Wild Card's page

60 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

DSXMachina wrote:


And that is why i dislike min-maxers dumping CHA, because they have little to stop them. They attack the bar keep & "Do you want me to play my Charisma or not"? is the justification. They maximise the advantages & minimise the problems.
BTW WildCard, what did the GM do? Throw the dwarf is jail? Fined?

sorry, took me a while to get back,

the dwarf? nah, he may have had a low charisma, but there was nothing wrong with his wisdom, he got outta town well before the guard showed up.

incidentally, the dwarf was a rolled character, not point buy.

wc


mdt wrote:


I object to the idea that he shouldn't have to do that.

I do too, I feel quite strongly that that a character should reap both the penalties AND the benefits of the score he chooses to assign his character.

the problem in my game is that our GM will go out of his way to put the low char character in a situation, but it would never occure to him to reward the high Char character, I can see it now, GM: "you wanna what"? player, " I want to make a diplomacy check to get my ale for half price"

GM "ok, roll, DC 50"

well folks, it's been a great discussion, but it's got to the point of folks endlessly repeating themselves so I'm gonna call it a night, y'all take care,

WC

PS, as a non drinker I'd like to point out that after 10 beers most people have about a 5 charisma :)


mdt wrote:

So in other words,

low stats have no penalties except in do or die situations? I wonder if you apply the same thing to the goblins or troglodytes or human beggers the PCs interact with? The goblins are treated as 'oh, roll eyes, it's a goblin' until they pull weapons?

Stats are there for a reason. If you prefer to roll every time there's an interaction, feel free. I just assume average on the rolls.

If you prefer, instead, to use the diplomacy skills rating in lieu of average CHA without rolling, that's also fine. Again, the dwarf is going to come off worse. If the dwarf didn't put any ranks into diplomacy, then he shouldn't get a free ride on having a 5 CHA.

So, would you make a halfling sorcerer with a 5 strength make a strength check every time he opened a door?

WC?


Lord of Admonition wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:


I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!

Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.

WC

For the record, Raistlin Majere's Constitution was 10, average. The sickliness was pure roleplaying.

really? coughing up blood after spell casting was "Role Playing" ?

WC


James Risner wrote:
Wild Card wrote:

I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.

At our table one of our GM's seems to feel that it's cheating,

I think he is confused.

I believe he equates min-maxing (how every character is built by every person, it is just subjective what they are min-ing and what they are max-ing) and cheating by voluntarily interpreting the rules incorrectly.

I noticed this very frequently on the Wizards.com forums. Where people would endless debate the meaning of words, for example debating the meaning of the "spells per day" to suggest that gaining 9 "full casting/memorization cycles in a day" was fine since that one 24 hour segment of time contained 9 "days" because he rest via ring of sustenance in between.

Anyway, Pathfinder has much less bogus rules interpretations and even less people willing to endless debate them. Paizo is also more likely to officially answer them and the official answers are more likely to be accepted by the community (where the wizards.com FAQ was mostly ignore as "not following RAW" when as far as I'm concerned the FAQ is RAW.)

that could be part of the problem, we just switched to pathfinder from 3.5 about a year ago, maybe this is just carry over that will solve itself once we get more comfortable with the rules.

lol, I'd like to blame it on WoTC

wc


Sylvanite wrote:


I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!

Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.

WC


Ricca Adri' Thiakria wrote:

The root? No!

I am both GM and player and while min/maxing may not be the root it is annoying and, IMO, sad and pathetic.

I understand the need or desire to make the most of your pc - we all want to be the best we can be and that often comes out in a fantasy setting that you can have more control over than your own life but still - I feel if a player is min/ maxing they are kinda missing the feel of the game and their character.

I love playing characters that have weaknesses - it shows humanity, and fragility and makes them, in a word, real!

sorry, I'm tired tonight and I'm not sure that understand your post.

You seem to say that minmaxing is at least not cool, but go on to say that having weaknesses is good, wich leaves me somewhat confused, who has more glaring weaknesses than a min maxed character?

WC


mdt wrote:
Wild Card wrote:


While I agree completely, I'd like to point out that this has to work both ways, if the inn charges the ugly foul temperd Cha-5 dwarf double because he's ugly and foul tempered, then the Cha- 20 Half orc sorcerer should have the option to pay half.

He can absolutely make a diplomacy check for a discount. However, he's not going to get half just because the dwarf got charged double.

The whole point of charging the dwarf double is annoyance factor. The half-orc, no matter how good his charisma, is (A) a half-orc, and (B) more importantly, not annoying.

An inn-keeper is very likely to give a smooth talking character a discount, especially if they show they can do something like entertain the other guests with stories or song. A half-orc still has to put up with racial dislike (assuming orcs are hated in the campaign).

Additionally, an inn-keeper is going to double the dwarf and make money off the deal, even with the annoyance factor. If she discounts the sorcerer by half, she may not make money (unless he can entertain the other guests). I'd guess that a good diplomacy check and offer to entertain could certainly half the cost. But it won't be automatic. The Dwarf doesn't have to make a test to annoy, he just walks in and opens his mouth. :)

Can't argue with that, witch is why I said he should have the option, my high char characters never do.

on a side note, last time that happened my dwarf took an ax to the innkeeper, when the GM got PO'd I just said "Do you want me to play my Charisma or not"? never happened again :)

one thing I've found especially with Charisma, some Players tend to take what your character says to their character personally, so playing your charisma can be more difficult than it needs to.

WC


Stefan Hill wrote:

I have no issues as DM with min-maxing, every player does it to some extent. Why would you make a character who isn't good at what they should be good at?

What I think is more of an issue is badly worded rules that can be twisted while still adhering to what they "say" not adhering to "intent". This is the root of all evil: Badly worded rules.

S.

actually, I like to think that some rules were left vague on purpose so that gamers could be creative and tweak till things suited them, the problem is players that abuse those rules to get an advantage, the rules lawyers.

I feel that pathfinder did a stupendous job on the rules, tight enough to keep players who are so inclined headed in the right direction, but not tight enough to bind, I do wish that the books were a little better indexed though, I constantly find myself flipping pages looking for something I saw earlier.

Also, the rules can be tightened up with simple house rules, if the GM doesn't want min maxing in his or her game all she has to do is say, BEFORE the player creates the Character, "House Rule, no more than 1 score below 10 and no more that one score above 17", or whatever the GM feels suits the campaign.

I've yet to meet a player who would have a problem with that, I certainly wouldn't.

it's not doing so and then punishing the character afterwards that I object to.

WC


mdt wrote:

One major issue I have with Min/Max is that the people who tend to take it to extreme (the ones who are dumping 2 or more stats to 7 or below) throw a hissy fit if you penalize them for it.

"Why do I have to climb! You put this in the game because I have a low str, you're just picking on me!"

"Why do I have to roll for talking to someone? It should be what I roleplay at the table, not what my 5 cha dwarf rolls! I'll never be able to roleplay if you keep picking on me like this, you just don't like the fact my dwarf is really good at hitting people!"

I'm sure someone can fill in one for each stat. Low con? How dare you use poison in the game! You're just picking on me because you don't like my build!

Hi all, was away for a bit :)

While I agree completely, I'd like to point out that this has to work both ways, if the inn charges the ugly foul temperd Cha-5 dwarf double because he's ugly and foul tempered, then the Cha- 20 Half orc sorcerer should have the option to pay half.

I suppose it comes down to both sides being mature enough to accept that there's a problem and figure out a way to deal with it, if I wasn't willing to accept the downside of the low ability scores, I wouldn't min max.

or, to put it as succinctly as possible, every silver lining has a cloud.

WC


I'd like to thank everybody who posted, I'd like to reply to every post but my keyboard skills aren't that l33t :)I did read them all though.

I was a bit worried when I first posted that the topic might turn into a flame fest, I'm really glad it didn't, I think I have a handle on how to make things more fun from here on in though.

thanks again, y'all stay safe

Peace, WildCard


wraithstrike wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.

I Absolutely agree with you 100%

but why do you assume that the only way for the rest of the party to have fun is for me to play a nerfed character?

I personally bring a lot to the table, when a puzzle comes up the rest of the party looks at me, the room often rings with laughter over my characters social ineptitude, bottom line, I'm there to have fun.

But, too me part of having fun is playing a HERO, or a VILLAIN !!!!!

I want to play Drizzt, or wulfgar, or Artemis Enteri, I'm not interested in playing, hmm, can't remember his name, or maybe, hmm, nope, can't remember his either, why? because they were't heroes...

as I said before, different strokes for different folks...

WC

I don't think that was directed towards you. It was a "you" in the general sense.

Ahh, My bad, sorry I ranted at ya Sylvanite

WC


Damian Magecraft wrote:


The getting some one else to buy it for you tactic is one way to deal with the GM (although this will set up an adversarial role between the GM and the players as has been mentioned.)
Another method (one I employ heavily to the annoyance of many GMs) is to ask a metric $#!7 ton of questions during char gen. Slipping in the key questions such as what kind of game arte you looking to run? What kind of limits can I expect? Is this set up acceptable? would it be better for you and the group if I altered some things? etc...

This way when he approves my char he feels he has better handle on my place in the scheme of the campaign, the scope of the chars capabilities, and the chars place in the party dynamic.

Method 2 sounds good, I'll definitely keep it in mind, maybe part of the problem is that with the point system is that we find it easier for players to make up their character at home and then submit them for GM's approval, I think next time we start I'll suggest we have a game session just to create characters like we used to, that used to be a lot of fun.

WC


Sylvanite wrote:
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.

I Absolutely agree with you 100%

but why do you assume that the only way for the rest of the party to have fun is for me to play a nerfed character?

I personally bring a lot to the table, when a puzzle comes up the rest of the party looks at me, the room often rings with laughter over my characters social ineptitude, bottom line, I'm there to have fun.

But, too me part of having fun is playing a HERO, or a VILLAIN !!!!!

I want to play Drizzt, or wulfgar, or Artemis Enteri, I'm not interested in playing, hmm, can't remember his name, or maybe, hmm, nope, can't remember his either, why? because they were't heroes...

as I said before, different strokes for different folks...

WC


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...

No? Alright then.

umm, your point? Please?

wc

Eh, *I'm* trolling now, WC.

Forgive me. The thread title kind of set me off. :) Carry on.

ahh, ok, no worries, we're having a great discussion with some excellent points and even a few solutions to the problem, wouldn't mind seeing your take on it too :)

WC


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...

No? Alright then.

umm, your point? Please?

wc


wraithstrike wrote:

Crafting also would not stop you from making your quest(to save the world) since it is only during down time. I would craft, and if he chooses to deny you by arbitrarily speeding up the storyline then so be it.

If you can do it try to get in another group. I personally think your DM sucks.

PS:I am not saying you have to leave your current group, just get in with another group to get a different perspective on things.

I may do that, thing is, I'm ADD so my social skills aren't so good, I may just not play for a few months and see if the situation gets any better, my current character is very simple to play so one of the other players could manage it quite easily.

I'm also not one for going head to head with the GM, maybe not a good thing, if I was more willing to jump up and down and scream about the injustice of it all (figuratively speaking) this might have been solved years ago.

WC


Ringtail wrote:


Missed that when skimming the thread.

Unless the PC's are driven hard every hour of the day save for sleep you should still be able to craft throughout the day at a slower pace, representing work done while on lunch breaks, winding down before rest, et cetera. A denial of the ability to craft, without flat out removing it as an option from the game and informing everyone before is, as per above, SHENAN's!

wow, Awesome Idea M8, I completely missed that in the rules, I am definitely going to try that, thanks RingTail, you da bomb :)

WC


Ringtail wrote:
Wild Card wrote:

...the conversation goes something like this:

Barb: can I buy a +4 str belt?
GM: what's you str?
Barb: 24.
GM: no

Thief: can I buy a +4 dex belt?
GM: what's your Dex?
Thief: 18
GM:sure...

How is this handled at the magic shop in game? Seems like that is something that would break immersion faster than those giant blue "don't go here walls" in Assassin's Creed.

we don't role play shopping as it tends to take up so much time and then the players not shopping start talking about hockey or work and then the game dies till we get back to it, I think the assumption is that character went shopping and was or wasn't able to find what he wanted based on whether or not the GM feels he should have it.

well, I'm glad to see that some folks agree with me at least, I was beginning to think I was just being a whiner.

wc


Ringtail wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
Jarl wrote:

[

Does he similarly limit casters with high main stats or is this d-baggery limited to the goons with the audacity to have high strength?

definitely, several times I've burned feats on crafting skills and not been allowed to use them.

wc

Not been allowed to craft?

Is this due to a legitimate reason, such as lack of time during event based adventures or lack of materials at hand due to lower than average wealth?

Or were you simply told your character doesn't? Which would be shenanigans of the highest calibur.

well the way it seems to work is that you can ask to buy pretty much anything and the GM decides if you can have it, so take + skills for instance, the conversation goes something like this:

Barb: can I buy a +4 str belt?
GM: what's you str?
Barb: 24.
GM: no

Thief: can I buy a +4 dex belt?
GM: what's your Dex?
Thief: 18
GM:sure

so when I took crafting feats to get around this is when time suddenly became "Of the Essence" so to speak

Now I DO appreciate that high scores can make the GM's job difficult, but I also appreciate that this is easy to balance with the corresponding low scores, the character dumped charisma? well then all the bandits are going to attack the jerk, or the town guard are going to lay a beating on him, teach him some respect.

dumped wisdom? well, bet the rest of the party wished his strength was lower after that charm person spell, or "Anybody seen the fighter"? "Not since that wizard cast maze on him"

Dumped Str? ray of enfeeblement is what? second lvl?

the list goes on.

wc


Jarl wrote:

[

Does he similarly limit casters with high main stats or is this d-baggery limited to the goons with the audacity to have high strength?

definitely, several times I've burned feats on crafting skills and not been allowed to use them.

wc


Shoga wrote:

My group does the 4d6 drop lowest x 7 drop lowest. It does give the very good chance of high abilities depending on your luck in rolling.

Additionally, our GM will give a player the option to reroll a character if they didn't have at least 3 abilities above 12.

We have had issues with ppl trying to munchkin their characters but only if they tried to find loopholes. Otherwise, munchkining wasn't that major of an issue.

Typically, I try to go optimal but thats not munchkining my character. Just choosing the right abilities, feats, skills and magic to make my character better at what I am supposed to be doing.

I'm usually a PC but there have been some games that I have DM'd and I haven't had any issues with min-maxing.

I would truley LOVE to go back to rolling my Characters I find the point system kinda lame, but different strokes for different folks.

wc


Kierato wrote:


I view min maxing as the highest form of power gaming, (My view/ opinion). Table top rpgs are group activities, if just one or two people make min maxed(power gamed) characters, it begins to strain things at the table, some players get annoyed or even quite, the DM, who must already do a lot of work has to put in that much more effort. Therefore, I think that common courtesy is an excellent answer to why one should not power game(Min max), you are ruining the game for others, but I guess this is where are opinions differ, and if you cannot except an answer like that, I guess there is no answer for your question.

I accept that you don't have an answer to the question, to be honest I'm disappointed rather than irritated.

wc


wraithstrike wrote:
Jarl wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
Our second GM doesn't seem too opposed but punishes players for min-maxing by making magic Items unavailable, your barbarian has a 24 strength at 12th lvl? how much good does it do him if he only has a +2 weapon?
That's a good example of douchbaggery.
I agree. I wonder what he does if the barbarian starts to craft his own weapons. Does he make the barbarian auto-fail? What if the bad guy has a +3 weapon? What if another party member gives the barbarian a +3 weapon because that character is moving up to a +4 weapon.

nope, he just refuses to give you the necessary time to craft the weapon.

"If you take the time to craft that the world will end and you'll fail in your quest".

wc

EDIT: sorry pet peave of mine, missed the rest of the post.

a +3 long sword isn't much good to a barb who has 2 or 3 feats invested in the falchion for instance, and if the bad guy has a +3 falchion it's either large, small or changed to another weapon so the player can't use it.


Kierato wrote:


Richard nixon was a jerk, but he was intelligent and reasonably fit. He would have 1 maybe 2 below 10 stats. besides that, I would say he still had at least an average cha, he was president after all.
Einstein was brilliant, possessed common sense, and was inspiring. he might have had one subpar stat, but not 3.
If you want real tangible answers as to why one shouldn't power game, think of the other players who have to make choices they otherwise wouldn't in order to keep up, and think of the DM who must now recalculate encounters to provide you with a challenge while trying to avoid killing the other characters and angering the players. In the end, one could say the real reason is common courtesy.

who's power gaming? the discussion is min-maxing, my point is that a character who min-maxes takes some penalties to get some advantages, your point seems to be that you find min-maxxing distasteful.

witch makes the character personally offensive to you, not unplayable.

again, another non answer.

wc


Set wrote:
Wild Card wrote:
when I say min-maxxing I mean a player who uses the point system to generate a character who is specialized to his class, for example, my last wizards starting ability scores with a 20 point buy were S-7 D-17 C-12 I-17 w-7 CH-7
I don't like it, and really am not comfortable with any attribute below 10, for my own play, since it's boring to be the dude with a 7 Int or 7 Cha during the parts of the game that deal with puzzle-solving or social interaction, .

While I agree with most of what you say this is just wrong, getting the whole party thrown out of the the uber upscale in for grabbing the the barmaids rear was just one of the ways a low charisma has livened up role play in social situations, and pointing the entire party into a trap due to a badly thought out puzzle was fun to,they knew my character had a 7 inteligence :)

the problem is that most min maxxers tend to be power gamers, but a low Score can be a ton of fun IF you play it.

wc


Kierato wrote:
I'm not being sarcastic either, it is just my play style. I dislike playing characters that are substantially sub par in so many ways. 7 str= barely able to lift/climb/etc. as a mage, you eventually get ways around that provided you can use magic. 7 Wis= no common sense, no intuition, and no focus. 7 Cha= small animals would bark at you and children would cry and flee. Personally, I often have an 8 in one stat, and make the most of role playing it. It would be a nightmare trying to role play 3 7s like that, esp. 2 in mental stats.

I can't argue with any of your points, but I don't see how any of them make the character unplayable, Ant Haul is a first lvl spell, einstien walked around with his shoes untied witch can lead to tripping and hurting yourself, richard nixon was a complete jerk, both were rather succesful though.

these are the kind of answers that I get from our GM, no real answer at all.

wc


Wild Card wrote:
Kierato wrote:


sorry, I asumed it was a generic term, my bad.
when I say min-maxxing I mean a player who uses the point system to generate a character who is specialized to his class, for example, my last wizards starting ability scores with a 20 point buy were S-7 D-17 C-12 I-17 w-7 CH-7

when someone says "Optimizing" I tend to assume that they mean going through all the splat books and finding all the broken feats Ect. to make his character uber, guess we all have our foibles :)

WC

I would deem your player unplayable, IMO.

wc

That is an interesting statement, now could you please explain why? and no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know.

oops, quoted wrong post, fixed now


vuron wrote:

Optimization is not evil at all.

See stormwind fallacy, et al.

The game is not balanced for low magic and tends to disadvantage martial characters even more than casters unless you houserule spells like crazy.

That being said, the math behind the game tends to break down around the margins. It simply isn't robust enough to support hyper-optimized PCs without tossing out the CR system completely and generating your own customized monsters and NPCs.

The game arguably works best around the middle where characters are less than fully optimized but also avoid any sort of obviously sub-optimal builds. This is doubly true in groups where you have a mix of optimizers and casual players.

if he used magic item inflation I wouldn't mind, he's very blunt about it, sorry, your strength is too high, you can't have a better weapon, and I don't care if the (insert other class here) has a +5 (insert weapon here)

wc


Kierato wrote:
Ambrus wrote:
First, define min-maxing. Is it making optimal choices to make your character effective at his chosen vocation? If you're playing a wizard and you put your highest ability score into Intelligence and your lowest into Strength are you min-maxing? Is picking the power attack feat for your fighter rather than skill focus (basket weaving) min-maxing? Honestly, I'm never sure what's meant when one says "min-maxing" or "power-gaming". If given the choice, I'd rather play an effective character than not. Is that bad?
Power gaming and Min maxing is , by common opinion, going beyond effective to the point to where you can solo CR+3 encounters.

sorry, I asumed it was a generic term, my bad.

when I say min-maxxing I mean a player who uses the point system to generate a character who is specialized to his class, for example, my last wizards starting ability scores with a 20 point buy were S-7 D-17 C-12 I-17 w-7 CH-7

when someone says "Optimizing" I tend to assume that they mean going through all the splat books and finding all the broken feats Ect. to make his character uber, guess we all have our foibles :)

WC


I play arcane casters a fair amount and I'm perfectly happy with the current blast system, why? because as is I have a fair chance of surviving when the GM cast blasts on ME.

A blaster can be fairly effective in most campaigns, in some, like Council of Thieves witch has a lot of thieves (surprise surprise)who's high reflex saves/evasion/high touch AC's make blasting really tough.

add in a ton of tiny encounter areas and a blaster really has to pick and choose his spells to be effective, but when it all works, well, it's just sweet :)

just my take on it.

WC


Hi All :)

I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.

At our table one of our GM's seems to feel that it's cheating, but when I ask him why he's so opposed he never comes up with any real answer.
My last fighter in his game finished at 16th lvl with a +2 weapon.

Our second GM doesn't seem too opposed but punishes players for min-maxing by making magic Items unavailable, your barbarian has a 24 strength at 12th lvl? how much good does it do him if he only has a +2 weapon?

so what's your take? also, just for fun, note whether your a player or GM.

wc


Well, now that we've heard from all the saints and the sinners, I'd like to point out the obvious.

Yes Paizo is creative company, but that has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with this issue. They do what they do at Paizo for one reason and one reason only, to make money.

Someone at Paizo made an executive decision, took a calculated risk, and released the pdf's, that decision has made Paizo a mountain of money, over 2 grand at our table alone, the pdf's being the main reason we switched to PF.

Now unless the folks at Paizo are mentally challenged or incredibly naive they had to know that at least one copy would be leaked, and considering the quality of their product and the astuteness of their business acumen, I find both highly unlikely, and to piss and moan about it here is purely crying over spilled milk, after someone at Paizo made the decision to spill the milk.

So if someone shows up at your game with an illeagal pdf and you feel the burning need to pick up the phone and dial 1-800-rat-fink, then by all means do so, if your lucky, it might make you feel a little closer to sainthood, but that's all you'll accomplish. Now if you really want to make a difference, encourage them to buy now that they've tried.

WC out.


I'm no expert, but it seems to me that almost all traits and racial substitution traits are back story related, not as a result of that particular races DNA so to speak.

Considering the above it makes sense to me that a half human could pick from one of 3 groups of racial traits, but not 2 or 3.

for instance, a half elf raised by elves might pick from the elven traits, while one raised by humans from the human traits, and one raised by half elves from the half elf list.

I Kinda chuckled when someone said Paizo should have hired lawyers go over the rules, they probably tried, but apparently the rules lawyers were all here :P

wc


Hi All :)

I'm not sure if this is valid or just rules lawering so I thought I'd ask.

"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which
you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

If a character has the Point Blank Mastery feat he can use a Bow in melee without provoking AOO's, but he can't flank or threaten because he can't make a melee attack with his bow.

However, if the character had the improved unarmed strike feat wouldn't he be able to hold his bow in one hand and make a melee attack into any adjacent square in effect threatening them?

also, come to think of it, couldn't he just take a -4 to hit and use the bow itself as an improvised melee weapon? might be nearly as hard on the bow as the target, but the rule doesn't say the character has to make the attack to threaten, just be able to.

wc


Good evening all:

Do Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor cause a monk to lose his wisdom/AC bonus?

WC


Paul Watson wrote:

[

Actually, by RAW, you can but the ACP applies. As most armours with gauntlets are medium or heavy armours, that's quite a lot of ACP to eat up. The cestus is on a par with a chain shirt, so less than all the really heavy gauntlets.

your comparing apples and oranges, guantlets are designed to weild weapons with, cestus are designed to BE weapons wich is why you are considered armed while wearing a cestus, and unarmed while wearing a guantlet.


Lokie wrote:

The example given for "precision based task" is opening a lock. Precision based ... would be scrimshaw, or lockpicking, or disabling a trap. Skills that require small fine finger control.

I think in no way is that going to apply to grappling or using a weapon in that hand. If they meant it to be that broad a penalty they would have just said -2 penalty on any task using that hand.

precision based task isn't covered in the rulebook as far as I can see, but it is certainly reasonable to asume it applies to any skill check or attack roll that requires manual dexderity, and if you're silly enough to think wielding a weapon or grappling aren't precision based tasks, well, I guess there's no point in trying to reason with you any more.

wc


Lokie wrote:
Another thought... the Cestus is made of leather with metal banding with metal hooks or barbs across its striking surfaces. You could indeed make a Cestus with Cold Iron, Mithral(Silver), or Adamantine.

sweet, 1-3 points of damage that bypasses DR, definately worth the cost.

wc


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Guys, not forcing the monk to pay exhorbent amounts of gold just to try and stay on par with other classes is TOTALLY wrong.

if your goal is to be on par with another class, than why aren't you playing the other class?

wc


Lokie wrote:


Firstly... a Monk can trip barehanded.

Secondly... Why not just carry two temple swords in addition to the Cestus?

As you point out ... the Cestus takes up a glove slot and is effectively a glove. You could enhance it as both a weapon and a wonderous item.

firstly: barehanded isn't a trip weapon, since you can't drop your bare hand to avoid being tripped as you can with a temple sword.

ohh, nice Idea, of course you'd have to spend a feat to be proficent with the cestus and a second for the temple sword, and I'm pretty sure the a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand would apply to wielding a weapon in the hand wearing the cestus and probably grapple checks as well.

the downsides would be the GP cost, the extra feat to use the cestus, the cestus's low damage, and the cestus is made of leather so you couldn't even make one of cold iron or mithril to bypass damage reduction, and your hand would be restricted, -2 on precision tasks, wich would probably include weapons wielded in the same hand as the cestus, and all combat manuvers using that hand.

the upside would be that you could do pirecing damage (about half as much as a singham) and couldn't be disarmed.

as for the final benifit you mentioned, well, the cestus is far less subtle than the bare hand the monk can fall back on, unless he has a cestus straped to it of course, and does much less damage.

any way you slice it the cestus is only going to be a great monk weapon if you GM adds house rules to make it so.

WC


YawarFiesta wrote:

The Cestus modifies your unarmed strike, more or less like a Gauntlet like a Gauntlet, and, since it is a monk weapon, it can be used in a Flurry of Blows.

Humbly,
Yawar

I don't disagree, it can indeed be used in a flurry of blows, as it is indeed a monk weapon, and like any other monk weapon the cestus's damage will replace the monks unarmed damage.

the real problem is the Amulet of Mighty Fists, it needs to be erratad so as not to stack with enhancment bonuses on unarmed strikes. as it is all the monk has to do is have the cleric cast (greater)magic weapon on one fist while wearing an amulet of mighty fists enchanted with melee weapon special abilities to stack the bonus, no cestus or guantlet required.

and if your GM has a heart of gold he/she might actualy let you do it.

irt Lokie:

Quote:
Two benefits of the Cestus over the Temple Sword, is that it cannot be disarmed or dropped and the hand is still free to hold things.

True, three disadvantages of the cestus over the temple sword, it's not a trip weapon, it ties up your glove slot so you can't have, say, a glove of holding with a second temple sword in it, and it does less damage.

wc


YawarFiesta wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


And it's a monk's weapon. So you can enhance it, get your flurry of blows, doing unarmed strike damage, and have a 19~20 crit range. Now you do have to spend a feat to become proficient, but you can also change out between piercing and bludgeoning damage. Those are a lot of good things.

Like enhancing it at normal prices and stacking special abilities with the the Amulet of Mighty Fists?

Humbly,
Yawar

nice as it would be for the monk I doubt any competent GM would allow it.

Even if they were kind enough to allow the monk to Macflurry with the cestus in the first place the monk would still do the cestus's damage rather than his unarmed damage just like any other monk weapon, in wich case the monk would be much better off with a temple sword.

wc


another question just occured to me.

lets say the party meets 2 goblins in a 5' wide corrider and the tumbler wants go through both of thier squares to get behind them. Does he have to roll tumble checks to avoid and AoO from the second goblin while tumbling throgh the first goblins square and vice versa?

or are those included in the dc for the "tumbling through an occupied square check" ?

wc


Cool, now I just have to get my GM to apprieciate the difference :)

Thanx

WC


My favorite class is always whatever I happen to be playing at the moment, this ones a dwarven monk with a 5 charisma and a red leather loincloth, last one was a 3.5 vannila fighter, next one will probably be a wizard.
I think what I love most about this game is the way it's set up so you can make each character the "most awesome one of those you ever heard of" without ever actualy doing the same thing.

wc


Good morning All:

Just wondering about the consequences of failing an acrobatics check when attemting to tumble through a threatened or occupied square.

If one fails the acrobatics check they take an attack of opportunity, but do they still get to make thier move?

wc


Varthanna wrote:
See, I went the other direction and thought about how you taxidermy a wildshaped druid and mount it on your wall as a trophy...

but if the druid is wildshaped into any kin of feline and you mess up and mount the back end, well, that would be a catastrophe.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


...Snip...

but I guess this is to keep a rogue from using his ring to devastate the boss with multiple sneak attacks per round.

he can still do so as long as he flanks his target, assuming the target can be flanked.

wc


KaeYoss wrote:


..snip..

Such an ability can be very helpful, especially for a PF spellcaster! Because of the new feat Step Up, a five-foot-step will not always move you out of harm's way, as an enemy with that feat can make a five-foot-step as an immediate action. But if you're on difficult terrain, can ignore that terrain and the enemy cannot, you can negate his Step Up.

Hm.... I just had that idea! And I just happen to play a cleric who focuses on healing and spellcasting, with a side-order of ranged attacks (little, weak halfling). One of his domains is Travel which lets you ignore difficult terrain!

Hee hee hee. I think my GM will have a fit when I first use this :)

the feat Nimble Moves lets one do so as well. I was trying to get around having to take it though, monks need more feets :)

wc

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>