Couldn't you just secure your earthly town from teleport attack via witchgates strategically placed? Obviously you'd have to have a way to bypass them, some kind of "key" or marking, maybe even a passport. Or you could run them as pseudo-customs agencies and force anyone who's not a high ranking military official to stop at each witchgate and have their papers checked.
Obviously this is in a scenario where demiplanes aren't an option, either by fiat or from some underlying fluff source of magic (gods don't want the worshippers from whom they draw power to suddenly leave the plane they get their greatest amount of energy from).
GM Bone Man wrote:
Actually I do, I'm about half done with the questionnaire portion because work actually got hectic for once.
I'm between 2 concepts right now, so the crunch shouldn't be too hard.
I might message you on some rules interaction questions and how you handle gestalt but other than that I might be good.
Normally the problems with synthesist summoners (and summoners in general) at a table are the bookkeeping required; because you not only have a character sheet but also a non-class related advancement system (evolution points) and abilities that are normally only found on monsters in the vein of those evolution points, it leads to situations where GMs are at a loss for how to adequately challenge the character.
I like to reverse the "no dispel magic on the eidolon" for synthesists to bring their power level back into check, and make items like the anchoring harness more relevant.
However, being that it's a 3.5 pathfinder mix, I'm having a really hard time believing that a synthesist summoner is the most potent thing anyone is doing. If so, good on your group for staying balanced.
Dual cursed is decent but Wrecker is pretty awful. It certainly isnt worth taking just to try casting Oracles Burden on weapon users.
Wrecker also gives pseudo-trapfinding and when combined with Seeker archetype makes you a spellcasting rogue. It's a skill tax to be sure but worse things have happened.
You can no longer gain extra spells from Improved Eldritch heritage as they are not added to your spell list following the recent FAQ.
I just looked at the FAQ for Core and UM, can you link this change?
EDIT: Found it. http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9s54
Ghoran is a 19 point race printed by Paizo that can reincarnate itself with a temporary negative level and has ability adjustments. I'm 90% sure that enclave protector is less powerful on the whole. ;)
Carrying Capacity - Muleback Cords//Ant HaulShadows - Ghost Touch on armor
Not fullproof but not impossible.
Actually, why do you have to start at the ground floor? You could grab TWF as a regular feat by qualifying for it, and then grab ranger twf combat stayle at 8, you're over 6th and therefore qualify for the 6th level feats, and take ITWF immediately.
Considering you can just get "Extra Slayer Talent" as a feat... So you can get TWF at 8, ITWF at 9 and GTWF at 11... ;)
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Smite Bracers are 11k and for an archer Damage>Defenses all day every day, twice on sunday.
Not if you're dead. The defenses of an archer are nothing close to the defenses of a front line fighter and with the amount of love an archer paladin can spread you'd better believe making a name for yourself is painting a target on your back.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
your first path ability as a paladin should be Mythic Smite. No need for extra oaths when you can smite 15+ times a day.
Disagree here. Mythic power as a resource is far more valuable spent on things like Hierophant spontaneously casting the paladin spell list or keeping yourself alive in a mythic game especially since the healer should only really ever be catching you in the occasional channel since you have your own source of healing. If your GM isn't modifying the enemies to account for the woeful lack of optimization on Paizo's part then fine, then sure Mythic Smite is fine killing them rather than weathering them. But if there's anything close to a mythic-appropriate challenge you're far better not exaggerating your already overwhelming damage strength and instead reinforcing your ability to avoid save-or-sucks, no-save-just-sucks and the like.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
The OP has a weird house rule where nothing can overcome DR/epic except the proper weapon. (ouch as that neuters smite and a lot of mythic abilities that say they Bypass all DR.)
Sucks, but happens. They're probably reading it like the Jabberwock's DR but it's not hard to get a weapon over +6 enhancement worth of abilities at this level. Really shouldn't be relevant for a paladin archer especially since you can just take Clustered Shots.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Second Yes you can bond radiance.
Yeah, this was my mistake - my GM read the "can't take upgradeable" line to mean that you couldn't improve it at all because lol artifact. Has since been corrected.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
You do know he is a Archer right? I'd rather have Full-attack of smite on every arrow mixed with mythic attack abilities. Yes Mythic Vital strike is a Beast BUT its more for a melee type or cross bow user.
Definitely disagree here. The mythic vital strike line gives him the option of getting "out of the fire" while still getting access to all of his damage. I understand the comment on melee/crossbow vs. bow for action economy but there really are times when the archer does in fact need to move and losing damage because of that sucks. Also multiplying smite damage for first hit on an outsider across a mythic vital strike is pretty nausea-inducing.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
For 8k I would rather get permanency Tongues for 7,500gp and save the 500gp and speak EVERY language.
Except half the things in the mod cast dispel magic or greater dispel at will. Again, if your GM doesn't use the SLAs of the monsters then whatever, go for it. But I'm used to playing with GMs that are used to playing with CO veterans. I tend to build characters (and suggest that others build characters) with redundancies rather than squeezing fragile bonuses by pinching coppers.
Definitely buy a scroll of Named Bullet for the arcane caster to scribe into their book, and a beer for the divine caster to cast blessing of fervor regularly so you can cast extended litany of righteousness-es.
I would invest in a way to reliably overcome SR, perhaps a glove of storing and a lesser piercing metamagic rod, perhaps some dweomer essence. Perhaps both. Also some languages as your litanies are language dependent. Maybe a +2 Int ioun stone at some point with linguistics in it?
Pearl of Power 1 and 2 are fantastic for you as early spells are very valuable. Grace is a wonderful one that lets you get out of melee quickly. Hero's Defiance can keep you alive when you shouldn't be.
I vastly prefer the lay on hands item over the smite bracers; +2d6 to both lay (and channel in a liberal reading) is a really really powerful item. It's the same 16k.
I would have probably gone the mythic vital strike line for you as it is more damage if your DM allows you to use move actions as swifts - Litany of Righteousness + Mythic Improved Vital Strike + Smite = dead thing 9/10 times.
I probably would have picked a Oath against Fiends or Oath of Vengeance (or both) as bonding your weapon is pointless with Radiance (I'm 99% sure you can't modify it at all). Ghost touch and seeking arrows are a good investment though. I'm a fan of Oath of Vengeance + Sacred Servant so you can 1/week a cohort in that shores up your weaknesses; at this level you can bring in a 12HD outsider (or half-celestial cleric or smth if you please). Liberation is a wonderful domain for you but following Erastil you'd probably want Community (as the 8th level power is bonkers on a paladin and mythic prayer is fun if you can spare the path/feat and Fate's Favored makes that and/or divine power insane).
Oh, and a paladin without Fey Foundling (+2 per die healed by magical healing incoming) just makes me super sad.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Spirit Guide Dual-Cursed Oracle? Probably not PFS legal as I think both modify the class skills you get from revelation (even though one changes and the other replaces, they're not both changing or both replacing) and they both alter when you get revelations though they don't both alter the "revelations" class feature - DCO gets +1 revelation at 5 and 13, Spirit Guide loses revelation at 3, 7, 15.
Getting the wandering hex gives you a hex, and by extension qualifies you to take extra hex, but that's shaky as well. I'm going to try it in my friend's Reign of Winter game (I'm already a blackened spirit guide (lore) oracle and he's approved the murky wording on Arcane Enlightenment, I think this may fly as well especially since we have no healer).
Sorry about the necromancy. Cold Iron Warden is one of my favorite narrow archetypes. In an AP like Wrath of the Righteous it's completely bananas, but otherwise it's occasionally good but mostly mediocre.
For best value, take a level of cleric and Channeling Scourge, RAW it gives you a pair of channel pools, one for only alignment channel and one for any channel based feat, which will stack levels for damage (so you can be effective against undead as well). It functionally makes your channel dice equal to your level minus 1, and your DC equal to 9+level+stat. Also with the level of Cleric, you have a Good Aura, and your 4th level spell Litany of Righteousness is online for your damage allowing for some powerful turns later in life. You also get an extra domain but depending on your GM's interpretation it will only have 1 level of advancement - pic something with a sweet first level power like Travel/Trade or Liberation.
The drawback is your stat array is often going to be limiting you to sword and board, and you get some decent MAD going.
My favorite way to play it is similar to a ranger build that doesn't want to max WIS, basically using your level increases to ensure you meet requirements to cast your highest level spells but otherwise using initial investments in stats to bulk up STR, CHA, CON - usually in that order.
It tends to get feat intensive, so don't plan on going too far down any individual feat chain. However, you can be a decent party buffer if you pick up the bless equipment chain and a deity with the Glory Domain//Heroism Subdomain. Picking up a sword and shield balances your defenses, and Channel Smite adds to your already impressive number of dice per attack when fighting creatures vulnerable to your channeling. Don't forget that the +3 DC from Consecrate only cares that your energy source is positive, not what that positive energy is being used for.
I think the fact that Clear Mind can totally be handed out with the Rage Song makes it fine for playing with itself, honestly.
As far as power level... I still have overwhelming issues with Spell Sunder as written not mimicking the actual effects of Dispel Magic, and having an entire party suddenly able to do it as early as 9th and rage cycle it on at least one character, and as many as the entire party with no fatigue is cracked, seriously.
I feel like the lack of fatigue and the fact that the Skald can grant EVERYONE 1/rage powers and rage cycle every single round makes him an impossibly good buffer. I mean, the healing power alone makes him as good or better a non-combat healer as any class, and the spell versatility in being able to 1/day (slash 2/day, 3/day) literally cherry pick any relevant 6th level or less spell as a full-round action? And this isn't supposed to emulate Wizard? Literally the most versatile character I've yet seen.
The Skald is a jack of all trades, master of all. He turns the party into a melee (or ranged!) fireball depending on the rage powers taken, if he can go in the surprise round can make them nearly impervious to spells, while also heavily buffing to hit, damage, hit points, free healing... And the Skald can even "rage cycle" off-turn with bard performance spells like saving finish and others that end performance while under the effects of the Clear Mind rage power; while this creates interesting and fun technical interactions, I believe there is a heavy potential for abuse by skilled players and unprepared GMs.
This class is WAY underestimated from level 6 [multiple rage powers] onward and easily outclasses the bard in combat terms while losing little in the way of noncombat utility. I feel that the casting and proficiency in medium armor is a mistake as well, making the mithral-full-plate-wearing bardic combat monster a fantastically awful idea. I mean, even if you made fatigue a thing, he could just dip Oracle of Nature, Lore or Moon at 9th to get immunity (lame) and Cha (over dex) to Max Dex and Reflex/CMD as well as potentially Misfortune revelation.
This class is an absolute optimizer's wet dream. Please review this with the kinds of people you have to put creation restrictions on in your playgroup, or whom you have to review the characters of, and you will find that out very quickly.
I think the fact that spell tinkerer by RAW can literally suppress Antimagic Field, Prismatic Wall and the like for the Arcanist makes them absolutely bonkers. And it's not even a greater exploit. That's easily Spell Sunder level broken.
Also for efficiency (especially considering that the arcanist now natively wants Cha), why wouldn't you just be a Half-Elf/Focused Study Human and take Skill Focus: Knowledge [Foo] and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane)? Pick Staff and you get Craft Weapons and Craft Staff at the appropriate level. Free pool points.
(Unrelated) - A friend of mine figured out that a staff with every single 1st and 2nd level spell available to the Sor/Wiz was trivially inexpensive compared to power level. Food for thought.
On reading a few more, it feels like an Arcanist based around Abjuration would be incredibly potent, able to bypass their own barriers with ease, while Destructive Dispel siphoning and counterspelling their opponents quite mercilessly. INT scaling at higher levels solves many (but not all) of the issues with the spell slots, but honestly the spell flexibility is brutal. I think the exploits really need to be looked over again.
If you cannot see, you cannot target (invisibility, blind - you can attack a square, but an invisible defender is ineligible for a targetted spell or effect, you cannot exclude them with channel energy, et al, unless you can target them). I'm not sure that needs to be debated here, but if you do feel the need, please cite why this would/would not be the case with RAW passages, as it's not the point of my thread.
Based on this premise, how does a blind attacker go about using Sunder or Disarm? Sunder and Disarm are both attack rolls, however they obviously target to some degree (are you disarming an object on the creature at the higher CMD, or a held object? are you sundering armor? shield? necklace? spell effect (if a barbarian)?).
My question is, can a blinded character sunder against a foe they know is in a particular square? Different question, what about an invisible defender? How about if the attacker walks up to a foe with mirror image, and closes his eyes for the attack?
Separately, when choosing to close your eyes, can you do so mid-round? Gaze attacks force you to make this choice at the start of the round, however there is a clear need as there are effects that happen relevant to that choice at the start of the round. Unfortunately, the RAW is fairly silent on closing your eyes as a combat maneuver (or portion of one).
I think the reason that there isn't a satisfactory answer to this IMO, is there isn't a defined reading of "reroll" in the pathfinder system. I think that some people are reading "reroll a d20 roll" as "reroll an individual 20 sided die that was rolled for a roll" and I am reading it as "reroll a roll that uses a d20" - of which the difference is the former uses the game term to define a physical object used, whereas the latter uses "d20 roll" as a descriptor of a type of roll (d20 versus damage or percentile rolls that can be of other dice - not limiting a roll to attack, skill, ability, etc).
As I read it, "reroll a d20 roll" would cause whomever it was targetted on to attempt the check, save, etc, as if it had never happened, whereas "reroll a d20" would pick up an individual die and roll it with the same modifiers (and in my opinion would still qualify as "a d20 roll" and be modified accordingly).
D&D is a social game. Furthermore, the DM is not the end-all-be-all of the game, and should not be. Rule Zero exists for the DM to keep the game going, when the rules would keep it from doing so.
With that being said, allow me to direct you to Rule Negative One (or rather Rule It's Not A Rule Because It's The Whole Idea): If you're not all having fun, it's not a game anymore.
Class Feature Combos:
This isn't a "build" persay, so much as it is a smaller combo that opens up possibilities and advantages for the character using it.
The core of the combo is the interaction between the Foresight Subschool (Wizard) power Prescience (Su) (and other powers that are similar to it), and the Luck of Heroes feat.
Prescience (Su): At the beginning of your turn, you may, as a free action, roll a single d20. At any point before your next turn, you may use the result of this roll as the result of any d20 roll you are required to make. If you do not use the d20 result before your next turn, it is lost. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Luck of Heroes: Whenever you spend a hero point, roll a d20. If the result is greater than 15, the hero point is not spent. You cannot use this Feat when you use the cheat death Hero Point option.
(Given that the last sentence of the feat exists, and the first two sentences appear redundant, I am going with the first sentence referring to an earlier revision of hero points, whereby hero points could *only* be used for the first two; otherwise specifying you cannot use it to Cheat Death would be irrelevant as the usage would have already be restricted to the uses which are permitted, negating the need to call out uses that were not permitted)
Luck of Heroes can be obtained one of two ways. The more expensive (but more reliable/earlier) version involves taking Blood of Heroes (a prerequisite, which expands your Hero Point reservoir to 5 and gives you a hero point immediately) and then Luck of Heroes. This is available at level 3 (or 1 for Humans*), and opens up several tricks.
Ideally, we prefer Elves, Half-Elves (using their Elf-ness for favored class bonus) or Tieflings (or any other race with the same favored class bonus) for maximum usage of this combination. You should generally have between 6 and 12 uses depending on stat, level and race. Well-optimized builds can have in excess of 15 by mid levels, enabling you to reliably capitalize on what is essentially random chance.
On the start of your turn, you use Prescience. If you roll a 15 or better, use a hero point on your turn. If you roll a 15 or better on the Luck of Heroes roll, keep it and use the Prescience roll for something else useful. If not, substitute the 15. This allows for recovering spells for free a la Magus, but using a much more widely available (and more versatile) resevoir of plot coupons, or alternately letting you cast multiple spells in a round with no comeuppance through the use of extra actions.
Prescience is decent enough on it's own, as whenever you roll a natural critical threat, it will tend to shape your turn as it allows you to guarantee a particularly effective course of action, and any class feature that not only opens up options but encourages effective play (or increases the effectiveness of a character) generally gets my approval.
Note: This isn't limited to offensive uses. You can preserve the roll (or the hero point!) for things like immediate-action interrupting (with a guaranteed kept hero point) or a possibly crucial saving throw.
As a GM, I've played against this, and let me tell you, it's fantastic. Frustrating, but fantastic. I once had a fight in Jade Regent (the burning boat, to avoid spoilers) and the party's wizard started his round with a '20'. He pulled out his wand of Scorching ray, and rolled on one enemy, and naturally crit (confirming normally), killing him. He then spent a hero point, and naturally rolled a 16, using his second standard action to crit (using the Prescience die) and then convert on another enemy. Without this class feature, rather than remove 2 opponents from the combat completely, the wizard would have instead cast Haste and been done. Ultimately, the haste would have proven wasteful as the combat was over quickly, but the Wizard's ability to both go first, and alpha strike to remove two enemies saved at least one party member from the devastating opening attacks of the invisible enemies.
You get sneak attack (your damage class feature is not restricted by fighting style OR weapon type), 8+INT per level, rogue talents that are feat-equivalent or better every other level, and both uncanny dodges. Your argument is invalid. Your class is so good you don't even have an archetype worth taking because your class features are better than anything you'd get with very, very small exception (usually the "selfish" rogues like dagger master, or thug-cleric torture domain/sap master build pre-nerf). Monk on the other hand gets none of the improvements on the scale that either fighters or rogues saw, while being put in a position where every forum nerf puts them back towards their (unimpressive) 3.5 showing. Your damage never runs out (unlike our ki which we have to spend for our extra attacks which do less damage than you), and you can inflict status effects almost as well as we can (and when you consider ninja tricks like pressure points, as well).
Heck, you even have a way to guarantee your damage against all but other rogues (ifrit + Fire sight/sylph + mist sight; smoke cloud/obscuring mist major magic rogue talent + sniper goggles + ranged weapon (or two weapon fighting with shuriken))
You two are forgetting this isn't a monk thread, it's an AMF thread. Compare that fist fighter to a weapon using fighter of the same level. Or any class but monk really. Monk has complicating elements.
Except that a monk's core mechanic (unarmed strike/flurry) is the only class feature that has no other equivalent way to enhance its effectiveness than AMF when compared to weapon wielding fighters, spellcasters with natural attacks (synthesist/druid/etc). Given the number of times SKR has stated that AMF is the cost that it is because of monks this becomes a monk thread.
With that, comparing monk to weapon-fighter the monk will lose every time. The point is that monk pales even against a fist fighter in core.
I would make the following edit:
Level 10 Monk:
Ability Scores: Str 20 (22), Dex 14, Con 12 (14), Int 13, Wis 14 (16), Cha 7. (8th level bump in Str)
Standard Attack: +15 (1d10+7)
Full Attack: +15/+10 (1d10+7)
Full Attack (TWF): +16/+16/+11/+11 (1d10+7)
Feats: Improved Unarmed Strike (B), Stunning Fist (B), Weapon Focus, Toughness, Combat Reflexes (B), Dodge (B), Mobility, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip (B), Spring Attack, Greater Trip, Medusa's Wrath (B)
Equipment (62,000 gp): amulet of mighty fists +1 (5,000 gp); belt of physical might (str/con) +2 (10,000 gp), bracers of armor +5 (25,000 gp), cloak of resistance +2 (4,000 gp); ring of protection +2 (8,000 gp); handy haversack (2,000 gp), headband of inspired wisdom +2 (4,000 gp); 4,000 gp remaining for consumables and misc equipment.
AC: 25 (60’ movement); (flat-footed 22, touch 20)
Saves: Fort +11, Ref +11, Will +12
Hit Points: 88 (including favored class bonus)
This further highlights options that the monk will have and the fighter will not. I realized looking through both builds that power attack is largely unnecessary overall, but instead simply nice to have. The monk in this case can trip as his first attack, at +4 over his normal bonus, and if he succeeds, gain an attack with the prone bonus, making up much of the disparity between the two in the to-hit department. Medusa's Wrath can be just as easily replaced with Improved Critical for more theoretical damage in a vacuum, but I think that it will likely lead to more practical damage, though it's harder to plug into a calculator. I have also shuffled some things around for Spring Attack; This is largely because in skirmishing situations, this monk can avoid most damage if he can land a trip, and at the very least have the ability to disable his opponent with (if it succeeds) little chance for retribution.
Furthermore, with Stunning Fist not taking up an action, you have the potential to 10 times per day enable your own medusa's wrath (I would use it on the attack of opportunity after the trip attempt personally) with either sickened (since it lasts 10 rounds if it lands; though it doesn't enable wrath, it makes stun more likely) or stunned. At 12th you will also be able to stagger, which combined with a trip makes it highly unlikely your opponent will be able to retaliate against you.
He's going Core-only; the Monk could have gotten IC at 10th *correction*, and Wing/Stomp are out. I'm still of the opinion that greater trip is a better usage than some of the feats in there though that would push the requisite INT to 13 since flowing monk is out of the question.
Here's a simple one, and the houserule I use in my game. Remove the Ki Strike (Foo) class ability and at the same level as Ki Strike (Magic) give monks an equivalent ability to Arcane Pool using Ki as the consumable and affecting the monk's unarmed strikes (yes, all of them). You can base the list off either the pool list or the Paladin's spirit list. Advancement can follow either track, though since they get it nearer to the Paladin, they should probably be 5th and 1/3 after. At (Lawful) and (Adamantine) allow the monk to add new abilities to the list based on price modifier, replacing an existing ability and also allow them to "retrain" like fighter feats and sorcerer spells on the levels in between (probably like 1 level after the increases so 9, 12, etc).
Elegant. Uses rules from existing classes. Mimics the Sohei's ability (which nobody will ever use, ever) and fixes a lot of kvetching on this forum all at the same time.
Oracle - Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.
Witch - Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.
Ill Omen (Witch/Dual-Cursed Oracle 1): You afflict the target with bad luck. On the next d20 roll the target makes, it must roll twice and take the less favorable result. For every five caster levels you have, the target must roll twice on an additional d20 roll (to a maximum of five rolls at 20th level).
I am a dual-cursed oracle. The two standard actions prior to mine are to afflict the goblin with Misfortune hex, and to cast a CL 1 Ill Omen on him. I then cast an unpleasant spell on him (let's say... Color Spray because in this example I'm a Heavens oracle). He somehow succeeds (rolling 3 dice and taking the lowest), and I want to use Misfortune (DualCursed Oracle) on him as an Immediate. How many dice does he roll?
I considered it for PFS - instead I'm playing a cackling Vanilla Witch/CB Sorcerer/DC Oracle so I can use slumber on vermin and former-humanoid undead, as well as force rerolls on it.
Arcane Gun (Su): "A spellslinger can cast any ranged touch attack, cone, line, or ray spells through his arcane gun."
In accordance with the rulings on Sorcerer Arcana (namely Orc + Dragon and/or Primal Elemental) "any [...] spells" means *any* spells, so that should mean any spell you've got regardless of class.
Arcane School: "A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell."
Given that this says "A wizard who prepares spells [...]" rather than a character who prepares spells leads me to believe this affects only wizard spells, rather than any spells prepared by a character who has wizard levels with opposition schools.
It just feels weird that what's good for the geese isn't good for the gander. I want it to work this way, I just am not convinced that it's the case.
Basically, I want to make a Spellslinger Wizard 1/Magus X that can shoot spells from a gun, without having to be a Myrmidarch (and who can also shoot *all* the rays from a Scorching Ray through his gun for example). Seems like this is going to be the closest I can get to a gunmage (a la Iron Kingdoms)
Josh M. wrote:
I heard that bows are terribly easy to both sunder and disarm. *shrug*
James Jacobs wrote:
You obviously play in different games than I do—in games I play in, the animal companions, eidolons, and wild shaping druids do a significant amount of damage considering they're attached to characters who aren't supposed to be doing a significant amount of melee damage in the first place...
Well the last time I checked... ;)
James Jacobs wrote:
If you make damage reduction too easy to overcome (which is what the enhancement bonus rule does in my opinion), then it's a pointless rule to have in the game since it never matters.
And from the other side of the screen, damage reduction is frustrating, as it punishes characters for making more attacks, and simply raises the "water line" of what is effective on what creatures. Heck, Clustered Shots is all but avowed as a "feat tax" on ranged attackers, and I wish I could take it for two weapon fighters/natural attackers! I would agree with being able to define a specific type of damage reduction that the weapon overcomes at the +3, +4 and +5 levels (i.e. this +4 sword overcomes Cold Iron and Good, or it was forged from Cold Iron, and it also overcomes Silver for being +3, and Chaotic for being +4), rather than blanket "+3 overcomes Cold Iron/Silver, +4 overcomes Alignment yadda yadda" but it's also a mechanic to make higher enhancement bonuses attractive to players over special abilities, such as Agile, Guided, Seeking, Ghost Touch, etc. +X to hit and damage isn't "sexy" on it's own - the ability to (beyond a point) also have another mechanical benefit allows that option to shine in contrast with special abilities on a weapon.
James Jacobs wrote:
My preference: The barbarians and paladins and fighters and other full BAB characters are the ones doing the strongest melee damage in the party. The mid BAB characters and low BAB characters (such as druids and summoners) should not be... since they have other options available when it comes to doing things in combat than simply making physical attacks.
To be frank, the versions of said classes that *do* significant melee damage have (usually) given up a legitimately significant number of class options and feats in order to do that damage. Should they not be rewarded for doing so by being permitted to do what their character has the capability of doing, mechanically, in the system? I mean, out of the box, obviously they are inferior to your standard Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger, and side by side having both tweaked for damage per round (to use the barbaric term), the Fighter loses less for doing the same damage than, say, a Cleric built the same way.
As an aside, before I go further, I am taking this as a mechanical argument of prudence, not a "characters should be organic, not a pile of stats" argument - in that case you can argue the point of the cleric of destruction following gorum, the martial artist that wants to "fight" crime in the sense of The Tick, the druid that worships the wrathful nature of the forest, etc etc. I'm sure you're familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy, and the argument I'm constructing leaves me wide open to comments that commit it; I simply want to construct the paradigm as such before I continue.
A GM who takes the approach of "this class should do this, that class should do that" or it's converse, saying a class "shouldn't" do X amount of damage, is missing the point that the character that is doing that damage has ostensibly given something up in return for that ability. That "thing" may be feat slots that would be better suited to a different role (such as healing, support or control), archetypes that give up actual class features and versatility for synergy with a particular cornercase situation that they can exploit, or actions in combat/spell slots to "buff" yourself into the combat monster that other classes simply are out of the box. Simply having other options with that character doesn't mean the player of that character is necessarily interested in making those options their primary focus, and it's disappointing that someone who makes themselves a mouthpiece for paizo on the question of rules (even while you avow that all of your answers are from a "this is how my game would run" perspective) would express that this is not a belief that is shared.
James Jacobs wrote:
How do I go about changing the weapon to something that one of the players can use, if such a weapon does not exist? Obviously I can fiat "magic handwraps" for monks, but I was wondering at what point (if any) Pathfinder will concede another option for monks that isn't half as effective and two and a half times the expense of magic weapons for other classes.
And to be perfectly frank, I don't know what eidolons, wild shaping druids or animal companions you are familiar with but outside of vital-striking strong jaw-ed megafauna, natural attacks are vastly inferior to the two handed fighter/multiple attacking rogue in damage, and while unarmed strikes can bypass *some* damage reduction (I promise "/lawful" shows up on few enough monsters as to be laughable), monks are otherwise reduced to giving up one of the laughably small advantages they get damage-wise (their unarmed progression) to bypass any other types than Magic and Adamantine.
I mean, maybe a Magus style ability to enhance natural attacks using ki points? Something between Arcane Pool and Sacred Bond? If it's good enough for two classes that get spells (one of which has a full base attack bonus), then perhaps it's time to discard the 3.x artifact of flat DR bypassing, and allowing Monks a similar ability?
James Jacobs wrote:
What about eidolons, animal companions or wild shaping druids? AoMF is not just for monks, y'know... :P
As an expansion to this, in the Legacy of Fire adventure path the weapon Tempest is linked to the story and states that the GM should change the weapon to fit the character that triggers the event, and for monks to make a "scarf or handwrap" that applies to unarmed damage.
Are there any plans (given the complaints about AoMF, and the recent rules changes vis a vis Temple Sword Flurry) to add an item type like this?
I'd like to see the VS/GT combo playtested and see if it is over powered or broken, while I already know that people using Greater Trip to gain multiple AoOs while the person is in midair is abuse. I will say that I've learned a lot about the trip mechanics and that when I do finally get to play my monk again (this Sunday) I'll be looking to take Greater Trip asap so I can better help my team. Kinda makes me regret taking Improved Grapple instead of Trip.
I'm playing a level 12 flowing monk in a non-PFS game. I do significantly less damage than half the party, even factoring in the attacks of opportunity as my damage, even with reposition on top of it, ki throw, the whole 9 yards. We are using legacy 3.5 material, but everyone has access to it, so it's generally balanced across the board. We are also playtesting unarmed strike magic weapons (I'm calling them handwraps for now for lack of a better term). I have a lot of fun playing the character because between reposition, the flowing monk ability that lets you force saves or be flat footed when using AoO's and touch of serenity, I can force 5-6 saves per round, sometimes off of immediate actions. But outside of being "nifty" there's simply enough stuff out there (even with my GM going the extra mile and stating that I can Ki Throw flying opponents, even though they would normally be trip-immune, because I am throwing them to the ground) that is trip immune for it to simply be a non-issue. I'm level 12 with a trip bonus in the high thirties, in some circumstances low forties (finesse plus fury's fall plus high dex plus the insight bonus ioun stone in a wayfinder yadda yadda), and I still fail sometimes. I've even failed by 10 once, recently.
My normal attack sequence is to either full attack, leading with a trip (so that I "gain back" the trip attack plus a bonus one due to the VS/GT combo) and then continue my attack sequence with the +4. My goal is to get Medusa's Wrath sometime soon so that if I do force them flat-footed with the attacks of opportunity mid-sequence, I can get the 2 bonus attacks by the end of the sequence. I am severely outdamaged by a standard two-handed weapon fighter, a magus, a negative energy channeling cleric, and a primal/orc cross-blooded sorcerer (with 2 levels of paladin and a level of oracle for nature's whispers).
When I get a single attack, it shines a bit more as I get to attack twice if I succeed the trip. :)
Yes, I have an emotional investment in this thread. That's why I've been trying to adhere so thoroughly to common discussion rules and logic, rather than ranting and raving. I asked our OP Healer friend to prove himself because in all honesty he has yet to provide even a fraction of the persuasive narrative or rules text that the majority opinion has behind it.
TL;DR - I play a VS/GT flowing monk (for maximum trip exposure) and it does not break itself in the normal course of the game. It is a very cool option, but that's about all.
james maissen wrote:
<Big post involving quickened spells provoking attacks of opportunity because of fake class abilities>
You are confusing text that happens to exist in certain feats (Paired Opportunists comes to mind) stating "this feat does not enable you to gain more than one attack of opportunity per action" with the text in attacks of opportunity where you are not permitted to gain more than one attack per opportunity, though if one provokes multiple attacks of opportunity, you can take all of them.
In your (albeit ad absurdum) example, if the individual in question had combat reflexes, they would issue forth 2 attacks of opportunity against the offending fire-casting cleric, and continue going about their day as normal. These are 2 opportunities from the same action, and unless your ability prohibits this specifically (as is done in the above referenced feat) then the controlling text becomes the attack of opportunity text, and since those two opportunities are defined differently, they both provoke, despite arising from the same action.
Now, can we argue actual possibilities within the rules rather than creating strawman rules constructs?
There's precedent for this, too. In Legacy of Fire, there's a magic weapon.
Item/Plot Spoiler:But because it's got plot significance, you're told to make it be whatever variety of weapon that the PC who gets that condition uses regularly and for monks they tell you to make it a scarf that they "can wrap around their hands" and use it's enhancement bonus/abilities with unarmed strikes. The fact that the AOMF (which by the way is still useful for any and all animal companions, druids and summoners (especially synthesists) is currently the ONLY way that monks can get an enhancement, where the other classes all have other options, and it CAN itself bypass some basic rules (does not need a +1 bonus to add abilities) does make it a viable, if expensive option even if monks had another choice.
It's keyed to the moldspeaker, Vardashiel and named Tempest. It's designed to level with the party, picking up Frost, and some other abilities.
Simply put, giving monks a magic set of handwraps does not break the game. Bonus Squared * 2500 or 3000 isn't too much to ask, but personally, the monk has paid enough dues. Just make it a regular weapon cost and have it only apply to unarmed strike so it doesn't completely displace AoMF for the other uses.
The other option is get rid of Ki strike, and let monks spend Ki to give an enhancement bonus to their unarmed strikes for minutes per level akin to Divine Bond. Scale it the same way, and boom, problem solved. It even has the elegance of templating off of an existing ability.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Unfortunately this is a rules as written discussion so fluff isn't evidence. :\ Also it's Vicious Stomp. Punishing Kick is another feat that knocks prone though. >_> </nerd>
If it's easier you can think of Greater Trip as changing the "effects" line of trip to "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity" and that Vicious Stomp changes any instance of "falls prone" next to the possessor to "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity" so that the end result is "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity and provokes an attack of opportunity." While they happen simultaneously in our vision rules-wise, they are not simultaneous nor are they in response to the same "opportunity".
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)
One "opportunity" is "being tripped by someone with greater trip" and the other is "falling prone (for any reason) next to someone with vicious stomp." These are hardly the same thing (heck they use some of the same letters, but there are entire different words in there).