Takamonk's page

257 posts. Alias of Michael Fletcher 36.


1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Well, rule number 1 is you're the DM. However, I think it's not a good idea.

At level 20, my twf crit fighter when properly built was clearing 350 hitpoints of damage on a "typical" round. Without free feat chains. All other PCs? Maybe 100, on a good round? 200 on a great round?

The point being, these feat chains were meant to be expensive for good reason. You'll be skewing the game drastically towards PCs that can benefit from the feat chains, and against those that can't.

My suggestion is to let the authors balance the game.

Per the CRB,

"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation."

At times, however, Damage Reduction is specified to stack with other types of Damage Reduction.

I would not see a problem - elementals by their nature can come in any shape - this water elemental simply carries a bubble of water inside of itself for the critter to live in. Seriously damaging the water elemental spills the water and the fish/octopi.

Elementals are generally summoned creatures and generally don't die - they only fade away (to their original dimension). How you kill them over there may be a different story.

Under the Combat Maneuvers section in Chapter 8. It's for all combat maneuvers, however, there are limitations to the size of creature you may perform various combat maneuvers against, such as grapple and overrun.

Touch attacks are much easier to land on big slow opponents who might be otherwise impossible have its regular ac overcome.

As previously mentioned, ranged touch attacks use caster's dex, and touch attacks use caster's strength, unless you take weapon finesse (touch attack/unarmed attack).

You cannot use ranged touch attacks against someone adjacent to you (e.g. melee touch attack) without added penalties (with perhaps the special exception if you have 0' reach), unless you have some special ability to do this otherwise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 4k cost is disproportionately small for practically eliminating the detriments of wearing armor.

While I would personally feel that you could have your Mithral Celestial Armor, it would not be a simple 4k increase.

Let's just say it takes a lot more effort to make those links that "fine" to gain all the mechanical benefits that create "celestial armor."

Price? Probably 36,000 gp. That's the cost of Mithral x (the number of times you benefit from Mithral) squared.

But... that's just my opinion. You and your GM should hammer it out due to the existence of existing custom items in the game. If you're wielding the equivalent of ~+7-+8 custom weapon, you shouldn't have issues with a 36k armor enhancement.

Sorry to dig up a really old post, but this is the only one I found on four-mirror armor. Is it just me, or is the description misleading in that it's described as to improve on chainmail armor?

At first I was wondering what Paizo was smoking to let people wear two different medium armors at once.

Under normal circumstances, you can do the following:

One standard action, one move action, one swift action, free actions.

One full round action, one swift action, free actions, 5' move.

Two move actions, one swift action, free actions.

You're essentially giving someone the ability to take 2 standard actions as a full round action, if I understand you correctly, and further, you suggest giving someone the ability to take 2 full round actions. All this as all the time. So, you cast summon monster twice per round... and the creatures you summon each cast two spells per round... Obviously, there are problems with this...

This goes well above and beyond even what the Mystic Theurge allows. If the logic falls that you can cast as many spells as you have attacks per round, what's to stop you from abusing haste to cast 2, 3, 4, or 5 spells per round (from the interesting mix of classes/prestige classes)?

Whatever players can dish, DMs can dish better. Use their tactic to their disadvantage.

Your players too big? Make hallways, crawlspaces, and hidey-holes too small to follow into.

Use room layouts that make it difficult for them to gang up on people, but because of their large size, allows you to gang up on them. (You can move through a friendly square, but you can't end your turn on one.)

Use reduce person, mass. Several times. Use sigils.

Return the cornysauce and use enlarge person on your guys.

While the foot and hand slots are likely the least utilized slots, I don't think it's fair to ask the monk to give up two just to be on par with everyone else that uses weapons.

I would simply recommend instead an "Monk's Meditation Beads of Mighty Unarmed Attacks," that is priced exactly like a weapon, that only work for unarmed attacks (not all natural attacks), which would also apply for some combat maneuvers.

Monk's Meditation Beads for all intents and purposes act like a weapon (can be made of exotic materials, can be sundered, disarmed, etc). These beads can also be applied to a monk's combat maneuvers as though they were a weapon of the appropriate type, but only one type of combat maneuver, selected at creation.

I also consider the boots of striding and springing to be underpriced. Perhaps it's one partly due to the fact that there are so few magic boots that aren't overpriced, but that functionality gets reproduced in part or in whole to anyone who isn't a monk (although low-levelled monks might still take them).

TOZ wrote:
Because you're likely to rack up a lot of AoOs from the guy you just hit that way?

Stunning fist. Death. Deliver a spell or some other effect through an attack that incapacitates the opponent some other way.

Likewise, there could be other feats at play (not that they are in front of me at the moment), but power attack and feats that allow you to ignore the penalty to power attack on the first roll.

To fix the gameplay hassle, give the monk full BAB. However, the monk only qualifies for feats as though he had 3/4 BAB. Still a hassle, but only a hassle at character creation/leveling.

Alternatively, you could simply throw money at the situation. Monk stays as written, but you create a feat or item that grants a circumstance bonus to Attacks of Opportunity or anytime the character is limited to a single attack. I'm guessing there has to already be a similar mechanic for all this.

My main problem with playing a pathfinder monk (at least, from the CRB - haven't really played any archetypes, yet), is just how darn situational they are.

I'm not certain I agree with monks being able to interrupt a flurry and getting to move on with their move action. Otherwise, why not just interrupt it anytime you want to clock someone with a free bonus to your attack roll and take your move action, anyways?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to note, however, is that this typically entails the abuse of inordinately powerful spells, for little to no cost, which are included to increase the survival of low level casters.

Some additional rulings you might want to consider:

If the spell can't be made into a consumable item and/or you can't cast the spell on someone else, or an item already exists (but might not be as good), then it probably shouldn't exist. (Shield comes to mind.)

If the spell does not thematically fit, then it probably shouldn't exist. (Barkskin on hulking armored warrior comes to mind.)

A similar concern is sinking funds into permanency.

I get 120 to allocate where I see fit. I choose to expend 1 of the 120 to give myself immunity this round. 119 rounds later, I can then be cooked.

Hm, no.

There are a number of opinions on the subject. However:

RAW, you only suffer the normal penalties to attacking while underwater, being distracted, and/or taking damage (if drowning).

Optionally, you can add additional penalties as follows:

1) Motion (vigorous/violent)
2) Wind effects (things get swept up in water more easily than in air)
3) Visibility issues if the water isn't pristine
4) Penalty for spells with somatic components
5) Deaf rules (50% failure) for spells with auditory/verbal components

Finally, if you want to be truly irritating and come up with random physics-based house rules on the fly. Examples include:

Index of refraction for rays. ("Sorry, Gorthruk. I really was aiming at the enemy.")
Treat ranged attack spells (that aren't true rays) just like any other ranged attack underwater - if it's not a harpoon, it's worthless, and even if it is a harpoon, it doesn't go far.
Elemental lightning attacks deal less damage, but change into area attacks.
(Liquid) Acid elemental damage works the first round, but is dilute the second round.
Elemental Sonic deals twice as much damage, and carries twice as far. I advise against this, as this gives sonic even more of a ridiculous advantage.
Fire rays and cold rays are typical strength. Fire area of attack and cold area of attack are generally worthless, unless the cold area of attack specifies ice as a byproduct.
Goop rays (entangle abilities) generally work - it's your discretion to allow them to float/sink/be neutrally buoyant.

If you have adamantine weapons already available, there's no reason not to allow adamantine knuckles, especially if you're speaking of monks, who are now more combat-oriented and (slightly) less support-oriented than before.

If you're taking this from an RP point of view, there's no reason why the knuckles aren't partially adamantine, after all, the hilt of a sword need not be adamantine in order for it to still have the benefits of adamantine.

As far as economics, adamantine plating might sound great, but from a materials standpoint, it doesn't work so well. I envision trying to apply adamantine to another metal/alloy/composite something akin to giving a marshmallow armor by dipping it into molten titanium.

But don't let me stop you from believing. :)

Read the fly skill. There are rules that state what happens if you are struck, or clash into something. I would think that this at least qualifies for a full-bodied clash.

As far as prone while flying, I don't see why not - you still get to roll a fly check to see if you right yourself in place before going splat.

PFRPG wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round.
PFRPG wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can’t combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can’t make attacks of opportunity while
using total defense.
PFRPG wrote:

Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.

Am I reading this correctly to say that a normal character can take a standard action attack, defensively, and gain the bonus for combat expertise and fighting defensively the rest of the round (doing move actions etc).

But cannot use these same bonuses to move and then attack?

That seems nonsensical and arbitrary to me.

To follow within the generic price structure, I would state that the price for feats or class features would be as follows:

(number of prerequisites plus 1) squared times 5,000 gp.

example 1: power attack
Number of prerequisites: 0
Total cost: 5k gp

example 2: evasion
Number of prerequisites: 1 (e.g. class monk)
Total cost: 25k gp

example 3: improved evasion
Number of prerequisites: 3 (monk class, evasion, monk level)
Total cost: 80k gp

That's about 10% of the budget of a 20th level character. If you're following budget allocation rules, that'd be roughly 40% of the character's defense budget.

There are really two things that bother me about the miniatures store here:

1) No sense of scale - simply state that what size creature it is tiny-small-medium-large-huge, etc. There are plenty of non pathfinder/D&D minis that could make very good fits - except we have no idea how large an item it is.

2) Most pictures are very, very small, and can be trumped by a $20 cell phone... Or maybe I need to turn my resolution on my monitor down. Either way, it seems it could be improved.


The easiest way of understanding a transforming weapon is that it keeps the same "handedness" in that a 2H weapon stays a 2H weapon, etc, except when it changes to suit a different sized character. For example, it can be a medium long sword or small greatsword.

Reach does not matter. For example, a medium longsword can become a medium whip because they're of the same handedness.

A friend of mine noticed that the Greater Combat Maneuver feats, e.g. Greater Bull Rush, do not add +2 to the CMD, whether it be an alteration or continuous oversight on our part.

I believe the confusion comes in from the mentality of "if a weapon gets a bonus towards CMB, it gets the same bonus to CMD."

At any rate, I thought this inconsistency may be worth mentioning in the event someone else presumed this to be the case.

I'll have to personally disagree with big weapons vs death of a thousand cuts.

A shield fighter with a keen rapier and all the appriopriate twf w/ shield feats will equate to a hefty number of attacks, with the shield suffering none of the attack penalties of twf.

However, if it's single attack damage you need, I have you covered - you just need to be mounted.

Horse + Improved Sidestep + Spirited Charge + Lance + Power Attack + Improved Vital Strike + Rhino Armor

(1d8+Enh + 1.5 x Str.Mod + 3*Bab/4+) x 3 + 2d8 + 2d6

Golembane Scarab specifically allows you to overcome damage reduction of a specific creature.
Amulet of Mighty Fists makes you hit harder and do other weaponly type things.


Ring of Telekinesis allows you to use a spell at will.
Ring of Freedom of Movement allows you to use a spell at will.
Ring of Forcefangs is a wonky staff.

First pair are similar. Last is different.

Ring of Protection gives you a bonus to AC.
Ring of Evasion gives you access to a class feature.


Cauldron of Brewing provides a skill bonus (2500 gp), and provides some utility (500 gp).
Cauldron of Plenty casts 2 different cleric spells (effectively).

Different. However, if I were DM, I'd work with you to fulfill this concept.

Kthulhu wrote:

A steampunk-esque, inventor/technologist, mad scientist character class. Think sparks from Girl Genius, or Nikola Tesla. It's one of the few holes in the Pathfinder system that isn't fairly easily filled with multiclassing / prestige classes / archtypes.

And I want to be clear on one thing...they shouldn't be creating MAGICAL items, they should be creating TECHNOLOGICAL items. If I wizard sees the clockwork monster you created bearing down on him, casting dispel magic on it shouldn't do a damn thing. Your abilities would work in an anti-magic field because THEY AREN'T MAGIC. That's the big problem I have with absolutely every other version of this concept I've seen put forward, it ends up being powered by magic, with slightly different fluff.

I do agree that I'm annoyed by the pervasive nature of all things magical, and virtually everything worth using being crippled by dispel magic.

However, things not powered by magic have to be powered by something, and that's either a continual money drain, or a continual wind up of the tinker toy.

I would like to see short, modular prestige classes that could be assembled together in order to create a "custom class." In addition, this could more pacifically open that door of "monsters as pcs."

An open movie project recently completed and premiered.
Project Durian

It used open source software exclusively.

It took about half a dozen people approximately 6-8 months to complete, and cost somewhere around half a million dollars. I can't quite recall. It's a 15 minute animation. Granted, the cost for 15 minutes is not indicative of the cost for 30 minutes, an hour, or a season. But it is pricey, even if you're going for the cheap of the cheap.

At any rate, enjoy the movie. It's D&D-esque.

By the way, these guys are looking for work now, as this project just let up 2 weeks ago. :)

Faerie Dragon already exists as a familiar. Check the bonus bestiary. It's free.

What position is the player in, assuming the effect goes off and the player is conscious?

Another way it could be read, I suppose, is that the channeler uses a channel energy in order to gain the ability to heal constructs as living creatures.

Hm. I'd hoped that I'd get more responses than this.

APG Text:
If the bearer has the channel energy class feature, she
can focus her power on the brick, allowing her to repair damaged
constructs and objects as if they were living creatures. The item
works whether the bearer channels positive or negative energy.

You can fit several in a 5' space in non-combat situations.

We have a party with a mixture of living constructs and living creatures, and I came across this item in the APG, and it seems to leave us with additional questions.

1) Does the channel brick only work for channel energy, or does all healing magic work?
2) When the channeler uses the brick, does the resulting channel affect both living creatures and constructs?
3) Do negative effects work as per normal, or is it all converted to healing for constructs?

Thanks for your input.

Let's be glad that spring attack doesn't stack with this move.

One option would be to create psionic equivalents/spins to the classes already available in PFRPG, much like as in the APG.

Generally speaking, the psionics were always so obscure as compared to everything else as to make them either completely worthless or ridiculously overpowered.

E.G. a group of psionicists could run around with dispel magic disposables, hobbling parties that had no choice but to rely on magic items and casters, and yet the party would typically have really no other defense.

On the flip side, you would have the "too stupid to be affected by psionics" as to make being a psionicist less than fun.

If psionics were on the same level as divine magic as compared to arcane, and arcane as compared to divine, then I would consider playing psionics.

The other annoying aspect is that psionicists would greatly benefit from magic equipment, but non-psionicists would find psionics based equipment beyond worthless to them.

Ploppy wrote:

Hi all,

Short question: how far can a Lvl 20 Monk move with these feats within 1 round?

Slow Fall (Ex): At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm's reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent. When first gaining this ability, he takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is. The monk's ability to slow his fall (that is, to reduce the effective distance of the fall when next to a wall) improves with his monk level until at 20th level he can use a nearby wall to slow his descent and fall any distance without harm.

I had the same issue. Apparently monks only need abundant step to get inside barriers as they are practically omnipresent at level 20.

I'd wager, though, this isn't really an issue. Monks are already super mobile. Even if they somehow can't take this ridiculous circuitous route to avoid AoO, they can attempt to acrobatically do it. And at mid-levels, they can just teleport, anyways.

At level 20, wizards can time stop, throw up a portal to another plane, and be completely gone.

Although I fully expect this to be errata-corrected.

Jason Rice wrote:

but isn't there weapons that add to your trip attempt? Or has that all been changed from 3rd edition?

Also, I'd still like to see the entry. Is it in the book? Is the above link "official?" How is a temple sword different from any other sword? They sound VERY similar to a Kopesh, from the link provided above.

If an item is labeled as "trip," as per the description in the equipment section, it gains no special bonus to trip inherently, just that it may be used to trip and may be dropped to prevent being tripped yourself.

With that said, there's no official ruling (that I've seen) that prevents you from using any 'ol item to trip. Rolling log, unconscious person, etc. But no ruling that says you can do it, either.

If, however, the weapon grants a bonus to attack, such as the MW quality, or an enhancement bonus, that will stack onto your CMB.

Please be aware that "stationary" is synonymous with "not moving." "Stationery" is what you write upon.

A ghost can use a ghost touch weapon, but without a strength score, does the ghost of a storm giant hit as hard as the ghost of a gnome?

Disregarding damage for greater size, it just doesn't make complete sense to me.

Your input?

I wonder if anyone's attempted to buy a +4 defending amulet of mighty fists for their monk, to try to get +4 ac for every attack in his flurry.

One for each elbow, knee, hand, and foot.

Talk about a nearly untouchable flurry of whiffs.

Or, if they have a few extra gold, they could have a leather throng secured to the inside of their forearm that they can unstopper with their teeth as a move action that would likely incur an attack of opportunity. So, it's not likely something they would want to do within the baddies' range.

But I don't know of any such item in Pathfinder or D&D, but I see no logical reason why you couldn't have such an item.

There are problems with using item creation feats, I think.

If the DM allows discount on character generation, you'll have some players upset that some players get to sacrifice feat slots for money, and if the DM doesn't allow, the player who takes the feat has the following options:

1) Start play with fewer items and fewer useful feats. (I designate these feats as useless, because they don't do anything for gameplay) and typically have to either make very low-cost items, or take forever to make high-cost items (or so long as to make it impractical - you might as well go dragon-hunting).

2) Start play with fewer feats and then save your own money to make items (which puts you back at option 1).

3) Sacrifice feats so you can be the party's item converter, which takes a good bit of altruism-bordering-masochistic-nepotism, as they typically look down their noses at the idea of you charging them for services rendered, at which point, they start deriving costs per swing of the sword.

Wish it could be boiled down this simply.

Your ac <> touch ac <> flat-footed ac, so these would be calculated separately.

In addition, the following factors are also changed:
1) Reflex Save / Fort Save, and if memory serves, Will Saves are oftentimes moot
2) HP can change (particularly if you're a water elemental)
3) Skill bonuses change
4) Number and type of attacks (remember that you have to back out improved natural attack[s] if the base critter has the feat)
5) Special abilities, senses, attacks
6) CMD versus trip can be affected (look at the picture of the medium earth elemental - four legs)

I'm sure there's a whole lot more, but I think this still needs a good bit of work.

One rule I think Paizo should've adopted would've been to unify the amount of damage the druid deals with one type of natural attack versus another.
(Claw does this. Bite does this. Slam does this. Wing Buffet does this. Scale according to size.)

A comprehensive fancy slider cheat sheet would be welcome. Perhaps I should make and sell one.

You could, however, make bracers of luck armor, natural armor, (un)holy armor, etc. I guess technically, you could also do shield bonus. The only one that's out of bounds (to my knowledge) is dodge bonus to ac.

If you cast a separate spell while holding a charge, the charge is lost.

Otherwise, what's to stop you from holding 100 charges?

The DM should start throwing dispel magic traps in their pits.

Then they'll have no problems with suggesting that players shouldn't be distracted.

Page 153.


2 The wearer must have help to don this armor. Without help, it can be donned only hastily

This doesn't even pretend to make sense.

The difference being that damage heals, and drain isn't so easy to recover.

1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>