|
What's so OP about it, exactly?
You're spending a Feat to get to the exact same baseline a Str based character is at from level 1 with no investment.
Offensively yes. But you're forgetting about the half dozen secondary benefits of a high dex, especially for a monk. (AC/reflex/initiative/skills etc)
|
Offensively yes. But you're forgetting about the half dozen secondary benefits of a high dex, especially for a monk. (AC/reflex/initiative/skills etc)What's so OP about it, exactly?
You're spending a Feat to get to the exact same baseline a Str based character is at from level 1 with no investment.
In the long-run, you'd be netting a +2 to a +6 better than a Str based opponent, assuming one focused on Str and the other on Dex. It makes a difference, but the trade-off on damage is quite fair. In the lower levels Dex to Attack/Damage is good competition, but after level 5-7 Str takes the lead pretty hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the feats from Legendary Games 'Way of Ki'. Technically it takes more than one feat but it lets you perform a 'kiai' shout to boost attack, damage, CMD, CMB or a strength check by the number of ki feats you have (including extra ki) by spending ki. you can do this for a single check or by spending more ki you can make it go for a whole round. Having it and four other ki feats and you got your choice of improving accuracy or damage for a round, and the ki feats can get sick. Even if you stay in the Kiai feat tree you can stun, stagger, deafen and deal sonic damage of up to three times your wisdom modifier to everything around you when you activate it and potentially shunt creatures away from you possibly knocking them prone. This is all potentially an immediate action. (think Dragonball Z power ups)
I recomend the product. Hadokens go on the table as well.
|
|
In the long-run, you'd be netting a +2 to a +6 better than a Str based opponent, assuming one focused on Str and the other on Dex. It makes a difference, but the trade-off on damage is quite fair. In the lower levels Dex to Attack/Damage is good competition, but after level 5-7 Str takes the lead pretty hard.Offensively yes. But you're forgetting about the half dozen secondary benefits of a high dex, especially for a monk. (AC/reflex/initiative/skills etc)What's so OP about it, exactly?
You're spending a Feat to get to the exact same baseline a Str based character is at from level 1 with no investment.
Except that with such a feat, the dex build can just dump strength, (especially a monk who has no encumbrance issues) while the strength build would still need a decent dex.
And for unarmed - I don't see any advantage to a strength build once such a feat exists except for being otherwise one feat ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only real difference a Dex to damage feat does is increase the amount of stat points you have to work with. It's certainly good, but DEFINITELY far from broken. Needing a feat like this to make up for a serious MAD issue is not good design, and it just adds to the list of feat tax "things you need to be an okay monk." It being a three feat chain just adds to the problem.
For comparison:
Your AC will be about the same as another martial, albeit a better touch and worse flat-footed.
Good initiative. This is the best boon of being a dex based damage dealer. But you could also take improved initiative and get more mileage here anyway for the cost of one feat.
Reflex save. Whatever, reflex saves are by a mile the least dangerous.
Monks are still one of the worst classes, all things being equal. Sure, you can make a halfway decent unarmed monk but all that system mastery and optimization is doing is overcoming the monks huge shortcomings. I don't think you should have to optimize and research the crap out of a character for it to be an okay option. ALL classes should be effective "out of the box," and we should disregard good optimization when discussing a classes overall efficacy. A player should be able to pick up a class and have it do what they expect. And the Monk fails at that.
If it were me? I'd retool the entire class and try to come up with mechanics from the top-down that reinforce the "fast and mobile harrier" type character that monks should be. Flurry is a bad mechanic for reinforcing this. And c'mon, give them full BAB and d10 HD. Why is a kung fu master worse at hitting his opponents than the big dumb fighter? Why is he less tough?
To top it all off Monks are starting to have the same problem Rogues have: other classes fill their archetype/trope/theme while both filling the role more effectively and generally being stronger mechanically.
In the long-run, you'd be netting a +2 to a +6 better than a Str based opponent, assuming one focused on Str and the other on Dex. It makes a difference, but the trade-off on damage is quite fair. In the lower levels Dex to Attack/Damage is good competition, but after level 5-7 Str takes the lead pretty hard.Offensively yes. But you're forgetting about the half dozen secondary benefits of a high dex, especially for a monk. (AC/reflex/initiative/skills etc)What's so OP about it, exactly?
You're spending a Feat to get to the exact same baseline a Str based character is at from level 1 with no investment.
Except that with such a feat, the dex build can just dump strength, (especially a monk who has no encumbrance issues) while the strength build would still need a decent dex.
And for unarmed - I don't see any advantage to a strength build once such a feat exists except for being otherwise one feat ahead.
There's not a whole lot, but really all it does is take you down to needing 2 stats instead of 3 (besides Con).
You also lose out on a hell of a lot of damage per hit from Dragon Style/Ferocity and the boosted Power Attack damage from said Feats.
And it puts you precariously close to hitting a Medium load at any given time and losing all your class features.
And makes you suck at Climb and Swim.
With either one-weapon flurry or Dragon Style available, Monks were already a lot better than most people gave them credit for. Somewhat lower accuracy and damage is balanced against a pile of extra attacks.
Pummeling Style just adds a shiny new option that allows a pounce and makes the dreadful crappyness of unarmed criticals into something decent. It's nice to see shiny new options, but it's kind of annoying when they come out with an option that just automatically becomes the option. Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?
With either one-weapon flurry or Dragon Style available, Monks were already a lot better than most people gave them credit for. Somewhat lower accuracy and damage is balanced against a pile of extra attacks.
Pummeling Style just adds a shiny new option that allows a pounce and makes the dreadful crappyness of unarmed criticals into something decent. It's nice to see shiny new options, but it's kind of annoying when they come out with an option that just automatically becomes the option. Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?
All the time actually. I'm not sure how the game goes outside the forums but at my table we like to actually use options.
Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?All the time actually. I'm not sure how the game goes outside the forums but at my table we like to actually use options.
I'm overstating it, but it's a pretty damn strong pull. Frankly I prefer the flavor and feel of weapon-using Monks; I don't know where the idea of unarmed as the 'real' Monk comes from. As far as my concept of a Monk goes, it's a case of "yeah, they're deadly without weapons. Like anyone else, they're deadlier with them. Why else would they even have them?" Still, I could easily see ending up with Pummeling Charge on a higher level weapon-Monk anyhow. If pounce is absurdly good on a Barbarian, flurry-pounce on a Monk is...
Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?
Dragon totem is also a valid choice.
Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?Dragon totem is also a valid choice.
Though much of it's viability rests on an interpretation of Dragon Totem's damage reduction that falls under "Expect Table Variation."
Actually, Furious Finish Stunning Blow Vital Strike + a Hurtful attack could be a good alternative to pouncing.
Actually, Furious Finish Stunning Blow Vital Strike + a Hurtful attack could be a good alternative to pouncing.
Only if you're a 12th level Monk of the Four Winds.
Though much of it's viability rests on an interpretation of Dragon Totem's damage reduction that falls under "Expect Table Variation."Non-Beast-Totem Barbarian anyone? No? Nobody?Dragon totem is also a valid choice.
lol what?
That's the most straightforward thing ever. You get another 6 DR/- will all three rage powers. With an archetype and 3 more rage powers that gets up to 18 DR/-. Which is great for a come and get me barbarian.
It's not straightforward at all. The interpretation that grants you a f$&$ton of extra DR requires you to completely ignore the actual context of the Feat chain and Paizo's penchant for confusing typos.
It's not straightforward at all. The interpretation that grants you a f%!#ton of extra DR requires you to completely ignore the actual context of the Feat chain and Paizo's penchant for confusing typos.
I'm sorry I didn't delve into the platonic form of Paizo Feat to gauge the subtext and universal principalities associated with the linguistic regression of the words function in a realm of pure reason.
I just read that the rage power increases your DR. It's really obviously written. If Paizo didn't want it read that way then they shouldn't have written it that way. You might as well argue that power attack isn't actually meant to increase your damage.
*Is there some crazy interpretation that I am unaware of that grants Obscene amounts of DR?
Actually, Furious Finish Stunning Blow Vital Strike + a Hurtful attack could be a good alternative to pouncing.
Oops, I meant Staggering Blow, the new Vital Strike thing that causes stagger.
Actually, Furious Finish Stunning Blow Vital Strike + a Hurtful attack could be a good alternative to pouncing.Oops, I meant Staggering Blow, the new Vital Strike thing that causes stagger.
Ooh, that's actually really cool and usef-
"Monster Codex"
WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME PAIZO. WHY MUST ALL OF THE GOOD MARTIAL FEATS BE WRITTEN IN BOOKS THAT WILL NEVER BE LEGAL FOR SOCIETY PLAY.
I just read that the rage power increases your DR. It's really obviously written.
More to the point, it says "this DR", when the Rage Power grants Energy resistance, and not DR.
Hence why I said it's much less obvious when you read it in context.
As written, the RAW can be interpreted one of two ways: It increases your DR by 2, OR it increases your DR for the purposes of determining the energy resistance by 2.
IIRC the RAI (as per the writer's clarification on the boards) is the latter. He got confused about what Damage Reduction meant.
If Paizo didn't want it read that way then they shouldn't have written it that way.
100% agreed. Unfortunately, surprisingly often it doesn't turn out that way.
Actually, Furious Finish Stunning Blow Vital Strike + a Hurtful attack could be a good alternative to pouncing.Oops, I meant Staggering Blow, the new Vital Strike thing that causes stagger.Ooh, that's actually really cool and usef-
"Monster Codex"
WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME PAIZO. WHY MUST ALL OF THE GOOD MARTIAL FEATS BE WRITTEN IN BOOKS THAT WILL NEVER BE LEGAL FOR SOCIETY PLAY.
Stop playing PFS?
WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME PAIZO. WHY MUST ALL OF THE GOOD MARTIAL FEATS BE WRITTEN IN BOOKS THAT WILL NEVER BE LEGAL FOR SOCIETY PLAY.
Actually, check out the additional resources page... I'm not 100% sure about Hurtful and Staggering Blow but it's likely.
I just read that the rage power increases your DR. It's really obviously written.
More to the point, it says "this DR", when the Rage Power grants Energy resistance, and not DR.
Hence why I said it's much less obvious when you read it in context.
As written, the RAW can be interpreted one of two ways: It increases your DR by 2, OR it increases your DR for the purposes of determining the energy resistance by 2.
IIRC the RAI (as per the writer's clarification on the boards) is the latter. He got confused about what Damage Reduction meant.
If Paizo didn't want it read that way then they shouldn't have written it that way.100% agreed. Unfortunately, surprisingly often it doesn't turn out that way.
Yeah no. They reference your class DR and then refer to this DR. You don't get to imply a metaphysical feat DR without clarification in English grammar.
The writer of Power Attack could come out and say he or she got confused and actually meant for it to decrease damage. That doesn't change how the feat is written or how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah no. They reference your class DR and then refer to this DR. You don't get to imply a metaphysical feat DR without clarification in English grammar.
Even without the clarification, this is the text:
"While raging, the barbarian gains resistance to the energy type that is associated with her dragon totem—acid (black, copper, green), cold (silver, white), electricity (blue, bronze), or fire (brass, gold, red). This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one. "
This DR = The DR for the purpose of increasing your Energy Resistance.
This has been gone over time and time and time AND TIME AND TIME AND TIME again. Please stop acting like it's so 100% clear cut you could not possibly be misinterpreting it. There are two equally valid interpretations here. Hence the "expect table variance" declaration.
I've slowly learned that the rules forum's ambiguous and 99.9999% of GM's ambiguous can be vastly different things.
Quoting the rage power doesn't make the meaning any less obvious. At no point is special "DR for the purpose of this feat" mentioned. Just class DR and then this DR.
Look, again, it's been run around in circles to death 100 f!+&ing times. I really don't feel like going through it yet again in an entirely unrelated thread. Take it to one of the billion extant ones.
|
I've slowly learned that the rules forum's ambiguous and 99.9999% of GM's ambiguous can be vastly different things.
Quoting the rage power doesn't make the meaning any less obvious. At no point is special "DR for the purpose of this feat" mentioned. Just class DR and then this DR.
The entire feat is talking about reducing damage taken from a specific form of energy. If you read the entire feat and take everything in context, Rynjin is correct.
I am with Rynjin on this one. The text could let the 2 options, but one (2 DR per Rage power) is clearly overpowered. I can't see any reason for that to be ''the good option'', and since the text is ambiguous I will go with the other.
I am with Rynjin on this one. The text could let the 2 options, but one (2 DR per Rage power) is clearly overpowered. I can't see any reason for that to be ''the good option'', and since the text is ambiguous I will go with the other.
It is a 5 rage power investment i dont know if it is clearly overpowered and i dont know if i would take it over pounce. But i know it is not a contender if one read the rules like i do and it is only energy resistance you get.(thet is why we decided to go with the other reading in my group)
I am with Rynjin on this one. The text could let the 2 options, but one (2 DR per Rage power) is clearly overpowered. I can't see any reason for that to be ''the good option'', and since the text is ambiguous I will go with the other.It is a 5 rage power investment i dont know if it is clearly overpowered and i dont know if i would take it over pounce. But i know it is not a contender if one read the rules like i do and it is only energy resistance you get.(thet is why we decided to go with the other reading in my group)
well, if you read it that way, you get +6 DR (no other class abilites goes near that) and 12 resist to one element. The bonus just don't seems to fit in Pathfinder ''mathematics'' IMO.
Stop playing PFS?
PFS is my best local option. I play (and GM) plenty of games online with friends where options are free like the birds and the homebrew rule changes make for a dramatically different game, I assure you.
well, if you read it that way, you get +6 DR (no other class abilites goes near that) and 12 resist to one element. The bonus just don't seems to fit in Pathfinder ''mathematics'' IMO.I am with Rynjin on this one. The text could let the 2 options, but one (2 DR per Rage power) is clearly overpowered. I can't see any reason for that to be ''the good option'', and since the text is ambiguous I will go with the other.It is a 5 rage power investment i dont know if it is clearly overpowered and i dont know if i would take it over pounce. But i know it is not a contender if one read the rules like i do and it is only energy resistance you get.(thet is why we decided to go with the other reading in my group)to be fair:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/improved-stalwartis almost double the dr from this feature, and it s a 4feat chain to get.
also stacks with DR from features, while dragon resilience only stacks with DR from the barbarian class feature
It's quite worst than Dragon Style: it only work on fighting defensively/ total defense, you exchange your AC bonus for that and it don't give you elemental resistance.
The entire feat is talking about reducing damage taken from a specific form of energy. If you read the entire feat and take everything in context, Rynjin is correct.I've slowly learned that the rules forum's ambiguous and 99.9999% of GM's ambiguous can be vastly different things.
Quoting the rage power doesn't make the meaning any less obvious. At no point is special "DR for the purpose of this feat" mentioned. Just class DR and then this DR.
I actually thought he was going to go at it from that angle. He argued that the DR for determining energy resistance just for the purposes of the feat increases by two.
I could more accept the idea that someone wrote DR meaning energy resistance. But that is an inexcusable typo considering how that distinction is one of the more basic ones you have to teach people new to the game.
The rage power itself is obviously written. You guys can throw up your philosophical arguments or even quotes from the author himself, but that does not change the clear language of the rage power.
I am with Rynjin on this one. The text could let the 2 options, but one (2 DR per Rage power) is clearly overpowered. I can't see any reason for that to be ''the good option'', and since the text is ambiguous I will go with the other.
What is crazy here is I actually think just 6 DR and the other 4 rage powers have collectively weaker effects than the best totem line.
It's just a good option, because in-class flight and some decent DR is comparable to higher AC and pounce.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My last "monk" was an armor-wearing sword-wielding mounted warrior who used a small but helpful selection of spell-like abilities to supplement his marital prowess.
This is quite possibly the best typo ever.
If your first attack roll hits and crit confirms you can stop rolling. The entire attack is a crit. Says so right here.
Saying that you can go and count all the odd little 'this isn't actually an attack itself' rolls automatic successes because the overall "meta-attack" is a confirmed critical looks like overreaching pretty hard to me. You're rolling to confirm whether or not the whole meta-attack is a critical hit, not whether every single roll you made within the meta-attack gets to be one.
It's a terribly worded entry that has all sorts of problems, but approaching it as:
1) make rolls and add up the damage of your meta-attack, 2) roll if necessary to confirm a critical hit, and double the meta-attack's damage if you succeed.
seems like the most straightforward process to me, though I'm sure there's plenty of argument out there for sweetening the fist-lottery jackpot further.
If your first attack roll hits and crit confirms you can stop rolling. The entire attack is a crit. Says so right here.
This is wrong. Yes the entire attack will receive a crit damage. But a crit doesn't guarantee a hit. If I threaten on a 15-20, and roll a 15, but that's not high enough to beat their AC it's still a miss. Even if I auto confirm every critical threat. So all the hits you make of that pummel are crit hits if you confirm, but you still have to see if those punches even hit the guy.
Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat.
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.
These rules say that a hit being a confirmed crit still needs to hit in order to hit.
I actually thought he was going to go at it from that angle. He argued that the DR for determining energy resistance just for the purposes of the feat increases by two.
I could more accept the idea that someone wrote DR meaning energy resistance. But that is an inexcusable typo considering how that distinction is one of the more basic ones you have to teach people new to the game.
The rage power itself is obviously written. You guys can throw up your philosophical arguments or even quotes from the author himself, but that does not change the clear language of the rage power.
I didn't go at it from that angle because you are correct it can't be read that way RAW (though that is exactly what the dev response said. He is not a full-time Paizo employee as I recall) because of the frustrating typo, but the increased DR thing is written there.
How do you crit with an attack that didn't hit?
That's essentially what you're talking about doing here.
And you have the gall to accuse other peple of being absurd? Please.