I am OK wiht the idea of full attacks after moving IF we make iterative attacks depend on weapon size catgory/speed regardless of movement.
In the way that big honking weapons went slower in 1ed
The EQ d20 game did this but had an iterative factor for each weapon (a bad call IMO)
I would likely do it based on the light (-4), one handed (-5), two handed(-6) categories already in use so light weapon wielders get iteratives at 5/10/15 BAB one handers are what the system uses now 6/11/16 and two handers get 7/14/21(so no 4th attack, non epic). TWF's with mixed weapon sizes use the worst progression.
Yes this means 3/4 BAB classes with light weapons get 4 attacks at 20th level(without haste). I am ok with that
I haven't been allowing full attacks plus a move as is being discussed in this thread, but I have been doing something similar to what you suggest.
Light/Fast weapons get iteratives at -3 per attack (example dagger).
Medium/Average weapons get iteratives at -5 per attack (ex. longsword).
Slow/Heavy weapons get iteratives at -7 per attack (ex. greatsword).
It works well for our game. Of course, my goal was to get players to actually have their characters use something other than a greatsword. And, it worked.
As for balance? I can't say, but it works for our game.
--- --- ---
I like the idea of giving the melee characters a full attack while still allowing a move action.
The question of what to do if you don't move or if you only take a 5' step is interesting. I'm thinking the answer is a bonus attack at you highest BAB. Any thoughts on this?
I like the idea of giving the melee characters a full attack while still allowing a move action.
The question of what to do if you don't move or if you only take a 5' step is interesting. I'm thinking the answer is a bonus attack at you highest BAB. Any thoughts on this?
I think the fact that it doesn't expose you to AoOs is incentive enough.
I honestly would incorporate some sort of penalty for movement over 5' step in order to incorporate the difficulty of combining rapid movement and a ton of iterative attacks.As opposed to the difficulty of changing the universe and then moving 30'?
;-)
Kirth made multi-attack available to us in our game. Flat -2 to iterative attacks after the first. Coupled with the half move/full attack rule, I'm looking forward to playing my rogue/fighter at higher levels.
Heh, I generally gimp the casters in other ways (capping max ability modifier and increasing base saves across the board, removing quicken spell entirely). I was never really that fond of the old stationary caster model either so I'm okay with a caster being able to move and shoot as long as they can't move and shoot twice and their chances of hitting are substantial reduced.
I'd also like to change concealment from a static miss % to a fixed modifier to hit but I haven't played with it enough to determine the proper modifier.
I think the fact that it doesn't expose you to AoOs is incentive enough.I like the idea of giving the melee characters a full attack while still allowing a move action.
The question of what to do if you don't move or if you only take a 5' step is interesting. I'm thinking the answer is a bonus attack at you highest BAB. Any thoughts on this?
That is incentive, isn't it?
:)
AoO's completely slipped my mind.
--- --- ---
That said, maybe only allowing up to half a normal move with a full attack is the safer place to start.
I think the fact that it doesn't expose you to AoOs is incentive enough.I like the idea of giving the melee characters a full attack while still allowing a move action.
The question of what to do if you don't move or if you only take a 5' step is interesting. I'm thinking the answer is a bonus attack at you highest BAB. Any thoughts on this?
No AoOs is probably enough, you might also make it so that only people that only moved 5' or no movement enforce AoOs on other people.
It doesn't really make sense for someone running across a battlefield to be able to also maintain control over every space around him.
TACTICAL MOVEMENT
Sorry -- that's been superseded, as have a lot of the older (Version 1.X) houserules. I hope to have Version 2.0 up by the new year -- I'll burn you a copy, of course.
When making a full attack, a character can also move up to half his or her speed that round (or full speed, with the Skirmish feat). Movement can be taken before, in between, or after attacks, or in any combination thereof, but it must be made in 5-ft. increments. For example, a character with Speed 30 ft. and BAB +16 could attack once at +16, move ten feet, attack again at +11, then move five more feet and attack again at +11.
Additionally, an attack of opportunity can be traded for a 5-ft. step (this supersedes the Evasive Reflexes feat from the Tome of Battle).
When using this option, two-weapon combatants keep or trade their attacks in pairs. For the example listed above, if the character in question had Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, he could choose to attack once with each weapon at +14, move ten feet, attack again with each weapon at +9, and then move five more feet and attack again at +9 with each weapon.
P.S.
No AoOs is probably enough, you might also make it so that only people that only moved 5' or no movement enforce AoOs on other people.
It doesn't really make sense for someone running across a battlefield to be able to also maintain control over every space around him.
I could see tracking that being very problematic.
TACTICAL MOVEMENTSorry -- that's been superseded, as have a lot of the older (Version 1.X) housreules. I hope to have Version 2.0 up by the new year -- I'll burn you a copy, of course.
When making a full attack, a character can also move up to half his or her speed that round (or full speed, with the Skirmish feat). Movement can be taken before, in between, or after attacks, or in any combination thereof, but it must be made in 5-ft. increments. For example, a character with Speed 30 ft. and BAB +16 could attack once at +16, move ten feet, attack again at +11, then move five more feet and attack again at +11.
Additionally, an attack of opportunity can be traded for a 5-ft. step (this supersedes the Evasive Reflexes feat from the Tome of Battle).
When using this option, two-weapon combatants keep or trade their attacks in pairs. For the example listed above, if the character in question had Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, he could choose to attack once with each weapon at +14, move ten feet, attack again with each weapon at +9, and then move five more feet and attack again at +9 with each weapon.
Interesting, how do you handle natural attacks? Or someone using natural and iterative attacks? Or iterative + twf + natural attacks (sometimes comes up).
Do you allow characters to substitute combat maneuvers for individual iteratives basically making them attack actions not standard actions?
I could see tracking that being very problematic.No AoOs is probably enough, you might also make it so that only people that only moved 5' or no movement enforce AoOs on other people.
It doesn't really make sense for someone running across a battlefield to be able to also maintain control over every space around him.
Possibly but I think you could just put a token under or next to the miniature during the turn in which the character moved more than 5'. If the token is in place the model has no effective AoO range.
It might still be too complicated but I think it would force front line fighters to seriously consider their actions because a full move + attack would eliminate the fighter's ability to effectively block enemy models from counterattacking into the weak underbelly of the party.
Possibly but I think you could just put a token under or next to the miniature during the turn in which the character moved more than 5'. If the token is in place the model has no effective AoO range.
It might still be too complicated but I think it would force front line fighters to seriously consider their actions because a full move + attack would eliminate the fighter's ability to effectively block enemy models from counterattacking into the weak underbelly of the party.
I don't think it would be worth it to have the added layer in this case. There's so many ways to thwart AoOs as it is.
Let's give the fighter a nice thing without a drawback :)
I guess another option would be to allow a standard move, then 'lop off' the highest BAB.
So our 20th Greatsword weilder wth his BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5 can move and do +15/+10/+5. Haste or speed would be +15/+15/+10/+5
Not sure how the numbers crunch though. I don't do the DPR.
Something like this would be interesting...a penalty for a move with a full attack. I think this is the appropriate way to approach the situation. A feat could reduce/remove the penalty.
Now as for the free Vital Strike we did that in my game and though it did speed things up there were some goofy math concerns(and some gimping) once everyone thought about it. I think there is something very satisfying about rolling 10-12 dice for a full attack, but with the internet taking our brains away from us these simple additions seem to take forever. If players are being efficient with their turns multi-attack should not be a problem.
Full-attack as standard, it works well with PCs, the real dilemma is how to resolve it with the Bestiary.
One thing I'm thinking of is regardless of attack routine, monsters can move and full-attack as well, but each attack after the first is at a cumulative -5 regardless of what the normal attack bonus is.
So if the attack routine in the Bestiary says: +10, +10, +10 if it decides to move more than 5' and full attack it becomes: +10, +5, +0. The GM gets to choose the most favorable order of attacks for the monster in any case.
A 25 point buy can make anything look pretty I guess. I'm used to 15 point buys when I play in a point buy game, so monks never even get a look. 4d6 drop the lowest in the game I'm in now (and any game I run) - usually works out to about a 20 point buy I guess.
And, unless I'm mistaken, unless the Monk springs for Improved Initiative, he will be acting second most of the time. The wizard sure as hell is going to have it.
And, for argument's sake, what's the monk's "main stat"? Unless it's Dex, I'm not certain how you expect to go before the wizard most of the time.
And, sure, if you beat my Baleful Polymorph, I'll have to be disappointed I don't get a new bunny.
The monks main stat is Wisdom, I showed that with the math I did.
Baleful Polymoprh requires two saves and is from within 25 ft plus level (at 10th level that is 75ft, if you want to be that close to the monk, thanks for making it easy) not to mention if you try to change him into anything that would be considered "fatal" he gets a +4.
Also that is metagaming, you picked a spell with a fortitude save because the monk I built was less good at fortitude saves, and your highest level spell. Hardly fair, I didnt pick "kill the wizard" feats or abilities I used the core Monk abilities. You may even have that prepared but as your first go to option? I am not so sure, yes possibly but why not Dominate Person? "because the monk is really tough to make fail will saves" is hardly a good answer, especially if your wizard is an enchanter. Dominate Person I have seen prepared almost as often as baleful Polymorph, and having only offensive spells with not other spells (like teleport for escape, Summon Monster V, ect) that wouldnt effect the monk to me is unfair.
Thats part of the penalty of a wizard, preparing. You let them be spontaneous casters to have the right spells always and ofcourse they are tough to kill.
good luck getting the monk to fail both saves, you have a better chance of winning the lottery :).
Also, if you fail, you are dead. Not "ok I can recover" you are a body bag because you are within his threat range by more than half of what he can move in a single round at that level (not counting Abundant step)
Even if the monk doesnt go first he still has alot going for him, and there are various ways to get the jump.
To be honest if it comes down to who goes first, I wouldn't think that makes the wizard king, especially since the wizard needs to put up some kind of spell to make the monk not get there in one round (120 ft standard movement, with Ki point spend it becomes 160ft, not to mention abundant step if he really really needs the distance. 160ft charge... pretty decent) and that spell needs to actually get past the monks defenses which as I have pointed out are very good.
By the way, if you noticed I gave the wizard ridiculous stats, and still made a decent plan of action that didnt require much thought at all.
Again just my observations.
Sorry for bringing this up again. But that was my last one I promise :)
So I was reading Vital Strike, gotta say it looks like it has alot of room to be manipulated, so I am not sure if that is a viable replacement to iteratives as it is written now.
If you play a duelist who uses the ability Parry with Combat Reflexes and you Vital Strik every hit you can dish out 4Xweapon damage per AOO... that seems ridiculously bad. Dragon Full attacks you and you get four AOO's and do 16XWeapon Damage on each attack... unless I am interepretting that wrong.
Vital Strike is standard action only Toker.
Did they errata that because I am reading the book right next to me and it says "when taking an attack action"
You might be right but in the first print it definitely says attack action. Also on the PFSRD it says that also.
Attack Action = kind of standard actionVital Strike is standard action only Toker.Did they errata that because I am reading the book right next to me and it says "when taking an attack action"
You might be right but in the first print it definitely says attack action. Also on the PFSRD it says that also.
:S the book needs to be more clear. "As a standard action" should definitely be the intro to that feat :)
|
Here's the deal: what you call "meta-gaming", I call "knowing your setting".
Wizards are an intelligent bunch, they would know that the brothers of the monkly orders are mentally tough cats who don't get dominated easily. As soon as he saw your unarmored butt going through heaven and hell to get to him, he'd know you were no spellcaster. And your lack of armor and humble garb would rule out any sneaks or warrior types. And that you're moving faster than a mere normal person? Nah, not a give a way there.
So, the first thing that would pop into my head would be "bunny!". And chuck the +4. Being a small, lovable rodent isn't "fatal", unless your character is deathly allergic to cuteness. Were I to turn you into a fish or something, sure.
No, meta-gaming would be assuming that amulet you are wearing is of the "mighty blows" variety, which would be dangerous to me, rather than an amulet of natural armor, which would be irrelevant to me, and casting a dispel magic at it.
Not all assumptions characters, NPC or PC, make are necessarily meta-gaming. Sometimes they're just common sense.
Yeah the Vital Strike being 3 feats, and not compatible with charge or full attacks really limits it's utility.
Attack Action = kind of standard actionVital Strike is standard action only Toker.Did they errata that because I am reading the book right next to me and it says "when taking an attack action"
You might be right but in the first print it definitely says attack action. Also on the PFSRD it says that also.
Thats more than a little vague and less than well defined. There's no way to reach that conclussion from the rules, since you can attack as an attack of opportunity or as a full attack or as a standard action.
Yeah the Vital Strike being 3 feats, and not compatible with charge or full attacks really limits it's utility.
Agreed... I think I'd have preferred Vital Strike as a combat option everybody (or everybody with base attack +X or whatever threshold) can do, and then have feats that make it better in some way, much the way the combat maneuvers work.
It's interesting how the balance of and expectation of power level for feats adjusts as you add more material -- a PHB-only 3.0 greataxe straight fighter (which, yes, was a trap option, but anyway...) might legitimately have started to pick up, say, archery feats at some point because he ran out of particularly good greataxing-relevant feats to pick. Add enough extra books and sooner or later there's always a feat he can pick that's relevant to his core schtick. I have the feeling that as marginal the Vital Strike chain can look now, that's only getting worse as things move on.
Here's the deal: what you call "meta-gaming", I call "knowing your setting".
Wizards are an intelligent bunch, they would know that the brothers of the monkly orders are mentally tough cats who don't get dominated easily. As soon as he saw your unarmored butt going through heaven and hell to get to him, he'd know you were no spellcaster. And your lack of armor and humble garb would rule out any sneaks or warrior types. And that you're moving faster than a mere normal person? Nah, not a give a way there.
So, the first thing that would pop into my head would be "bunny!". And chuck the +4. Being a small, lovable rodent isn't "fatal", unless your character is deathly allergic to cuteness. Were I to turn you into a fish or something, sure.
No, meta-gaming would be assuming that amulet you are wearing is of the "mighty blows" variety, which would be dangerous to me, rather than an amulet of natural armor, which would be irrelevant to me, and casting a dispel magic at it.
Not all assumptions characters, NPC or PC, make are necessarily meta-gaming. Sometimes they're just common sense.
Fair enough.
Because fortitude is this characters weakness. He takes as some of his feats, Great Fortitude, then Improved Great fortitude. Now on average he saves and if he fails he gats a reroll.
See? when you want to get specific and target specific weaknesses of the character I made I will do the same to capitalize on them. Back to my original point, nigh any specific magic spells to target him (which I could equally negate due to other means) you would be on a guess as to what to cast.
Lets say I dump my Dex. Boost my con. Now it goes in a different direction, I still have improved evasion, a still decent Touch AC, a much better fortitude save, more hp to resist the damage from the failed reflexs (which are halved anyways and still less likely).
Also the will save still stands, a monk will save everytime. I unarmed Strike you as a bunny and stunning fist. think thats weird? well thats in the rules, go have a look see, now wizard gets a can opened by a bunny. thanks for the show, a humiliating defeat is that much more funny. You can make me a bunny, you cant make me a harmless bunny, thats the will save :)
oh and by the way I see you ignored the fact that I gave the wizard ridiculous abilities, again.
argue all points or none at all. :)
PS:
By the way I love how you reference common sense and say wizards are an intelligent bunch...
intelligence isnt common sense :) good call. its wisdom in pathfinder.
Guess your average wisdom wizard got me mixed up! he read a book once about some barbarians that pit fight and are real brutal pugnalists! that must be what he is! he doesnt even wear armor like they do!
See? metagaming. you know its a monk because you as a player know its a monk, the wizard might have no clue based on his outward appearance. Barbarians get fast movement too :), to know me moving extra quick shouldnt immediately tip you off that I am one of those guys that grapples well or punches hard. If anything the wizard might find him totally un-threatening because he is a quick little guy with no weapon.. what makes you think he is a threat? detect thoughts? oh thats right Will saves are too high? . . just be realistic wizards are not as king as people make them to be. Wizards are king when you give them player knowledge of a given situation.
Not reasoning or common sense (Wisdom, which the monk can figure your a wizard using this pretty easy), metagaming.
Thats more than a little vague and less than well defined. There's no way to reach that conclussion from the rules, since you can attack as an attack of opportunity or as a full attack or as a standard action.Attack Action = kind of standard actionVital Strike is standard action only Toker.Did they errata that because I am reading the book right next to me and it says "when taking an attack action"
You might be right but in the first print it definitely says attack action. Also on the PFSRD it says that also.
My thoughts exactly. I always thought it should have been only as a standard but it really doesnt say. Theoretically you could take the 'Full attack' action and apply multiple weapon damage rolls on each attack based on how it reads. The full attack action is an attack action right?
Why doesnt it just say at the beginning "as a standard action" then?
|
My thoughts exactly. I always thought it should have been only as a standard but it really doesnt say. Theoretically you could take the 'Full attack' action and apply multiple weapon damage rolls on each attack based on how it reads. The full attack action is an attack action right?
Why doesnt it just say at the beginning "as a standard action" then?
Because Paizo has good ideas, but isn't necessarily good at balancing those ideas. Plus they are poor at writing out rules.
Also, why doesn't he throw a Will save at the Monk? Enchantment is one of the most commonly banned schools for any Wizard worth the name. Guess what the other two are. I'll give you one for free: It's the school with all the worthless SR: Yes spells whose only function is to cause hitpoint damage that is better done by the BSF. Spells whose damage stayed the same from 2E to 3E and Pathfinder even though hitpoints went through a doubling (tripling?) during the transition between the first two.
I know of no school which only contains only SR allowed, hit point damage dealing spells. I know a very solid school of specialization that not only nets you all the damage dealing magic you will ever need with its mid-level class ability of a wall of whatever element you wish, but also hold useful spells I see used on a regular basis at all levels, such as Gust of Wind, Windwall, Daylight, Sending, Wall of Ice , and ______'s ______ Hand, among others, mixed in along with solid immediate damage dealing magic to heavily wound far away targets before they can close and significantly wound your allies, if that is your prefered method of combat.
You know, I might be out of line here, but...This is at 10th level. Why didn't the wizard cast overland flight that morning, and is out of reach of the monk, who sure as hell doesn't have Wings of Flying or any reliable way of obtaining flight with his level 10 WBL? (Once again proving that a single school [transmutation] has enough tools at its disposal to completely destroy a class as badly designed as the Monk. Or any melee-focused character.)
Let's say the Wizard dumps his Intelligence. Sure, that might, might make for some interesting roleplaying, but a dumb Wizard is about as fun to play as a weak Fighter. Or a Monk. That's an NPC, not a PC.
Consequently, any adventurer who drops their Constitution is dead meat. There's enough out there that threatens so much that relies on their Constitution (hitpoints, fortitude saves, not dying) that someone with a low Constitution isn't going to make it in the wide world of adventuring.
Also, why doesn't he throw a Will save at the Monk? Enchantment is one of the most commonly banned schools for any Wizard worth the name. Guess what the other two are. I'll give you one for free: It's the school with all the worthless SR: Yes spells whose only function is to cause hitpoint damage that is better done by the BSF. Spells whose damage stayed the same from 2E to 3E and Pathfinder even though hitpoints went through a doubling (tripling?) during the transition between the first two.
UGH
you are way off man.
Once Enchantment the monk has +7 for a base save +6 for his modifier by that level and an additional bonus for still mind with a +2, he will beat the save. +15 to his save. On average he saves, very easily.
Secondly you are countering every point I make with a counter point that, quite frankly, outside of gameplay I would have to counter again with a different point. A wand of fly is hardly outside WBL but sure man if you are just going to counter ever point I make with "well the wizard would have prepared this then, and then this, and then this".
I cannot do the counter counter thing forever man I simply dont have the time or energy..
Overland flight is still a good option, I acknowledge that. But I could take cloud step as a feat also, have a wand of fly, and I could always use abundant step to teleport near or above you and then attempt a grab if I was really being creative.
You can counter every point I make about a character, go ahead.
My point that if a monk ever gets to a wizard and grapples him (which as much as you can claim, is perfectly within the realm of reason through a plethora ways may they be game mechanics or roleplaying or stealthy) the wizard is in trouble, or if he gets a stunning fist on him.
This is all sans magic items, specific feats chosen to beat mister wizard, and without archetypes, ect. I only throw that other stuff on because everytime I make a point someone says
"Well the wizard would have this prepared, and this prepared"
Overland flight? well the above guy said Baleful polymorph. He gets whooped, by choice by mister wizard I guess, normally it works for him.
"I better fly first!"
Monk flys right towards him, and at a faster speed because overland flight is only 40 ft. Now he still catches you if you dont make him fail a save(not easy but not impossible) and you are going to feel some hurt.
please dont counter this point with another spell the wizard "would of had prepared and instead of these other two which you pointed out could also be metagamed out (Yes I metagamed but according to you Seeing alot of wizards flying and knowing that things fly meant I should buy a wand of fly, after all I have alot of common sense) this spell"
I did not imply wizards are idiots, I said dont say common sense, because that is wisdom.
If you are going to bring 'character' knowledge to defend why someone in a game would do something then back it up with in game statistics. I didnt bring up the intelligence of the wizard because it isnt relevant to the encounter "The wizard has a lot of intelligence therefor he doesnt make mistakes and always has the spell he needs" is total crap and a horrible arguement if you are going to say you arent metagaming.
YAY! LINK TO SIR GIACOMO!
Saing this, just a note on the flyng monk: IIRC, monk has 1-2 archetypes and a 2 feats way for any archetype to gain fly as a (Su).
Moreover, in PF there is no more the issue of the cross-crass skill for UMD (but the Cha and Money issues remain).
however, I strongly suggest to do not think the classes and PCs in a vacuum.
Sorry, what UMD check is the Monk making to activate that Wand of Fly, again? On a skill that isn't a class skill? And possibly Charisma as a dumpstat? DC25. He can't take 20. You can't even Take 10.
go read the core rule book about wand activation, it says point and shoot, not to complicated if someone shows you how and you have had it in the past. over time a monk could figure out point and shoot.
Second, potion of fly, much cheaper and should be too difficult to use.
0th: Who cares? Lots of Prestidigitation.
1st: Again, who cares? If you do, then there's 2x grease, 2x whocares, Xx whatever.
2nd: 3x glitterdust, Xx whatever.
3rd: 1x extended rope trick, Xx whatever.
4th: 2x dimension door, Xx whatever.
5th: 2x teleport, 2x overland flight, Xx whatever.
So your plans are to run away? I dont see any offensive spells and alot of those (nigh the ones with reflex saves which for a monk are a joke) are closer range than you are going to want to be since I can catch you apparently. cool, I spend most every round attempting to chase you down. Hope you never run out of spells. Congratulations another wizard with the idea that running always ten thousand miles = win. Hope you dont sleep.
You think wizards are king because you can run away from me real good?
And yes, these are spells my Wizards always have prepared. They're basic defensive strategies. Throw in a Wind Wall and you basically have the part of my spells prepared list that never changes. I can wager quite a few people who play Wizards have very similar setups.
Sure windwall.. so how does that stop the flight? or Abundant Step? Which by the way can work in combination.
No Baleful Polymorph? why because monk can save? no lighting or fireball?
You seem to have a whole lot of "who cares" prepared. Is that because after I counter this you are going to add another spell to your list of "must haves"
All in good fun man :) I just dont see how "monks suck against wizards always and they will never ever ever win" is even close to accurate unless you build your wizard to kill monks. But on the day you prepare for mister monk, misses witch comes by that day and your as good as dead because you prepared no anti casting spells and shes a counter mage?
why I called it metagaming. she casts dispel magic on your fly and she readies each action to counter you from stopping the fall.
Good job, monks dead, now you are because you stacked all your spells to stop mister monk.
Just an example of why it is unfair to prepare every spell you need for the monk, better hope there arent any spell casters you meet after him, or that you dont make the "obvious same preperations" tommorrow when she shows up.
Here's the deal: what you call "meta-gaming", I call "knowing your setting".
Wizards are an intelligent bunch, they would know that the brothers of the monkly orders are mentally tough cats who don't get dominated easily. As soon as he saw your unarmored butt going through heaven and hell to get to him, he'd know you were no spellcaster. And your lack of armor and humble garb would rule out any sneaks or warrior types. And that you're moving faster than a mere normal person? Nah, not a give a way there.
So, the first thing that would pop into my head would be "bunny!". And chuck the +4. Being a small, lovable rodent isn't "fatal", unless your character is deathly allergic to cuteness. Were I to turn you into a fish or something, sure.
No, meta-gaming would be assuming that amulet you are wearing is of the "mighty blows" variety, which would be dangerous to me, rather than an amulet of natural armor, which would be irrelevant to me, and casting a dispel magic at it.
Not all assumptions characters, NPC or PC, make are necessarily meta-gaming. Sometimes they're just common sense.
Fair enough.
Because fortitude is this characters weakness. He takes as some of his feats, Great Fortitude, then Improved Great fortitude. Now on average he saves and if he fails he gats a reroll.
See? when you want to get specific and target specific weaknesses of the character I made I will do the same to capitalize on them. Back to my original point, nigh any specific magic spells to target him (which I could equally negate due to other means) you would be on a guess as to what to cast.
Lets say I dump my Dex. Boost my con. Now it goes in a different direction, I still have improved evasion, a still decent Touch AC, a much better fortitude save, more hp to resist the damage from the failed reflexs (which are halved anyways and still less likely).
Also the will save still stands, a monk will save everytime. I unarmed Strike you as a bunny and stunning fist. think thats...
Alright, I have to bite on this one.
First of all:
This spell completely invalidates your argument.
Trust me, I made a level 20 paragon monk cry with that spell as a high level druid.
Second of all, Ringtail makes a good point. The excellent *name withdrawn*'s Interposing Hand spell creates a large size creature that has 20 AC and as much hp as the caster at full. On top of this, it slows you within 200 ft at 10th level. If the caster sees that you're one guy, he certainly, even if he was a bit nearsighted, would think "Oh, he's not got any weapons. Why doesn't he stay right there while I think about what to do?"
That's a wizard who maybe has a specialty in transmutation, enchantment, or hell, even necromancy fighting you. That's the spell they're going to learn right after their school spells as they hit 10th.
sleet storm is also food for thought. Not a regular one, though. An enlarged one. Because, guess what, that's something I did with my druid, once again. That's something any wizard could have. A wizard more focused on buffing? Probably not. That kind of wizard would be at a severe disadvantage until he uses *name withdrawn*'s Transformation, probably from a scroll, and then promptly breaks your incoming grapple like the teacher at a high school wrestling camp.
Trans rock to mud is a spell that stops your monk dead.
In his tracks.
And before you scream "metagaming" at me, let me tell you something. I don't care what he looks like. Unless he's under an illusion spell and appears to be flying, I would usually cast this spell. Provided I'm on stone of course. If not and there's some nearby, well...
[url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-stone][/url]
Let's just say most people don't see that one coming. Specifically because they usually think I'm an idiot for putting stone in some area they didn't think about, like underneath them, or me.
Alright, let's assume that I'm not any of these things. That I'm playing my favorite kind of wizard: An illusionist. I've prohibited necromancy and enchantment, because I need maybe one of the spells from those schools sometimes.
Assuming no information, I see someone off in the distance (or not, I usually assume a distance of about 40 ft) who looks like he wants to bust my bacon. I cast major image (As that's kind of My Thing) with an illusion of a hellish pit opening in the earth, the feel of unbearable heat and the scent of brimstone as the crack of a whip sounds, the spread of bat wings around a cloud of black smoke. Two red eyes that glimmer with an unnatural hatred form from the smoke, a flaming coil forms, and a vicious sword cuts through the blackened fog, revealing a red skinned demonic creature whose body exudes an aura of terrible heat.
With the same action, I create an illusion of the space I was in over myself back 30 feet, and move back that way. This effectively renders me invisible, but with none of the drawbacks provided I concentrate next round and cause the illusion to react appropriately.
If I was playing in person, I would make a big show of things, turn to the balor page in the beastiary, probably have my character break some sort of a magical token during the casting to convince you I was calling on a favor.
What do I have left, a swift action? If I think you're even worth it, my daily casting of quickened silent image dumps a second layer of quasi-invisibilty over me for at least one round. If I'm a specialized illusionist I think it stays for half my level in rounds after I stop concentrating on it. I would use this before my big show summon.
After that, I would likely conjure a wall of stone around me, some on the floor, using the loud roars from the balor to mask the sounds of spellcasting. At this point I would create an illusion of myself floating in the air and move back further, to the edge of my previous silent image. Your reaction, after having seen the balor fade away? "Wizard's in the air, better jump and get him." Jumping up to the wizard, the wizard would then, of course, fade away. My turn, I cast transmute rock to mud, no saving throw, from a scroll. If you fail your will save (Somewhat likely at 10th level with a save DC of around 18 or 20 if I'm being modest, heightened image spells have found their way into my prepared lists on occasion) you'll be utterly baffled as you sink into the perfectly normal ground.
At this point I have two options.
One: Kill you with phantasmal killer. As you've said, your saves are good, but even assuming you put your +2 into wisdom, you have a + 11 will save. I'm a wizard with 20 int (not higher because I guess I don't like crafting, so I like metamagic feats more) and the spell is 4th level, +2 from school focuses, so the save is 21 for both will and fort. Judging from the area I'd guess I have around three rounds to kill you before I even have to worry about covering up with an illusion. If you really need to die, I'll shadow conjure stinking cloud to stick you in there for double the duration if successful, take out a chunk of stone (Hey, guys, I found a reason not to dump strength as a wizard!) and then wall you in with my reserved walls of stone, one wall at a time. At this point I can kill you, but there are so many ways to that i might spend a full round action thinking about them. My favorite is imaging over myself to become invisible before using stone shape to make a small hole at some point in the structure big enough to cast through, then casting wall of fire on top of any areas you might be trying to break out of, eventually filling the whole trap with waves of heat.
I call that one the "mud pie oven".
Assuming I don't have a couple scrolls from one of my banned schools, I could always cast black tentacles inside your box.
I call that one the "little stone box of horrors".
If I want to use two more spells to be funny, I'll use calcific touch with spectral hand to deliver the touch attacks.
I call that one "modern art".
If I'm running late, I'll use a create pit spell till it works, then cast another inside the one you fall into, dispelling the top one with a targeted dispel and just leave you there to be buried alive when the second one ends.
I call that one "I'm a complete a%%%%~#".
You both win. like seriously good job. What was I thinking.
|
Illusions are one of those all or nothing spells depending on what your DM is like.
Either they are supremely powerful because you control your enemies senses, no save, or you make a bunch of pretty lights that don't do much to distract your opponent.
Some people have had long arguments about the validity of casting a silent image of a wall to block a golem. It all depends on if 'mindless' to you means 'as soon as I cannot see my target, it no longer exists'.
Will disbilief on both the illusions. you dont get your next round for the stone wall cuz your grappled.
also you apparently won initiative? thats cool. Also go read the monk I posted, I legally with the wizard buffed to 24 int beat his will saves far too often for you to claim that. +13 to will saves and +15 to enchantment.
oh and phantasmal killer? really? really?????
Will save, if I somehow weirdly failed, I get a fortitude save as well, and since I have Improved great fortitude and great fortitude like I stated above before I will save and be just fine.
You are dead dead dead dead dead now. Congrats good example.
Oh also since we are really prepared for each other apparently, I spent a good deal of my WBL (which i still have left over) have a helm of telepathy because I know your an illusionist. How? I just do, you look like a robed wizard guy. I dont wear armor either but you thought HES A MONK! so I think its only fair for me to know your a wizard illusionist since you know all my abilities. You get killed by your own illusion since your Will saves are only +7 (add a +2 for wisdom as well) to make a +9. You fail your own will save on average and kill yourself because your fort is a joke. Good call.
You want to play counter cat and parry mouse all day and we can man but this is getting redundant. I am not going to sing "anything you can do I can do better! I can do anything better than you!".
You win, monks cant beat you ever. Wizards are on auto-win and they always have the right spells. They are totally the best class in the game and no one could ever compare.
I repeat, you win. Your right. You are the best.
Note: sorry everyone else but that last one really irked me.
Illusions are one of those all or nothing spells depending on what your DM is like.
Either they are supremely powerful because you control your enemies senses, no save, or you make a bunch of pretty lights that don't do much to distract your opponent.
Some people have had long arguments about the validity of casting a silent image of a wall to block a golem. It all depends on if 'mindless' to you means 'as soon as I cannot see my target, it no longer exists'.
There's no save on the illusion until you interact with it. Major image fades unless you cause it to react appropriately when stuck. I usually have the creature move out of the way so as to avoid having the illusion dispelled, no save.
Usually I'll go for a big show and try to scare people into not approaching, with say a solid wall of magma from the ground with major image, or an illusion that mimics a powerful spell.
Constructs have this line in their immunities:
"#
# Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms)."
You could infer that they're immune to illusions, but most illusions don't have the mind affecting descriptor, weirdly enough. They have the "figment" descriptor.
All in all, it depends on their orders. If I make myself or others invisible, that's a glamer, which isn't in their immunities. If their orders were "Kill anyone that comes in this room" and I stealth, I could get by them until I have to open something. If their orders were "stand in this doorway, let nothing through and resist forcefully" I would have a hard time getting past unless I was high enough level to have stone shape and knew the golem's orders (or got lucky and guessed).
I do have to know this stuff because I've played with DMs exactly like that who have tried to invalidate my invisibility spells, and I've had to use Xanatos Gambits like the one above assuming they disbelieve every illusion I cast automatically. Because sometimes they did with no save.
Even though a golem with "Protect this room" can have a silent image cast in the room to cut off line of sight, the golem would see the new wall appear, and probably try to tear it down unless it was part of the room. That depends on the DM, but it's not unreasonable to assume a mindless creature would attack the thing it thinks is intruding in the room, even if said thing doesn't move. If its orders pertain only to people, then it depends on their last location. If it was inside the room, the golem would likely try to check according to its last orders what still remains in the room, either treating the wall as real or trying to tear it down, DM's discretion.
In 3.5, Undead were completely immune to all illusions by the way. Even those who had minds. Talk about a kick in the pants.
There's no save on the illusion until you interact with it.
I guess that the point TOZ raised was that is not always so clear when you can exactly say when the interaction actually STARTS.
Will disbilief on both the illusions. you dont get your next round for the stone wall cuz your grappled.
Sorry, you're charging a balor? Better hope I didn't actually summon one.
Secondly, you interact with the first illusion, that's fine. I'm effectively invisible, so you can't charge me, not knowing where I am and all. If you interact with the second illusion, then you get a save. That assumes you enter the spell's area. Which could be... Anywhere within 30 feet.
also you apparently won initiative? thats cool. Also go read the monk I posted, I legally with the wizard buffed to 24 int beat his will saves far too often for you to claim that. +13 to will saves and +15 to enchantment.
If I didn't win initiative, I would likely have to DD out (With a concentration check of around 29 you said? Increase that to 32 and I have a chance to make it on a roll of 17+4 (combat casting because I'm a wizard and have feats to waste) meaning a 50% chance each round. Can you kill me with solely hit point damage in one round? No? Then I still have a chance.
oh and phantasmal killer? really? really?????
Because unlike you, I'm not metagaming and automatically knowing where my enemy is despite having no line of sight, and also knowing exactly which feats he took. Sorry for that. I'll try and be more of a psychic from now on.
Will save, if I somehow weirdly failed, I get a fortitude save as well, and since I have Improved great fortitude and great fortitude like I stated above before I will save and be just fine.
Yup.
You are dead dead dead dead dead now. Congrats good example.
As far as I recall you're knee deep in mud with a speed of 5 feet a round and I have a whole other turn after my probe with phantasmal killer at least. If by "dead" you mean "unhurt and at full hit points" I'll have to update that in my dictionary. Yes I am certainly dead by this point if that's what you mean.
Oh also since we are really prepared for each other apparently
Guess what. That combination works on anybody. I assume you make every will save for the spells you interact with, treating you as a faceless, bodyless creature who's hopefully not using true seeing. Hell, I figure you're a rogue, ranger or fighter with invisible weapons. It will work. On ALL of those people. I've even gotten a cleric once with something like this.
helm of telepathy
Now who's metagaming? You just spent a good chunk of gold on a hat for a spell I might not even cast. And that I probably won't die to.
You want to play counter cat and parry mouse all day and we can man but this is getting redundant. I am not going to sing "anything you can do I can do better! I can do anything better than you!".
Isn't that... what you... oh never mind.
You win, monks cant beat you ever. Wizards are on auto-win and they always have the right spells. They are totally the best class in the game and no one could ever compare.
Well for one you weren't even stealthed. A stealthed monk flurrying an unaware wizard will kill them pretty consistently and will guarantee going first.
I mean, I've built rogues who can grapple. Don't need to be a monk to do that.
I repeat, you win. Your right. You are the best.
Hey, I can't even begin to say stuff like that, what a nice guy you are. Thank you.
Anytime :)
I guess that the point TOZ raised was that is not always so clear when you can exactly say when the interaction actually STARTS.There's no save on the illusion until you interact with it.
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
So this doesn't give a save until it's interacted with. Some people think that seeing something counts as interacting with it.
Definition of INTERACT
intransitive verb
: to act upon one another
Those people are wrong. I'm not usually so curt, but there it is. The definition. If you seeing something somehow should impose something on an object, creature or area, then yes you would get a save, like if you used a gaze attack, you would get a will save to penetrate the illusions in range that would have to make a save, were they real. Otherwise, I would think not unless it was studied carefully (probably a perception check made as a move action).
Debate that as you like, I will be back later, for I now have to stuff the hollow carcass of a dead bird with wet bread and vegetables.
I think my favorite was "wands are point and shoot". I mean, seriously, what? Please go read the rules as they are printed and then realize that monks are completely, and utterly, boned against any caster with half a brain - which is 50% more brain than most monks seem to have.
Well, the game is not tailored for duels. My players used Monk as an anti-caster (somewhat) in big combats, with monks and spellcasters supporting each other.
Spellcasters were needed for buffs or debuffs, but then more than a decisive attack has been performed by the monk, less likely to fail a save than the fighter, and with SR and Evasion (eh...) on the top of that.
Finally, I wonder if these combats,more than being conceived in a vacuum (no terrain, context, moment of the day, what Mr. Monk and Mr Wizard know of each other), are imagined with the monk going too much straightforward.
Couldn't be better using stealth, flee and come later, wait for the early moments of the day if possible.. something like this. Or even plan something more convoluted to force Wizard to waste his spell slot on some other target.
"Hello I'm Wizard I'm Monk let's fight" does not make so much sense, IMHO. All these duels sound like a MMORPG.. I don't like this approach to compare classes.
Those people are wrong. I'm not usually so curt, but there it is. The definition. If you seeing something somehow should impose something on an object, creature or area, then yes you would get a save, like if you used a gaze attack, you would get a will save to penetrate the illusions in range that would have to make a save, were they real. Otherwise, I would think not unless it was studied carefully (probably a perception check made as a move action).
Debate that as you like, I will be back later, for I now have to stuff the hollow carcass of a dead bird with wet bread and vegetables.
Well, I could interact in the exact moment I would feel the illusionary heat of the illusionary Balor. Not that I would force it as a GM, I guess.
But propably that's the point.. se my post above :)
I think my favorite was "wands are point and shoot". I mean, seriously, what? Please go read the rules as they are printed and then realize that monks are completely, and utterly, boned against any caster with half a brain - which is 50% more brain than most monks seem to have.
Well, the game is not tailored for duels. My players used Monk as an anti-caster (somewhat) in big combats, with monks and spellcasters supporting each other.
Spellcasters were needed for buffs or debuffs, but then more than a decisive attack has been performed by the monk, less likely to fail a save than the fighter, and with SR and Evasion (eh...) on the top of that.
Finally, I wonder if these combats,more than being conceived in a vacuum (no terrain, context, moment of the day, what Mr. Monk and Mr Wizard know of each other), are imagined with the monk going too much straightforward.
Couldn't be better using stealth, flee and come later, wait for the early moments of the day if possible.. something like this. Or even plan something more convoluted to force Wizard to waste his spell slot on some other target.
"Hello I'm Wizard I'm Monk let's fight" does not make so much sense, IMHO. All these duels sound like a MMORPG.. I don't like this approach to compare classes.
+1
I was only giving a general example in the beginning of a monks capabilities.
I didnt mean for this to happen, I just wanted to illustrate it isnt that black and white on who is better than who. I like what the monk can do and I find him threatening.