thugsb's page

Haha, yes. Magically-enhanced hubris. ;-)

Sweet! :)

I know RAI it shouldn't be allowed, I just think that RAW it can. The target of the spell still says "One weapon...or...", meaning it just needs to fit one of those targets, which the US does.

There is no example that I know of. I'm sure 99% of DMs wouldn't allow it. But for that 1%... ;)

Item: "An individual article or unit, esp. one that is part of a list, collection, or set." A hand could certainly fit inside that definition. ;)

Does anyone know this? Surely this must have come up?

Why is there no masterwork equivalent? The only way there is a masterwork equivalent for any weapon is that it gains the masterwork quality, which "provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls". That's it. That's all there is. Why could there not be a masterwork equivalent? Just because most of us grow non-masterwork hands, doesn't mean they can't be improved. I think there's rules in 3.5 for crafting constructs with masterwork slam attacks, so why can't a monk?

I don't see anything in the rules that supports your argument Shadowcatx. But by all means, back it up.

Can you cast Masterwork Transformation on a Monk's Unarmed Strikes?

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

I believe you should be able to, as there is nothing saying you can't. The target of the spell is "One weapon...", for which the monk's US specifically qualifies for. And the Masterwork quality doesn't say you can't.

Any rules-based arguments to say you can't do this?

What happens if someone casts Raise Dead on your body when you've cast Familiar Melding?

Does this mean that Swift-action casting time spells are unaffected? So an Inquisitor could cast an Extended Litany of Weakness spell as a Swift action, and it would last for 2 rounds?

I don't think it is cheesy to have two separate pools. Monks quickly run out a their Ki points, so it makes sense a Ki Mystic would have plenty more Ki. If he were to only get one, then the "Ki Mystic" ability would say it replaced Still Mind AND Ki Pool. But it doesn't. It just replaces Still Mind. So the Ki Mystic Archetype still gets the Ki Pool supernatural ability at 4th level.

However, RAW, the Ki Mystic only gets the +2 to knowledge checks if he has the Ki Pool 4th level ability: "If the monk has at least 1 point of ki in his ki pool, he gains a +2 bonus on all Knowledge skill checks."

The ability to get +4 to an ability or skill check can use Ki points from either the Ki Mystic or the Ki Pool ability: "As a swift action, the monk can spend 1 ki point (doesn't say source) immediately before making an ability, or skill check to gain a +4 insight bonus on the check." The other Ki Mystic archetype's abilities can use Ki from either pool.

However, RAW gets complicated. These abilities specifically say the Ki is drawn from the Ki Pool: Extra attack, +4 dodge AC, high jump, wholeness of body, abundant step, empty body. The +20' movement does not specify it is the Ki Pool being used, and so the point can be drawn from the Ki Pool pool or Ki Mystic pool. In fact (to add further confusion/need for FAQ), it actually doesn't specify a Ki point: "he can spend 1 point to increase his speed" - could it be drawn from the Magus' arcane pool of points?!?

Qinggong monk abilities don't reference the Ki Pool specifically, and so the abilities can be drawn from either pool. The only mention of the Ki Pool ability for the Quinggong monks is about the 0 Ki powers: "Ki powers that cost 0 ki do not require the monk to have any ki points in her ki pool to use the ability."

Having said all of that, I think this needs tidying up with a answer in the FAQ. I mainly play in PFS, and so it's not something that a GM can houserule for me. That being the case, I'm going to use it the way I want it to (i.e. most beneficial for me), and I'll argue my case when a GM calls me on it (I don't like bringing up rules questions unless I need to). The fact that I've thought this through a lot more than 95% of GM's I'll play with will generally mean I'll win the argument and get away with it. I know that's not how PFS want us to be playing, but they have to contribute to FAQ more often or accept that this kind of behaviour will happen.

I'm guessing that it's because "Combat manoeuvres are attack rolls..." fits very nicely with Finesse benefit of using Dex-not-Str "on attack rolls".

However, since you can Finesse unarmed strikes, Quandary's ruling would also allow you to use Dex to grapple with just Finesse, not needing Agile Maneuvers.

I have to say I'm not sure that Quandary is right, I just wish/hope he is.

The description of Finesse mentions you're trained to use agility in melee combat, which grappling, bull-rushing etc. is most certainly a part.

I'm just not sure why these feats are needed at all. Why is it so much harder to use Dex rather than Strength to fight with? Is it not just a choice, two different methods of combat that a person must learn either way? I personally believe it should just be a choice, not a feat (or even two!).

But I'm not here to discuss my preferences, I want to know the differences between attacks and maneuvers, of which there doesn't seem to be much. They're so similar that it seems odd that these are different feats, not just the same one. Quandary's ideas do seem to make sense, but I think I agree with Ossian that they're not RAW.

OK, fair enough.

I don't understand why Agile Manoeuvres is separate from Weapon Finesse. It seems that attacking and manoeuvring is close enough that finessing should cover it.

Dex-based fighters are taxed enough given they have to pay a feat (it should be a choice), but to make them pay 2 feats is just plain mean.

Thank you Vorg, that's really helpful.

It seems to me that combat manoeuvres are almost exactly like attacks. In fact, it even says they are. "Combat manoeuvres are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

So what are the differences between combat manoeuvres and attacks?

The only two differences I can see are:

Combat Manoeuvres target CMD instead of AC.
Combat Manoeuvres has the opposite bonuses/penalties regarding size.

Is that it? What other differences are there? After all, you "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver." That's pretty open.

(I'm not concerned with GBR, just KT and GT.)
Are you sure the AoO from Greater Trip happens before the throw? Could you not throw the opponent first, and then have it provoke the AoOs?

"On a successful unarmed trip attack...you may throw the target prone..." "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."

Since you're throwing them prone, does the AoO-provocation happen (a) straight after the successful CMB roll, or (b) when they go prone? If it's (b) when they go prone, the AoO would be provoked after the throw, no?

There will be advantages and disadvantages to each event order, I just want to make sure I'm getting it right.

With or without the -2 from flurry?

I've got a Monk3/Rogue3. This gives me BAB 4, but BAB 5 with a flurry.

I've got a str 16, and lets assume no other bonuses. So my attacks are:

+7 single attack, or +6/+6 with a flurry.

What happens with an AOO? Am I back to +7? Or just the +6? Or do I have the -2 from flurry, yet only BAB 4 (as it's not part of a flurry), so only +5?

The only thing I can find is page 180 of Core says "You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you’ve already attacked in the round." Any ideas?

Bit of confusion when running this module.

There seem to be quite a number of slip-ups like this in PF modules. I've only run season 0 and 1 so far, so hopefully these errors get less.

I'd like to see more roleplaying and less dungeon-crawl mods too, with complicated decisions required by the PCs. Decisions where they have to weigh multiple consequences, and where the right decision is not clear (or they're all bad!). Just a hope.

Simple question: How long does it take to put on and take off a swarmsuit?

What's a good feat at first level?

This says subdomains are OK for inquisitors:
http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8fo1/faq #v5748eaic9nd9

I'm really struggling to work out good 3rd level spells. Most of the buffs will be given from the 1st and second level spells, with the exception of greater magic weapon. Is magic vestment worth taking?

And I forgot to put in the +1 to WIS at 8th, and maybe +1 CHA at 12th (just because everything else is even and he won't be played at higher levels).

He needs a +2 Dex item by 5th level to take FollowingStep, but otherwise fulfills all feat requirements already.

Looking through the Inquisitor, it looks like it would dovetail nicely with Monk. What do people think? How can the below build be improved? Built for Pathfinder Society (so max lvl 12th).

Human Monk(Ki Mystic)/Inquisitor
S 16
D 12
C 12
I 10
W 18
C 7

Traits - Reactionary(+2Init), Bullied(+1 to hit with unarmed AoO)

Monk1 - Flurry, StunningFist, Defences, Combat Reflexes, WF(unarmed), +1Feat?
Monk1/Inquis1 - Domain(Plant/Growth-Enlarge), Judgment1/d, MonsterLaw, Orisons, SternGaze, 1stLvlSpells
Monk1/Inquis2 - CunningInit, StepUp
Monk1/Inquis3 - SoloTactics, PairedOpportunist, +1WIS
Monk2/Inquis3 - Evasion, Dodge, FollowingStep
Monk2/Inquis4 - Judgment2/d, 2ndLvlSpells
Monk3/Inquis4 - KiPool(fromKiMystic), FastMovement+10', ImprovedInit
Monk3/Inquis5 - Bane
Monk3/Inquis6 - DomainPower(BrambleArmor), StepUpAndStrike, PreciseStrike?/Outflank?
Monk3/Inquis7 - Judgment3/day, 3rdLvlSpells
Monk3/Inquis8 - 2ndJudgment, +1Feat?
Monk3/Inquis9 - PreciseStrike?/Outflank?

Spells: (1st) DivineFavor, Wrath, ShieldFaith, CompLang, TrueStrike, CureLight, (2nd) WeaponOfAwe, BloodHound, SeeInvis, (3rd) ?

The idea would be that he has a high Init so goes early in the combat, swift action to use the growth subdomain to enlarge, and moves up to a position that allows for battlefield control. He'll be holding a longspear to get 20' reach, although obviously he'll want to attack with unarmed kicking flurries whenever possible. The StepUp feats allow him to stay close to creatures to make sure they don't easily escape. He can use Judgment and Bane on subsequent rounds to improve his hit and damage.

Unfortunately his +tohit isn't great, and his AC isn't fantastic, although some of that can be made up with spells, Ki and equipment.

Is the StandStill feat worth taking? Do people have good experiences with it? Unfortunately ImprovedTrip requires higher Int, but with reach he could still trip people who don't. :)

What else?

Alignment makes for two-dimensional gaming. Think of all the people you know. Do any of them fit nicely into the good or evil categories? Maybe you can think of a few who aren’t quite so grey. But then think: does everyone think the same of them? Does everyone think your friend Lucy is a nice girl? Or is she just charismatic and good at leaving behind the people who think she’s evil? Maybe her younger sister hates her? And what about that guy you hate, Steve? Does everyone think he’s evil? Even his mum? What about the guy he met two days ago in the pub, who had a great night talking with him? Surely, then, alignment is more a subjective thing. Maybe ‘good’ actually means “Those people who I get along with and support” and ‘evil’ means “Those who I oppose or dislike.” Let’s get beyond the old-fashioned objectivist way of thinking, and recognise that alignment is subjective – that it’s not about who they are, so much as how you relate to them and them to you.

Life is not simple enough to fit into nine alignment categories. The alignment system creates flat characters and destroys the believability of the game. It’s also just a bad mechanic. Here’s how it mainly comes into effect:

1) Detect evil. This often is a short way for players to decide “Do I attack or not?” It’s a short-cut to combat. It encourages people to view their own characters in shallow ways, and takes the depth of moral decision out of the game. Instead of the paladin asking herself whether or not she can tolerate adventuring with this somewhat morally-challenged roguish character, all she has to do is concentrate. If the player declares their rogue is actually neutral, then she’s fine. If the player declares their rogue to be evil, then the paladin instantly has to stop adventuring with them. Instead of an interesting role-playing session regarding the character’s struggle of morality, the issue is worked out by a simple, shallow question to the other character who, more-or-less arbitrarily, decides whether they’re CN or CE.
Furthermore, the following discussion has been had far too often:
--Paladin: “I detect evil. Is he evil?”
--Judge: “Er, er, let me check.” <pause as he looks through statistics and finds his alignment listed as NE> “Yes. Oh, wait.” <pause as he looks through spell effects and finds ‘undetectable alignment’ active> “I mean, er, no. No, er, you most certainly don’t detect evil.”
--Paladin: (metagaming) “I think he’s evil. I attack anyway.”
--Fellow-adventurer: “But you can’t do that, you have no evidence. That would be an evil act to provoke a pre-emptive strike against an opponent who appears unarmed and doesn’t detect as evil.”

What the problem is here is metagaming. Detect Evil so often becomes the spark from which metagaming ensues. It negates good roleplaying, and takes people out of their character’s experience, returning them to the experience of the player who then metagames by reading the judges body language (or accidentally spoken language), something which the character should never know.

2) Protection from Evil (and Magic Circle). This is one of the most broken spells in the game, completely negating enchantment spells cast by evil spellcasters, whilst having absolutely no effect on the evil-spellcasters-really-close-neutral-(for prestige class reasons (not storyline))-friend. What a ridiculous imbalance. Maybe “Protection from Foe” would work better, simply allowing it to be the subjective decision of the spellcaster (or maybe the recipient), rather than the arbitrariness of alignment. This would pretty much be worked out in the same way that a bard decides who its allies are for affecting them with their music, or a fighter decides who he’s flanking. It would indeed make the spell work in a sensible way, and in the way one might expect, rather than affecting some foes and not affecting others for seemingly random reasons (the alignments of characters and monsters don’t always make sense, especially given their motives).

3) Holy Word/Blasphemy. These are broken spells anyway, often requiring special rules because of their strange mechanics (like the CR16 half-fiendish advanced remorhaz that was written in to have used its blasphemy to kill an elk earlier in the day, when if would have killed any party member of less than 26th level (i.e. all the APL12 party), had it still had it left). We’re probably better off without them, or at least modifying them heavily.

The other area where alignment plays a major roles is in whether clerics channel positive or negative energy. And this decision may be better suited, not to alignment, but to whether the cleric is pro-undead or anti-undead. And then forcing this decision to make evil clerics not be able to spontaneously heal is ridiculous. Evil characters want to win, and if winning requires healing (as it frequently does), then they’ll use healing. Or at least they’ll use some kind of patching-up through painkillers and drugs (or magic that emulates these) that have more or less the same effect (with possibly some side effects, like extra aggression and negative after-effects). But even evil clerics should be able to have the power to spontaneously heal their companions, in order that they may have a better chance of winning for their cause.

So what would I suggest instead of alignment? I’m not sure, but I know it needs changing. Maybe setting up more guidelines for characters, in terms of how they are likely to act (helping players to think through their character more, creating deeper instead of shallower characters). For example:
Are they courageous or cautious?
Are they self-sacrificing or selfish?
Do they care about the rights of others, just their own, or not really anyone’s?
Are they likely to obey the law whatever, obey the law within ‘reason’, obey the law when it suits them, break the law when it suits them, break the law for fun, or purposely break laws at every opportunity that comes their way?
Are they pro-creature (inclusive), pro-sentience (anti-slave), pro-life (anti-unnatural/undead), pro-humanoid (elitist), pro-human (species-ist), pro-regional-human (racist), pro-family (clan mentality), pro-self (selfish)?
Are they judgmental or accepting?
Are they generally friendly and hospitable, or hostile and uncaring?
Are there certain species they favour, and certain they hold prejudice against?

Some of these are more roleplaying flavours for people to develop for their characters as they go. Some of these could even be included as numerical statistics (e.g. 1=very courageous, 20=very cautious, and to act as you desire when a dragon swoops at you requires you to role above your courage/caution level (maybe adding bonuses against fear or something).) Some of these may not be helpful at all. Some may be very helpful. And some of you may have better ideas for guidelines or mechanics for this.

I just know that the alignment system, as is, is both unbelievable and mechanically bad. And I know that there’s enough creativity out there for us to come up with something better!

I don’t like the Magic Items layout with DESCRIPTION and CONSTRUCTION having the lines across. It splits it up too much in the wrong places. The big thing that should stand out is the **name**, but this makes those other parts be the main part to stand out. In fact, removing them completely is better, because they are redundant. Or set it out like in the Magic Item Compendium. That’s the best layout of Magic Items so far.

The same is true for the CASTING, EFFECT and DESCRIPTION sections of the spells. Redundant. And ugly.

Ranger’s Master Hunter is DC 20+Ability, not DC 10+1/2lvl+Ability.
Rogue’s Master Strike is DC 20+Ability, not DC 10+1/2lvl+abil.
Yet a bard’s 20th level ability is listed as 10+1/2lvl+abil.

I know the max is 20th lvl, but there's no reason for it to not be written as 10+1/2lvl+abil, because that leaves it open for Epic play, and means there's one less rules argument. It doesn't change anything mechanically (up to 20th lvl), it just makes it better for Epic play.