Search Posts
It tickles me to no end that some people playing single class characters think that they're better role-players and somehow morally superior to multiclass characters. Take a few middle-aged persons on the street and ask them how many jobs they've had, how many trades they've learned, how many careers they advanced for a while. The people I find most interesting are those that have had more than one.
Single class characters are to me like meals consisting of a single ingredient. How can you live like this?
New Version of sCoreForge out today. - v4.2.0.1 : Added more Archetypes from PFARG. Rebuild of the Options Tab, with many new variables. Sources now its own tab. I can't find the options for Legends of the Shining Jewel (LSJ) that were in the sheet when Erian7 was maintaining it. Are they gone or am I blind? If so, what is the last version they appeared in? I need a character generator for LSJ. Thanks!
When I read that feat, I was demoralized. Doing that shouldn't require a feat, IMO.
I was wondering if it were possible to have a PRPG stat block page? It woudld make things cool for us GMs. +2, having recently worked on an adventure with a full party of high-level NPCs facing the PCs!
It's impossible for a normal being to be always right, yet paladins attempt it despite the odds. I think that they are doomed, and every time that they keep making the correct decision is a miracle. That's why I admire them. Fair enough, I think we share similar ideas. I'd like to explore consequences though in a thought experiment. One practical problem is, I think, if paladins must do like Mother Theresa, they'll have to stop adventuring rather quickly to take care of all the responsibilities they incurred. That makes them impractical as a PC class, no? How can a PC keep adventuring while taking care of goblin, kobold, troll, etc... children? Donate money? What if all the money you earn while adventuring isn't enough at some point?
Some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. Some species are born predators. After some thought, I wonder, have you ever seen an animal that needed to be "put down"? What do you think of the laws about destroying animals that have attacked humans? Do you realistically think it is feasible to rescue them all and "turn them around"? That aside, I'm pretty sure the current state of scientific research is at odds with your worldview and impressive combination of luck and talent, but I'm too lazy to go dig out papers I remember reading.
You sound like a talented animal handler. What if you just don't have the resources (food, or even the talent to teach them or the time), and attempting to raise them would endanger your children or other people's children? Which is more evil? Should you just let the goblins rampage because you can't commit to taking care of their children? Sometimes you just have bad and worse choices and no good ones. Should paladins faced with a no-win scenario lose their status or is it enough that they chose the least "wrong" solution?
Interesting. I look up to paladins as the ones blessed so as to pick the morally best solutions. I don't see them as a walking problem, but as a sacrificial or miraculous resource. It's impossible for a normal being to be always right, yet paladins attempt it despite the odds. I think that they are doomed, and every time that they keep making the correct decision is a miracle. That's why I admire them. I don't expect their choices to be perfect in every way, though. They aren't gods.
Someone had to bring racism into this... I would recommend meditation about "The Scorpion and the Frog":
(I just saw the rattlesnake story in another post, the idea is the same).
Some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. Some species are born predators. Some degenerate lines of all species are pre-disposed to health problems, deformities, insanity or infirmities. Sometimes it affects the brain. Non-domesticated animal species are inherently dangerous if they possess an attack that can significantly affect you; domesticating a species involves selecting and breeding the least aggressive ones. There is a natural bias that should not be ignored by the people espousing the "learned behavior" theory. There are some things that would require a saint to make them behave in a "good" manner, probably just temporarily. Some just can't be taught to be "good" no matter how much you try. It's like trying to teach a cat not to meow. I believe that the GM can decide where a particular tribe (line) of goblins lie. I'll just agree that it's not clear how much effort is involved in teaching various humanoid races to be "good". It most likely involves a sustained breeding effort over many generations (culling the most evil). Personally I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a worm not to become a butterfly, if it's in its nature. It makes sense to destroy litters of things that needed to be destroyed, although I won't say it's always the morally perfectly correct decision. Pure white and pure black situations are rare. Sometimes you have to make a practical judgment call, do the best that you can given your resources and live with it the rest of your life.
You are correct of course. Yet I remember re-reading that entry several times... I must have had my eyes crossed :( Thanks!
Animal companions with an Int of 3 can choose any skill
Animal companions are missing the weapon finesse feat. There was a typographical error in the first PDF that left it out. For a sling, I can't find how to specify I'm using bullets (1d6), it's stuck at 1d4. A few more strength ratings for composite bows would be nice. Thanks
1. Vital Strike doesn't exactly say that it's a Standard Action, rather it is a subclass of the Standard Action, the Attack Action: "Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can makeone attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. " 2. Spring Attack specifies a single melee attack, and an Attack Action can be a single melee attack:
So, what we have is A allows B, and C allows D, and B and D intersect. I argue that A SHOULD work with C (if necessary rewriting the rules). You can argue as much as you want that the rules don't specifically allow that, I don't care. And yes, I've been ready to delete the pdf, because I'm tired of this incessant arguing over poorly written rules and lack of self-consistency. I just disliked Pathfinder, now I'm starting to hate and despise it. The problem becomes what to play instead and how to convince my friends to switch. Maybe it's as hopeless as a Mac vs Windows vs Linux discussion and I'll just have to deal with not playing RPGs with them anymore. It's like your favorite restaurant changing the recipe on your favorite dish and adding spices you hate but that your friends like, or forcing you to eat it with only one chopstick. Whatever.
Was there ever a word of god (FAQ or Jason or something?) on Spring Attack and Vital Strike? (reference needed) "Charging is a special full-round action" whereas Spring Attack is just reordering when you can make a melee attack (action) with respect to a split move. So, the ruling regarding vital strike and charge shouldn't apply to spring attack. I will secure delete (since I can't burn it) my copy of the Pathfinder rulebook if there ever is an official ruling that they don't work together.
Would this then provide the monk with an increase on Acrobatics(jump) checks of +4/10ft speed over 30 as according to the rules? Or as due to being an enhancement bonus would not provide said increase to jump. Some DMs think that per RAW, an enhancement bonus to speed isn't part of a base speed. However, that's a misunderstanding of what "base speed" is, because the name itself is ambiguous. Spells such as expeditious retreat and longstrider increase base speed by giving it an enhancement bonus. That's the important point in the wording: "This spell increases your base land speed by 30 feet.""This spell gives you a +10 foot enhancement bonus to your base speed. " (not just to your final speed) So base speed includes enhancement bonuses, it doesn't mean your character's speed before enhancements. The monk speed is an enhancement bonus, that counts as part of the base speed. So the monk gets +4/10ft speed over 30 on jump checks as a racial bonus. It's worth discussing with your DM, who is probably under the impression that an enhancement bonus to speed isn't part of a base speed. If the DM already knew and willfully decided that the rules in your campaign were different, that's another matter. But I bet it's not intended as a change, and it's just a misunderstanding of RAW.
... Track, ranger wands... Track is now a level-dependent bonus, 2 levels of ranger isn't helping much. Also I believe that you don't get the wands until lvl 4 ranger because your caster level is 0 until then. However, the multiclassed character has better saving throws. As I said, fighter/rogue works. A quick dip in ranger for skills, saving throws and either TWF or a bow feat can work too if that's what you're after. You're right that the perspective changes depending on level and what you want to achieve. Earlier, I was thinking mostly of levels above 10.
In Pathfinder, only in rare cases, or for role-playing reasons. Whereas previous D&D versions (2.x and 3.x) more or less expected you to multiclass to get a balanced character (except if you were a spellcaster), Pathfinder pretty much corrals you into a single class. You are now quite penalized for multiclassing because so many abilities are level-dependent. If you're a ranger or druid, forget about it if you want a useful companion (unless you are a ranger/druid). If you're a spellcaster, multiclassing sacrifices your most powerful spells so the penalty is greater the higher level you are. That's especially true since spells have been nerfed over several D&D releases so that low-level spells mostly work only against low-level opponents, so losing your highest-level spells is a great loss. Monks and paladins also have level-dependent abilities that are unfriendly to multiclassing. The only classes that can still multiclass without undue penalties are fighter and rogue; or barbarian with rogue. As you can see, Pathfinder has gone quite out of its way to make multiclassing undesirable and impractical. Even though it's still possible in theory, it definitely results in significantly weaker characters. That includes most racial paragons, and most "prestige" classes unless they use one of the classes I mentioned to qualify (except perhaps the dragon disciple).
'gain a +x natural armor bonus', not to 'increase your natural armor bonus by +x', nor they give you an 'enhancement of +x to your natural armor bonus' Thanks for all the replies. Wasn't the point made that in the PF version of wild shape, you kept the effects of constant enhancements? So the amulet should still be functional, just like a ring of deflection. I believe that if you had base NA of 4 and a Amulet of Natural Armour +2 (effective +6) and took a form with a base NA 3, you'd then have ("gain" seems very much the wrong word) an effective NA of 5.
I'm starting to feel really dense. I don't get it. Thanks. I searched the rulebook and the bonus/preview bestiaries and it's not clarified anywhere if it's an ex ability or not. Some passages would even suggest it's a Natural ability. In 3.5 this was a lot clearer: "-The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).
I'll go with your suggestion that NA is an ex ability then, because it makes sense, rather than because the PF rules are clear about it.
I can do that sometime during the week. I'll make an LSJ section in the existing feat table. I should be able to figure out the Qualified column from the other examples.
So awesome... :D
Sorry about that.
I got it, in the front tab, over "Base classes" if you replace the formula and type "Druid" then Natural Spell becomes green. The formula writes "Drd 5", it seems that's not recognized for the feat eligibility.
Wis is 18. I got it, in the front tab, over "Base classes" if you replace the formula and type "Druid" then Natural Spell becomes green. The formula writes "Drd 5", it seems that's not recognized for the feat eligibility.
Natural Spell shows up red for a lvl 5 druid. Edit: I wonder if there might be a way for us to provide you with sample test characters that could be imported into every new version you have. This way you could get a test suite which could be engineered to cover classes, races, feats, etc... in a systematic manner. As a bonus, it would allow us to not have to retype everything when you have a new version, we could just import our set of test characters and see what happens. :D Edit 2: In the spells tab, the save DC calculation doesn't take wisdom into account for a druid.
Any chance of including the LSJ campaign feats (from the campaign guide in the Paizo store)?
The new layout is excellent IMO. Augment summoning can't be selected (shows up red). It has spell focus (conjuration) as prerequisite but selecting the feat "spell focus" doesn't help.
Actually, the rules say "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield." So it doesn't matter if armor spikes are an offhand attack. All those poorly written rules care about is that there's no weapon in the other hand. Per RAW TWF with armor spikes is OK as long as you have a free hand. Exploit #2 works!
I know very well, that's how the exploit works. How does bringing it up help? It doesn't change anything to what we've been saying.
Ah, right, thank you.
Ah, the ends justify the means argument. If you want to say that the duelist is worthless without that exploit then that's a case for it to be changed. In any case the rules need fixing.
Per RAW, someone could do precise strikes with armor spikes and a rapier while TWF. It's utterly silly to forbid shortsword and rapier but allow that. A monk 8/rogue 3/duelist 9 would do 7 attacks/round at 17/17/17/12/12/7/2 vs 4 for any other duelist (not using armor spikes) for likely more than twice as much damage. Face it, the rules for precise strike are poorly written and need errata. It doesn't matter either how long people have abused them.
... I see no problem using it) How big a truck does someone need to drive through a loophole exploit for it to become a problem? :D Obviously whoever wrote that rule overlooked the monk. The intent is clearly for the class to be balanced by denying TWF, of which flurry is a form. It's just poorly written. This needs to be corrected in an errata.
From the description of flurry of blows: "... as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat ..."Can't be clearer than that. If you don't believe me start your own thread with this question and see what people say. I'll bet a large pizza with extra cheese that most people will tell you that they wouldn't let you get away with that, or something to that effect.
What makes you think you can do TWF with a two-handed weapon wielded with both hands? Also, the only explanation I see for not getting the 1.5 strength bonus is because you're not swinging it as a 2-handed weapon. House-rule it to have both, if not then have neither -- it needs to be consistent, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
If you swing as a two-handed weapon then you can't flurry, because flurry is based off TWF now.
Improved Natural Attack is in the PF druid animal companion list of feats on p. 53, so you should be able to take it. Otherwise, looks like a solid build to me. Step up may not be a bad idea for those last levels, because lunge doesn't allow you to threaten when it's not your turn.
I don't think you get the +3 bonus for 2-handed, because it's a double weapon and you're using it as if you had TWF. The only "awesome" thing is that as you don't have an offhand attack you get +2 from power attack on both attacks. Note that: "Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal increase (+600 gp)." Same if you make it of silver, etc, so I think it may cost double if you enchant it. In any case, the +3 to +5 quarterstaff is an option to bypass DR...
Actually opinions are divided regarding whether Vital Strike works with Spring Attack. The wording is unclear; it very well might. I personally think that it should, and if it doesn't I'll be very disappointed.
Having it on the "abilities and feats" tab works. The idea was just to avoid printing duplicate feat information, so alternatively the feats on the back tab could be put somewhere that doesn't get printed (I don't know where). Perhaps there could be a "green zone" (like on the front sheet) in the "abilities and feats" tab to select those feats. It's a minor point anyway. Thanks
Oh, I see I've jumped the gun, you're not done yet with that, sorry. I used the back sheet because I wanted the feats to be listed on the printed character sheet. If I understand correctly then, the intent must be for all feats to be listed on the abilities and feats tab, not on the back sheet. As nothing was showing up there I tried to use only the back sheet, my mistake... Also, you probably already are aware that if you select a prerequisite feat on the Character Options tab, feats that depend on it show up in red on the back sheet. For example, select dodge as a monk 1 feat, and try to select mobility on the back sheet. It shows up in red. Edit: I see now that feats selected under character options show up under the class abilities column. That is unexpected. If possible, I'd rather have all feats under the "feats" column. Edit 2: As a matter of personal preference, I'd rather have the "other notes", "racial abilities" and "armor and weapon proficiencies" sections in what is currently the "abilities and feats" tab, and use the space on the back sheet to copy the feats from the character options. That would avoid duplication of the feats between the back sheet and the abilities and feats tab, and it's where I'd expect to find them, next to the traits.
Now you make me wonder if you can use two different weapons with cleave. As in, one opponent is 5' away so you use an unarmed attack, and the next one is 10' away (but adjacent to the first) so you use the guisarme (to trip or whatever). The feat description seems to allow it. Nice idea if it works, I hadn't thought of that; I assumed that you had to keep the same weapon.
I find the guisarme useful almost only for the AoOs, and before getting spring attack (to close in on opponents with reach). I end up not using it often; flurry is so good now that you get full BAB with it (and you don't with the guisarme). It's worth having a guisarme, but I would not take feats based on its use, beyond the proficiency with it. Vital strike is for "making a good impression" when closing in melee; with it, a strength-based build, some magic items that upgrade as you go up in levels, and stunning fist you can get rid of many casters in two rounds (move in, vital strike, stun; round 2, vital strike, it dies, move out to threaten another caster, if any, so they have to cast defensively, or provide flank and next round you can flurry). If you have improved natural attack and a monk's robe, it can take a large chunk out of an opponent's hit points even if it's a single attack. If my algebra skills are still working, improved critical will net you a constant 5% increase in damage output on a 20/x2 crit chance (0.05/1.05 ~= 5%), regardless of the actual chance to hit or damage -- these things simplify out. It's a very small benefit, about half the worth of weapon focus. Improved critical with a 19-20x2 weapon gives you a 9% increase, more in line with other feats. You're going to get a lot of agro, as firepower will/should concentrate on the enemy causing the most trouble. However, you're a bit squishy, that's why I suggested dodge and toughness. I'll bet a large pizza with 5 toppings that you won't regret it.
Strength is the way to go for monks. You'll outkill the other melee types, as they will either stand frozen after failing a will save (or worse) or won't be able to match your damage output, or the enemies will surrender, weaponless. I'd strongly suggest the vital strike chain instead of cleave and great cleave, especially if your DM will try to make opponents flank you or makes enemies spread out to avoid the fireball formation; it's uncommon that cleave kicks in and is a better choice than flurry, great cleave is an event like an eclipse so pretty much a waste of a feat. You'll have so many attacks anyway while flurrying that you won't feel the need for them. Cleave/great cleave is for single weapon fighters mostly. Doubling or tripling the dice on a monk attack with vital strike is a considerable benefit. Weapon focus unarmed and spring attack are good ideas. I don't care for the critical feats for a monk; 20x2 seems to not make them worth it. With stunning fist having all kinds of effects as you level up I don't see the need for staggering critical. See if you can get improved natural attack (BAB 4), most DMs allow it and it stacks nicely with vital strike. Improved disarm is a winner for a monk and highly frustrating for DMs as you can capture the weapons in your hands; I don't care much for grapple and bull rush. I'd delay power attack and take spring attack sooner (10th). Medusa's sounds good but in practice rarely kicks in so you can wait until 14th -- either you'll kill it quickly anyway or it will have a fort save so high that you won't stun them. However as you level up the DC on stunning fist increases so maybe at 14 you'll see a good return for it. Consider dodge and toughness.
A human fighter(6)/monk(2) runs out of feat boxes on the back sheet.
The bottom (shield & channel area) were clipped, but after adjusting the margins it worked. Thanks.
How would you resolve stupid tricks with a whip, such as take out a pipe, a cigar or a cigarette from someone's mouth (without hurting that person), remove buttons from a vest or cut the rope from which pants hang? This character was raised in a circus :D. All I can figure is that Improved Disarm should be involved somewhere.
You can use Page Setup to fit the sheet to a single page.Nifty, but I can't get it to print right. By default it now wants to print on 4 pages. If I resize the output, either the bottom of the sheet gets clipped, or the green stuff on the right gets printed too. I had no problems with 0.3. There's no such thing in OpenOffice. There doesn't seem to be anything that does that. BTW, the list of feats in the selects on the back sheet would be easier to use if it was in alphabetical order. Also, when I select "no" for the Golarion feats, they still get listed.
Nifty, but I can't get it to print right. By default it now wants to print on 4 pages. If I resize the output, either the bottom of the sheet gets clipped, or the green stuff on the right gets printed too. I had no problems with 0.3.
So addy, what do you think of my version? Is provoking for the 10' attack enough of a drawback? I like it a lot. It makes the spiked chain more interesting, more effective without being too attractive to powergamers, and it makes the mechanics work more like the cross between the whip and the flail that it is. Nice flavor too with the intimidate. Perhaps some other exotics could have the same effect because they're so unusual. |
