|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"Abundant Step
At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability."
Now Dimension door is a standard action that functionally ends your turn.
However if the intent is to end your turn, why make it a move action rather than a standard action? And considering the nerf of not being able to bring others it seems like the intent was to allow the monk limited teleportation as a move action, meaning the monk would have a standard actions after.
And before anyone says it, yes I am aware James Jacobs weighed in on this. He also weighed in on Vital Strike and spring attack as well light armor proficiency for animals...James is wonderful and great and the go to person on all things Golarion, but he isn't a Dev.
So could one of the Devs weigh in on this and give us a once and for all ruling, because I can't find one other than James Jacobs comment, and I can't for the life of me think of why you would change it to a move action from a standard action if you were not going to allow someone to use the standard action after the move action.
Thanks in advance.
You can make a standard action, just has to be before you teleport. ie. punch the bad guy, abundant step to safety (or another target.)
|
|
"Abundant Step
At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability."
Now Dimension door is a standard action that functionally ends your turn.
However if the intent is to end your turn, why make it a move action rather than a standard action? And considering the nerf of not being able to bring others it seems like the intent was to allow the monk limited teleportation as a move action, meaning the monk would have a standard actions after.
And before anyone says it, yes I am aware James Jacobs weighed in on this. He also weighed in on Vital Strike and spring attack as well light armor proficiency for animals...James is wonderful and great and the go to person on all things Golarion, but he isn't a Dev.
So could one of the Devs weigh in on this and give us a once and for all ruling, because I can't find one other than James Jacobs comment, and I can't for the life of me think of why you would change it to a move action from a standard action if you were not going to allow someone to use the standard action after the move action.
Thanks in advance.
What is the reason to suspect that the intent is to end the monks turn? Special abilities may have attributes of a spell (it reads, "...as if using the spell dimension door"), but any differences from the spell are described in the special ability's description. Yes, casting a dimension door spell is a standard action, but using the Abundant Step, which is a supernatural ability, functions like a dimension door spell, but the ability itself is a move action.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the reason to suspect that the intent is to end the monks turn? ... "...as if using the spell dimension door"
You said the reason to believe the intent is to end the Monk's turn.
Unless the monk ability has a "but your turn doesn't end" line, his turn is over.
im with red on this one. it says AS A MOVE ACTION. if a gm does not allow him to finish his turn, hes being a jerk. the point is to allow the monk to teleport fight. its part of the reason a monk is cool. if you take that away you nerf him and there is another reason to not play the character.
i see no harm in allowing him to teleport, and make an attack in the same turn with that ability.
ive had a player that did just that to grapple with a wizard that had just flown away. it was how the group actually stopped him from escaping. thats badass. if he hadnt been able to grapple, he would have teleported, and fallen, then taken the 20d6 for no reason. as it was he choked the wizard out, let him fall, then teleported back to safety. the monk is freaking cool.
Abundant step works exactly like dimension door except were noted. Which means you can't take friends with you and it is a move action. Thus you can only take standard actions, move actions, swift actions, or free actions before you use the ability.
im with red on this one. it says AS A MOVE ACTION. if a gm does not allow him to finish his turn, hes being a jerk. the point is to allow the monk to teleport fight. its part of the reason a monk is cool. if you take that away you nerf him and there is another reason to not play the character.
i see no harm in allowing him to teleport, and make an attack in the same turn with that ability.
ive had a player that did just that to grapple with a wizard that had just flown away. it was how the group actually stopped him from escaping. thats badass. if he hadnt been able to grapple, he would have teleported, and fallen, then taken the 20d6 for no reason. as it was he choked the wizard out, let him fall, then teleported back to safety. the monk is freaking cool.
It is not about the GM. It is about the rules. Per the rules if you use abundant step your turn is over.
Since it calls out dimension door, I'd say the intent is for it to end your turn. I think it would be cool (and probably not very broken) if it didn't, however, so if you're the GM I'd suggest ruling it that way and seeing if there's a problem.
Also, James Jacobs is a dev. Sometimes the more rules-focused devs will disagree with him on a ruling, but that doesn't exactly diminish his status.
Looks unambiguous to me. After an Abundant Step, your turn is done. You optionally can take a standard (and swift) action beforehand.
You can argue that you don't like the mechanics, but it doesn't look unclear as given.
Creative Director
|
And before anyone says it, yes I am aware James Jacobs weighed in on this. He also weighed in on Vital Strike and spring attack as well light armor proficiency for animals...James is wonderful and great and the go to person on all things Golarion, but he isn't a Dev.
Actually, I am a developer.
The terminoligy between pen and paper RPGs and videogames is not 100% accurate in their crossover.
For tabletop RPG publishing, a "developer" (or "dev") is a person who takes a text turnover from a freelancer or designer and then polishes it up—he/she makes sure the rules work in the context of the story, and that the story works in the context of the rules. The developer is a sort of bridge between design and editorial—since designers don't necessarily have strong editorial skills and editors don't necessarily have strong design skills, the developer's job is to help facilitate the transition of a designed document to an edited one.
The term you're looking for is "designer." The designers at Paizo (Jason's the lead designer) are the ones who make the rules, check freelancer design of rules, and otherwise handle the raw creation and maintenance of rules-related content.
As a developer, I feel comfortable offering advice on both the rules design AND the editing side of things (turns out, a lot more folks on the boards are interested in rules design though). My opinions on how the rules should work often clash with the way Jason and the design team want them to work, and outside of games I run for my friends, I default to their decisions on the rules 100% (sometimes after presenting my case for a rule or whatever so that they can perhaps take a new angle into mind while they figure out the final rule itself) in the end.
That said, if folks prefer to go with my interpretation of a rule, or with that of someone else on these boards, or with their own... that's great! That's one of the strengths of the game—the option to change and tweak rules as you see fit for your game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's cheesy, but....
Standard action: Ready to attack adjacent target with the trigger being any character action after my turn is over.
Move action: abundant step to where you want to be.
At the end of the abundant step, your turn is over. Whoever acts next triggers your readied action, you attack. Doesn't even change your spot in the initiative order.
Excuse me now; I feel like I need to go wash my hands.
It's cheesy, but....
Standard action: Ready to attack adjacent target with the trigger being any character action after my turn is over.
Move action: abundant step to where you want to be.
At the end of the abundant step, your turn is over. Whoever acts next triggers your readied action, you attack. Doesn't even change your spot in the initiative order.
Excuse me now; I feel like I need to go wash my hands.
Doesn't work. DD says you can't take ANY action until your next turn. Any action should include anything: Readied Actions, AoOs, even talking (a free action).
As for the ruling on this one, I'm on the "Abundant Step ends the monk's turn" side. There are other teleportaion abilities scattered all over the place. Some say they work like DD (Teleportaion subschool's Shift ablity), other don't say anything like that (Travel Domain's Dimansonal Hop, Cunjuration school's Dimensional Steps).
So if an ability explicitly states it works like Dimension Door, I think it's save to assume that works like Dimenson Door.
Ready action also states, "Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition." That means you'd have to trigger your ready action before you make your move action to Abundant Step. I'm not sure why people have such a problem with just taking your actions before you teleport. Sure, it limits the ability, but its not totally crippling. There are still lots of uses for it. You just can't pull a Dragonball Z-style teleport across the room and punch your foe style maneuver.
Perhaps there should be a feat, Improved Abundant Step; Your turn does not end after using Abundant Step.
Wow, I blew it twice! Thanks for the corrections, guys.
I am also on the "ends-the-turn" side of things, which was why I called my (messed up) proposal "cheesy".
|
|
And before anyone says it, yes I am aware James Jacobs weighed in on this. He also weighed in on Vital Strike and spring attack as well light armor proficiency for animals...James is wonderful and great and the go to person on all things Golarion, but he isn't a Dev.Actually, I am a developer.
The terminoligy between pen and paper RPGs and videogames is not 100% accurate in their crossover.
For tabletop RPG publishing, a "developer" (or "dev") is a person who takes a text turnover from a freelancer or designer and then polishes it up—he/she makes sure the rules work in the context of the story, and that the story works in the context of the rules. The developer is a sort of bridge between design and editorial—since designers don't necessarily have strong editorial skills and editors don't necessarily have strong design skills, the developer's job is to help facilitate the transition of a designed document to an edited one.
The term you're looking for is "designer." The designers at Paizo (Jason's the lead designer) are the ones who make the rules, check freelancer design of rules, and otherwise handle the raw creation and maintenance of rules-related content.
As a developer, I feel comfortable offering advice on both the rules design AND the editing side of things (turns out, a lot more folks on the boards are interested in rules design though). My opinions on how the rules should work often clash with the way Jason and the design team want them to work, and outside of games I run for my friends, I default to their decisions on the rules 100% (sometimes after presenting my case for a rule or whatever so that they can perhaps take a new angle into mind while they figure out the final rule itself) in the end.
That said, if folks prefer to go with my interpretation of a rule, or with that of someone else on these boards, or with their own... that's great! That's one of the strengths of the game—the option to change and tweak rules as you see fit for your game.
No offense intended, and hopefully none taken. As I've said 99% of the time I agree with you, and 99% of the time the final design team goes with your ruling, which is a far higher percentage than I would ever hit.
But I want to know what the intent of the design change was, as it was a significant change that has a big impact on game play.
In 3.5 using abundant step to take melee into combat with you was much more viable than having a wizard do the same and be vulnerable. Now with that option gone, and the feat that allowed attacks after abundant step gone, this would be a major nerf with a very minor enhancement.
|
But I want to know what the intent of the design change was, as it was a significant change that has a big impact on game play.In 3.5 using abundant step to take melee into combat with you was much more viable than having a wizard do the same and be vulnerable. Now with that option gone, and the feat that allowed attacks after abundant step gone, this would be a major nerf with a very minor enhancement.
the option WASN"T there in 3.5 either.they didnt add a new rule.
and since PF IS backwards compatable, you could just use the old feat, as long as you're not making a PFS character
|
|
But I want to know what the intent of the design change was, as it was a significant change that has a big impact on game play.In 3.5 using abundant step to take melee into combat with you was much more viable than having a wizard do the same and be vulnerable. Now with that option gone, and the feat that allowed attacks after abundant step gone, this would be a major nerf with a very minor enhancement.
the option WASN"T there in 3.5 either.they didnt add a new rule.
and since PF IS backwards compatable, you could just use the old feat, as long as you're not making a PFS character
In 3.5 it was dimension door.
"Abundant Step (Su): At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door, once per day. Her caster level for this effect is one-half her monk level (rounded down)."
Meaning you could take people with you.
The old feat was actually three tactics, which honestly is a bit overpowered IMHO if it was the intend of the designers to not be able to attack after.
http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2835-sun-school.html
They have changed it from functionally being dimension door, to having limitations on one end with a bonus of it being a move action on the other.
This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
Of course. It's in the monk's possession, and isn't a contested item in any way.
|
Of course. It's in the monk's possession, and isn't a contested item in any way.This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
What happens to the weapon cord?
|
|
What happens to the weapon cord?Of course. It's in the monk's possession, and isn't a contested item in any way.This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
It says he can't take creatures, but it object in possession always transfer up to maximum load.
In 3.5 it was an effective move to have your monk dimension door your frontline fighters back behind the enemy line to the caster, as 1) The monk could survive better than the caster doing the same thing and 2) Because those brought by dimenstion door can act.
So functionally you would have your fighter and barbarian hold, dimension door next to BBEG, and then the fighter and Barb get full round attacks. with a little GM kindness you could even Dimension door a rogue into flanking position with a fighter on either side of a medium creature.
This is out, which I agree with since it was pure cheese. You can still do it with a caster, but then your caster is right next to BBEG next round if the melee classes don't drop him. But it doesn't make sense to me to make it a move action instead of a standard actions if you can't use the standard action after.
Now if that was the intent to not allow monks to attack after, I would hope for a feat similar to the old 3.5 feat (maybe without the other features) to allow a monk to use the standard action after, as if you were a monk in 3.5 you probably took that feat.
I don't remember it being game breaking in 3.5, it did occasionally end battles quickly when combined with quivering palm, but that wasn't often and given the resource expense of using both and the fact you are putting yourself in a very vulnerable place if it fails, I don't see that as an issue either.
But I am neither a designer or a dev :)
Of course. It's in the monk's possession, and isn't a contested item in any way.This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
What about if a monk grabs a person's backpack? Can they abundent step that away? If not, how is that different than a weapon cord?
|
What about if a monk grabs a person's backpack? Can they abundent step that away? If not, how is that different than a weapon cord?Of course. It's in the monk's possession, and isn't a contested item in any way.This brings up a question I was thinking about.
Monk is facing someone wielding a weapon attached by a weapon cord. he attempts a disarm, succeeds, automatically picks up the weapon and abundent steps away. Does the weapon go with the monk?
just grabbing the backpack would not be sufficient. It has to be in the monk's possession. If the target is still wearing the pack. the possession is contested. The monk would have to strip the pack off of the target and be holding it for it to go with him on an abundant step.
THat's how the weapon and the pack would differ, IMO.
Sorry, I was reading this after finishing three days of moving, I missed the part about it having a weapon cord.
The weapon isn't contested. The cord is. Because the cord isn't a magic item, it's probably simplest to have it break or untie it at one end. It's not worth the time to make and resolve a die roll.
Awesomely though, the monk can grapple a bad guy teleport to the edge of a cliff and then drag him off (next round), he falls you release grapple and laugh as you slow fall and acrobatics away almost all of the damage. While he gets bloodied to hell and is now at the bottom of a cliff.
Might be more useful at slightly lower levels but still something to keep in mind.