What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:
But that said, it sounds to me that you don't like the concept of classes, at all.

Classes can always have an equal chance to shine - if those classes are designed correctly. They can have their own powers and own strengths without those powers and strengths being demarcated by what point in the game night you're in.

This thread is called "What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder". That sort of implies that what I'm talking about is something I want fixed (ie. it doesn't currently exist in the game).

I understand what the thread is called and what you're asking for, but you're asking for something to be fixed that's not broken in most people's minds. When other people complain about balance, they don't mean that they should be able to build a thief who can outcombat a fighter or a fighter who can outpray a cleric or a monk who can teleport everyone back to town like the wizard.

If every class can be designed to have an equal chance to shine at all times, here's my challenge for you:

1) Design a fighter concept who shines quite like the wizard at moving everyone out of combat.
2) Design a monk concept who shines quite like the cleric at repelling the undead.
3) Design a thief concept who shines quite like a barbarian at attacking a group of trolls.


I really don't see a class system being made where everyone can always shine. If you mean combat in general that is more realistic, but not all combats are the same.
Outside of combat some classes will be better at certain tasks than others.

I don't see balance as all classes being perfectly equal. Each class having the ability to perform its roll well, and having that role be meaningful is what balance is to me.

Sovereign Court

monk


jupistar wrote:
This thread is called "What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder". That sort of implies that what I'm talking about is something I want fixed (ie. it doesn't currently exist in the game).
I understand what the thread is called and what you're asking for, but you're asking for something to be fixed that's not broken in most people's minds.

Er, hello? Have you seen how many threads there are about monks? How they always say that monks need some kind of fixing?

As stated by ReconstructorFleet, the monk cannot do the role that it is stated to perform. Even if the monk could approach the fighter in damage output, they'd still be behind in hit points and AC, so toe-to-toeing with a foes is a stopgap measure for the monk. Defensively they are quite strong, except in AC and hit point terms, where they lag behind the other combat classes.

wraithstrike wrote:
I don't see balance as all classes being perfectly equal. Each class having the ability to perform its roll well, and having that role be meaningful is what balance is to me.

Likewise. Problem is, the monk cannot fulfil its role. It's got the movement (although that can be matched by any fighter with haste or winged boots) but not the offensive capacity.


Honestly, the offensive capacity problem is simple: The Monk could not be given higher accuracy or BAB, because they stuck to the decision to increase unarmed damage dice across 20 levels to a max of 2d10. Reduced BAB means that a monk can't use Greater vital Strike to run around skirmishing with 8d10 Whammies from anywhere within 90 feet. And Spring Attack was made so that Vital Strike wouldn't stack with it, mostly so that same monk couldn't run 45 feet forward, 8d10 someone, and then run 45 feet back.

Drop the 2d10 unarmed strike to 1d6 or 1d8, give Monk a static increasing bonus to attack and damage across 20 levels with unarmed strike or monk weapons, make the unarmed strike to act as a unique weapon of it's own in terms of Critical range or special abilities, make the BAB Full, and suddenly... suddenly Vital Strike and Spring Attack work how we first thought they did, with FAR fewer shenanigans (because 4d8 is a much less threatening number than 8d10), and Monk becomes entirely relevant within it's role again: Accurate enough to be a threat, and precisely as hard hitting as needed. Oh, and keep Flurry of Blows at the original RAW that we've all been up in arms about, albeit now you could remove the bit about the Monk's BAB changing when they were flurrying.

Hey, it's a dream, and the thread title WAS "what do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder". :D


jupistar wrote:

When other people complain about balance, they don't mean that they should be able to build a thief who can outcombat a fighter or a fighter who can outpray a cleric or a monk who can teleport everyone back to town like the wizard.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? trolling?

I challenge you to quote where I said anything to the effect that a thief should be able to 'outcombat' a fighter (whatever that means) or a fighter 'outpray' a cleric (however that's measured) or a monk teleport everyone back to town like the wizard.


jupistar wrote:


If every class can be designed to have an equal chance to shine at all times, here's my challenge for you:

1) Design a fighter concept who shines quite like the wizard at moving everyone out of combat.
2) Design a monk concept who shines quite like the cleric at repelling the undead.
3) Design a thief concept who shines quite like a barbarian at attacking a group of trolls.

The appropriate and relevant challenge would be

1) Design a fighter concept who can get everyone out of combat (ie. by tanking to protect them as they leave)
2) Design a monk who can fight undead as well as the cleric (hint: the cleric actually fights undead too well, which causes many GMs to limit the number of undead being fought because it won't be much of a battle)
3) Design a thief concept who shines quite like a barbarian at attacking a group of trolls (hint: given 'Use Magic Device' and enhancing the thief's ability to make traps, this ought to be easy)


Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:

When other people complain about balance, they don't mean that they should be able to build a thief who can outcombat a fighter or a fighter who can outpray a cleric or a monk who can teleport everyone back to town like the wizard.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? trolling?

This is the second time you've taken a harsh tone in your response without being prompted. If I'm being obtuse, I assure you it's not deliberate and therefore your remarks are offensive. If I've misunderstood you, perhaps you could rephrase your complaint about what is broken in terms of balance that needs to be fixed.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I challenge you to quote where I said anything to the effect that a thief should be able to 'outcombat' a fighter (whatever that means) or a fighter 'outpray' a cleric (however that's measured) or a monk teleport everyone back to town like the wizard.

I never claimed you made those remarks directly. I'm understanding that you think a thief should be able to shine as well as a fighter in combat. If so, then my thinking is that he should be able to outfight a fighter with some regularity (one would think around 30 - 50% of the time, I would guess, to shine somewhat equivalently in combat) without the exception of critical hits and other such lucky occurrences. What makes the thief shine in combat if it's not his effectiveness at defeating his opponents?

I'm asking you to present to me a concept that allows the thief to shine equally against a group of trolls as well as a fighter.

It's a simple request, not meant to flame, troll, offend or any of the like. I'm simply trying to understand what you're saying, because what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me.


Dabbler wrote:
Er, hello? Have you seen how many threads there are about monks? How they always say that monks need some kind of fixing?

Wow, everyone's so snarky. I'm saying that his concept of balance that needs fixing is different than most people's conception of balance.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

As stated by ReconstructorFleet, the monk cannot do the role that it is stated to perform. Even if the monk could approach the fighter in damage output, they'd still be behind in hit points and AC, so toe-to-toeing with a foes is a stopgap measure for the monk. Defensively they are quite strong, except in AC and hit point terms, where they lag behind the other combat classes.

wraithstrike wrote:
I don't see balance as all classes being perfectly equal. Each class having the ability to perform its roll well, and having that role be meaningful is what balance is to me.

Likewise. Problem is, the monk cannot fulfil its role. It's got the movement (although that can be matched by any fighter with haste or winged boots) but not the offensive capacity.

I understand your stated complaints, and even though I don't know enough about the monk (as a whole class), from a combat point of view, I agree with your position.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:


If every class can be designed to have an equal chance to shine at all times, here's my challenge for you:

1) Design a fighter concept who shines quite like the wizard at moving everyone out of combat.
2) Design a monk concept who shines quite like the cleric at repelling the undead.
3) Design a thief concept who shines quite like a barbarian at attacking a group of trolls.

The appropriate and relevant challenge would be

1) Design a fighter concept who can get everyone out of combat (ie. by tanking to protect them as they leave)
2) Design a monk who can fight undead as well as the cleric (hint: the cleric actually fights undead too well, which causes many GMs to limit the number of undead being fought because it won't be much of a battle)
3) Design a thief concept who shines quite like a barbarian at attacking a group of trolls (hint: given 'Use Magic Device' and enhancing the thief's ability to make traps, this ought to be easy)

Thank you. This is my point. We don't see eye to eye on what "balance" is. It is not balancing, to me, to make an RPG where every character type has equivalency in every aspect of the game. To me that's for board games and video games.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Why?


jupistar wrote:


I never claimed you made those remarks directly.

So, you're pretending to have a discussion with me (and, by pretending, I mean that you are responding to points I never said as if I said them - ie. making straw men). You're right. That's not being obtuse. Its trolling.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why?

And, I'll add, what do you see the value of making certain players' characters be wall flowers for a night of game time on a regular basis?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:


I never claimed you made those remarks directly.
So, you're pretending to have a discussion with me (and, by pretending, I mean that you are responding to points I never said as if I said them - ie. making straw men). You're right. That's not being obtuse. Its trolling.

You are now implying that you never imply anything that others should infer. That's nonsensical. I've told you that I'm not trolling. Nor have I been rude. You have been rude to me three times and I believe, now, trolling, as well.

Since you seem to think of it of me, as well, I'll stop conversing with you.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why?

Because, as far as I'm concerned, D&D/Pathfinder are games about playing the roles of various characters as they might exist in a fantasy setting. Not every character is going to shine all the time. It sort of dovetails with my huge gripe about MMORPGs like WoW. If everyone's a hero, then no one is special - no one is really a hero. Likewise, if every character shines all the time, no one is special. Most people I've played with (and I realize this is anecdotal) seem to prefer to have the light shine on them when it's their turn to have that, so to speak. When they want balance is in terms of how frequent and how long that light shines on them.

I'm not saying that one or two characters shine all night long at a given gaming session, but rather that characters shine where they focus their attention at shining. When my Inquisitor player wants to interrogate the bad guy, I like that he has a better chance to do so. His class makes it more likely he'll be able to accomplish the goal of "getting information" better than a Lawful Good monk, for instance. It was the goal of the character when the player chose it. The player who chose the monk chose the monk for entirely different purposes and it wasn't to shine during prisoner interrogation scenes.

As others have said, balance is in giving the character the tools it needs to accomplish it's role in a group or the fantasy world. To me, overlap exists between all the classes. But when another class has the ability to eclipse where it overlaps (to do most of it and/or to do it better), then we lose the balance of the classes. It's not about making each of them shine equally at all times. I want polished silverware - each shines in the moment they're used for the purpose they're used for. But a spoon is not meant to be used to cut steak and a fork is not meant to eat soup. They have different functions and utilities and shine most when used for that purpose. That's the design goal of D&D and Pathfinder. That concept is not broken. What's broken is when the fork looks more like a spork and does the job of the spoon well enough that the spoon can't shine.


Pathfinder has plenty of non-hero characters. They're called 'NPCs'.

The point of the game is for a bunch of friends to get together and have fun. Being a wall flower isn't fun.


jupistar wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Er, hello? Have you seen how many threads there are about monks? How they always say that monks need some kind of fixing?
Wow, everyone's so snarky. I'm saying that his concept of balance that needs fixing is different than most people's conception of balance

And I am pointing out that where you have used the word 'most' you actually seem to mean a small minority. It's not snark, it's underlining that whatever you may think, the monk is considered very difficult if not impossible to make effective and functional in it's stated role. Clearly if there are that many threads, posts etc. out there, there is a serious problem.

ReconstructorFleet wrote:

Honestly, the offensive capacity problem is simple: The Monk could not be given higher accuracy or BAB, because they stuck to the decision to increase unarmed damage dice across 20 levels to a max of 2d10. Reduced BAB means that a monk can't use Greater vital Strike to run around skirmishing with 8d10 Whammies from anywhere within 90 feet. And Spring Attack was made so that Vital Strike wouldn't stack with it, mostly so that same monk couldn't run 45 feet forward, 8d10 someone, and then run 45 feet back.

Drop the 2d10 unarmed strike to 1d6 or 1d8, give Monk a static increasing bonus to attack and damage across 20 levels with unarmed strike or monk weapons, make the unarmed strike to act as a unique weapon of it's own in terms of Critical range or special abilities, make the BAB Full, and suddenly... suddenly Vital Strike and Spring Attack work how we first thought they did, with FAR fewer shenanigans (because 4d8 is a much less threatening number than 8d10), and Monk becomes entirely relevant within it's role again: Accurate enough to be a threat, and precisely as hard hitting as needed. Oh, and keep Flurry of Blows at the original RAW that we've all been up in arms about, albeit now you could remove the bit about the Monk's BAB changing when they were flurrying.

Hey, it's a dream, and the thread title WAS "what do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder". :D

I second this design philosophy. Unfortunately, I don't think the monk is going to get redesigned any time soon, so I am looking at more realistic and easily applied patches.

Liberty's Edge

*sneaks in*

Rewrite the rogue class so it isn't useless without resorting to ninjas.

*sneaks out*


Dabbler wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Er, hello? Have you seen how many threads there are about monks? How they always say that monks need some kind of fixing?
Wow, everyone's so snarky. I'm saying that his concept of balance that needs fixing is different than most people's conception of balance
And I am pointing out that where you have used the word 'most' you actually seem to mean a small minority. It's not snark, it's underlining that whatever you may think, the monk is considered very difficult if not impossible to make effective and functional in it's stated role. Clearly if there are that many threads, posts etc. out there, there is a serious problem.

You're pointing it out with "Er, hello?"?

You're missing something here, Dabbler. Your complaints about the Monk class center entirely on it's combat effectiveness, specifically at higher levels, and these complaints are in terms of how it competes with other martial classes at high levels. That was *not* the other guy's argument. His argument was that the Monk should also be equally successful as the charming rogue at diplomacy and the cleric at dealing with the undead and the ranger at tracking animals and so forth; that the classes should be functionally *equivalent* in *all areas* even if different by actual function.

See, you're asking for the Monk to be given proper consideration when standing next to the fighter and the ranger, which can be seen as reasonable considering that the monk is primarily a martial class, yet is dwarfed when placed next to other martial classes, in martial ability. But you're not asking for is the monk to be able to gain divine guidance or to shape stone or speak with animals or have a deep knowledge of the arcane... nor are you asking for the monk to have the functional equivalent of any of these things.

You just want the monk to be able to do perform it's role adequately - and it's role is primarily a combat one, though a good RPer can find great role-playing potential with it. Look, basically it comes down to, I don't think you and I disagree.


jupistar wrote:

You're missing something here, Dabbler. Your complaints about the Monk class center entirely on it's combat effectiveness, specifically at higher levels, and these complaints are in terms of how it competes with other martial classes at high levels. That was *not* the other guy's argument. His argument was that the Monk should also be equally successful as the charming rogue at diplomacy and the cleric at dealing with the undead and the ranger at tracking animals and so forth; that the classes should be functionally *equivalent* in *all areas* even if different by actual function.

See, you're asking for the Monk to be given proper consideration when standing next to the fighter and the ranger, which can be seen as reasonable considering that the monk is primarily a martial class, yet is dwarfed when placed next to other martial classes, in martial ability. But you're not asking for is the monk to be able to gain divine guidance or to shape stone or speak with animals or have a deep knowledge of the arcane... nor are you asking for the monk to have the functional equivalent of any of these things.

You just want the monk to be able to do perform it's role adequately - and it's role is primarily a combat one, though a good RPer can find great role-playing...

I see your point, I apologise unreservedly for taking your previous comment in a way you didn't intend and responding (I thought) in kind.

I agree, the monk is a martial class and has to measure up against other martial classes. That the monk has some abilities and attributes that other martial classes do not have is not unquestioned. That you can make an effective monk is not denied, but the way to make them effective is very difficult to do, and they still end in the quandary that there is nothing the monk can do in the fundamentals of combat that another class cannot do better.

If you look at the main combat classes, they all have some options that any idiot can follow to make them effective. If all else fails, they can dish out hurt to the enemy and take it back. The monk flounders at that; while it's not to bad at dishing hurt at low-level, as soon as magic weapons get on the scene, the monk is struggling.

Take fourth level: the monk is hitting for 1d8 per strike, which looks great on paper, but is it? at that level the TWF fighter can afford a pair of +1 short swords, and has Weapon Specialisation on top. The monk can afford an Amulet of Mighty Fists, but only barely and what else can he afford? Bracers of Armour +1, maybe, while the fighter can afford +1 armour.

So the fighter is hitting at +1 over the monk for full BAB, and 1d6+3 damage against the monk's 1d8+1, while having better AC and better hit points, and probably a better strength modifier on damage too. If the monk wants to shore up his hit points or chances to hit or AC with other items, he has to lose the AoMF. Whichever way you look at it, he's behind the curve, and it only gets worse as levels increase.

If you look at maneuvers, the fighter is better off, because he can use a magic weapon for said maneuvers, usually one with reach on top.

What does that leave the nonk with? A few abilities easily duplicated with magic items or the odd spell here and there. Even his speed is easily matched by haste or fly.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why?

I see what you did there. :)


Dabbler wrote:
What does that leave the monk with? A few abilities easily duplicated with magic items or the odd spell here and there. Even his speed is easily matched by haste or fly.

Ok, I'm with you guys on the Monk's overall uselessness, but this point bugs me. You can't just say easily matched by X with Y other classes features applied and play it off as equal. ANY class would do great if they had a Wizard on hand to toss 3rd level spells on them at will.

The combines abilities of 2 classes (Wizard casting Fly and/or Haste on a Fighter) will always outmatch a single class(Monk). If we're talking magic items, then the monk benefits from those same magic items just as much.

In order for a Fighter to "easily duplicate" a Monk's speed, he either needs several costly magic items(which the monk can also use), at least 5 levels of Wizard, or a pocket Wizard on hand that purposely caters it's spell list solely to making the Fighter run faster. A Monk has their enhanced speed all day long.

I'm not saying the Monk is fine. Faaaaaar from it. But since the class is already weak as a kitten compared to the other core ones, there's no need to stack the deck against it even more with comments like this.


Josh M. wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
What does that leave the monk with? A few abilities easily duplicated with magic items or the odd spell here and there. Even his speed is easily matched by haste or fly.
Ok, I'm with you guys on the Monk's overall uselessness, but this point bugs me. You can't just say easily matched by X with Y other classes features applied and play it off as equal. ANY class would do great if they had a Wizard on hand to toss 3rd level spells on them at will.

This is true - however, many parties use certain buffs almost as standard when in combat, and haste is one of the ones that gets tossed off almost as soon as a fight is joined. If you are not at the level where this is likely, boots of striding and springing are far from prohibitively expensive and the monk's faster movement is at that level not significantly sufficient for it to be a huge difference.

I guess what I am saying is, yes these are advantages, but they are not as large as they appear. In fact, you can say that about most of the monk's class features.


jupistar wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Er, hello? Have you seen how many threads there are about monks? How they always say that monks need some kind of fixing?
Wow, everyone's so snarky. I'm saying that his concept of balance that needs fixing is different than most people's conception of balance
And I am pointing out that where you have used the word 'most' you actually seem to mean a small minority. It's not snark, it's underlining that whatever you may think, the monk is considered very difficult if not impossible to make effective and functional in it's stated role. Clearly if there are that many threads, posts etc. out there, there is a serious problem.

You're pointing it out with "Er, hello?"?

You're missing something here, Dabbler. Your complaints about the Monk class center entirely on it's combat effectiveness, specifically at higher levels, and these complaints are in terms of how it competes with other martial classes at high levels. That was *not* the other guy's argument. His argument was that the Monk should also be equally successful as the charming rogue at diplomacy and the cleric at dealing with the undead and the ranger at tracking animals and so forth; that the classes should be functionally *equivalent* in *all areas* even if different by actual function.

See, you're asking for the Monk to be given proper consideration when standing next to the fighter and the ranger, which can be seen as reasonable considering that the monk is primarily a martial class, yet is dwarfed when placed next to other martial classes, in martial ability. But you're not asking for is the monk to be able to gain divine guidance or to shape stone or speak with animals or have a deep knowledge of the arcane... nor are you asking for the monk to have the functional equivalent of any of these things.

You just want the monk to be able to do perform it's role adequately - and it's role is primarily a combat one, though a good RPer can find great role-playing...

For, what is it, the 5th time?, what I said is that the monk should have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter (perhaps with Sense Motive) and against Undead (because thecleric is, frankly, too powerful infighting undead). What I did NOT sat (and what I pointed out -repeatedly- I DID NOT SAY) is that the monk should have all the charisma-based skills charming rogue should have.

The fact that you keep making these straw men after I repeatedly point out that they are wrong is evidence that you are trolling.


Dabbler wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
What does that leave the monk with? A few abilities easily duplicated with magic items or the odd spell here and there. Even his speed is easily matched by haste or fly.
Ok, I'm with you guys on the Monk's overall uselessness, but this point bugs me. You can't just say easily matched by X with Y other classes features applied and play it off as equal. ANY class would do great if they had a Wizard on hand to toss 3rd level spells on them at will.

This is true - however, many parties use certain buffs almost as standard when in combat, and haste is one of the ones that gets tossed off almost as soon as a fight is joined. If you are not at the level where this is likely, boots of striding and springing are far from prohibitively expensive and the monk's faster movement is at that level not significantly sufficient for it to be a huge difference.

I guess what I am saying is, yes these are advantages, but they are not as large as they appear. In fact, you can say that about most of the monk's class features.

When my groups have had monks, we found more use for their enhanced land speed outside of combat than during combat. If we needed someone to get back to town for supplies, get someone ressurected, cure a disease, or just needed a swiftfooted messenger, the monk was a great help, moving faster than a horse most of the time.

I'm well aware that these are incredibly specific circumstances, but so is having a wizard to cast Haste and Fly willy nilly. Most games I play in don't even have wizards.

Anecdotally, if I were a fighter, and depending on someone else to buff me out so I could match what another class does naturally, I'd be **** out of luck.


The wizard would be at a sane power level if SKR's ruling didn't allow him to have twice the amount of gear as anyone else. That's where the major abuse comes in. As for the monk, as a mid-level BAB class, it should be compared to the cleric and ninja. It does poorly in such a comparison.


I'll like to see the monk fixed.

I'll like to see Stealth fixed too.


Fighters. They dominate Wizards and other caster classes.


And monks! I'm sooooooo broken!


Dabbler wrote:

Unarmed strike is more than one weapon, therefore you need at least three or four greater magic fang spells, followed by permanency spells, and after that they can still be dispelled. One greater magic fang spell will only get you +1 on any unarmed strike.

I agree, it's another way of nerfing the monk, but that is the (current) official interpretation.

Actually, no, technically. The part of the text that allows spell effects to affect a monk's unarmed strike is singular as is the subsection title itself.

Quote:
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.

Also, magic fang, greater is +1 per 4 levels. At level 20, it grants a +5 enhancement.

Quote:

Magic Fang, Greater

School transmutation; Level druid 3, ranger 3
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature
Duration 1 hour/level
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature's natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus (regardless of your caster level).

Greater magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Magic Fang
School transmutation; Level druid 1, ranger 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.

Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Concerning dispells, even artifacts are subject to things like mage's disjunction. Also, even enhanced weapons can be suppressed with dispell so going the permanency route doesn't really put you at more risk than any other means to boost your attack and damage output via magic.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Buri wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Unarmed strike is more than one weapon, therefore you need at least three or four greater magic fang spells, followed by permanency spells, and after that they can still be dispelled. One greater magic fang spell will only get you +1 on any unarmed strike.

I agree, it's another way of nerfing the monk, but that is the (current) official interpretation.

Actually, no, technically. The part of the text that allows spell effects to affect a monk's unarmed strike is singular as is the subsection title itself.

Quote:
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.
Also, magic fang, greater is +1 per 4 levels. At level 20, it grants a +5 enhancement.

... to one natural weapon. According to SKR and the 'FoB=TWF' ruling, if you cast magic fang on an unarmed strike, you have to specify which bit of you has the enhancement, and only half your attacks can be made with that bit of you.

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely with you on how it should be, that unarmed strike is one weapon, but the devs do not (currently) agree. There's a big ongoing debate about it, and the Paizo team are reviewing it, but that's the state of affairs right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:

For, what is it, the 5th time?, what I said is that the monk should have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter (perhaps with Sense Motive) and against Undead (because thecleric is, frankly, too powerful infighting undead). What I did NOT sat (and what I pointed out -repeatedly- I DID NOT SAY) is that the monk should have all the charisma-based skills charming rogue should have.

The fact that you keep making these straw men after I repeatedly point out that they are wrong is evidence that you are trolling.

They're not trolling. Let me point out the precise issue of disagreement:

Darkwing Duck wrote:
what I said is that the monk should have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter (perhaps with Sense Motive) and against Undead (because thecleric is, frankly, too powerful infighting undead).

People are saying (and I agree with them) they do not want the monk to have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter or against undead. That doesn't mean we want the monk to have no chance, just that for any given encounter with undead it's likely that the cleric is going to be the hero more often than the monk, and that's the way most people prefer it.


Xexyz wrote:
People are saying (and I agree with them) they do not want the monk to have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter or against undead. That doesn't mean we want the monk to have no chance, just that for any given encounter with undead it's likely that the cleric is going to be the hero more often than the monk, and that's the way most people prefer it.

Absolutely in agreement. I don't want the monk to necessarily match the fighter for DPR, but I do want him in the same playing field. Right now, at high level he's nowhere even close.


Dabbler wrote:

... to one natural weapon. According to SKR and the 'FoB=TWF' ruling, if you cast magic fang on an unarmed strike, you have to specify which bit of you has the enhancement, and only half your attacks can be made with that bit of you.

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely with you on how it should be, that unarmed strike is one weapon, but the devs do not (currently) agree. There's a big ongoing debate about it, and the Paizo team are reviewing it, but that's the state of affairs right now.

I see them as two separate issues. The FoB discussion is one and unarmed strike is another. My logic path is as follows:

  • Flurry of Blows is a specific class feature of the Monk as is Unarmed Strike. They are not directly tied to each other nor do they depend on each other so they can be modified individually.
  • The text of magic fang, greater states "Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike" which I read as "[one natural weapon] or [unarmed strike]." You can't simply put an arbitrary number of words before or after an or or an and to denote the topics at hand. I read such statements as "[action/subject] [choice 1] or [choice 2]." If they meant to say "one unarmed strike" the English language is more than capable of putting an additional word into the text as I just demonstrated. I've actually used this argument in legal proceedings and have won so it does carry merit.
  • Finally, given they are two separate abilities and magic fang specifically states it applies to one then it fully applies to that ability irrespective of rules surrounding the other ability and it only requires a single casting of the greater variant to apply to "all" unarmed strikes as they are only described in a singular fashion. The "may" clause of the Unarmed Strike entry denotes choices and, again, because FoB is a unique ability apart from Unarmed Strike, what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.


Buri wrote:

I see them as two separate issues. The FoB discussion is one and unarmed strike is another. My logic path is as follows:

  • Flurry of Blows is a specific class feature of the Monk as is Unarmed Strike. They are not directly tied to each other nor do they depend on each other so they can be modified individually.
  • The text of magic fang, greater states "Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike" which I read as "[one natural weapon] or [unarmed strike]." You can't simply put an arbitrary number of words before or after an or or an and to denote the topics at hand. I read such statements as "[action/subject] [choice 1] or [choice 2]." If they meant to say "one unarmed strike" the English language is more than capable of putting an additional word into the text as I just demonstrated. I've actually used this argument in legal proceedings and have won so it does carry merit.
  • Finally, given they are two separate abilities and magic fang specifically states it applies to one then it fully applies to that ability irrespective of rules surrounding the other ability and it only requires a single casting of the greater variant to apply to "all" unarmed strikes as they are only described in a singular fashion. The "may" clause of the Unarmed Strike entry denotes choices and, again, because FoB is a unique ability apart from Unarmed Strike, what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Oh I am with you on this one, no doubts. I want to see a cheaper option than the AoMF for enhancing unarmed strikes, and I want FoB to be it's own thing, not a poor-man's TWF. It's the Developeers we need to convince.

Sovereign Court

Dabbler wrote:
Buri wrote:

I see them as two separate issues. The FoB discussion is one and unarmed strike is another. My logic path is as follows:

  • Flurry of Blows is a specific class feature of the Monk as is Unarmed Strike. They are not directly tied to each other nor do they depend on each other so they can be modified individually.
  • The text of magic fang, greater states "Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike" which I read as "[one natural weapon] or [unarmed strike]." You can't simply put an arbitrary number of words before or after an or or an and to denote the topics at hand. I read such statements as "[action/subject] [choice 1] or [choice 2]." If they meant to say "one unarmed strike" the English language is more than capable of putting an additional word into the text as I just demonstrated. I've actually used this argument in legal proceedings and have won so it does carry merit.
  • Finally, given they are two separate abilities and magic fang specifically states it applies to one then it fully applies to that ability irrespective of rules surrounding the other ability and it only requires a single casting of the greater variant to apply to "all" unarmed strikes as they are only described in a singular fashion. The "may" clause of the Unarmed Strike entry denotes choices and, again, because FoB is a unique ability apart from Unarmed Strike, what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.
Oh I am with you on this one, no doubts. I want to see a cheaper option than the AoMF for enhancing unarmed strikes, and I want FoB to be it's own thing, not a poor-man's TWF. It's the Developeers we need to convince.

+1. I don't know what the devs schedule is like, but I think its been about a month since the flurry = TWF and UAS as a single weapon bombs exploded on the forums. I would really like to hear something soon.


Xexyz wrote:


People are saying (and I agree with them) they do not want the monk to have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter or against undead. That doesn't mean we want the monk to have no chance, just that for any given encounter with undead it's likely that the cleric is going to be the hero more often than the monk, and that's the way most people prefer it.

Let's take the social encounter as an example. What exactly do you mean by saying that the monk (or a fighter would be another good example here) should have some chance, just not an equal chance?

Where do you think the point is between having an equal chance and falling into the habit of debating making a Taco Bell run because your character isn't critical to the encounter?

Because, if characters don't feel critical to an encounter, then the players are going to change the context of the encounter. That means that when the face man wants to talk to the critters, the Barbarian/Fighter/whatever Player is going to get bored, have his character draw his sword, and start cleaving.

It makes putting points in social stuff pointless unless the GM uses a Deus ex Machina of some sort.

A similar problem happens with Stealth. You create a character who trumps all others in stealth. So, the other characters who have little chance to go stealthy, don't want to sneak into the lair. They'd rather storm the front gates. It makes putting points into stealth pointless.


A slightly different problem happens with Clerics and turning undead.

Let's say you've created a Cleric with the Sun domain (iirc that's the one that makes mincemeat out of undead). So, the GM wants to have an undead encounter. Since he knows that you'll be brutal against them, he makes the encounter tough. Only, you have some unlucky dice and go unconscious or dead in the first couple of rounds. Now, the rest of the party who can't match you in a big battle of undead have to fight this big nasty encounter without you. A tpk is the result.


See I think a lot of DMs forget how encounters are supposed to work, If you want a player to stress about a fight, you throw smaller stuff out there and keep hammering on them until they have used about half of their power, now is when it gets tricky you gotta keep them on the move. Once you can swing that they start stressing a little, no time to rest anything could jump out, now you have established the scene next YOU STRIKE!

Now you havent had to change stats for that one person because he has to be more reserved and if he isnt well he goes down, but if he does you havent altered the monsters or NPCs to the point of being invincible and now the rest of the group may be able to pull off a victory.

I was in a game recently where the GM focused SO much on fighters ability to crush things that he just made ACs so high that the rest of the group couldnt do much, now this didnt affect spells mind you but, in my opinion if you are going to GM you need to realize everything you have at your disposal.

As for everything and the real focus of this thread... I dont think much needs to be changed but 2 things make this game impossible sometimes.

Here is the mindset every play needs to have:

1. These are not in stone rules they are guidelines, there are things that can alter them undermine them, and ignore them.
2. GM is the final say if he wants something a certain way then it will be that way.
3. The last thing is Stop being Muinchkins, Comboing things is nice but you are doing it exploit the mechanics... This game is built on and based on Story Roleplaying and using your imagination. Relax Buidl your character to fit your story and let the game make you Epic.

Backstorys are nice but if you already did everything to be awesome why would you not retire?

This is just my opinion and I think it is a great game when you play it as designed.


Reecy wrote:
See I think a lot of DMs forget how encounters are supposed to work, If you want a player to stress about a fight, you throw smaller stuff out there and keep hammering on them until they have used about half of their power, now is when it gets tricky you gotta keep them on the move. Once you can swing that they start stressing a little, no time to rest anything could jump out, now you have established the scene next YOU STRIKE!

So, your party is raiding an undead lair. They go three fights into it and the cleric is down.

They try to rest. But, more undead come on them (they are, after all, in an undead lair). The undead overwhelm them, because the GM designed the lair assuming there'd be a cleric.

Same problem.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
For, what is it, the 5th time?, what I said is that the monk should have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter (perhaps with Sense Motive) and against Undead (because thecleric is, frankly, too powerful infighting undead).

I read it the same way. Give a specific game example of what "equal chance" means.


wraithstrike wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
For, what is it, the 5th time?, what I said is that the monk should have an equal chance to be the hero in a social encounter (perhaps with Sense Motive) and against Undead (because thecleric is, frankly, too powerful infighting undead).
I read it the same way. Give a specific game example of what "equal chance" means.

Using what I wrote earlier, if you've got a party of 5 characters who are going to have a social encounter, their odds are the same if any one of them can't make it. The specific strategy they use to win that social encounter may change, but the chance of its outcome being in their favor is the same.

So, without the Diplomacy heavy character, they may resort to blackmail or sense motive or something else.


I'd just like to see magic prestige classes not have the 'Wizard don't get spells when levelling in them' rule. It seems wrong that Sorcerers (spontaneous in general) will get spells known but Wizard (or Witch etc) have to go out and buy the spells.

It also adds to how much prestige classes just aren't as good as plain Wizard


Mighty Squash wrote:

I'd just like to see magic prestige classes not have the 'Wizard don't get spells when levelling in them' rule. It seems wrong that Sorcerers (spontaneous in general) will get spells known but Wizard (or Witch etc) have to go out and buy the spells.

It also adds to how much prestige classes just aren't as good as plain Wizard

It seems wrong to me that the Enchanter gets bonuses to Charisma based skills. Regardless of the kind of magic he practices, an Enchanter is still a book worm, not a social guy. When it comes to anything related to Charisma, the Sorcerer should absolutely dominate over the Wizard. Likewise, the Sage bloodline is just stupid for the same reason.


So you are saying the encounter should allow for diplomacy, intimidation, or bluffing to get by? <----Just examples

I want to clarify that much before we go any further, to be sure we are on the same page.


wraithstrike wrote:

So you are saying the encounter should allow for diplomacy, intimidation, or bluffing to get by? <----Just examples

I want to clarify that much before we go any further, to be sure we are on the same page.

Yes, if we keep in mind that those are just examples.


So to take it farther you are saying that all challenges(combat or social) should have a way to be defeated by every class, or are you saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter(challenge).

There is a difference between building weaknesses into a counter and building a strength into a class.

Going back to my first paragraph which one of those are you supporting or is it both, or neither?


wraithstrike wrote:

So to take it farther you are saying that all challenges(combat or social) should have a way to be defeated by every class, or are you saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter(challenge).

There is a difference between building weaknesses into a counter and building a strength into a class.

Going back to my first paragraph which one of those are you supporting or is it both, or neither?

I'm saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter (challenge).


Darkwing Duck wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

So to take it farther you are saying that all challenges(combat or social) should have a way to be defeated by every class, or are you saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter(challenge).

There is a difference between building weaknesses into a counter and building a strength into a class.

Going back to my first paragraph which one of those are you supporting or is it both, or neither?

I'm saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter (challenge).

That makes the classes too similar to me, or either the encounters are too wide open aka too easy to bypass.

I am sure you won't see it that way, but the guy at the gate might not be open to intimidation or diplomacy due to his loyalty to and/or his fear of his boss might be greater than anything you can say to him.

You might be able to bluff him or try to sneak by, but I don't think it is a failing of the system if class X can not bluff or sneak well. It just means you have to depend on your buddies to get you by him.


wraithstrike wrote:


I'm saying that every class should have a way to deal with any encounter (challenge).

That makes the classes too similar to me, or either the encounters are too wide open aka too easy to bypass.

I am sure you won't see it that way, but the guy at the gate might not be open to intimidation or diplomacy due to his loyalty to and/or his fear of his boss might be greater than anything you can say to him.

You might be able to bluff him or try to sneak by, but I don't think it is a failing of the system if class X can not bluff or sneak well. It just means you have to depend on your buddies to get you by him.

Not subject to intimidation or diplomacy?

So, we're not talking about an actual cognitive person here?

Besides sneaking and bluffing (how to bluff if the target isn't cognitive?), there's also assassination or using a knowledge skill to find an alternative route.

351 to 400 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.