The_Big_Dog's page

I think the real travesty here is that wizards and sorcerers get to be experts in unarmed defense in the first place.

ciretose wrote:

MoMS still loses flurry, and unless you dip 4 deep you aren't getting ki.

I think MoMS is a good dip for an unarmed fighter or ranger "Kung Fu" concept, and I'm fine with that.

I am still annoyed how Brawling was designed. I am fine with it existing, but it is ridiculous it was made to specifically exclude the monk.

Depends if you want to bother with ki or just gain a +3 boost to all your saves and two free style feats, for the cost of 2hp and +1 BAB.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

The spellcasting services rules cover it. All the rules are guidelines. We debate based on the rules presented. Every item availability discussion is based on DM fiat. Some like lots of items, some don't. In these discussions we go by the...

Dispel magic. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.

That's why permanent buffs aren't included even when they are easy to incorporate. A lot of people bemoan that monks can't get amulets of natural armour. So why not get barkskin and permanency cast on them? Because it can be dispelled. Same reason every other class doesn't do this instead of paying more for amulets of natural armour. Why bother with a magic sword? Just get magic weapon +5 cast on the weapon (or use an oil, in the equipment tables) and permanency - cheaper by far than a magic weapon!

Yet nobody does this. That's not because you are cleverer than everybody else, it's because IT'S A DUMB IDEA. One dispel magic and all that gold is wasted, and if you are facing a high level wizard he will scry you in advance, know all your weaknesses and strengths, and plan accordingly. Even in ordinary combat, debuffing the enemy with a greater dispel is a good idea which will nerf your monk badly. In fact the only reason this even looks like a good idea is that the monk can't get +10 equivalence any other way. And that still doesn't make it a good idea, it just means the monk is a weak class.

Even if it was legal to do this,...

Sunder. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.

One dispel magic which is more likely than not to fail at level 10, with a CL 16-20 casting of permanency. Check out what a melee brute with improved sunder can do to your weapon.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every choice. If the choice provides a good enough bonus, it is probably worth doing. In a few levels, when the frequent dispel magic starts kicking in, then you can switch to a wand of Greater Magic Fang. Until then, the most cost effective way to go about it is to simply get a permanent version cast by as high a caster as you can find.

People don't get Greater Magic Weapon applied with permanency because they can't. It isn't allowed with the permanency spell. Why? Because you can buy a +10 magic weapon already. You can't buy a +10 amulet of mighty fists. But you can get to +10 by stacking it with Greater Magic Fang. I wonder why? These two options seem to match up perfectly.

A +5 magic weapon is 50,000 gold. That is the comparative target here. If it gets dispelled 5 times, you basically break even over the life of your career. At higher levels, when the dispel checks are likely to succeed more often than not, you would switch to a wand or in a cheaper situation have an ally cast it on you, since your party will likely have a high level version of this buff available.

So yes, if five of my opponents choose to dispel it in the levels from about 8-15 and succeed, then yes, I break even with a 2-handed fighter on +5 weapon costs. For a 2-weapon fighter? 9-10 times to get that same effective bonus. So yes, it is far better in the long run for the monk to go after a couple of castings of this magic fang than go for a +5 amulet of mighty fists (100,000). Not to mention that the amulet of mighty fists can be stacked on top.

If we are discussing the core monk, we use all the options available to the core monk. This includes permanency. If your house game, and others house games don't allow this ability, which is available in the rules, then that is a problem with the GMs of those games, which don't apply to this thread.

Plenty of people do this. Just not usually ones sitting in a "why is the monk terrible thread". The people coming here are looking to see that the monk is terrible. A few of us see what the monk can actually do, but many choose not to.

The monk is a perfectly fine class. Could it use a boost? Sure, but it has the tools it needs to perform well in the game, as several posters have shown.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.

A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.

Got a page number on that?

This is the only table of potions in my CRB.

Ah yes, I apologize. It was mentioned this was a 3.5 table included on PRD site. Still, the community state any magic items under 4000 can be found in a small city (75% chance), this potion would apply (3000gp). You might have to visit 2 or 3 small cities, but it could easily be found.

Either way, AoMF is better since it can bypass DR.

Isn't this all a bit of a red herring? I mean, we have builds that hit the goalposts without this little aside.

At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 7th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as cold iron and silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 10th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

I agree, AoMF does bypass more types of damage reduction, but the basic monk can already bypass everything but alignment (except lawful) based damage reduction at reasonable times. Also, the AoMF can stack with the GMF to make the character as effective as other characters that can get +10 weapons.

Remember, there are still many out there who don't want monks to have nice things :)

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.

A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.

Note that A.) The table was taken from the 3.5 SRD and was not "created or provided by Paizo" and B.) Is in the table as a "Major Potion" that is randomly generated only on a roll of 98 on the d100.

Shhhh facts will not reach this one.

Facts reach me just fine Marthkus. There is no need for the hostility.

<insert more personal snipping>

Sorry I'm feeling lazy today. Can you just pretend to be offended by this?

Sure, buddy. Sure.

I think it kinda speaks for itself that there is only one (1) level 20 Druid in the NPC Database/Bestiary.

I do not feel the same.

Rynjin wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.

A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.

Note that A.) The table was taken from the 3.5 SRD and was not "created or provided by Paizo" and B.) Is in the table as a "Major Potion" that is randomly generated only on a roll of 98 on the d100.

Shhhh facts will not reach this one.

Facts reach me just fine Marthkus. There is no need for the hostility.

Inversely, since those are just guidelines, why not just not include magic items. Those are variables that interfere with discussing the class. Or... we can accept what people have already stated and live with that. My GMs wouldn't let me use magic fang +5 and permanency together on my monks, personally.

Because magic items are of varying usefulness depending on class abilities. Have they done the math on the combination? Why would they not?

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.

A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.

Note that A.) The table was taken from the 3.5 SRD and was not "created or provided by Paizo" and B.) Is in the table as a "Major Potion" that is randomly generated only on a roll of 98 on the d100.

But it exists! So if I can order the creation of something else that exists, like a specific weapon with specific enhancements, I can do the same for a potion.

1. We did not go over anything, and level of the caster doing the permancy is what determines if it is dispelled for the purpose of being permanent or not. Beating a CL of 11 at around level 10 is not something you can assume will keep that +5 around.

It will keep around well enough. Look at the monsters in the bestiary at this level, few have dispel magic, and most would likely cast it to stop the hindering effects of the spellcasters rather than the monk, since it does not shut the monk down.

The CL would be likely be 16, I paid for 20 on the sheet, I believe. 16 is enough to make it difficult for a level 10 encounter to take care of it. Sometimes weapons have to get replaced, and sometimes permanent enchantments have to get replaced. Its just part of the game. No worse than a +2 weapon getting destroyed at this level.

I did not use ki strike since the ki can be used for offense or defense and it may be switched depending on the situation.

You Medusa's Strike math is wrong. First the giant has to be hit. That is about 70 percent IIRC. Then he has to fail the save. That is about stunned. That gives you a 20 percent change. Then you bring in the DPR for one extra attack. (.7X.2X.20ish points of damage) is the number I gave you.

Medusa's Wrath is two attacks, not one.

The book says when using Crane Wing. Crane Wing call out deflecting ONE attack. Now if you have verbage showing the Crane Riposte allowing Crane Wing to work for than one I would like to see it.

(Number of attacks - 1) / (Number of attacks) Multiplied by the DPR gets you the effective DPR against the character using crane wing. Only 2 out of 3 possible attacks will do damage, so the average DPR is multiplied by 2/3.

I agree he is looking good so far.

I'm glad we have common ground somewhere. If we can come to an agreement on the fist enchantment I think we will be doing very well for the monk.

Also, are you including critical hits into your DPR calculations?

Lemmy wrote:

Bonus Build: Remake of my Ranger 8/MoMS Monk 2:

This guy wants to be a Monk without really being a Monk...

This is just saying what others have said: that you can be a decent monk, as long as you don't mind not being a monk; and that MoMS is a two-level dip for other classes that want to be a better monk than the monk is.

LoreKeeper wrote:

I mean, I see the appeal of getting an almost free +5 to attack and damage (that happens to also stack with amulet effects); but in practice I don't see it happening.

That's why I've tied it into my own suggestions for improving the monk: In effect change ki-strike to a magic fang-type bonus. It certainly doesn't leave the monk brokenly good...but it does help him compete.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

1. We already went over this up thread. If a 20th level caster is not available, we simply buy a potion or oil of Greater Magic Fang CL 20 and hire a caster (CL 11) for the permanency, which will likely cause him to remove the Wand of Invisibility and invest in some scrolls instead

If they are not available to cast the spell, they are not available to make the potion. The core rules on this subject are guidelines only.

Secondly you dependent on a buff that is easily dispelled.

Third this is not an item, so the item rules don't cover it. It's a service, and services depend on what is available. No 20th level caster, no spell and no potion.

I'm not saying it's broken or wrong that the monk get an enhancement bonus to his unarmed strike, I'd love for it to be so, but this means of doing it is 100% dependent on DM fiat and isn't something another player can rely in a 'standard' game. Hell, the agile property isn't available in some games!

The spellcasting services rules cover it. All the rules are guidelines. We debate based on the rules presented. Every item availability discussion is based on DM fiat. Some like lots of items, some don't. In these discussions we go by the book, and the permanent magic fang is perfectly valid by the book. Maybe they made the potion while they were wandering through town, and are no longer available. The 3,000 GP potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is available on the table of potions, this is an item discussion.

Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.

A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.

It's not core rules for lvl 20 casters to exist or for magic item markets to exist either.

Take your "core" house-rules some place else.

Actually, it is. I don't particularly like the influx of huge amounts of magic items in the world, but it is there by the rules. Go play a low magic game if you want low magic.

You cannot get a 20th caster level potion of greater magic fang for the same reason that you cannot get a 20th level caster. They could just not be bothered with something as trivial or mundane. A character that is 20th level has much more important things to do than cater for something like that. 600 gold, minute or otherwise, is pittance to them.

But, that actually misses the point: a theoretical build like yours does not help the average player. Our GMs are not letting us get access to 20th caster level magics - even if they agree to permanenced magic fangs. I think it is fair to stipulate that any build up for serious discussion should be legal for play for the majority of players (preferably also PFS legal). A monk build that is only playable by 1% of monk players is just not meaningful or practical.

Then your DM is not playing by the core Pathfinder rules, and is house ruling that you cannot get this enchantment. I have shown you a simple solution to give a monk enchanted weapons, shown that it works via the math, and makes a monk easily competitive with other characters. I, and every DM I know allows this, because it is i in the core equipment rules and high level characters exist to challenge the high level foes in the world already. This is not a low magic world, super powered creatures and characters exist all over.

Dude don't be rediculous about getting a +5 weapon. Just assume you paid for a random wizard to cast permanency and had the party druid cast GMF and take your +2 like a man.

(Honestly though. Every campaign I've played in, someone was playing a druid)

There is nothing ridiculous about it. Its in the core equipment rules.

@The Big Dog:

Assuming access to a 20th level caster that is willing to permanently enchant some low-level character is already stretching things for all but theoretical situations. But I don't even see protection for the enchantments on your character (like a ring of counterspelling). Facing one knowledgeable caster will see the magic fang and enlarge person dispelled.

I mean, I see the appeal of getting an almost free +5 to attack and damage (that happens to also stack with amulet effects); but in practice I don't see it happening.

A 20th level caster that is willing to make 600 gold for less than a minute of work? They seem to be out there making magic items at 1000 gp an hour, so why wouldn't they be willing to cast a spell for you a much greater payoff per time used?

The DC to to remove the spell is 31. You need to be at least a level 11 caster to have a 5% chance of removing the spell. Not worth the effort to try until you are about level 17-20 (when the cost of the enchantment is negligible). Plus, if a caster is casting dispel magic on me, he isn't stopping me from attacking, doing damage, or anything else.

When fighting with weapons the risk is sundering, same effect. When fighting with fists the risk is dispelling. Everyone can sunder, only a few people can dispel, and usually have better things to do anyway.

1. There is no guarantee you can find a 20th level caster.Now with the book saying you can only access up to 8th level spells in a metropolis the highest caster level caster outside of GM Fiat is 16th

2. Being permanently large is not a good idea, but that is up to you.

Now with the book saying you can only access up to 8th level spells in a metropolis the highest caster level caster outside of GM Fiat. With that aside I am sure you math for medusa's wrath is off, since it only applies when certain conditions are in play.

In your case you have to stun the fire giant, which means you have to hit, and he has to fail the stun save. That factors into how much you will get out of medusa's wrath.

I have you DPR with medusa's wrath in play as 81.75
Without Medusa's Wrath you are at 71.31, but that is before Crane Risposte.

With an AC of 27, and the giant having an attack bonus of 21 there is a 70 percent chance you would get hit on the first attack and therefore bring Crane Wing into play.
The giant's second attack is a +17 so if the giant misses the first time there is a 50 percent chance it comes into play, and on the last attack there is a 25 percent chance it comes into play.

Now for sake of ease let's assume the fist attack is the one we will use since it also helps the monk the most.

.7(chance to be deflected)*x.8(chance to hit the giant)x
22.85 (average damage from the monk's attack, using his highest attack bonus) = 12.796 or 12.80

The DPR is still not bad however.

*That .7 assumes he is not power attacking. If he is then that number drops, but that also means his he is more likely to miss and you get to deflect the 2nd or 3rd attack.

1. We already went over this up thread. If a 20th level caster is not available, we simply buy a potion or oil of Greater Magic Fang CL 20 and hire a caster (CL 11) for the permanency, which will likely cause him to remove the Wand of Invisibility and invest in some scrolls instead.

2. Being permanently large is a fine idea at this level, since most creatures you will be fighting in the bestiary will also be large.

3. Crane Wing Riposte works off of any attack that hits, not just the first one. It lowers incoming damage by (number of attacks - 1 / number of attacks), assuming all attacks are the same damage.

4. The DPR for it is simply a normal unarmed strike DPR, since we do not know how many attacks a monk will be taking each round. This is why it was not added directly into the calculations above. The probability gets a little tricky, so if we simply assume the monk gets hit at least once per round, we add an extra strike DPR and we are done. Your math assumes he cannot get hit by the second or third attack, and is incorrect. The probability of not getting hit by any of the three attacks is 10.5%. So multiply the base DPR 21.28*.895 = 19.0456.

5. The stunning fist hit chance is 20%, or the chance to hit with the first strike times the chance the fort save fails. Multiply this by the two unarmed strike DPR attacks nets you = 9.60925 DPR. My Medusa's strike math is correct.

Your numbers look close enough to the ones I'm getting, but you seem to be forgetting about the Ki Strike. With the additional Ki strike his DPR increases to 101.612 while using Crane Style.

6. Using power attack against the monk would likely net in a damage loss for the Giant, since he loses 1/3 of his attacks due to the riposte.

7. The DPR is good and he is useful outside of combat. His AC exceeds with the requested amount (24 or 23, can't remember exactly) as well.

8. I think you might be off slightly on the Monk's average damage. It is 2d8 + 13 + 1d6 Cold = 4.5x2 + 13 + 3.5 = 25.5.

I have taken the Flaming Fist monk and changed him up a little bit to be more in line with the goals of the exercise. Before, his usual AC was in the 30's and his DPR in the 70's and 80's. I have changed him with the AC and damage goals as listed below, as well as giving him some good stealth and scout utility. I also changed him to a frosty fist monk.

The goal in building a good unarmed monk is finding a use for your hands. For this build, I have used wands to make use of the character's hands. Since he can always carry a wand with him to start combat with without having to switch it out for a weapon, this gives him an advantage.

Character's need magic at higher levels to keep up, so we make our body a weapon with permanent magic. The Amulet of Mighty Fists is just gravy on top for a monk.

I set the DPR against a Fire Giant, AC 24 and Fort +14.

With Crane Style (This is most of the time, since it adds so much to the monk's defenses:
Flurry of Blows DPR 71.82
Flurry of Blows + Stunning Fist DPR 80.332
Flurry + Medusa + Ki Strike DPR 101.612
Crane Riposte DPR 21.28

If he lowers his defenses and doesn't use Crane Style, these increase to:
Flurry of Blows DPR 77.14
Flurry of Blows + Stunning Fist DPR 86.74925
Flurry + Medusa + Ki Strike DPR 109.35925
Crane Riposte DPR 22.61

Fire Giants DPR against the monk:
Charge Attack DPR (No Riposte) 22.4
Full Attack DPR 37.8675
Crane Riposte Full Attack DPR 25.245

Here is the build:

Monk 10, servant of the Frosty Fist

On strategy:

There have been many posts comparing the monk to barbarian. The monk's fighting style is not the same as a barbarian. He does not use pounce to charge in at the enemy. Instead, he uses his first round to move into a position of annoyance for the enemy, blocking charges from his strongest enemies to his allies. He moves at 60 feet, as long as most charges, and casts divine favor on himself, giving him +3 on attack and damage rolls.

If he is aware of the approaching combat, he will pull out his wand of Shield, and pre-cast it as well as pre-casting divine favor and negating all damage in the first charge against him. Upon ambush or other unfortunate scenario, he will likely use a Ki point to cover for a missing defensive buff until he can get it activated.

Against flying enemies, he activates his winged boots and takes to the air with them, performing as normal.

Out of combat he performs healing as needed and acts as a scout with a +15 or +35 after using his wand of invisibility. He can also carry and operate any party magic items the party feels necessary between combats.

I have updated the monk build to level 10, and in doing so have found some interesting facts. Power attack is a trap for the monk! The -1 to +2 trade off is not in the monks favor.

The build is similar to before, with a few minor changes. We added a Monk's Robe and Winged Boots with the extra gold, so he can now handle flying enemies. The Winged Boots could be switched out to increase damage and saves.

Flurry DPR goes as follows -

Fighting something with 22 AC and +9 fort save, like the Couatl -
Without Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 83.5835
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 103.6035

With Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 76.6390625
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 95.4078125

Fighting something with 24 AC and +14 fort save, like a giant -
Without Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 63.688625
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 81.206125

With Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 57.83903125
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 74.10528125

Fighting a Bebilith (DR, AC 22, Fort 15)-
Without Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 42.9359
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 54.5559

With Crane Style
Flurry of Blows DPR 39.580625
Flurry of Blows + Ki Strike DPR 50.474375

We have 9 rounds of flurry + stunning fist + ki strike per day. Medusa's Wrath is calculated into the build, and it adds around 3-9 dpr depending on circumstances.

He has similar defenses to the Barbarian posted up the thread a ways, slightly less HP, but has flight and more DPR. Take a look.

He has 20 AC base, 28 usually and up to 32 with Crane Style. Wand of Shield is always at hand for when fighting starts, and he should have Mage armor pre cast if he is entering an area where fighting may occur. Otherwise, he loses 4 AC but is still very formidable.

Monk 10, servant of the Flaming Fist

Tarantula wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Accept a lower CL works just as well, and I can be "reasonably assured" a caster capable of casting 8th level spells is available in a metropolis. Which is up to CL 16 or +4, and works for our purposes here.

Its not ideal, but we can always refer to what lumiere said earlier and grab the spell 20th level spell in scroll form and ask the 15th to 16th level mage to cast it for us, paying him the usual price for spellcasting services.

Then you run into the dangerous issue.

"Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster."

"If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."

Which, while unlikely to happen, at least has a 1/20 chance (from a nat 1) And with a CL16 doing it, has a 25% chance of failure. Which again, places having a Level 16 caster use a CL20 scroll for you in GM fiat territory.

then you spend 3,000 GP on a CL20th oil instead.

now, the local 20th level druid hermit may not visit town often, but...

The oil would solve that problem very nicely, I agree.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Accept a lower CL works just as well, and I can be "reasonably assured" a caster capable of casting 8th level spells is available in a metropolis. Which is up to CL 16 or +4, and works for our purposes here.

Its not ideal, but we can always refer to what lumiere said earlier and grab the spell 20th level spell in scroll form and ask the 15th to 16th level mage to cast it for us, paying him the usual price for spellcasting services.

Then you run into the dangerous issue.

"Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster."

"If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."

Which, while unlikely to happen, at least has a 1/20 chance (from a nat 1) And with a CL16 doing it, has a 25% chance of failure. Which again, places having a Level 16 caster use a CL20 scroll for you in GM fiat territory.

Sure, but once again, the CL 16 version is not in GM fiat territory, and would exist by the core rules.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ah, greater is the 7500. I'll rework the math tomorrow. As I said, you are looking for a CL 20, but you should be able to get at least a character that can cast 8th level spells, which is up to CL 16, or +4.

The problem with seeking outside help like this, is the other builds you are going up against can do the exact same thing. So while it might look better initially, if they do the same thing, its a net wash.

Even worse is the fact that you need a CL20 druid and a CL20 wizard for your buffs.

One cannot use Permanency with Greater Magic Weapon, which is why it is very useful for fighting unarmed, but not so much for anyone else fighting with a weapon. In fact, there are really only a few spells you can use it with, in core.

The Greater Magic Fang Permanency combo really is a great balancing mechanism to the low damage normally seen in unarmed combat. I'm surprised more people don't try to use it.

I would need a 20th Druid, Ranger, or Summoner, and technically only a wizard capable of casting 5th level spells and caster level 11. The CL goes off the Greater Magic Fang spell, not the Permanency. That is an argument for another thread, however.

Caught you with my edit. Realized that seconds after posting...

I always forget domains give access to spells not normally available. You're right, CL20 growth druid and a CL11 wizard, in the same place. I also would not be surprised if CL20 druids didn't hang out in cities very often. What with their whole nature thing.

But that's all fluff and insignificant. All that matters is the book says even metropolis are not guaranteed to have what you need, which leaves it to GM fiat.

Accept a lower CL works just as well, and I can be "reasonably assured" a caster capable of casting 8th level spells is available in a metropolis. Which is up to CL 16 or +4, and works for our purposes here.

Its not ideal, but we can always refer to what lumiere said earlier and grab the spell 20th caster level spell in scroll form and ask the 15th to 16th level mage to cast it for us, paying him the usual price for spellcasting services.

A metropolis would likely have a mages guild with a high level summoner and a high level wizard/sorcerer inside on a council of elders, if you want the fluff for it. It doesn't have to be a druid.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Ah, greater is the 7500. I'll rework the math tomorrow. As I said, you are looking for a CL 20, but you should be able to get at least a character that can cast 8th level spells, which is up to CL 16, or +4.

The problem with seeking outside help like this, is the other builds you are going up against can do the exact same thing. So while it might look better initially, if they do the same thing, its a net wash.

Even worse is the fact that you need a CL20 druid and a CL20 wizard for your buffs.

One cannot use Permanency with Greater Magic Weapon, which is why it is very useful for fighting unarmed, but not so much for anyone else fighting with a weapon. In fact, there are really only a few spells you can use it with, in core.

The Greater Magic Fang Permanency combo really is a great balancing mechanism to the low damage normally seen in unarmed combat. I'm surprised more people don't try to use it.

I would need a 20th Druid, Ranger, or Summoner, and technically only a wizard capable of casting 5th level spells and caster level 11. The CL goes off the Greater Magic Fang spell, not the Permanency. That is an argument for another thread, however.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

gnomersy wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

...

You're using a CL 20 which implies you found a 20th level wizard willing to waste his time casting spells on your low leveled butt.

And frankly while the book includes rules for this chances are very very good a DM who isn't trying to give you a free pass to keep you from sucking because of the class you chose would look at you and tell you the 20th level spell casters are all busy with things far beyond the scope of your puny mortal affairs and put you on their waiting lists, check back in in 2-4 years.

Ah yes, DM fiat. The core rules say it can be done. I guess those same high level wizards don't waste days of their time making everyone's high level items either. This works just like going to see a doctor or any other skilled individual. If I want to buy something he has spent years making, like an MRI machine, its gonna cost a good deal more than if I want him to look at me in his office for 10 minutes. But people are greedy, so if I'm willing to pay him for his time, someone will do it.

If all the wizards in the world said no, demand would increase the price, but someone would still do it. The price is listed in the books, apparently these mighty wizards can spare 15 minutes a day to pay for casting a couple simple spells.

All you are asking for here is 15 minutes of their time and a couple of spell slots, which a wizard in town isn't going to be using all of anyway.

"In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells."...

Ah, greater is the 7500. I'll rework the math tomorrow. As I said, you are looking for a CL 20, but you should be able to get at least a character that can cast 8th level spells, which is up to CL 16, or +4.

the monk shouldn't be weighed against the 2HW pouncing Barbarian, let alone any 2HW Weapon or Archery Build

it should be weighed against similar builds such as

the 2WF Ranger

the 2WF Fighter

the 2WF Rogue/Ninja

the 2WF Cavalier/Samurai

the 2WF Paladin/Antipaladin

the 2WF Bard

the 2WF inquisitor

in other words

the monk should be compared to other melee 2WF builds

it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.

This actually makes sense. There are some known flaws in the two-weapon fighting style. Specifically lower attack bonuses, MAD, and DR problems. Monks might actually do a little better here than normal, since they don't have off-hand attacks.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

...

You're using a CL 20 which implies you found a 20th level wizard willing to waste his time casting spells on your low leveled butt.

And frankly while the book includes rules for this chances are very very good a DM who isn't trying to give you a free pass to keep you from sucking because of the class you chose would look at you and tell you the 20th level spell casters are all busy with things far beyond the scope of your puny mortal affairs and put you on their waiting lists, check back in in 2-4 years.

Ah yes, DM fiat. The core rules say it can be done. I guess those same high level wizards don't waste days of their time making everyone's high level items either. This works just like going to see a doctor or any other skilled individual. If I want to buy something he has spent years making, like an MRI machine, its gonna cost a good deal more than if I want him to look at me in his office for 10 minutes. But people are greedy, so if I'm willing to pay him for his time, someone will do it.

If all the wizards in the world said no, demand would increase the price, but someone would still do it. The price is listed in the books, apparently these mighty wizards can spare 15 minutes a day to pay for casting a couple simple spells.

All you are asking for here is 15 minutes of their time and a couple of spell slots, which a wizard in town isn't going to be using all of anyway.

Making a Monk. In order to make a good monk, lets look at what we have.
Since everyone wants an unarmed monk, lets get his unarmed damage up.

Unarmed Strike

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Excellent, lets use magic fang!

How do we do it?

Caster level × spell level × 10 gp
...
The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This price assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at her convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question, though you may be lucky enough to find someone who has it prepared that day or a spontaneous caster who knows it). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell (for example, to cast dispel magic on a magical seal in a dungeon) you need to negotiate with her; the default answer to such requests is typically no, since most people don't actually like to go on unexpected life-threatening adventures.
...
Not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.

So we buy Permanency Magic Fang castings for ourselves. We should aim for as high a caster level as possible, the PRD says it can likely be done in a metropolis, but you should be able to get at least a +4 casting.

We might want to grapple and do more damage as well, so lets make ourselves bigger too. Permanent Enlarge Person, caster level as high as you can get it, as above.

These two options, both core, make the monk work fine. Unarmed strikes are cheap to get up there. By the time dispel is around enough to cause trouble for a CL 20 permanent spell, it will be negligible and the party can likely cast it for you for the permanency components.

Now, we have free hands! What can we do with our hands that most other melee combatants can't? Use items without wasting actions! What kind of items? Magic items, of course. Use the human skill point and feat to pump up Use Magic Device quickly, and we are in business. This might be a little pricy at low levels, but later level 1 wands are cheap.

Well, now we have something to do with our hands. What happens when we get higher level and our cheap little wands get dispelled very quickly? We need a backup plan! Crane style feat chain will handle situations where our AC quickly drops and we are in danger.

Basic premise of the build below - you should have Mage Armor up when you know you are going into a fight. Always have the wand of shield out and ready. Use it in the round before the fight is engaged if you can, otherwise use it on your first round. Use Crane Wing to boost defenses if needed, especially when one or both of your buff spells are down. If both buffs are up, we use power attack like mad. Also, we use power attack when we run into DR, even if our buffs are down.

Attack priorities -
Priority 1 - Zip over to casters and grapple if possible. We have 30 CMD on a good day, so they probably won't get a spell off if we get them grappled.
Priority 2 - Act like any other big mobile front line fighter.

Out of combat, use the healing wand to help the party out with healing.

Monk 8

Consumable items are worth 2250 gold, which is a little over 6% of his wealth at this level.

Kryptonian Racial Stats
Str + 4
Dex + 2
Int - 2
Wis - 2

Fly speed of 30 feet (average)
Base speed of 30 feet

Kryptonians are very resistant to physical damage, but weak against magic.
Kryptonians gain DR/Magic equal to their character level.
Kryptonians take a -2 penalty on all saving throws against spells, spell like abilities, and magical effects.

Sun Powered - Kryptonians lose their racial Strength and Dexterity bonuses, flight, and damage reduction if they spend more than 24 hours without direct natural sunlight. Magic sunlight does not apply to this condition. A Kryptonians racial Wisdom and Intelligence penalties and saving throw penalties are not affected by sunlight, and remain even when a Kryptonian is in direct natural sunlight.

Superman would probably be a Monk. Just add a new feat to keep his flight speed up with his land speed.
New feat:
Flight Enhancement
Any enhancement effect that increases your normal land speed also applies to your flight speed.

Funny, my buddy proposed similar changes to the monk. He proposed every +10 movement could be used as 5 foot steps(so by the time you had +30 you could move 15 feet while flurrying without provoking.) Not sure that defense of the mind and mind over body are necessary.

Fighter - I like most those changes, but your giving them too much I think.

I like the skill training aspect, but I think monks should be toned down to fighter progression. I actually really like this, as the biggest problem with the rogue is other people can do his job better, let him take back some of his jobs.

The Monk probably doesn't need one of the two defensive bonuses, but he really does need something to supplement the MAD he has going.

I agree, the Fighter changes are probably too much. He would be fine without the doubling of combat feats, but I still feel most of the feats are too weak when compared to Barbarian rage power scaling.

The rogue definitely needs to take some of his prowess back in the skills section. The biggest thing that destroyed him there was the removal of cross-class skills.

If I had to choose one thing out of the whole set, it would be the skill training. The non magical classes really need something to give them a boost. They should all generally be better with their chosen skills than the casters. I'd even consider giving it to the barbarian as well, but his rage powers come with some non-combat benefit.

A few notes I made the other day when thinking about this same issue:

Monk Fix -
Level 2 - Defense of the Mind
Add a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier to all Saving Throws.
Note: This matches with similar Paladin defensive ability.

Level 3 - Flurry of feet
While performing a flurry of blows, a monk may move up to his Fast Movement bonus.
He may take this movement before, after, or between the attacks of his flurry, as long as the
movement does not exceed his Fast Movement bonus.
Note: This allows the monk to be a mobile fighter, and promote synergy of flurry of blows with fast movement.

Level 4 - Ki Pool
Add the following:
A monk gains an enhancement bonus of +1 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed strike.
This enhancement bonus increases every 3 levels after 5th, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level.
Note: Removes terrible reliance on Amulet of Mighty Fists, and makes it a bonus item.

Level 6 - Mind over Body
At 6th level, you may use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Constitution modifier to calculate hit points.
Remove some MAD, which monks dearly need.

Fighter fix -

Skill points change from 2 to 4.

Feat Training - Replaces first level feat. Fighters receive double any numerical bonus granted by a combat feat.
Note: Fighters main class feature is feats. They should receive a bonus to them, as they do not scale well.

Armor Training - Increase actual armor AC instead of of max dex.
Note: Max dex bonus increase can be purchased cheaply, it should not be a major class ability.

Weapon Training - Increase to +2 attack +2 damage per instance.
Note: To match with Ranger's favored enemy ability.

Bravery - Apply to all Will saves.
Note: Fighters need something to improve their will saves.

Rogue Fix -
Skill training section below should cover both their combat problems and their problems being overshadowed by
other classes in utility.

Making mundane (non magic) classes better where it counts - skills

Skill Training -
Rogues get skill training every even level.
Monks get skill training at 2nd level and every third level afterwards (5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th).
Fighters get skill training at 2nd level and every fourth level afterwards (6th, 10th, 14th, 18th).

Skill Training
Choose a skill you have trained and gain the benefit listed from the following list:

Acrobatics - You can move through threatened squares at full speed without increasing the check DC.
Appraise - You may use the appraise skill to haggle for the price of a magic item. The DC of this check is equal to the caster level of the magic item +10. If the check is successful, you may purchase the item for 25% less than normal.
Bluff - Feinting in combat is a move action. If you have the Improved Feint feat, it is a swift action to use feint and applies on all of your attacks made against the target of the feint until the end of this turn.
Climb - You gain a climb speed equal to your ranks in climb x 5. This cannot exceed your normal speed.
Craft - You may craft magic items with the craft skill as if you had the Master Craftsman feat. This option applies to each craft skill you have at least 5 ranks in.
Diplomacy - Creatures you successfully increase the attitude of to at least friendly are considered charmed, as the spell.
Disable Device - If you have trapfinding and at least 5 ranks in Disable Device, you no longer risk springing a trap when you attempt disable it.
Disguise - You are extremely good at impersonating particular individuals. Familiar individuals do not get a perception check bonus to see through your disguise.
Escape Artist - If you have at least 10 ranks in Escape Artist, you are treated as having Freedom of Movement, as the spell.
Fly - You never take falling damage as long as you have a form of flight available. Instead, you land gracefully on whatever surface would have caused the damage, as long as it can support you.
Handle Animal - Using handle animal on a friendly animal is a swift action.
Heal - You may perform a DC 20 heal check to provide temporary hit points equal to your ranks in heal for 8 hours. This use of Heal takes 1 minute and cannot be performed on a single creature more than once every 8 hours.
Intimadate - Demoralizing an opponent only requires a swift action. Additionally, demoralizing will stack with shaken and cause the frightened status.
Knowledge - You may roll twice and take the higher result. This applies to each knowledge skill you have at least 1 rank in.
Linguistics - Upon taking this option, you learn to read and write one additional language per rank in linguistics. You now learn two languages for each additional rank you put in linguistics.
Perception - Your senses are extremely keen. You gain one of the following abilities: Low-light vision, Dark Vision +30ft, or scent.
Perform - You have a talent that is unique. With a DC 35 check in a prosperous metropolis, you can earn 10d10pp/day. You will eventually come to the attention of all beings with an interest in your type of performance.
Profession - You are extremely proficient in your profession. You gain your entire check result in gold pieces instead of half.
Ride - You may add one half your ranks in ride to your mounts AC and saving throws. Additionally, your mount gains temporary hit points equal to your ride bonus while you are mounted on it. This bonus only applies to standard mounts, and is not added to any creatures with additional class levels, templates, familiars, animal companions, or special mounts.
Sense Motive - You gain a +10 on all Sense Motive checks that are opposed by Bluff checks.
Sleight of Hand - Drawing a hidden weapon is a move action. If you have quick draw, this is reduced to a swift action. Enemies are considered flat-footed against your drawn weapon until the start of their turn.
Spellcraft - Successfully identifying a spell cast on you gives you a bonus on your save against it equal to your spellcraft ranks divided by 5.
Stealth - If you have at least 5 ranks in stealth, you may use stealth without cover or concealment. You must still make a bluff check to distract opponents if you are observed.
Survival - You may move at normal speed while following tracks with no penalty. You may move twice your speed with a -10 penalty.
Swim - You gain a swim speed equal to your ranks in swim x 5. This cannot exceed your land speed.
Use Magic Device - Once you successfully used Use Magic Device on a magic item, you may use the same item again without having to make an additional check.

Additionally, you gain a bonus equal to one half your level (round down) to the chosen skill. From now on, the skill is considered a class skill for you.

Instead of choosing one of the above options, you may immediately gain 5 skill points to spend as normal.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing.

Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly.

Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :)

Haha, fair enough. I just worry that they will end up breaking it instead of fixing it.

I don't think it will be as intense as the stealth blog so they won't have to rewrite other parts of the game.

I just want to be able to use the hidden condition listed in the stealth blog.

That alone would be enough for me. :)

The stealth blog was an over complicated fix. That is why it failed. The hidden state seems like a good idea though.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing.

Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly.

Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :)

Haha, fair enough. I just worry that they will end up breaking it instead of fixing it.

Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing.

Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly.

I see we look at the RAW and RAI differently. I did not expect to change your mind. I just wanted to see your view on things. Personally I am all for allowing someone to make it to cover or stab someone after leaving cover/concealment, but I don't think RAW supports it.

Jason did say the new announcement would fix a few things. I just hope "soon" is within the next 4 weeks.

Hopefully it is simply a minor clarification in the perception rules. Just clarifying when you actually get a perception check would probably cover most of the issues everyone seems to have.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.

Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other?

They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action.

So the reaction perception check is instant, but if I spend a move action then I get longer access to the result of my roll?

Really? O.o

Yes. You would make a new roll for every action which requires a perception check to notice. Once you are observing someone, you do not lose that observation unless distracted (see stealth rules).

It would still be instant in the case of active perception, but you are the active character here. Each person who is trying to stealth around you defends with a stealth roll, you attack with a perception roll. It works in just the opposite manner of a stealth check. You could feasibly move before performing your perception check to look behind walls and such as well, and obtain better modifiers for your perception rolls.

Basically:

Active perception lets you see everything. Everyone who wants to use stealth against your perception (and can meet the qualifications - unobserved and cover or concealment) can defend with stealth.

Reactive perception: lets you see what you are reacting to.

Active stealth lets you you do the opposite. This is how the action system works.

Think about it, if I take an active perception check, should everyone else in the area also get a perception check? No.

My last in a string of questions since you need time to answer them.

1. Did you read the two stealth blogs?

2. If the rules already work like the stealth blogs said the new rules would have made stealth work under your interpretation, would exactly was being changed or than being hidden granting a +2 to attack?

1. I remember reading through the stealth blogs a while back, yes.

2. They were, I assume, going for clarification. Often times people interpret rulings differently, and clarity is necessary. It is likely the developers wanted to clear up the stealth rules, but realized that people had too many different interpretations and wanted to do a rewrite instead. And then they just gave up with all the worms they opened up when they tried to alter the system. They did try to bring in new modifiers, like hidden, if I remember correctly. If they tried to change the wording, they would have to change the wording everywhere. Perhaps they should have just clarified the wording in perception and stealth, but kept the same flow. Define things better and more clearly. The system works fine as is, however.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.

Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other?

They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action.

So lets say rogue 1's stealth check is higher than my perception check.

Let's then say rogue 2 has a readied action that takes place right as rogue 1 no longer has cover, and he just happens to be right beside the rogue whose stealth check I did not see.

Are you really going to say I can't see this person who is not hiding behind anything despite having line of sight?

An interesting question. But, based on the rules, you already failed your check against rogue 1, so yes, you still do not detect rogue 1; rogue 1 can sneak by you and attack you with surprise still. Your perception check only applies to what you are reacting to, which would be rogue 2's readied action. This would be very open to abuse otherwise. One action and one reaction still applies in this case.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Again, reaction is key. You react to an action.

That is an inference. There is no rule stating that.

It's a reasonable inference, but it's not RAW.

It's your interpretation of the rules. Of the metarules really. The way the rules are structured.

I am glad you find the interpretation reasonable. I believe it to be both RAW and RAI, and it is how I run things in my home games. I have yet to see it rule out anything that should be considered feasible. Especially when we are talking about characters with very high stealth values.

Bah. It's not RAW. Or at least it's not the only RAW. It's probably compatible with RAW. As is DM_Blake's.

RAW is vague. Except for when it's clear and contradictory. It simply doesn't say how many of these common situations are handled. It's left for us to try to interpret from clues in the text.

That's why rewriting the stealth rules became too big for a FAQ. They interact with a bunch of other rules and it's not at all clear how they're supposed to work. Either what the letter allows or what the intent was.

As I said early in this thread, I don't think anyone actually plays RAW stealth rules. I don't think RAW stealth rules exist.

Surely there are many ways to interpret anything. I feel this interpretation streamlines everything quite nicely. Blake's interpretation seems to be much more fiddly with tracking of modifiers, and excludes the opportunity for a stealth assassin style attack for anyone standing near a light source, as well as many other missed opportunities. My interpretation seems more true to the source material. I will credit him with it being a seemingly correct interpretation, except nowhere is it stated in RAW that you get to react multiple times to the same action.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Right here we have some interesting wording we do not have in the stealth or perception entries. With scent, you can detect approaching enemies. No mention of any perception checks granted.

Quote:

Creatures with the scent special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks made to detect a scent.

Now they do they suddenly get the bonuses added to the new perception check, or they just have to ignore the new stimuli under your "one roll" rule?

Certainly, if what they are trying to detect is within their scent range, they would get the bonus when they made a perception check. But, if they already made a perception check when the creature was outside of their scent range, they would not get a free perception check. They have already reacted. They would have to wait for their turn and take active perception (move action).

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.

Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other?

They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action.

DM_Blake wrote:

The_Big_Dog wrote:

No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine.

I agree.

I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.

In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.

And therefore, once he's left the cover of the wall, he not only loses the modifier for being behind the wall, but if nothing else grants the ability to use stealth, he can't use it.

Except that is not the way it is written. There is no following of modifiers, there is only one check when stealth is attempted. Failure means detection, success means no detection.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine.

I agree.

I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.

In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.

(I know I reversed the roles - the observer must beat the sneaker's DC, not the other way around; I was just being consistent with the previously used wording I quoted.)

It is relevant, but not in the way you suggest. See my comments above about multiple guards. The check is only once, and the success and failure occurs when the check is made, not halfway through the movement. You do not track the rolls and modifiers throughout the process. Nowhere else is this done. You have the opposing check, the result means you can do the following:

If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.

It really is that simple. All the fiddly modifiers only apply to the location where the check is made, based on the factors present when the check is made. The result is above.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.

Except I'm seeing it stated here that the Stealth check applies to the entire move action, so why is it that the Perception check is not applicable to the entire action.

What I am seeing is "My Stealth check covers everything I'm doing for the whole action and gets every conditional modifier even if those modifiers do not apply for the whole action, but your Perception check is not given the same consideration, it must be made immediately and does not apply to the whole action but only to the part of the action where it is subject to whatever conditions apply to just that part of the action."

This makes no sense. Why is Stealth all-powerful, capable of ignoring unfavorable conditions that apply to the stealthy action, but Perception is the wicked stepchild, unable to include modifiers that are clearly applicable to the stealthy action, completely at the mercy of the all-powerful Stealth skill?

I say the two skills should be given equal consideration. If one Stealth check covers everything you do for that action, then one Perception check should oppose that Stealth check for everything you do for that action, not just the beginning of it.

The RAW doesn't explicitly state this Stealth-biased approach. Common sense English definition of the word "use" doesn't support this Stealth-biased approach. Game balance doesn't support the idea of biasing one skill to the exclusion of another opposing skill.

Heck, the only reason I can find to justify the Stealth-bias is if the people justifying are biased in favor of Stealth. If someone wants to create Super Deadly Stealth Ninjas (TM) running around with skill-based invisibility then sure, that person would argue to have Stealth triumph over Perception in a non-RAW,...

The language fits fine. The two skills are given equal consideration. The perception roll is the same for the entire movement, as is the stealth check. Nothing changes. That is why they are equal. The conditions are met when the check is made, and only one check is made for the move action. If you want an area too big for someone to cross using stealth, make it big enough that they can't cross it in one move action. This makes sense.

If you have it the other way, there is no way to ever sneak up on someone guarding a camp, because he automatically sees you (DC 0) when you come into range of the campfire.

And, by the way, this is RAW. As written. This use of perception where you get a check every 5-10 feet of movement is not RAW. The game, by RAW, uses actions. Perception is a reaction to actions. You do not get a free check when someone comes into range of your senses, because he was already in range of your senses when you made the first perception check!

To do it your way means the stealth skill is useless in many situations where we see it working in the source material this game is based off of. People are not flawless, they do not always spot everything in their surroundings.

The only reason I can see for your justification is that you do not want stealth users to be useful without magical help. Period. That is what you are arguing for, and making perception a more powerful ability than it is. This game has already strengthened perception enough by removing cross-class skills, there is no need to give extra chances on top of that.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Once again, using a skill is making a skill check. The rules call for a stealth check as part of movement. Are you suggesting that every time a character is moving stealthily he makes a new stealth check every 5 feet?

No I am saying you have to remain qualified for stealth to gain the benefits. You don't get to make the check, and then be able to do anything you want after that and gain pseudo-invisibility or super silence.

If you yell as loud as you can while moving guess what? New perception check, even if you still have cover or concealment.
The noise counts as observable stimuli.

Now Big Dogg might try to argue that since you made your check before you yelled that nobody will notice you yelling, but you yelling has changed the situation.

By the same logic that the yelling changes the situation, you no longer being behind cover/concealment has changed the situation.

Yelling is a new action that receives a new perception check to detect the yelling.

You are always an observable stimuli. Observation is more than just sight. Hearing, smelling, touch, taste, these are all covered by perception. One roll per action, since the game works off of actions. Your way of looking at it means a new stealth check every 10 feet, since the modifier changes every 10 feet. This interpretation does not work with the "a stealth check as part of movement". It contradicts it entirely, and is therefore invalid.

Now, with your above point, a new perception check can be given from the yelling action, or the bagpipe action as was already discussed above.

Did you not see my post on scent? That also applies, and is not a new action. I write before I wrote the post you replied to.

Ninja in the Rye also did not respond to it.

Scent is an outlying case, but lets take a look at the special rules. They do not break anything I have said before.

This special quality allows a creature to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell. Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.

Right here we have some interesting wording we do not have in the stealth or perception entries. With scent, you can detect approaching enemies. No mention of any perception checks granted.

The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell. If the opponent is upwind, the range increases to 60 feet; if downwind, it drops to 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at triple normal range.

The next section describes the range at which this detection works. Still no mention of any perception checks granted.

When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When the creature is within 5 feet of the source, it pinpoints the source’s location.

Here is the heart of it. You are aware of a scent, and that there is a source somewhere, but you can't pinpoint it. You can take a move action to determine the direction of the scent. Hmm, still not a perception check, but this would give you reason to make a perception check on your turn (active perception).

A creature with the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Wisdom (or Survival) check to find or follow a track. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10 (no matter what kind of surface holds the scent). This DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry’s odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.

This section covers tracking. Not relevant to our discussion. And still no mention of any perception checks granted.

So, if you have scent, what it says is that you can detect the presence of something within 30 feet (no pinpointing until within 5 feet). No additional perception checks are granted by this.

It allows you to take a move action on your turn to get the direction of the source. Based on the wording of this, you would not be observing the source until you had pinpointed it. You could act on your turn (not before) with the knowledge gained from scent, but you by no means automatically break the stealth or any other auto-success perception rolls. You just get a hint that something is in the area. You may even know what it is, if you have smelled it before.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

There is very little, outside of putting on/taking off magic items, changing size, or becoming invisible that can change the modifiers to a stealth check.

Perception modifiers can change pretty easily, but that's not on the person using stealth to make a new check, that's on the would be observer.

But the Perception check is opposed by the Stealth check. It's one check for each participant. Why does it make sense that one of those skills gets to use every condition that makes it favorable for just that one skill and the other one must ignore all of the conditions that would be favorable to it?

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

If I have to constantly "use" stealth over the entire movement then, by the rules I should have to constantly be making stealth checks to determine my success.

I am not saying that at all.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

If I'm able to cover my entire movement with a single check (as you seem to agree is RAW and RAI) then I should only need to meet the conditions for using that skill at the time of the check.

I would agree, but where we differ is this:

A rogue declares that he is going to move from point A (lots of cover, behind a wall, tons of positive modifiers that help with Stealth) to point B (not nearly as many positive Stealth modifiers). He intends to use Stealth during this move. One check that will set the DC for the observer's one Perception check. One opposed roll.

Your method is to use the first set of conditions, make the opposed checks, and then apply that result to the whole movement. My method is to find weed out the modifiers that don't apply for the whole action and only use the ones that do apply for the whole thing.

Consider an analogy.

A juggler can juggle 3 balls. It's quite easy so when juggling balls he has a very easy DC, let's say DC 10. He could also juggle feral cats. This is much harder as they scratch and claw and squirm and try to get away. The DC is much higher, let's say 25. What if he...

The same benefit is given to the observer if he is the active one. He can walk behind the wall and roll an active perception check and the rogue gets no bonuses. If he is carrying a light source and moves behind the wall, the stealth character has no defense without cover or concealment. The active participant has the upper hand in stealth interactions, just like the attacking participant has the upper hand when attacking (he can choose where to attack from, with what weapon). The defender is static.

No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. This is only relevant to the stealth discussion if we are talking about multiple observers, however. It is still one stealth check against multiple DCs (set by perception checks). And the check still occurs at the beginning of the action.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

Your swim check covers all swimming for the entire move action.

Your climb check covers all climbing for the entire move action.
Your stealth check covers all stealth movement for the entire move action.
See the trend? Guess what the DC for stealth is? The single perception check of each character trying to observe you.

Actually, the DC of the Perception check is the Stealth Check. Sure, it's quibbling over semantics, but it matters if the final results are a tie.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

If you succeed at that check, you can go wherever you please, just like you can climb wherever you please if you beat the DC. Climb calls out an individual DC for each obstacle as well, stealth does not. Just the one.

Great.

Climb calls for one check and you can climb wherever you please.
Stealth calls for one check and you can go wherever you please.

I want to apply this logic to the Perception check: Perception calls for one check and I can perceive wherever I please. In this case, it pleases me to apply my check to the guy AFTER he leaves cover and concealment and enters my unobstructed field of view.

You don't like that?

Why is one skill more decisive than the other? Why does Stealth have the almost mystical power to force the observer to make the check at the worst possible moment and then can abuse all the existing game rules about Perception, Line of Sight, Lighting, etc., but Perception is not given the same ability to force the sneaker to make his Stealth check at the worst possible moment?

Turn about is fair play - if you want only one check to rule the entire action, even if the action includes changing circumstances (e.g. leaving cover that only applied to part of the action), then shouldn't that one check be subjected to having to succeed at the least common denominator (only gaining the advantages that apply to the entire action rather than getting all of the advantages that apply only to the best optimal portion of the action)?

Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

You create a diversion to remove the observed status. The other requirement of stealth. Then you move to somewhere with cover or concealment and perform your stealth check versus their (now distracted) perception. You did not require cover during the whole move, you must simply reach cover and perform your check before the end of your move.

The above happens in the opposite direction for normal stealth checks. You perform your stealth check, succeed, and move to wherever you like. If you fail your stealth check, you are detected and most likely initiative would be rolled instead of movement.

Except the difference is that in the first case you must make a Bluff check AND a Stealth check to pull it off. You're advocating that the second case requires on a Stealth check to essentially be invisible for your entire action.

I would even suggest that the diversion rule could be used to allow you to leave cover into an open area (the same rule, same Bluff mechanic, reversed direction to go from cover to observed rather than from observed to cover). Mechanically that's sound. It probably even works for most simulationists too.

But the RAW doesn't support just stepping out of your cover/concealment into plain sight and expecting to still be essentially invisible because of a roll you made under conditions that are no longer applicable. In fact, the RAW prohibits it by saying you cannot use stealth while being observed.

I know, you're going to say that "use stealth" means make the check. You'll say that it means you cannot make a stealth check while being observed. But that is like saying that "use swimming" means jump in the water or "use climbing" means take the first step up the cliff.

Tom: Hi Bob.
Bob: Hi Tom.
Tom: Why are you climbing up that cliff?
Bob: I'm not (as he continues scaling the cliff face)
Tom: Yes you are. See? You just climbed higher up the cliff.
Bob: Nope, I'm not climbing.
Tom: You just did it again. You climbed higher. You are obviously...

Your swim check covers all swimming for the entire move action.

See the trend? Guess what the DC for stealth is? The single perception check of each character trying to observe you. If you succeed at that check, you can go wherever you please, just like you can climb wherever you please if you beat the DC. Climb calls out an individual DC for each obstacle as well, stealth does not. Just the one.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Once again, using a skill is making a skill check. The rules call for a stealth check as part of movement. Are you suggesting that every time a character is moving stealthily he makes a new stealth check every 5 feet?

No I am saying you have to remain qualified for stealth to gain the benefits. You don't get to make the check, and then be able to do anything you want after that and gain pseudo-invisibility or super silence.

If you yell as loud as you can while moving guess what? New perception check, even if you still have cover or concealment.
The noise counts as observable stimuli.

Now Big Dogg might try to argue that since you made your check before you yelled that nobody will notice you yelling, but you yelling has changed the situation.

By the same logic that the yelling changes the situation, you no longer being behind cover/concealment has changed the situation.

Yelling is a new action that receives a new perception check to detect the yelling.

You are always an observable stimuli. Observation is more than just sight. Hearing, smelling, touch, taste, these are all covered by perception. One roll per action, since the game works off of actions. Your way of looking at it means a new stealth check every 10 feet, since the modifier changes every 10 feet. This interpretation does not work with the "a stealth check as part of movement". It contradicts it entirely, and is therefore invalid.

Now, with your above point, a new perception check can be given from the yelling action, or the bagpipe action as was already discussed above.

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, the playtest blog supports the idea that the Big Dog's approach is the developers current intent. If the rules aren't clear, it would make sense to interpret them with a bias in that direction.

I would agree with this. I would also stipulate that the very fact that they created the playtest blog rule means that clearly the RAW differs from that rule, which means we're now discussing RAW vs. RAI.

Which is fine, actually.

However, the Devs have stated they have no plans to change the rules because it's a huge rewrite. So the best we might hope for is a FAQ explaining the rules, which then falls into the realm of RAW.

In either case, I prefer the RAV (Rules Applied for Verisimilitude). Creeping around on your tippy toes while in plain sight of an observer doesn't grant you invisibility (or stealth, or hiddenness, or whatever other term we want to use), even if you started from a hidden spot. Ever.

Sure, distractions, a diversion, bad lighting, other types of concealment, finding (and maintaining) cover, all of that can come into play to make it possible. At best, a rogue has to wait for an opportunity to divert the observer's attention. Saying that a good Stealth roll suddenly causes such an opportunity breaks the verisimilitude. It's not up to the rogue to have the guard sneeze, or have the guard take a nap, or whatever, unless he brought some magic to make that kind of thing happen. No amount of creeping in the shadows can make a harlot approach the guard and distract him with a proposition, unless the rogue paid her in advance and was just awaiting her arrival.

Those kinds of things are up to the DM. The timing on when they happen, or if they happen, is up to the DM. A clever rogue can arrange for some things in advance, like the harlot (in the right situations), but he still has to wait for her to arrive and make her move; making a good Stealth check won't magically materialize the opportunity.

Dave: Aha, I rolled a 32 on my Stealth check. Your guard...

Your ruling breaks verisimilitude. It requires the guard to have eyes in the back of his head. There are no facing rules in this game, so you cannot state that he is simply looking forward. He looks around, he wipes sweat from his eyes, your job as the DM is to figure out why the check succeeded, not the players. You are breaking verisimilitude by saying that a random level 1 guardsman has perfect and always alert perception that cannot be passed by the best of the best without magic. That is breaking verisimilitude.

You aren't going to be creeping on your tippy toes. You are going to be moving quickly across the clearing while the guard checks behind, or above him. Your perception check determines how attentive you are, and the stealth check simply determines how attentive you need to be to notice him.