Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:42 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:How so? It's a 10th level ability that kicks in on a PrC you can't take before 7th level. What it does is allow you to add Sneak Attack Damage to any spell that does damage when you are attacking "from surprise" (ie.: the enemies are flat footed). Why shouldn't the master of blowing people up with spells from surprise be allowed to blow up a crowd of enemies from surprise? He's a 16th level character, the ability to do an extra 7 dice of damage with AoE attacks on the first round of combat (unless the enemy heard your fighter or wins initiative) is pretty bullshit small.

-Username17

Mechanically it's not overpowered. Thematically it's ridiculous, how can you do precision damage when you are attacking an area? If it was an ability that gave enemies a penalty on reflex saves that would make more sense from a thematic point of view. Sneak attack on magic missile or scorching ray makes sense though, but that they went out of their to make it clear it works with fireball just strikes me as incredibly stupid.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Juton wrote: Thematically it's ridiculous, how can you do precision damage when you are attacking an area?

Usually with a laser range finder and and a programmable spin-fused detonator, but magic can make up for that, I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ZpNaqAVC8

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:59 am

ishy wrote:
Mr. GC wrote:He's probably confusing Arcane Trickster with Spellwarp Sniper
No I'm not. Here:
[URL=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/arcane-trickster wrote:Arcane Trickster[/url]]The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
- Edit: Pointing this out, to show that pathfinder has no problems specifically adding precision damage to explosions. And thus asking how you feel about this if you think rogues getting it on flasks is stupid.

To be fair, flat footed is harder to qualify for than denied dex to AC.
There is Shatter Defenses build, but that is mostly melee (although after making them treated as flat footed you could fireball them)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... at---final
It says hit, not melee attack, so fireballs count (they can hit you with their spell effect).

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:52 am

Again, "precision" is a bullshit term being thrown around by designers without thinking about what it means. At this point, SA is not precision damage, it's "you don't know I'm here, so I'm going to hit your mortal essence with this attack because that's seriously a thing you can do in D&DLand."

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:19 pm

On another note, Greater Magic fang and Greater Magic weapon don't bypass DR like magic weapons do (based on +X enhancement).
The Amulet of Mighty Fist is based on GMF: so posters are realizing this means AoMF shouldn't bypass DR.
Another nerf to Monks.

How did Pathinder miss this logical conclusion?

Also for 5, 000 the amulet of Falcon: boosts bows and Crossbows to 19-20/x3 (doesn't stack with Improved Crit) and +1 circumstance to hit with ranged.
Better than Lesser Amulet of Archery (4K) for +1 circumstance to hit with ranged.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:32 pm

Slade wrote:On another note, Greater Magic fang and Greater Magic weapon don't bypass DR like magic weapons do (based on +X enhancement).
The Amulet of Mighty Fist is based on GMF: so posters are realizing this means AoMF shouldn't bypass DR.
Another nerf to Monks.

How did Pathinder miss this logical conclusion?

Because it's a retarded conclusion. Magic items are not wands that just cast the spell and don't follow the rules of their constituent spells unless the item explicitly says so with something like "as if under the effects of greater magic fang." Their arguments are retarded on so many levels, especially since there's a real chance that JJ will encourage the FAQ/errata people to retroactively make that a rule to further nerf monks.

It's like the Joker becoming a rules lawyer.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:46 pm

Did you just compare SKR to the Joker?

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:47 pm

Slade wrote:On another note, Greater Magic fang and Greater Magic weapon don't bypass DR like magic weapons do (based on +X enhancement).
The Amulet of Mighty Fist is based on GMF: so posters are realizing this means AoMF shouldn't bypass DR.
Another nerf to Monks.

How did Pathinder miss this logical conclusion?

Wow, it really did a number on sKR when his GF ran off with that saffron-robed douchebag.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:03 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:Did you just compare SKR to the Joker?

I think that's really unfair to the Joker.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:05 pm

Why are you guys talking about Sean K Reynolds? As far as I know, he hasn't dipped his toe into the Amulet of Mighty Fists vs. DR debate.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:13 pm

Mostly because SKR tends to make / be the messenger of rule calls people don't like I think.
But this is something SKR actually posted a while back about the monk:

SKR wrote: * Can't get past DR, mainly because the amulet of mighty fists costs more. Which it has to cost more because it's not fair for the guy with two short swords to pay x2 and have the monk using two fists or fist/elbow/foot/face pay only x1. Also, if the +1 AMF cost the same as a +1 sword, it becomes the best choice for every monster with 2 or more natural attacks per round, so that's a problem

So it appears back then he thought AMF did go through DR

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:36 am

Wait, if the Monk's attacks don't bypass DR like magic... has PF changed it to actually having an enhancement bonus, or is it just "Strikes like magic"? Because it sounds like they unintentionally have a class feature that literally does nothing.

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:41 am

Koumei wrote:Wait, if the Monk's attacks don't bypass DR like magic... has PF changed it to actually having an enhancement bonus, or is it just "Strikes like magic"? Because it sounds like they unintentionally have a class feature that literally does nothing.

It says: "At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Ki strike improves with the character's monk level."

So he should be able to overcome DR/magic at minimum.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:48 am

A +1 Magic Fang goes through DR just fine. In Pathfinder, magic weapons have the property that if they have an enhancement bonus above a certain threshold ignore various other DR strictures. And apparently, higher levels of Greater Magic Fang don't do that. But they always penetrate DR/Magic, that was never even up for discussion.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:58 am

Okay, so for whatever reason, the spells aren't as powerful and the Monk only gets to punch through /magic (assuming he can hit in the first place, which is not a safe assumption). So he can ignore Dragon DR but not Werewolf DR. I suppose it gives people more reason to actually have +5 Swords instead of +1 Flaming Double-Shocker Lifestealing Swords with GMW cast on them? I dunno.

Actually, the other night someone asked over IRCm what stat they should bump & what option they should take for their PF Monk. That was hard: what do you get for the person who has nothing?

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:42 am

Cross class UMD ranks?

Honestly, I already consider your not-even-started D&D pokemon game to be a success just because I'll take any excuse to sheet up a Dungeonomicon monk and then giggle at the core and pathfinder versions. Core Monk AC will never stop being funny to me--Username17's version roughly quadrupled the scaling AC bonus and gave them access to a +4 Dodge bonus stance and yet without buffs or an armor proficiency that's still probably not enough to keep a Hill Giant from shrugging his shoulders and clobbering you on a 10.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:47 pm

Anyone taken a look at the Mythic Rules thing they are planning now? I think they dropped a preview on some blog.

Also, I find if funny how so many people in the Paizil forums think that people should practically worship MCs*, and that the MC can never, EVER be wrong about anything.

*=Even the shitty ones.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:59 pm

Whipstitch wrote:Frank's version roughly quadrupled the scaling AC bonus and gave them access to a +4 Dodge bonus stance and yet without buffs or an armor proficiency that's still probably not enough to keep a Hill Giant from shrugging his shoulders and clobbering you on a 10.

Just about - it's CR 7, so at level 7 your AC is 10 base + 4 Wis* + 7 "Armour"** = 21, and it swings at +16 so it hits you on a 5. Monk Stance of +4 means it needs a 9. Add in Elusive Target and it needs 11 to hit you, finally hitting 50-50. And from there, you *might* have spent resources on having a Deflection or Natural Armour Bonus or +3 Pants or whatever, but it's level seven, even your Minor Items are limited at this point.

So yeah, basically it's roughly in the "Can quite likely be easily hit by big things that just hit people" category without going out of your way to drive the AC up. Which is an okay place to be. So with that being "yeah, acceptable but not astronomical", consider the PHB and PF ones. And laugh.

*15 + 1 (level 4) + 3 (item) = 19, so +4 bonus. You could argue that items don't autoscale in your games so he might not have such a bonus, you could also argue he's an Aasimir so gets +2 Wis, or that he rolled better than taking an array, but let's just call it a +4 mod.

**Yes, you could wear +3 Clothes at this point, but let's not assume that.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:02 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:Anyone taken a look at the Mythic Rules thing they are planning now? I think they dropped a preview on some blog.

Also, I find if funny how so many people in the Paizil forums think that people should practically worship MCs*, and that the MC can never, EVER be wrong about anything.

*=Even the shitty ones.

Claiming their game is the bestest edition ever, being totally wrong about the actuall rules, and now MC worship. Sweet Byakuren the Pazio forums are going full grognard.

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:50 pm

A few PF people are arguing whether when wild shape melds form where that means the armor check penalties.

This is response to Wild armor (which only brings back armor bonus not the armor). Interesting only non-constant armor abilities go away.

One dude made a nonproficient Wild dragonhide full played Druid (and Wild heavy shield), but since armor melds he suffers nothing he says. I agree with that.
But some of the crowd doesn't like that.

Nice to see CoDzilla never died.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:36 pm

Slade wrote:A few PF people are arguing whether when wild shape melds form where that means the armor check penalties.

That's not really a PFRPG argument, though; there were interminable arguments on the subject in 3E, too.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:04 pm

hogarth wrote:
Slade wrote:A few PF people are arguing whether when wild shape melds form where that means the armor check penalties.
That's not really a PFRPG argument, though; there were interminable arguments on the subject in 3E, too.

You could argue that they knew about the issue then, so why not resolve it now?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:34 pm

RobbyPants wrote:You could argue that they knew about the issue then, so why not resolve it now?

Pathfinder doesn't really fix any of the problems with 3.5, so why start with Wild armor?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:56 pm

So, because they dropped the ball many times, they cannot be called out on any one of those issues?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:56 pm

RobbyPants wrote:So, because they dropped the ball many times, they cannot be called out on any one of those issues?

Go right ahead. I think it's just much more time-efficient to lump them all into one big grab-bag entitled "Nothing From 3E Was Fixed".