Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Wild armor or not an unchained monk can't wear armor and flurry.
Point. I removed all the other "shut down monk abilities with armor" and forgot flurry. This isn't a character I play. Regardless, it's still 44 minimum damage and 128 maximum on two attacks compared to 54 maximum of the Dex damage build raven on 3 attacks.
I have played the Large PC in wild shape before, with Dragon Style it never is an issue.
Im not sure magic item costs are a great way to tell how, or even if, an item is over powered. Pricing has always been pretty nonsensical and if you split certain spells up to try and price each advantage separately you end up with million gold items that no one in the history of ever would purchase because some bonuses are exponentially more expensive than others.
I guess it makes people feel better when magic items are very weak and don't affect versatility in any way.
If a druid can do this with little effort and no items in the early levels, then surely it should cost a million gold for a fighter do the same. I mean, it's not as though you can't get fighter BAB with one spell or anything. Oh wait.
|
|
It's enough of an issue that it has been brought to light. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to others who have experienced it.
I don't think we have a very good track record with bans in PFS so I am not going to give the benefit of the doubt to any random claims though I understand my point of view and others are radically different.
Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.
For those reasons we should be very critical of any claims for banning of options which have been legal for some time.
Has there been any precedence for a legal option being banned and then being allowed again with no mechanical changes to the ability or surrounding options which used the ability? Threads like these are like a death knell for game options.
|
Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.
This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If not, show me where the deviation in the argument is.
The argument is 'I have not seen it be a problem, but others have. My lack of experience does not equate to a lack of a problem'.
His conclusion was that he would prefer to not experience the problem. If banning the option provides that, he would support it.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
It wasn't a PFS-only erratum. The feat was reprinted, and PFS clarified that the reprinted feat was the one that we use in this campaign.
|
the 1 story about this thing that I remember well was at an online con
in GM Chat a message comes across that a GM had TPK'd the entire group Save 1 in Bonekeep 2
the 1 happened to be a songbird of Doom
the player made the choice that they were going to try to finish the scenario Solo
got to the final room and had to run away because he got mind fogged
the point is he made it over 1/2 the remaining way in that monstrosity Solo
now yes they nerfed Mouser .. but the ring was a large part of it
|
|
It wasn't a PFS-only erratum. The feat was reprinted, and PFS clarified that the reprinted feat was the one that we use in this campaign.Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
I'm sorry..did they reprint my player companion when I wasn't looking? Did they errata it?
|
|
the 1 story about this thing that I remember well was at an online con
in GM Chat a message comes across that a GM had TPK'd the entire group Save 1 in Bonekeep 2
the 1 happened to be a songbird of Doom
the player made the choice that they were going to try to finish the scenario Solo
got to the final room and had to run away because he got mind fogged
the point is he made it over 1/2 the remaining way in that monstrosity Solo
now yes they nerfed Mouser .. but the ring was a large part of it
To be fair going in solo can be a significant advantage especially in that scenario. Turns out in "The Maze of the Mind Slave" your allies can be some of your biggest weaknesses on strong characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
Really? One feat changing "rocked" your faith in Paizo? So, I guess you're saying you didn't have much faith to begin with? Because people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errata, and if they errata/change/ban the ring I'm sure people are going to blow that way out of proportion as well. Can we try to cut back on the pointless rhetoric everyone? This is just plain silly.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
he made it over 1/2 the remaining way in that monstrosity Solo
I played BK 2 with a table full of pre-gens and finished every room with 2 minutes to spare.
I played Pathfinder Beta with a 14th level Cleric where the entire party got killed by the end of the first round and my Cleric soloed the boss fight with henchmen.
I played "You have what you hold" and the first big combat everyone in the party (including me) were knocked out and bleeding out except for the pregen fighter. That player (a new pathfinder player at her first ever pathfinder game) took 3 and a half hours to solo the fight and used potions to recover the stabilized PC's.
So based on this we should:
- Ban pregens for Bonekeep
- Ban Cleric Channel if done as a swift or free action
- Ban new players
|
people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errataEspecially considering there was no question it would be errata, only the question of when it would be. Apparently soon.
Some of us find it rather hard to predict what Paizo will do. In fact, some of us have found some of Paizo's decisions to be nigh incomprehensible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only response is I'm sorry I've got a different perspective and opinion than you doReally? One feat changing "rocked" your faith in Paizo? So, I guess you're saying you didn't have much faith to begin with? Because people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errata, and if they errata/change/ban the ring I'm sure people are going to blow that way out of proportion as well. Can we try to cut back on the pointless rhetoric everyone? This is just plain silly.Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
As with all reprinted material, PFS requires you to use the updated version of the rule, even if it is now in a different book.
I can think of at least a trait and an item that disagree with statement. (And possibly a spell but I'd have to go back and check that one)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A) "my fly speed is 120" or anything else over 40.
B) "I turn back into human" without being able to speak and not waiting 10 minutes
C) "Being tiny gives me +8 Dex, +3 NA" instead of the +4 dex and +1 NA that Beast Shape II provides.
D) "my AC is over 34 before combat expertise or fighting defensively" which is a simple 5th level fighter build with 17,000 gp will have.
E) "I full attack and deal 45 damage" or more damage in a turn.
F) None of the Above
A,B,C,D,E
While A,B, and C are incorrect rulings (and I caught B and C, I missed referring to the Polymorph rules to find A until it was pointed out to me) I've seen all 3. D) 34 on an Unchained Monk with the ring is completely manageable, without combat expertise or fighting defensive for a 17k investment. E) Not sure why the line is there but ok, yep seen it.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? One feat changing "rocked" your faith in Paizo? So, I guess you're saying you didn't have much faith to begin with? Because people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errata, and if they errata/change/ban the ring I'm sure people are going to blow that way out of proportion as well. Can we try to cut back on the pointless rhetoric everyone? This is just plain silly.Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.
I started making a rather long list of changes that have destroyed or significantly altered my characters then realized it would just be giving fuel for people to feel validated about their banning.
It is very easy for people to slip into the 'Ha it got banned/errata! I knew it was broken all along! All those other guys were wrong!' even if the change didn't make logical sense or the arguments used flawed understandings of the feature.
Don't be so harsh on someone for saying they were shaken by a change. It isn't fair to belittle their play experience or their feedback to the campaign and the game as a whole. To me these changes do matter and keep happening in significant enough fashions that I feel my game experience suffered and I know many other people feel the same way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be so harsh on someone for saying they were shaken by a change. It isn't fair to belittle their play experience or their feedback to the campaign and the game as a whole. To me these changes do matter and keep happening in significant enough fashions that I feel my game experience suffered and I know many other people feel the same way.
...and many of us feel that various changes were reasonable, obvious, and/or not terribly significant. We thus find the incessant caterwauling over seeming minutiae in and of itself detracting from the game experience for no good purpose.
Everyone has their own perspective.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be so harsh on someone for saying they were shaken by a change. It isn't fair to belittle their play experience or their feedback to the campaign and the game as a whole. To me these changes do matter and keep happening in significant enough fashions that I feel my game experience suffered and I know many other people feel the same way....and many of us feel that various changes were reasonable, obvious, and/or not terribly significant. We thus find the incessant caterwauling over seeming minutiae in and of itself detracting from the game experience for no good purpose.
Everyone has their own perspective.
I don't think it is asking too much to state your own opinion on topic without personal attacks at the other commentators.
As with all reprinted material, PFS requires you to use the updated version of the rule, even if it is now in a different book.
That hasn't been actually stated anywhere, unless I missed something in the last few months.
It's just the de facto case most of the time, because when a new version is published the old version is generally removed from the Additional Resources list.
There have been cases in the past where two versions of the same thing were allowed, by dint of them both being listed in Additional Resources.
-j
|
|
Really? One feat changing "rocked" your faith in Paizo? So, I guess you're saying you didn't have much faith to begin with? Because people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errata, and if they errata/change/ban the ring I'm sure people are going to blow that way out of proportion as well. Can we try to cut back on the pointless rhetoric everyone? This is just plain silly.Paizo has reasons to keep it in play especially if it hasn't actually done anything abusive. It creates faith in the consistency of your product, keeps people who have purchased it happy, and expands options in a game system where that is its key product differentiation strategy.This is one of the reasons I'm so shocked by the Fencing Grace PFS-only errata. It really rocked my faith in Paizo/PFS.I started making a rather long list of changes that have destroyed or significantly altered my characters then realized it would just be giving fuel for people to feel validated about their banning.
It is very easy for people to slip into the 'Ha it got banned/errata! I knew it was broken all along! All those other guys were wrong!' even if the change didn't make logical sense or the arguments used flawed understandings of the feature.
Don't be so harsh on someone for saying they were shaken by a change. It isn't fair to belittle their play experience or their feedback to the campaign and the game as a whole. To me these changes do matter and keep happening in significant enough fashions that I feel my game experience suffered and I know many other people feel the same way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you guys or saying you did anything wrong. I've been blindsided by errata before, it sucks. But there is a pretty big difference between "welp, that sucks, time to change my character" and "Paizo hates us, Martials can't have nice things!!!1!!11!" like I have seen people do. It's never fun when errata happens, but it isn't the end of the world. But hey, you know who likes errata even less than the players affected? Developers. How fun is it knowing that something should be fixed, but when you do you'll be raked over the coals for it?
|
|
That hasn't been actually stated anywhere, unless I missed something in the last few months.
If a feat or trait changes or is removed from the Additional Resources list: You have two options. First, you may either switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any prerequisites of the new feat you do not meet. Alternatively, you may replace the feat (and any of the old feat’s prerequisite feats) entirely with another feat for which you meet all the prerequisites
I misremembered the exact wording, but close enough.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
D) 34 on an Unchained Monk with the ring is completely manageable, without combat expertise or fighting defensive for a 17k investment.
E) Not sure why the line is there but ok, yep seen it.
How about this, enlighten me. Because I don't know how to do those two. Help me understand. Both D and E should be unbuffed.
|
|
10
+4 mage armor (750)
+5 wisdom (4k)
+5 unmodded dex (4k)
+2 extra dex from bird
+2 size
+1 Jingasa (5k)
+1 from the ring
+2 monks ac
+1 natural bird
+1 Dodge feat
With the possibility of another
+1 from Fate's favored to go with the Jingasaand +2 from Barkskin (ki power) longer duration than bird shape.
Get's you to 37.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
10
+4 mage armor (750)
+5 wisdom (4k)
+5 unmodded dex (4k)
+2 extra dex from bird
+2 size
+1 Jingasa (5k)
+1 from the ring
+2 monks ac
+1 natural bird
+1 Dodge feat
Remove the Mage Armor it's a buff and the fighter doesn't need to buff.
Add +1 to Jingasa from the trait.How you getting 18 in Dex, Wis and decent Con and Int to function?
@Joe Ducey
Also ignoring Barkskin because it is a buff.
I spent well over 50 hrs working on this just trying to get unbuffed AC to 34.
|
|
Ok, then remove your armor, it's a buff - you had to put it on (and get help to do so). What's your AC now? Both Mage Armor and Barkskin have far longer durations than the 10 minutes in birdshape so there's no reason not to consider them, if you're considering your fighter to have his armor on.
+Dex + Wis race, dump CHA, STR, INT if you want. - Not particularly hard. Tengu, Asura-Spawn Tiefling, Garuda-Blooded Aasimar all come to mind.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ok, then remove your armor, it's a buff - you had to put it on (and get help to do so). What's your AC now? Both Mage Armor and Barkskin have far longer durations than the 10 minutes in birdshape so there's no reason not to consider them, if you're considering your fighter to have his armor on.
+Dex + Wis race, dump CHA, STR, INT if you want. - Not particularly hard. Tengu, Asura-Spawn Tiefling, Garuda-Blooded Aasimar all come to mind.
You can't be serious on the buff? If you spend the first round of combat buffing, you likely won't be involved in combat. If you don't have all day duration, it isn't useful to try to buff before the combat initiative.
|
|
You can't be serious on the buff? If you spend the first round of combat buffing, you likely won't be involved in combat. If you don't have all day duration, it isn't useful to try to buff before the combat initiative.Ok, then remove your armor, it's a buff - you had to put it on (and get help to do so). What's your AC now? Both Mage Armor and Barkskin have far longer durations than the 10 minutes in birdshape so there's no reason not to consider them, if you're considering your fighter to have his armor on.
+Dex + Wis race, dump CHA, STR, INT if you want. - Not particularly hard. Tengu, Asura-Spawn Tiefling, Garuda-Blooded Aasimar all come to mind.
The mage armor, yes I'm serious about, get it on a wand re-apply every hour if necessary. The barkskin not not really, but it's still available, as a spell-like to the monk in bird-form, since as a SLA it requires no verbal or somatic components.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ok, I've derailed the thread a bit. Let me articulate a couple points and I'll drop the whole AC issue.
- Jingasa and Belt of Dex were excluded because the AC 34 fighter could have 36 with them.
- Mage Armor was excluded because if you use the ring as your first combat action, you really don't have time for mage armor also.
- I forgot I have a much different mindset, I never use buffs or wands if I can build a reasonable character without them. I'm not the typical player. I'm probably impairing my characters with this stance.
We can now get back to answering the various "have you seen these issues" A-F, as that info is far more important than my personal quest for "simple fighter build AC".
|
|
Mage Armor was excluded because if you use the ring as your first combat action, you really don't have time for mage armor also.
It boggles my mind when I see a spellcaster who hasn't cast mage armor before the fight. A character who doesn't wear armor and has access to it via slot or wand is going to have it up well before combat in all but the lowest of levels.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mage Armor was excluded because if you use the ring as your first combat action, you really don't have time for mage armor also.
Dude, stop.
Mage armor is an HOUR PER LEVEL. You put it up at the first sign of a ruined keep or sewer grate. Its 2 pp even if you're pouring every cent in your attempts to become a thanksgiving dinner.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It boggles my mind when I see a spellcaster who hasn't cast mage armor before the fight.
You'd be boggled at a lot of games I've played.
BTW I just did the amazing math. If you used 6 charges of a wand per scenario (and that may be hard to use only 6) then the total (825 gp per AC) is only 3,300 gp over the course of the level 1-12 path. A lot less than the 10,000 gp the fighter spent on his +3 Tower shield (2,000 gp per AC.)
I'm the kind of player who'd rather spend the 2,000 gp than worry about when to activate the wand.
|
|
It boggles my mind when I see a spellcaster who hasn't cast mage armor before the fight. A character who doesn't wear armor and has access to it via slot or wand is going to have it up well before combat in all but the lowest of levels.Mage Armor was excluded because if you use the ring as your first combat action, you really don't have time for mage armor also.
It boggles me even more to see monks without mage armor up.
|
|
So I fail to see how this is so much different than a small sized PC keeping a potion of reduce person in hand and drinking it in the first round. How is this ring so different that it needs to be banned? You can buy a ring of protection and 40 potions for the price of the ring.
Reduce person - gets a small sized creature to tiny, 1 minute per potion. Keep your ability to speak and use weapons.
Ring - Any sized creature to tiny, works on outsiders, works 7 times per day at up to 70 minutes per day, likely (but not guaranteed) increase in movement speed, Flight, low-light vision, Natural Armor, a bigger increase in DEX.
|
|
It boggles my mind when I see a spellcaster who hasn't cast mage armor before the fight.You'd be boggled at a lot of games I've played.
BTW I just did the amazing math. If you used 6 charges of a wand per scenario (and that may be hard to use only 6) then the total (825 gp per AC) is only 3,300 gp over the course of the level 1-12 path. A lot less than the 10,000 gp the fighter spent on his +3 Tower shield (2,000 gp per AC.)
I'm the kind of player who'd rather spend the 2,000 gp than worry about when to activate the wand.
Or you know, 8PP-10PP - which even saving for a raise and negative level removal is completely reasonable, and I still have the 10k to spend on other things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the kind of player who'd rather spend the 2,000 gp than worry about when to activate the wand.
My Skull and Shackles Sohei/Druid bought a pearl of power and has the party Wizard recall the spell to cast it on him. I literally never turn it off in HeroLab because it lasts all day. My wife's Seeker level Sorceress casts mage armor and overland flight before rolling out of bed. My Reign of Winter Oracle casts Heroes Feast before bed, with an rod of extend to make it 24 hours.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My Skull and Shackles Sohei/Druid bought a pearl of power and has the party Wizard recall the spell to cast it on him. I literally never turn it off in HeroLab because it lasts all day.
My 5th level Fox Shape character considered buying a Pearl, but I've yet to find a table that can cast Mage Armor to give them the PoP to recharge. So I guess I'm unlucky, as I've never had mage armor on me for the life of the character. So I'm always under 30 AC in fox form.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Skull and Shackles Sohei/Druid bought a pearl of power and has the party Wizard recall the spell to cast it on him. I literally never turn it off in HeroLab because it lasts all day.My 5th level Fox Shape character considered buying a Pearl, but I've yet to find a table that can cast Mage Armor to give them the PoP to recharge. So I guess I'm unlucky, as I've never had mage armor on me for the life of the character. So I'm always under 30 AC in fox form.
Might I suggest considering the Wand Key Ring, whcih combined with a masterwork tool give you +12 of the +19 to activate a wand without fail for yourself.