|
For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain Magical Knack has been banned since the introduction of traits to PFS play (I believe at the commencement of Season 1).
Yup, it has been Banned since Day 1 of the start of the use of the Pathfinder rules over the 3.5 rules, which was when they started using traits...
|
Hmmm...
So the new PFS paradigm is to liberally apply the banhammer to things that are deemed powerful? Not sure I approve of that.
Yes the Bracers of Falcon's Aim and Snowball spell are slightly more powerful than equivalents but honestly were they unbalancing the game? I think not.
I approve of banning options on thematic grounds, I approve of banning options to make gameplay easier. However neither of these two banned options unbalance the campaign or make things more complicated. So why ban them? Surely the benefits of these choices don't spoil the enjoyment of others at the table?
We are undergoing an era in PFS that is upping the difficulty of scenarios and the response is to ban more powerful options? That seems counter intuitive. Worse it gives out mixed messages, on one hand you are saying optimise your characters because the gloves are off and on the other you are saying that powerful options should be banned to avoid powergaming. You can't have it both ways.
Worse than ths is the delay in the application of the banhammer. Outright banning options that have been available for months is really annoying, especially when you build a character around that option. I lost my Vivisectionist Alchemist a few months back and now I can't play that character because he had to be an Alchemist who didn't throw bombs. I didn't care that the character was powerful but rather that the rules of that specific archetype allowed me to explore a concept which I now can no longer persue. Archetype bans have also affected friends of mine who have been forced to significantly alter established character concepts because of it.
In short I don't see how arbitrary bans help the campaign, they confuse the player base and just serve to discourage people from utilising non core content. After all, why bother taking a new character archetype/item/feat if PFS are just going to ban it in 3 months time?
|
I actually think the solution to what FallofCamelot is talking about is to more liberally allow retrains where the character is affected.
I know it's easy to reflexively think no to retraining, but if it's going to help not leave a bad taste in player's mouths where getting accustomed to rules changes/clarifications that happen fairly frequently, it seems like a positive thing.
I mean how bad is it to do limited retraining, really?
|
|
Hmmm...
So the new PFS paradigm is to liberally apply the banhammer to things that are deemed powerful? Not sure I approve of that.
Yes the Bracers of Falcon's Aim and Snowball spell are slightly more powerful than equivalents but honestly were they unbalancing the game? I think not.
I approve of banning options on thematic grounds, I approve of banning options to make gameplay easier. However neither of these two banned options unbalance the campaign or make things more complicated. So why ban them? Surely the benefits of these choices don't spoil the enjoyment of others at the table?
...
I find myself agreeing more and more with this viewpoint. Although I ascribe it more to a pathological aversion to anything that one perceives as "power creep" than any actual concern about balance.
Let's not make this piling on of "overpowered" things to suggest to Mike to be banned retroactively a precedent. I do appreciate the chance to be part of the actual discussion about Additional Resources though and being able to see some of what usually happens behind closed doors with the VO's
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worse than ths is the delay in the application of the banhammer. Outright banning options that have been available for months is really annoying, especially when you build a character around that option. I lost my Vivisectionist Alchemist a few months back and now I can't play that character because he had to be an Alchemist who didn't throw bombs. I didn't care that the character was powerful but rather that the rules of that specific archetype allowed me to explore a concept which I now can no longer persue. Archetype bans have also affected friends of mine who have been forced to significantly alter established character concepts because of it.
I missed two items out of 10,000 items in the Ultimate Equipment that should have been banned from the beginning. I spoke to the design team that agreed the bracers should be around 12,000 GP instead of 4,000 GP. An 8,000 GP difference is broken and is something that needed addressing. So, I've removed them until they can be fixed because they are vastly underpriced. There have been very, very few times i have removed something that was already legal in the 18 months I've been on the job. I bet you can count them on one hand. If that is what is called "liberally applying the ban hammer", then so be it. The archetypes that were removed were 7 months ago and were a rebalancing of things that should never have been allowed in PFS to begin with.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the solution to what FallofCamelot is talking about is to more liberally allow retrains where the character is affected.
I know it's easy to reflexively think no to retraining, but if it's going to help not leave a bad taste in player's mouths where getting accustomed to rules changes/clarifications that happen fairly frequently, it seems like a positive thing.
I mean how bad is it to do limited retraining, really?
How much more liberal can i make retraining? Here is a LINK. were directions given last August:
With that said, I understand the time investment and care put into a character’s background and the planning that goes along with making sure the character fits exactly how you envision him. If you have a character affected by the changes above, I am offering a rebuild along the following guidelines:
You may rebuild any class levels affected, to levels of other classes as necessary. (For example, if you have a 10th-level character with one level of rogue and nine levels of the synthesist summoner archetype, you may rebuild the nine summoner levels into any other class or another summoner archetype).
You may retrain any feats that directly apply to the changes above as necessary.
You may sell affected equipment for the full price paid when you purchased them (as listed on past Chronicle sheets).
|
|
In short I don't see how arbitrary bans help the campaign, they confuse the player base and just serve to discourage people from utilising non core content. After all, why bother taking a new character archetype/item/feat if PFS are just going to ban it in 3 months time?
1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
2. (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
Which use of the word are you intending here?
|
|
We are undergoing an era in PFS that is upping the difficulty of scenarios and the response is to ban more powerful options? That seems counter intuitive. Worse it gives out mixed messages, on one hand you are saying optimise your characters because the gloves are off and on the other you are saying that powerful options should be banned to avoid powergaming. You can't have it both ways.
This is actually an interesting point. But by the same token we don't want to start an arms race--the scenarios get more powerful, so we need more powerful options, so the scenarios get more powerful to stay challenging, so we need more powerful blah blah blah. It doesn't play out well.
|
I would like to ask for the reasoning on "Familiar Spell" being excluded from Animal archive, what was the reasoning behind giving it the axe?Used right, its functionally quicken spell with +3 levels instead of +4
with the added requirement of a familiar with speech, and the ability to manipulate spell components. so (Improved familiar).
Also the familiar can't use a wand that round (which it would be able to because you already need a familiar that can use them).
I think the additional restrictions warrant reduction of one metamagic level.
|
|
There is aspect I really dislike about snowball.
None of my local players owns the book. But as the most powerful 1st level spell around I know they want to use it once they see it at the table.
I don't want to ban it via the back door - aka - you can't use it as you don't have the book.
But not banning it for my local players sets a bad precedent.
I thought I add this here. Someone mentioned an arms-race. The problem of this is - there are players out there only having a CRB. RAW they are left on the sideline when the arms race happens.
|
Back in Season 0 there was a lot of talk about how easy the scenarios were. In Season 1 this same accusation applied. It took a long while until the scenarios proved to be challenging.
I admit I feel the Season 4 scenarios guide the players to build stronger characters, sometimes sacrificing flavor to do so. While I personally like the challenge, I tend to fall back to the leisure of running/playing season 1 scenarios.
Also I'm happy to see Bracers of Falcon's Aim see the banhammer, and Magical Knack *finally* set free from it's wrongful prison. All those arcane tricksters will sing songs of jubilation!
|
|
with the added requirement of a familiar with speech, and the ability to manipulate spell components. so (Improved familiar).I would like to ask for the reasoning on "Familiar Spell" being excluded from Animal archive, what was the reasoning behind giving it the axe?Used right, its functionally quicken spell with +3 levels instead of +4
They just need to carry it, not manipulate it, so parrots, thrushes, and ravens (who can speak) work as well.
|
|
with the added requirement of a familiar with speech, and the ability to manipulate spell components. so (Improved familiar).I would like to ask for the reasoning on "Familiar Spell" being excluded from Animal archive, what was the reasoning behind giving it the axe?Used right, its functionally quicken spell with +3 levels instead of +4They just need to carry it, not manipulate it, so parrots, thrushes, and ravens (who can speak) work as well.
Fair enough. I still don't think it's unreasonable for the feat, however the Rod is a little too strong and should be banned.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Snowball sadly still doesn't work for Oracles of Winter. Which is the only character of mine who would have taken it, as my only real caster.
Yay on magical knack! Said oracle of winter can take her one level dip into sorcerer without penalty, and turn all her energy spells to cold.
My gunslingers never thought of the Bracers of Falcon's aim as unbalanced. When you drop the crit range adjustment, it sounded right. Next time you make a buff for ranged characters, should make sure it buffs them all equally.
|
|
How much more liberal can i make retraining? Here is a LINK. were directions given last August:
This is along the lines that I'm thinking:
...
You may rebuild any class levels affected, to levels of other classes as necessary. (For example, if you have a 10th-level character with one level of rogue and nine levels of the synthesist summoner archetype, you may rebuild the nine summoner levels into any other class or another summoner archetype).
It's an example specific to the banning of those classes, but this is pretty solid, I don't think you could have gone further with this. Classes are a pretty huge deal.
You may retrain any feats that directly apply to the changes above as necessary.
Allow retraining of feats that directly or indirectly apply. If the character is changing their entire class, even non-synthesist feats will sting the build of the new character at least a little, and people will be asking the question of "does this directly apply?" - hopefully thinking that you'd be fine with any reasonable change, but knowing they might be wrong, or not wanting to risk being wrong.
If a feat combination is in debate early on in that character's career and becomes clarified later, allow rebuilding of those feats when it's clarified.
You may sell affected equipment for the full price paid when you purchased them (as listed on past Chronicle sheets).[/i]
What is defined as "affected equipment"? The same thing applies; people will have different answers to this when left to their own devices. You can be forever answering questions about what that might be, or you can trust people to make reasonable choices, even if many of those choices end up not being that reasonable due to that honour system - which already happens across Pathfinder Society anyway.
Just trying to suggest a better way to handle things; I hope I don't sound like I think the current system is hopeless now - just thinking of what could make the game more attractive for everybody involved. I'm not good with optimising builds; I know there must be a lot of players out there who can't keep up and potentially quit when they can't match up. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere, but I still think more leeway would go a long way.
|
|
Hmm. Query: Does Magical Knack affect Witch Hex DC? I ask because it just doesn't seem that powerful, but everyone seems to adore it.
No, it doesn't. Caster level has no effect on that.
|
|
My gunslingers never thought of the Bracers of Falcon's aim as unbalanced. When you drop the crit range adjustment, it sounded right. Next time you make a buff for ranged characters, should make sure it buffs them all equally.
Gunslingers couldn't have benefitted from Bracers of Falcon's Aim's critical adjustment anyway, as the Aspect of the Falcon spell doesn't include firearms into the description.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There is aspect I really dislike about snowball.
None of my local players owns the book. But as the most powerful 1st level spell around I know they want to use it once they see it at the table.
I don't want to ban it via the back door - aka - you can't use it as you don't have the book.
But not banning it for my local players sets a bad precedent.
I thought I add this here. Someone mentioned an arms-race. The problem of this is - there are players out there only having a CRB. RAW they are left on the sideline when the arms race happens.
Amusingly, for me, this is the exact opposite of my opinion. The same argument could be made for any of the books. More variety means more power after all. Someone with the ARG can bounce their favoured class bonus around more, tweak their race a bit more, play ATT (Aasimar, Tiefling, Tengu) etc. The game is perfectly playable* with just the CRB.
The 'arms race' concerns me too.
*
|
|
Matthew
You mention Game Mastery - and I agree. This is an important aspect.
The issue I have is - the person with game mastery is more likely to have access to snowball as the person who isn't much interested in game mastery. Or at least - as another poster put it - ask the person to buy the book.
I don't mind asking an optimiser and power gamer to buy a book to use a more powerful spell. I feel very uncomfortable to do the same to a casual player.
So this leads me into a dilemma - do I let casual players use the spell without asking they own the source. Well - I pretty much know they don't.
Or do I follow the PFS rules - and the gap between the good and the casual players just opened up that little bit more. And it becomes even more difficult to challenge the player with resources and game mastery while giving weaker players a chance to finish a scenario successfully and without frustration.
I'm not saying it is the snowball as such that suddenly causes it. But it is another small step into the same direction.
Personally I have played other games at the elite level. I'm a subscriber to most stuff and I'm able to ratchet up my play / my characters.
The irony is - snowball is so simple it would most benefit the poor player - as he doesn't has to worry about AoO, SR and deals decent damage. But these are not the players who (legally) will end up using the spell.
|
I don't intend to nit-pick the post, but, there was something that stuck a dissonant chord with me here ...
... I don't mind asking an optimiser and power gamer to buy a book to use a more powerful spell. I feel very uncomfortable to do the same to a casual player.
... and the gap between the good and the casual players just opened up that little bit more.
Shall I presume you didn't intend to imply that optimizers and power gamers are "good" players and that casual players are not?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm...
So the new PFS paradigm is to liberally apply the banhammer to things that are deemed powerful? Not sure I approve of that.
Yes the Bracers of Falcon's Aim and Snowball spell are slightly more powerful than equivalents but honestly were they unbalancing the game? I think not.
Snowball is not banned. I assume you'll thank and praise Mike for its legality with the same vigor, passion, and wordcount with which you erroneously criticized him for its banning. I look forward to reading that post.
|
|
This thread has got me thinking: wouldn't a cert allowing use of a banned archetype or item make a great convention certificate? Or maybe put a banned item on the equipment available for purchase for a particularly difficult high level scenerio?
Just a thought...
There is already at least one cursed item and at least one intelligent item available on chronicle sheets.
|
|
personally, i believe that scenario writers know when they are building an encounter to cater to newbies or building an encounter to cater to optimizers. they should just make it apparent in the scenario which is which.
or imo would be better is to make a different version of each fight for each, even though it means making twice as many combat encounters in scenarios. it would solve a lot of issues people are having though.
just my 2 cents.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
personally, i believe that scenario writers know when they are building an encounter to cater to newbies or building an encounter to cater to optimizers. they should just make it apparent in the scenario which is which.
or imo would be better is to make a different version of each fight for each, even though it means making twice as many combat encounters in scenarios. it would solve a lot of issues people are having though.
just my 2 cents.
You run into problems, then, with definitions of optimizers and newbies, and with what to do with mixed parties. Perhaps each scenario could have a challenge rating?
|
|
Shall I presume you didn't intend to imply that optimizers and power gamers are "good" players and that casual players are not?
They are 'good' players in regard to overcoming a challenge including a monster that has DR/Hardness/SR or other aspects that hamper a pregen Valeros to just hack& slash it. That is the only good I tried to imply.
There are many other apects of 'good' for someone sitting next to me at the table.
I know - you have to be very careful here what you write.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or do I follow the PFS rules - and the gap between the good and the casual players just opened up that little bit more. And it becomes even more difficult to challenge the player with resources and game mastery while giving weaker players a chance to finish a scenario successfully and without frustration.
Follow the rules please. If someone wants to use an option, they need to have the book.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You run into problems, then, with definitions of optimizers and newbies, and with what to do with mixed parties. Perhaps each scenario could have a challenge rating?personally, i believe that scenario writers know when they are building an encounter to cater to newbies or building an encounter to cater to optimizers. they should just make it apparent in the scenario which is which.
or imo would be better is to make a different version of each fight for each, even though it means making twice as many combat encounters in scenarios. it would solve a lot of issues people are having though.
just my 2 cents.
IMHO, the hard part about 'writing seperately for both' is what's to keep the optimized characters from playing the lower difficulty, besides player honesty.
Let me give two examples, both from personal play.
In a season 4 scenario, the party was at the higher tier. The scenario had multiple encounters, but the arrival of the elemental almost pulped an Ezren in one round. The monk (who I call 'Bad touch monk,' or 'Jerry Sandusky') goes and solos the elemental by himself in 5 rounds. I need like a 19 or 20 to break away from him and even then, him reestablishing a grapple is like an auto-pin. This was annoying since there was nothing that could be done. Fortunately it allowed the rest of the party to actually have a combat at that time. Later the final encounter became trivial because of there only being one target.
In another season 4 scenario, I was a player in a party with the same character. We played down, but I took a whopping 9 points of damage before the same character came in and would shut down the BBEG. When a 7th level inquisitor is reduced the entire scenario to casting two spells and hitting once, well it impeeds my fun. And I think the GM was angry too that nothing was a challenge. While the player of Jerry Sandusky is a nice guy, I'm loath to play at the table because it's not fun for me to be playing that guy on the bridge playing Galaga while the Avengers are dealing with Loki.
How do you write for such desparate power levels?
|
|
Hmmm...
So the new PFS paradigm is to liberally apply the banhammer to things that are deemed powerful? Not sure I approve of that.
We are undergoing an era in PFS that is upping the difficulty of scenarios and the response is to ban more powerful options? That seems counter intuitive. Worse it gives out mixed messages, on one hand you are saying optimize your characters because the gloves are off and on the other you are saying that powerful options should be banned to avoid power gaming. You can't have it both ways.
Worse than ths is the delay in the application of the banhammer. Outright banning options that have been available for months is really annoying, especially when you build a character around that option. I lost my Vivisectionist Alchemist a few months back and now I can't play that character because he had to be an Alchemist who didn't throw bombs. I didn't care that the character was powerful but rather that the rules of that specific archetype allowed me to explore a concept which I now can no longer persue. Archetype bans have also affected friends of mine who have been forced to significantly alter established character concepts because of it.
In short I don't see how arbitrary bans help the campaign, they confuse the player base and just serve to discourage people from utilising non core content. After all, why bother taking a new character archetype/item/feat if PFS are just going to ban it in 3 months time?
As a couple others have said, Mike does not arbitrarily ban things. There is always a great deal of thought that goes in to this stuff both from him and other VO's. We are a very spirited bunch that cares deeply about this game and even we have disagreements with each other about how things are handled.
To be honest I get tired of people complaining the Vivisectionist being banned. The class is evil, plain and simple. I also get tired of people saying you have to power game to have an optimized character and leave out rp elements. I have several "RP" characters that are efficient at what they do.
I have several new players in my region that have no problems with the season 4 scenarios. In fact most of my players can't wait for the new ones to come out so they can play them.
This thread has got me thinking: wouldn't a cert allowing use of a banned archetype or item make a great convention certificate? Or maybe put a banned item on the equipment available for purchase for a particularly difficult high level scenerio?
Just a thought...
There was a point where this was going to happen. It was proposed with 2 class archtypes that they would be on chronicle sheets as rewards. People complained to the point on why they were banned that Mike posted he had wanted to do them as rewards and a surprise and reversed that decision. As others have said, there are unique items/boons in season 4 and they have been great.
|
|
Let me give two examples, both from personal play.
** spoiler omitted **...
Those are great examples.
And just because I'm too curious for my own good as to how the monk managed this--what sort of elemental are we talking about here? If he's a level 9 monk and the group is playing up, I'm guessing it was 5-9. If the elemental was a CR 9 or above Fire, Earth, Water, or Air Elemental, I'm not sure how the monk was able to grapple it so convincingly (heck, if it was air or water it could have assumed an ungrapplable form, so I'll assume fire or earth). If the elemental wasn't even a CR 9 Greater Elemental in an 8-9, then it was at best a CR 7 opponent and shouldn't have been more than a small piece of the encounter. If it was a CR 9 earth, we're talking a CMD of 45 on that monk to force a roll of 19 to break out. Fires have more trouble breaking out, but they are much harder to grapple in the first place (the monk needs to be in the 30s of CMB for a better than half chance of succeeding), and the monk would be taking ongoing damage for the grapple. Any idea what the monk's CMB and CMD are and how he pulled this off? As someone who enjoys looking at different builds, having in the 30s for CMB to grapple at level 9 (or CMD 45) seems unbelievable to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge.Entagled only halves your move speed, but I think the monster can still 5 foot step unless his base movement is 5 foot or lower.ButYou can't take a 5-foot step if your movement is hamperedSeems pretty hampered to me when you're entangled, right?
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.
You missed the bolded part! Rime creates neither difficult terrain nor darkness, so it doesn't apply.
Also if a creature doesn't take cold damage either by cold resistance or cold immunity it also isn't affected by a rimed spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Speculating on monk CMB at 9th level:
.
.
.
.
+9 BAB (if he has the ability to emulate full-BAB for maneuvers)
+6 for 22 STR (18+2lvl+2belt) or 22 DEX if he has Agile Maneuvers
+2 Improved Grapple
+2 Greater Grapple
+1 Weapon Focus (grapple)
+1 from that cracked ioun stone that gives a competence bonus to attacks
---------------------
+21 at 9th level. There might be some obscure item in UE that gives a bonus to grapples, but I'm not sure.
Possible errors if his sheet lists a higher CMB:
• Some people think they can take Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to double-dip DEX to CMB.
• Some people think an amulet of mighty fists improves your grapples.
• Some people think that any bonus to your CMD (such as the Dodge feat or the deflection bonus from a ring of protection) somehow also applies to CMB.
|
|
Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge.Entagled only halves your move speed, but I think the monster can still 5 foot step unless his base movement is 5 foot or lower.ButYou can't take a 5-foot step if your movement is hamperedSeems pretty hampered to me when you're entangled, right?You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.You missed the bolded part! Rime creates neither difficult terrain nor darkness, so it doesn't apply.
Also if a creature doesn't take cold damage either by cold resistance or cold immunity it also isn't affected by a rimed spell.
OK, I'm calling gremlins on this one. When I searched 5-foot step yesterday, it definitely did not say that (it had a "such as" before the bolded part and included other things like blindness on the list). But now I'm finding the same thing as you did, so I don't know what to say other than that it's pretty funny. Certainly the case on resistances and immunities. Anyway, rime is icing on the cake for this spell. I'm looking at blaster builds right now and there hardly seems enough feat space to get rime anyway at least until level 7 or 9 if you want to do crazy damage consistently from levels 1-10.
I'll bow out on the snowball issue at least for now (if I can stomach it, I might create a playtest build and come back later with data)--just wanted to post to let you know that I wasn't trying to obfuscate there; unless I'm going crazy, it literally said something different yesterday (and that'll teach me for using d20pfsrd, as prd and my core rulebook had it right all along).
|
|
Speculating on monk CMB at 9th level:
.
.
.
.+9 BAB (if he has the ability to emulate full-BAB for maneuvers)
+6 for 22 STR (18+2lvl+2belt) or 22 DEX if he has Agile Maneuvers
+2 Improved Grapple
+2 Greater Grapple
+1 Weapon Focus (grapple)
+1 from that cracked ioun stone that gives a competence bonus to attacks
---------------------
+21 at 9th level. There might be some obscure item in UE that gives a bonus to grapples, but I'm not sure.Possible errors if his sheet lists a higher CMB:
• Some people think they can take Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to double-dip DEX to CMB.
• Some people think an amulet of mighty fists improves your grapples.
• Some people think that any bonus to your CMD (such as the Dodge feat or the deflection bonus from a ring of protection) somehow also applies to CMB.
I don't think you can Weapon Focus(grapple), but he could have bought a 20 to start and a +4 belt, so I'm seeing 1 higher from that, and then +2 from the resonance power of the dusty rose prism ioun stone. So 24 is the max I can come up with. If the bard Matthew mentions was doing good hope and inspire, that'd be +29 (though then the bard deserves a lot of credit, as the monk would have probably failed a grapple and dropped the elemental without that boost, so it wasn't a solo effort). I'm sure they could find something else to get +31, but that's still only 50/50 vs a fire.
|
As someone who enjoys looking at different builds, having in the 30s for CMB to grapple at level 9 (or CMD 45) seems unbelievable to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Granted my monk (and only character for now) is a complete GM-credit baby, but at level 9 he would have been rocking around that mark of 45 CMD. It's not too hard for a defensively built monk (which he is).
10 base
6 base attack bonus
7 dex (16 base, +2 plumekith aasimar, +2 level raise, +4 belt)
5 wis (14 base, +2 plumekith aasimar, +4 headband)
3 monk levels (with monk's robe)
3 deflection (ring of protection +3)
7 dodge (1 feat, 4 fighting defensive with crane nonsense, 2 combat expertise)
1 luck (jingasa of the fortunate soldier)
3 insight (+1 directly to AC from dusty rose ioun stone; +2 directly to CMD from slotted in wayfinder)
So exactly 45 CMD then. If you were really hard pressed, you could also ki dodge for a few rounds to boost it up to 49.
His CMB would have been nowhere near 30, however. Probably about half of that with monk level + dex from agile maneuvers.
You can find his stat page under my characters if you are interested in seeing him at 15. Easy sustainable AC of 55, pushes to 63 if desperate enough to use shield wand charges and ki dodge.
|
|
(heck, if it was air or water it could have assumed an ungrapplable form, so I'll assume fire or earth)
Just a note: I played at Jason Buhlman's table where a monk grappled an air elemental, and it was allowed. Further, there is nothing RAW that says it couldn't be done. I was surprised when it was allowed, and had the same assumption you did.
EDIT: It was described as being a tornado/dust devil.
|
|
Speculating on monk CMB at 9th level:
.
.
.
.+9 BAB (if he has the ability to emulate full-BAB for maneuvers)
+6 for 22 STR (18+2lvl+2belt) or 22 DEX if he has Agile Maneuvers
+2 Improved Grapple
+2 Greater Grapple
+1 Weapon Focus (grapple)
+1 from that cracked ioun stone that gives a competence bonus to attacks
---------------------
+21 at 9th level. There might be some obscure item in UE that gives a bonus to grapples, but I'm not sure.Possible errors if his sheet lists a higher CMB:
• Some people think they can take Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to double-dip DEX to CMB.
• Some people think an amulet of mighty fists improves your grapples.
• Some people think that any bonus to your CMD (such as the Dodge feat or the deflection bonus from a ring of protection) somehow also applies to CMB.
Gauntlets of the skilled maneuver from UE are very affordable and add the all powerful unnamed +2 bonus.
|
|
Ugh...
Pro tip folks, never post at 4.30 in the morning whilst suffering from insomnia.
My post up there was out of line. Sorry to Mike for the unnecessary hostility, it was uncalled for.
To clarify my position I don't think either of these options breaks the game so I don't think they should be banned.
I'll bow out now
|
|
So exactly 45 CMD then. If you were really hard pressed, you could also ki dodge for a few rounds to boost it up to 49.
His CMB would have been nowhere near 30, however. Probably about half of that with monk level + dex from agile maneuvers.
Yeah--he still couldn't have initiated the grapple in the first place, most likely (elementals have around 40 CMD). I can certainly believe that AC for a defensive-focused character, just not one that can also make the grapple.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
OK, I'm calling gremlins on this one. When I searched 5-foot step yesterday, it definitely did not say that (it had a "such as" before the bolded part and included other things like blindness on the list). But now I'm finding the same thing as you did, so I don't know what to say other than that it's pretty funny.
I think we all had the 'yesterday it said something different!' experience! :-)
When Ultimate Magic was released and I read the feat description of Rime Spell it seemed very powerful, but after looking up the actual effect I thought it wasn't worth a feat and the increase in spell level.
Ultimate Equipment introduced the Rime Metamagic Rod (lesser). And 3k absolutely is worth it! :-)
|
|
(heck, if it was air or water it could have assumed an ungrapplable form, so I'll assume fire or earth)Just a note: I played at Jason Buhlman's table where a monk grappled an air elemental, and it was allowed. Further, there is nothing RAW that says it couldn't be done. I was surprised when it was allowed, and had the same assumption you did.
EDIT: It was described as being a tornado/dust devil.
Was it using the whirlwind universal monster power? It seems to me to read that merely touching a whirlwinding elemental causes you to need to roll a Reflex save to avoid being slammed and then picked up, which would entail jumping away from it, not grabbing on. And creatures inside the whirlwind are not considered in a grapple with the elemental. But JB knows best, so looks like I still have a ways to go! (either that or he was describing the base form as a dust devil without using the whirlwind power, which is possible--did it make any slams or pick anybody up do you remember?)
@Rogue Eidolon:
Weapon Focus wrote:
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Yup. Still have a ways to go! I wonder why you can take Weapon Focus (grapple) and not Overrun or Reposition or the like.