Vahnyu's page

It does

"and when you Leap, you can move an additional 5 feet horizontally or 2 feet vertically."

Bracers of Armor can make up for *some* of the loss of DEX, but, yeah DEX is pretty important. It's really a question of WIS vs. STR. Do you want to be the strong monk or the ki-monk.

Doing the level 4 playtest my monk has 20 AC which is pretty decent. But even with only 14 DEX, she would still have 18 AC which isn't a significant cause for concern as that's right around where other martial classes are. Right now I'm testing 14 STR / 18 DEX, but you could probably get away with 18 STR / 14 DEX with no problem, take the +2 to damage and just get hit 10% more often. It has the added benefit of making Dragon Kick more viable as well.

Which is why I firmly believe that Monks should be able to substitute Dex with Wis to their AC/TAC. Let me be the strong ki-monk who's slower than molases, dammit!

One man's Paladins are another man's Blackguards

Quick Jump decreases Long Jump to one action, but it forgoes the Stride which is normally part of Long Jump.

Long Jump distance moved = Stride + horizontal leap
Quick Jump distance moded = horizontal leap
Flying Kick distance moved = Stride + horizontal leap

If your aim is to move as far as possible and then attack, Flying Kick is your best bet, if and only if you need Stride + horizontal leap to reach the target, and only have 2 actions left for the round.

Otherwise, might as well just move normally, and FoB to get the most bang for your buck.

As for Assurance, it doesn't replace the d20, but it DOES replace the skill roll+bonus, if you so chose to use it, which means that you forgo rolling a d20 (and chancing a critical failure), in order to instead "Assure" that you get the listed result. At Legendary proficiency, the listed result is 30, which means you auto-pass any DC30 check with that particular skill. That's +25 feet movement guaranteed with Long Jump/Flying Kick, on top of the monk's base Stride. +30 feet, if you're in Crane Stance.

I firmly believe that no base class should ever be restricted in less than 5 alignments. yes, including the paladin, whom I believe should belong to anyone of the X-treme alignments (LG, CG, TN, LE, CE).

You could have each alignment fall to a specific Order that the Paladin must choose at creation, and said order come with a set of feats unique to it, while sharing the larger pool of paladin feats, so you'd get Paladins of Freedom, Tyranny, Slaughter, Justice, and Balance. Yes, they're all Paladins, and they're all the exemplars of their respective alignments, the most extreme ones on the L-C/G-E axis.

With that said, bring alignment restrictions for more classes (Monks can be any non-Chaotic, Barbarians can be any non-Lawful, Druids can be any Neutral, etc).

NemisCassander wrote:

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

There's a huge difference between not being comfortable with an element of the game and not being comfortable with the very identity of people who could very well be playing it. Are you really arguing that someone who says "I have a phobia of black people, so please don't include them in this game" should be treated the same as someone who says "I would rather not think about sexual assault during something that's supposed to be fun and relaxing, so please don't include that in this game?"

Um, isn't the metric to be used here whether the game is fun for all players? If both of those statements are equal statements of something causing someone to not have fun, should they not be of equal weight?

I'm confused...

Okay, imagine this. You've just sat down to play Pathfinder and another player says to the GM, "I'm not comfortable with {insert your race here}, so would you please remove them from the game?" I presume you would be happier if there was something in the rulebook advising that perhaps the GM shouldn't kick you out.

I sincerely doubt that if someone would be ok to oblige having somebody else kicked out of the table, for whatever discriminatory reason, in the absence of any section in the rulebook advising, or even dictating, that they shouldn't do so, would feel particularly pertrubed about doing it even in light of such a section.

And I sincerely doubt that this section, well-meaning though it is, can accomplish anything tangible outside of the metaphorical giving a pat on the back. Outside of official games, it might as well be pointless padding. And given the examples given above about official adventures containing triggering elements as intergral parts of their plot, then even in the case of official games, it might prove an excercise in futility.

Sadly, as its non-heightenable, and no word was made about that, this renders Ki Strike entirely useless come level 4+ (if it weren't already nearly useless from level 1).

Multiclassing as Cleric gives you access to Bless and Heroism, both superior options to Ki Strike, for the cost of 2 class feats minimum, 5 if you wanna max out your spellcasting in Cleric. This leaves you with 6 class feats that you can invest on the superior Ki powers (Wholeness, Blast, Wind Jump, Empty Body, and Abundant Step), along with Ki Strike which is effectively a Feat Tax.

At level 20, you'd have: Wisdom 20 [16 base, +2,+1,+1,+0 from level up] + 2[Headband of Inspired Wisdom], for a total of 16 Ki Points [+6 from WIS, +2*5 from Class Feats], as well as: 2 1st level spell slots, 2 2nd level spell slots, 2 3rd level spell slots, 2 4th level spell slots, 2 5th level spell slots, 2 6th level spell slots, 1 7th level spell slots, and 1 8th level spell slot.

Heroism at 8th is a 10-minute +3 increase to all of your attacks, instead of a one-off +1 increase to a single attack. Bless is only for 1 minute, and only for +1 increase to attacks, but it's also an aura effect, affecting both you and your allies. These two ensure that your attack bonus will be as high as possible for long bursts, saving you your precious Ki points for more important stuff (like self healing, AoEs, the occasional flight spell) of which you'd have 8 castings minimum.

(Also, as Ki Strike grants a conditional bonus, it neither stacks with Bless nor Heroism, making it rendering it completely obsolete).

Drakhan Valane wrote:

That is a system I have zero interest in playing. Unlike the PF2 playtest which I find extremely exciting.

Math works out the same (at = level), it's the same system, except for extending the threat range of monsters, just like removing the treadmill from 4th Ed, works out just fine.

So Math doesn't in fact work the same at all, except for a small margin, is what you're saying?

On another point, I see verisimiltude being thrown around a bit, and honestly, I find nothing even remotely verisimiltudous about a horde of level 1s being a plausible threat to a level 20 character. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even a horde of level 10s shouldn't pose a threat to him, and only start making him nervous when they get within 5 levels of him.

Otherwise, there's no point in a game having 20 levels at all. Just make one with maybe 5 levels, if at all, and be done with it.

Jason S wrote:

New Ancestry Table

Dwarf. Ability Boosts: Con, free. Ability Flaw: Chr
Elf. Ability Boosts: Dex, free. Ability Flaw: Con
Gnome. Ability Boosts: Con, free. Ability Flaw: Str
Goblin. Ability Boosts: Dex, free. Ability Flaw: Wis
Halfling. Ability Boosts: Dex, free. Ability Flaw: Str
Human. Ability Boosts: Free, free. Ability Flaw: Free

Vahnyu wrote:

2) Humans should get their (Free, Free) boost, as is, but with the option to instead get a (Free, Free, Free, Flaw), where the Flaw is subject to the player's choice.

Why would you not play a human under one of these options? As is is now, you're trading two static boosts (and a flaw, but you probably wouldn't choose a race with a flaw in the primary stat for the class you want) for the ability to choose a boost, as well as access to the best feats. This lets humans be versatile with the downside that their stats are slightly worse than everyone else's.

I do not for a single moment believe that Ability scores should be in any way or form comparable to Ancestry Feats.

Human Ancestry Feats should only be comparable to non-human Ancestry Feats, and if those later are found wanting, then that should be fixed(by bringing them up to speed with the human ones).

I'm perfectly fine with the ability boosts/flaws as is, with only two exceptions:

1) Goblins should get an INT mod instead of a CHA mod. No, Goblins neither do have any universally innate Charismatic force about them, nor should they get one. INT makes far more sense for them, in a Rogueish cunning/inventiveness/trapster kind of way.

2) Humans should get their (Free, Free) boost, as is, but with the option to instead get a (Free, Free, Free, Flaw), where the Flaw is subject to the player's choice.

Secret Wizard wrote:

4. LACK OF RANGED WEAPON PROFICIENCIES CREATES LARGE GAP IN CAPABILITIES. Being able to efficiently attack from range is an essential part of a martial character's toolkit. There's a large incentive to get Monastic Weaponry just for this reason, and it gives a "feel-bad" vibe to be spending a Class Feat in covering a glaring weakness instead of growing more powerful, even if they are the same thing.

Agree. Improvised ranged weapons would fit the theme.

ooh! Improvised weapon support, I like that!

The proficiency bonuses would feel better if we just got rid of adding level to everything. Adding level to everything is just pointless. You might as well make the game a bit easier and add it to nothing.

Have a level 1 character go up against a level 10 character, before saying that it's pointless. A 20th level character should absolutely dwarf anyone 5 or more levels lower than them. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason for 20 levels of progression. You could simply have 5 levels in total, and that'd be it.

Proficiency bonuses probably can't work in this system if they're more than a +1 per step, but as it stands, a mere +1 is not enough to seperate the expert from the legend, as the former could make up for the difference with levels and an ability modifier.

Skill Feats are rather uninspiring even at legendary, completely optional(you can have a legendary skill but no legendary feats for that skill), and only apply for your skill proficiencies. A universal mastery tier system needs more in my opinion, to really set itself appart from flat bonuses and the like.

My proposal:
-Untrained: Your proficiency modifier is equal to either your Level -2 OR your Level/2(round down), whichever is lower.
-Trained: Your proficiency modifier is equal to your Level
-Expert: Your proficiency modifier is equal to your Level +1. Treat all rolls you have Expert proficiency with on your d20 that are less than 5, as if you'd rolled 5, before adding modifiers, and if you do, your roll gains the fortune trait. When someone targets you with an attack against your AC or your TAC, while you have Expert proficiency with them, reduce the circumstance penalty to your defences(such as from being flat-footed, or from being flanked) by 1, to a maximum of -0 circumstance penalty.
-Master: Your proficiency modifier is your equal to your Level +2. Instead of rolling a d20 for a stat you have Master proficiency with, you may instead treat it as having rolled 10(this is called "taking a 10"). hen someone targets you with an attack against your AC or your TAC, while you have Expert proficiency with them, reduce the circumstance penalty to your defences(such as from being flat-footed, or from being flanked) by 2, to a maximum of -0 circumstance penalty.
-Legendary: Your proficiency modifier is your Level +3. You can no longer critically fail on a roll for a stat you have Legendary proficiency with, and your critical success range with it is doubled, (for example, if you needed to roll 18-20 for a critical success with that stat, you instead need to roll 15-20 for a critical success). hen someone targets you with an attack against your AC or your TAC, while you have Expert proficiency with them, reduce the circumstance penalty to your defences(such as from being flat-footed, or from being flanked) by 3, to a maximum of -0 circumstance penalty.

Vahnyu wrote:

Per RAW, yes, but only in theory. In practice, there's not a single Feat in any archetype that meets the prerequisites of Natural Ambition

Reasoning:

"Once you have the dedication feat, you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites."

When you have purchased a dedication feat for a given archetype, you can only purchase feats from said archetype. In the case of multiclass archetypes, that means that you can't, in fact, purchase class feats from the archetype's original class.

What you CAN purchase, instead, is a specific archetype feat which allows you to get said archetype's original class' feat.

In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resiliency is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that.

But the same also goes for 1st level Fighter Class feats. In order to get anyone of those, if you're not a fighter, you'd need to qualify for at least Basic Maneuver, which lets you select a 1st (or 2nd) level Fighter Class Feat. Basic Maneuver, however, is a 2nd level feat, so it can't be selected by Natural Ambition, as it exceeds Natural Ambition's Level 1 requirement.

The same goes for all other Archetype Feats as well. None of them are Level 1, so they all disqualify for Natural Ambition's criteria(but if ever a level 1 archetype feat were introduced, that'd be a different matter).

Can you please define what rule prevents you from taking Fighter Resiliency, the multiclass archetype feat on p. 280?

At no point did I imply that in the example the player attempted to take a 1st level feat from the Fighter class directly, on p. 86-95. They are using the rules from p. 279 "you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat" to select Multiclass Archetype feats from the Fighter archetype list instead.

You said "In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resilience is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that." Why not?

If it's because the feat has a 4th level prerequisite, you're committing a...

No. You absolutely can't.

The Ancestral Paragon feat explicitly mentions a Level 1 Ancestry Feat. Hence, you can't take a Level 5 or above Feat. If you could, it'd say "You gain an ancestry Feat", without making any mention of levels.

Similarly, Natural Ambition explicitly mentions a Level 1 Class Feat. If the Feat is not Level 1, then, in no uncertain terms, it does not meet the prerequisites for Natural Ambition.

It's not "You must be at least Level 1 to take this Feat"

It's "You can only take Feats that are defined as <Level 1>"

For proof, look no further than the Fighter Archetype Feat, Basic Maneuver, which explicitly states: "Gain a level 1 or level 2 fighter feat." The wording couldn't be more clear. Any Fighter Class Feat that is neither level 1 nor 2 doesn't qualify.