underling's page

I've posted this idea in several threads right after Ultimate Combat hit the stores, but I love it enough to post again. Its all about early feat entry to gain abilities well below the level a standard monk would have them.Go Fighter/Monk and use the unarmed fighter with a Quigong Master of Many Styles.

Here is a potential feat progression to level 6.

F1 = power attack, weapon focus unarmed (HB), and Dragon style (FB)
F1/M1 = Tiger style (MB)
F1/M2 = Tiger Pounce (MB), improved grapple
F2/M3 = Dragon Ferocity, monastic legacy (FB)

at 7th level (F3/M4) you'd grab tiger claws as your final style feat.

Now a Master of Many styles gives up flurry, but this character would never go beyond Monk4. you'd continue as an unarmed fighter for the rest of your career. You wear armor and your only Quigong power is barkskin, which you can use 3-4 times a day at level 6 to get a natural armor bump. But the benefits of this fighting style are sick.

since you can use them at the same time, by 6th level you can:
1 always power attack at no penalty to hit (off AC instead)
2 add 2x str to your 1st hit, and 1.5 str on all other hits.
3 critical or stun will result in your opponent being shaken for d4+str rounds.
4 also, unarmed strikes can deal slashing dmg and do d4 bleed on a crit
5 ignore difficult terrain on a run/charge/withdraw AND charge through allies
6 +2 vs sleep, paralysis, stunning, bull rush, overrun or trip.

In a 15 point buy I'd start with 17/14/13/10/12/8
In a 20 point, I'd go 18/14/14/10/12/8

Why do adventure paths begin at level 1? I been looking through the various Adventure paths and I noticed that they all begin at Level 1, which I find to be the most boring level

Um... because many people like those levels. Low level play requires smart tactics, and encourages improvisation and creative use of resources. In other words, fun.

And by giggle, I mean really more of that evil GM chuckle that makes player go oh S#!!!

So lets imagine an unarmed fighter who uses boar style. If he has boar style, body shield, impaling critical and improved impaling critical all sorts of fun can ensue. Boar style lets unarmed strikes do piercing damage. With impaling critical (that requires critical focus and weapon spec in your piercing weapon) you actually impale your victim on your weapon when you critical. In this case, your hand. Improved impaling critical, while unnecessary, does make it harder for your victim to escape. So, now that your hand is literally somewhere inside your opponent and you are doing damage every round until they manage to remove it, what should you do? grapple.

Once they are impaled and then grappled, you can use body shield to move them between you and one attack each round. If the provided cover forces a miss, your impaled victim takes the damage instead.

I call this my Sock Puppet combat style. Oh man, now I'm giggling again. Gotta go re-stat that arena barbarian from Kingmaker 5 to use this style.:)

Isn't Spring Attack it's own full-round action these days, meaning you can't fight defensively (the option for which is only available for a standard action or a full-attack action) while using it?

HAHAHHAHA! Oh, how did I miss that! You are correct. Spring attack is a full round action. You can't fight defensively or total defense and still spring attack.

I delcare this thread officially over. Crane attack is useful, but no more than that, as it is of limited utility. Bow strings do not exist in the game, cannot be sundered and do not need to be enchanted seperately. A locking gauntket IS NOT part of a sword. That's why they have a seperate entry in the equipment list. So many silly arguments slain. YAY logic!

Aelryinth wrote:

There's nothing in the rules that defends a bowstring being as hard to damage as the bow it's attached to...

Really? You're going there?

Just walk away. There is no winning this one.

I really hope you're not suggesting that a taut string is harder to cut then a loose one laying on the ground...and somehow you're mistaking a hilt as something 'detachable on demand', instead of 'replaceable by a skilled craftsman with a lot of time and work.'

As for slugfests, if you read the Drizz't duels, they're all about movement, footwork, and correct placement of blows...they aren't about sitting in place and slugging one another. Since there are no parries in standard D@D at ANY level of the game, none of the duels that Drizz't fights are even possible...ingame, he would have hit Entreri with EVERY SINGLE SWING, and Entreri would have hit him. Drizz't had, what, a 24 AC? 20th level fighter? Specialized, finesse with a 20 dex, +3 to +5 weapon, and no penalties for dual wielding in earlier versions of the game?

He couldn't miss.

And also note that Drizzt wears his bracers of speed on his feet, not his hands. Because footwork and mobility is important.

Authorial characters can do all sorts of stuff game characters can't.

==Aelryinth

I give up. You ignore the rules that you don't like and continue to argue as if no one has pointed out how your position doesn't line up with the RAW. What you are doing when you change rules for things like sunder is called creating house rules. I have no desire to discuss your house rules, as they are 100% under your control. If you think the feats are broken after numerous people demonstrated how they are most assuredly not, than house rule them. ban them. Heck, color over those entries in your UC book with a sharpie. Make any rules you want.

But realize that they are not the RAW. In the non-house ruled Paizo universe, the crane style feat chain adds some pretty decent defensive boosts to the characters that use it. But it is situational and easily circumvented.

Now, I'm going to go download the Ultimate Combat PDF in a couple of days, and my group and I will try the rules out the way they are intended to be used. No sundered +0 bowstrings, no bouncy cartwheeling duels specifically with more restrictions than olympic fencing (all to favor the crane guy!), but actual correctly used RAW PFRPG. I'll come back and let you know how they work after that.

underling wrote:

OK, this is kind of silly.

Has anyone even looked at a non-hypothetical scenario?

A monk must be minimum level 7 to use this feat chain in full. That's a BAB of 5. Add a +1 for weapon focus unarmed, and another +1 for an amulet of mighty fist (since the devs in their infinite wisdom chose to nerf brass knuckles) and assume an 18 strength or dex (for the wpn finesse crowd) and you get a total of +11 on an AOO. When using this style, its +10.

OK. Since I assume you want a fair assessment, lets use a fighter 7 with a standard melee weapon. That's +7/+2 BAB, with a 20 strength (the 3000gp cheaper a +1 weapon is than the +1 amulet makes a +2 belt of strength easily attainable), weapon focus, weapon training, and a +1 weapon. your total to hit bonus is a 15. Great your first hit is negated. The second attack that can't be negated is at +10.... the same bonus as the monk's AOO.

At best, this puts a monk on a relatively even footing in a one on one combat against an equal level fighter-type opponent. You are not unbeatable, and most scenarios will not allow this clean of a match up. When counting mob fights, mages, big beasts, etc... this feat chain is nice, but far from the best.

And how is the fighter ever getting his second attack in?

because its a duel. They're fighting one on one, mano y mano, toe to toe - full attacks baby. And a fighter has 2 attacks a round at level 7 even if they aren't 2 weapon wielders (who always get 2+ attacks, and can therefore get past crane style).

reread the text of the feat:

Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

ONCE per round, deflect ONE attack that would otherwise hit. Done. Proven. So to recap, any level character that fights with two weapons, or any fighter equivalent of over 7th level can at most have 1 attack blocked per round by crane style. Even in a duel, that leaves a second shot (2 more if you are a 2 weapon wielding fighter of 6+ level) with a chance of getting through to the monk. nice defensive chain. I'm not really sure yet if its actually worth it or not. Undefeatable? Only if you ignore half of the rules regarding combat, and if you're willing to do that, just about any feat is undefeatable.

OK, this is kind of silly.

Has anyone even looked at a non-hypothetical scenario?

A monk must be minimum level 7 to use this feat chain in full. That's a BAB of 5. Add a +1 for weapon focus unarmed, and another +1 for an amulet of mighty fist (since the devs in their infinite wisdom chose to nerf brass knuckles) and assume an 18 strength or dex (for the wpn finesse crowd) and you get a total of +11 on an AOO. When using this style, its +10.

OK. Since I assume you want a fair assessment, lets use a fighter 7 with a standard melee weapon. That's +7/+2 BAB, with a 20 strength (the 3000gp cheaper a +1 weapon is than the +1 amulet makes a +2 belt of strength easily attainable), weapon focus, weapon training, and a +1 weapon. your total to hit bonus is a 15. Great your first hit is negated. The second attack that can't be negated is at +10.... the same bonus as the monk's AOO.

At best, this puts a monk on a relatively even footing in a one on one combat against an equal level fighter-type opponent. You are not unbeatable, and most scenarios will not allow this clean of a match up. When counting mob fights, mages, big beasts, etc... this feat chain is nice, but far from the best.

Gorbacz wrote:

Good job guys at breaking that one useful Monk weapon there. Any rationale behind the nerf?

Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).

It also brings up weird questions like

* If I have +5 flaming brass knuckles/gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, am I doing unarmed strike damage, the listed weapon damage, or both?

* How do the magical properties on those weapons interact with my monk unarmed damage? Does this make the ki focus properly useless on these types of weapons?

* Am I doing monk unarmed damage plus enhancement bonus plus 1d6 fire?

* How does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists?

* How does this interact with properties like brilliant energy?

* What about creatures that harm attackers who hit them, am I considered armed and safe or unarmed and not safe?

Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.

please don't take offense, but that list of rationales is hooey. The only one that has even appeared on the boards in the year+ since APG came out was the mighty fist interaction. The rest is a list of questions that never hit the boards (meaning very little concern in the community) and can all be answered with a little common sense and logic.

This feels arbitrary, it was certainly unnecessary, and creates a large mechanical problem for the monk. Why would you possibly consider the use of amulet of mighty fist justified?! Its prohibitively expensive, and denies a class that REALLY needs AC the only available natural armor slot. Its not like you guys have rings of natural armor, right?

Very, very frustrated and disappointed.

Ashiel wrote:

But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.

My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:

1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).

2) He's trying to do good deeds.

The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.

That's why at my table, I have begged the whole issue of spell alignment effects on character alignment. A spell is just a tool. Intention, action, and results are what count.

If a wizard summoned a devil and managed to make its use achieve a 'good' result, he would be fine. It behooves me as a GM to make the summoning of an evil outsider by a good character feel risky. Have a devil easily twist their orders, use abilities that may injure bystanders, etc... That way, an evil summoning is not inherently alignment changing. But the unintended side effects could induce such change. Especially if a character continued to have good intentions but shrug off the less than stellar side effects/results.

See I think the problem now, is that there are some logical inconsistencies between how evil descriptor spells and good descriptor spells are seen to influence alignment. If a spell is evil because of its descriptor, no matter what use its put too, the converse must be true as well. But that opens up summoning angels to slaughter orphans for fun as a good act.

To avoid this entire issue, the only thing that effects alignment in my games is character actions. I won't let them hide behind the shield of "but it was a good spell!" if they do wrong, and I won't penalize them for casting a naughty spell if the intentions AND results are good. You'd be surprised at how thoughtful this can make players about their own actions. Rather than worrying about 'will my alignment change if i cast this?' its 'what tools can I use to achieve the most good, and what are the risks of using this tool'.

Exotic weapon (babies in a sack), weapon focus (babies in a sack), weapon specialization (babies in a sack), improved critical (babies in a sack).

you sir win the internets.

Well, for higher levels you could argue “wear and tear” on magical items, spell components, luxury foods (spoiled clerics), offerings to appease their gods, etc.

Mmmm see, I think my players would call shenanigans on this tactic. What would you say when they decided to forgo their support to avoid the BP cost? They could easily say they don't draw that much upkeep normally, so why in an emergency?

I'd much rather roleplay surgical strikes or waive maintenance on a one pc army (maybe it only exists for that battle and therefore never needs upkeep).

Overall, I think I'll stick with PCs influencing stats of another army or running surgical strikes to degrade enemy forces.

I had a thought about city population and the discrepancies we see in Varnhold, Tatzleford and Fort Drelev. I understand the official position James put out that population doesn't matter, but if your players are like mine, they will expect logic and consistency in the way the city rules model settlements. So here is my quick and dirty fix:

The 250 * #bulding squares is a maximum population for that settlement. Population from the construction of new buildings arrives over the course of a year or so, giving consistent growth over time. Morale and other events (BBEGs, wars, monster attacks, etc...) can stunt or even reverse that growth. I don't really think these growth numbers need to be quantified, but I guess you could if you wanted to.

So, Varnhold has such a low population because it was almost destroyed. Fort Drelev is small (and shrinking ) because of extreme mismanagement. Tatzleford is small because it is new. As long as management is well run, it should be growing swiftly to its potential size over the next 12 kingdom turns.

Thoughts?

Arnwyn wrote:

While I can't speak for others, I think that's pretty much understood. I kinda figured that the gp amount had to do with metagame reasons.

It's probably better to reverse the criticism - think instead "250 gp is just fine for a reward... but don't tie it to a quest about radishes, for pete's sake".

So, if the reward isn't wonky, the job tied to that reward really is.

At least you aren't chasing Fraggles & Doozers away from the radishes.

Let's see who shows their age & gets the reference.

Is the Trash Heap a shoggoth or a shambling mound?

OK, thanks. That's how I thought it worked. Thankfully, after viewing the puns that followed my poor turn of a phrase, I am thankful that I will not need to ask for advice on how to handle a party that continually thrusts its members into dangerous situations without proper protection. The results could have been sticky.

Delta Green - Cthulhu Now with a distinct x-Files feel. I'm currently looking to see if I can successfully merge the rules with Thrilling Tales by Adamant Press. I think the end result should look a little like a human-centric Hellboy story.

The general plan is to achieve a feel of Cthulhu meets Indiana Jones with a dash of Doc Savage.