thugsb's page

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?

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'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?

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

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.

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.