacks, 5 foot steps away, attack is invalidated. IDK does it again. It happens again. It will KEEP happening as long as there's room in the dungeon.

There is no rule for handling an action that has become illegal.

In your example, because of how 5 ft steps work, you can take your own 5ft step and still attack after your opponent 5ft steps. So, yeah, that doesn't work. If you choose to Move 5 ft (probably via acrobatics) and follow that with a ready action to move away when attacked, then you might have something, but if the attacker swaps to a ranged weapon your turn was, and will continue to be, wasted.

After reading through these threads I am baffled.

Aid Another is not an attack of opportunity. Never has been. There are traits and feats that grant a bonus to Aid Another or Attacks of Opportunity. These bonus' are not interchangeable. How is it even possible that people believe they are one and the same? The deeper people go to justify their thin lines of logic the more desperate they sound. Why would anyone even want it to work this way?

Aid Another is an action that spends an Attack of Opportunity in the case of the Bodyguard feat. That's all it does. There is no triggering event for an Attack of Opportunity.

Again, simply baffled.

Say for instance I was making a Young Forest Dragon w/ Monk levels. What would you suggest?

Just stick with the chained monk. You can add 10 levels for only a +5 to CR. Take the feral combat training feat for bite and unleash 7 bite attacks a round!

If you go unchained, well, it is closer to a combat class, but you lose a lot going that route, even if you assume it isn't keyed.

My suggestion? Stick with chained. If you have to go unchained, don't use monk, use rogue instead.

Havn't seen the new monk yet and the changes (if any) to Flurry of Blows. Though I'm pretty sure Sacred Fist still refers to Core and not Unchained monk. Worth noting: Sacred Fist isn't called out to have an effective monk level in regards to Flurry of Blows.

Sacred Fist Flurry

Monks Flurry
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

Question
My search fu is failing me, but I could've sworn there was a provision that allowed acquired abilities to work off the class using them. Otherwise many archetypes and even some class abilities don't outright work at all.

Is it really commonly accepted that the sacred fist uses monk level 0 when flurrying? That's no attacks. None. Is the community truly that obtuse?

If that's true then the sacred fist's flurry should be changed to unchained. Then you get a bonus attack each round without having to recalculate anything. Just my 2 copper.

Sorceress with summons and buff spells. Not the most optimal, but she doesn't need to be. Buffing this kind of party would be easy and welcome. Being able to drop a summons lets her get in on the action while allowing her to maintain the mystique of her character.

You can even let her pick the bloodline blind since I don't know of any that boost their summons worth a damn.

Shane LeRose wrote:

Yes, that's it. Just +4. You don't use monster advancement, you use polymorph advancement. The writer of the book confirmed this. He also confirmed that the improved familiars should be usable with the archetypes.

As the freelancer in question, I can assure that I did not confirm that improved familiars should be usable with the archetypes.

My apologies. I should've just quoted the relevant text instead of going from memory.

So what is your stance then?

There is also a feat that can give a familiar speak with animals of kind in the same book. That being said there is no way I would allow an improved familiar brawler.

The ban hammer comes down on immortal forever fighting strength 24 Nycars

20 Str. +1 from the maulers ability, +2 for battle form and +4 for going from tiny to medium.

Yes, that's it. Just +4. You don't use monster advancement, you use polymorph advancement. The writer of the book confirmed this. He also confirmed that the improved familiars should be usable with the archetypes.

I realize that's not a "ruling", but that is probably the best you'll get.

Now, the Nycar is pretty good for an improved familiar, but animal companions are vastly better.

I suppose you ban those too?

I'll be running a pirate campaign soon.

This will be the captain of an enemy ship I promise you.

Dot.

No. It isn't an evil act. The spell is good so the binding isn't how most people are viewing it. It's a Charisma check so I imagine it's you impressing the outsider and befriending them. Celestial beings are busy folks, I'm sure they want to help everyone, but they also got demons to slay and stuff like that. Your cause needs to seem more important to them.

Binding an outsider should be viewed as having them bound to you in friendship.

I went through several stages with this game. First I heard about it and got excited. Then I saw a video of it on YouTube and lost interest. Third I read the opinion on it from you guys, so picked it up on a whim, without high hopes. Then I played it nearly nonstop for the last few days.

This is how I celebrated President's Day weekend. In the dark surrounded by madmen.