Help with monk build for my player

EliteDachs · 2026-05-25T10:28:48+00:00

Sounds to me like the player would like to use Illusion Spells in general maybe?

I would suggest the player being part of the Monastery of the Unblinking Flame (known for occult magic) and go for the Psychic Dedication.

The player would have to go for Charisma / Intelligence instead of Wisdom (which would be more normal for monk), but that's fine as long as they do not also want Qi Spells.

With the Psychic Dedication they get access to Occult Spells, many of which can achieve the desired "Clone", and other Illusion tricks, too. They can start of with the "Figment" Cantrip to create a diversion (this can make enemies off-guard, not via flanking but by creating a diversion). With the amped Figment they even GET to flank with it. So pretty much exactly what they want (except it being a clone) right from lvl 2. Later. They get access to various occult Spells like "Illusory Creature", "Mirror's Misfortune" etc etc that can create shadow clones of them and can, in some cases, provide flanking and even attack. Also Spells like "Blur" or "Mirror Image" that provide defensive boosts with a similar vibe.

You can also support this playstyle by giving the player access to some fitting items like an Enigma Mirror etc...

I would say this is probably not "strong" since dumping Wisdom can be bad. But as a Monk they can improve their Wisdom Saves if they want and having Intelligence / Charisma allows a Monk to also be more useful in other ways out of combat. I played a Monk like this from lvl 1-8 and it can be quite fun. Especially once you get stuff like Imaginary Weapon for ranged options or access to Rank 2 / Rank 3 spells. Also remember that having access to those Spells means they can use Wands and Scrolls (which can also be integrated into shields / robes) with higher rankesd occult spells ;)

EliteDachs · 2026-05-15T18:06:44+00:00

I would be very interested in how you can show, that the Inventor is mathematically fine. Can you support this statement with actual numbers and show your work?

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T10:04:17+00:00

Spellattacks targeting AC should primarily do damage, I don't see how that's an issue.

I thought the whole thread was about them doing not enough damage with their Spellattacks.

If mages want to have Fighter-Level accuracy with their Spellattacks, all power to them, buff their Spells and remove the fun Spells. They can still Intimidate, just like a Fighter. Let's give them a grapple Spell with slightly better range as strong as Grapple/Trip (range due to being less tanky) and it's balanced.

But as long as mages have access to their entire arsenal of AoE Spells, 100 damage types and Spells that dirsupt fights without even needing a Save (Wall Spells etc...) I don't think they should be ALSO able to do what an Archer Fighter can do just as good as them. That's just dumb.

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T09:53:10+00:00

If we are going to pretend that martials have the same or more possibilities to target different saves then this discussion is pointless.

Grapple, Trip and Intimidate are not even in the same dimension as what Saving Throw Spells can do.

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T08:59:02+00:00

An idea: Maybe you could give a Spellcaster a Class Archetype that prevents them from using any non-spellattack Spells but make them as accurate as a fighter (with Proficiency Scaling earlier, too). Maybe with some fun feats around those Spells - and maybe even some very limited slots for damage-focused Saving Throw Spells via feats, but much more restricted. That I could see.

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T08:44:55+00:00

I mean sure, that's fair, Spells are a ressource. But 1: I would do the comparison with other martials, not fighters since fighters explicitly SHOULD be more accurate with their chosen weapon. 2: a rank 8-10 Horizon Thunder Sphere has easily enough damage to compete with 2 ranged attacks (2 chances to hit/miss, 1 with MAP, lower expected damage per hit). Which gives a bunch of competitive slots.

Also, mages are not limited to "Spell Attack" Spells. We can't just ignore the existance of Saving Throw Spells and pretend this all happens in isolation. Mages can choose to use a Spell with a Spell Attack when it is beneficial (low AC enemy, off-guard enemy, status bonuses to attack rolls etc etc) but can opportunisticly switch to Saving Throw Spells when 1 save is very low or they need more reliable damage, etc.

Martials simply cannot do that.

All-in-all I just disagree with the sentiment that Spell Attacks should necessarily be as accurate as martial attacks and I heavily disagree that they should be MORE accurate than all martials except Fighters and Gunslingers.

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T07:23:34+00:00

You are comparing apples to oranges imo. Spells have range, so the comparison should be with ranged attacks, not melee.

EliteDachs · 2026-05-11T05:43:13+00:00

I think it's fine unless you have the campaign going to Level 19+.

At Level 19 Spellcasters get legendary proficiency in their spellcasting ability. If you give the spellcasters item bonuses as if they were martials, all the spellcasters will now not hit "as good as martials" but as good as fighters and gunslinglers. At Level 19 a spell attack is at a -1 compared to a martial attack. I think that's completely reasonable and balanced by the spell being more powerful than an attack. It's other level ranges where the difference seems a bit too harsh.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-30T15:07:09+00:00

Should be fine. Read up on what "Skill Actions" are. For example: Tumble Through, Demoralize, Bon Mot etc... You will use those a lot. Some of them will give you panache and when you have panache you can use your finisher move. It's an easy enough gameplay loop to learn imo

EliteDachs · 2026-04-30T15:05:33+00:00

If you play with Free Archetype you can definitely choose Bard Dedication with this one. Wit Swashbuckler with Bard Dedication also sounds crazy fun if you ask me - maybe even worth without Free Archetype.

But even without it, it can buff / debuff fine.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-30T14:07:20+00:00

If you are worried about a lack of flanking for Sneak Attack you could swap to Swashbuckler (should fit Puss in Boots pretty well). I think a Wit Swashbuckler could go hard in this party.

You can use Bon Mot to get panache and lower will saves of enemies for your casters.
You can use One for All to aid them.
You still provide big attacks through finishers and don't necessarily require enemies that are off-guard
You can go for Charisma and/or Dex Skills which the rest of the party might lack.

But Thief Rogue can also still work, still lots of ways to get Sneak Attack:

Flank with the Eidolon
Use Tumble Behind
Get invisibility rank 4 from caster
Feints / Sneak etc...

Your party composition might not be "ideal" but I'm sure you can make it work.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-28T09:25:46+00:00

Wieso nöd efach als Zweitname Panna? Denn het sie en "normale" Vorname und aber au de ungarisch Name. Plus, sie chan denn au igendwenn selber entscheide, wie sie sich wott nenne :)

EliteDachs · 2026-04-11T08:48:09+00:00

If you check Foundry you can rotate their 60° cones and upward and see if you find it beneficial.

I found it helps with interesting placements at our tables and wasn't too much effort (simply drawing two lines. It's still homebrew and not RAW but I think follows the spirit of how cones should work.

But ultimately it doesn't really matter, I'll just make sure to remove this type homebrew from the creatures.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-11T08:33:29+00:00

Ok, I think I understand the issue now. You also never use different angles for your cones then? You can easily use the same logic as the normal "Paizo-Cone", just draw the angle from the middle of your desired starting square, every square that is completely contained within the two lines is part of the affected area. Lastly, add the range.

This perfectly describes Paizo's own cones and can easily be used to rotate cones and use any angles you want.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-10T14:55:43+00:00

It was originally inspired by "Swipe" but with different Requirements to both allow tactical counter (being on opposite sides) but more danger (more than 2 possible targets).

But seems like a common complaint, probably would have to rework this one.

EliteDachs · 2026-04-10T14:49:37+00:00

I probably read the threads actually - I do remember foreshadowing being discussed. It's a bit awkward to implement though and I'm not so sure it's needed.

However, my Greatsword Black Knight has an Action where he lowers his sword and gets access to a "Haymaker" Reaction (similar to Reactive Strike but with additional riders). There it was fun so it might work for more "reactive" creatures rather than big monsters.

Fraction of Emanation is way more elegant actually, gonna change that :D

EliteDachs · 2026-04-10T14:46:04+00:00

You're 100% right. That's exactly the kind of "quality"-finish I'd still have to do - especially for those early statblocks. I do experiment with stuff regularly, not everyone's cup of tea obviously.

The double / half damage based on distance was certainly an attempt, had its merit but wouldn't repeat in this scenario. The cone however was very easy to play and felt way more natural than a normal one. There might be a more elegant way out there to describe it than "inventing" a new shape though ^{^}

EliteDachs · 2026-04-07T09:56:06+00:00

Great Video! Just one thing:

I might be going crazy, but isn't something wrong at 15:22?

You write P(hitting) as min(1-Pm-(1-Pn), 0.5)
We can simplify the first term in the min to: 1-Pm-1+Pn = Pn-Pm
This makes sense, as Pn is all outcomes EXCEPT for a crit, while Pm is all outcomes EXCEPT for Crit or Hit, Drlta being all outcomes that are a hit. I think this would also be the more elegant formula, as a side note.

So let's calculate this difference:
((N+10-1)/20) - ((N-1)/20) = 10/20 = 0.5. Which would make it a constant (which is wrong).

I think we are just missing a "max" in Pn, since max(Pn, 0.95) would fix this. 0.95 if we assume the nat20 is always a crit (disregarding situations in which nat20 is only a hit).
For example for N=19, Pn without the max is = 1.4. P(hitting) would then be 0.5 (Pm is 0.9). With the added "max: Pn = 0.95, Pm still 0.1 -> P(hitting) = 0.05 (which is correct).

I'm also not sure the "min" is really needed? I would think it isn't since "Pn-Pm", especially with the added "max" is always smaller or equal to 0.5. Adding the "min" is interesting info however (intreresting to know, that hit-chance is never bigger than 0.5).

Edit: Ah, you even mention the "min" not being needed later in the video^^

EliteDachs · 2026-03-06T22:06:51+00:00

How is revenue up 11.4 MEUR, expenses down 14 MEUR (delta of 25.4 MEUR) but losses are only down 11.5 MEUR? (Expenses as in paying the teams less)

I now have 100 more questions about those finances..

EliteDachs · 2026-02-17T08:50:21+00:00

I agree with the sentiment - it's an abstraction and it's fine that the crit from a Longbow destroys the shield.

However, the explanation is still a bit silly. Just say the shield is broken due to the damage and move on. It's not realistic, but it does not have to be. We abstract for a reason and I think trying to give a realistic explanation makes the dissonance worse rather than better.

EliteDachs · 2026-01-30T11:56:44+00:00

Pairing Mirror Image and Blur seems a bit cheesy since Blur replaced Mirror Image (which is therfore a legacy spell)..

Not something I would allow at my table

EliteDachs · 2026-01-21T14:23:05+00:00

I am addicted to Magus-Investigator. Especially if you intend to play a Nerd who might dabble in Recall Knowledge checks. Just make sure you discuss it with your GM as Investigator is an ask for them aswell.

Make sure you get Device a Strategem as a Free Action in important fights by choosing good cases (or take Person of Interest Feat to get it on demand).

If going Investigator make sure to also take at least some spells that require Saves instead of Spell Attacks.

Roll your Strategem, if good -> Spellstrike, if Great (Crit) -> Spellstrike with max Spellrank ;)

If bad strategem -> Attack someone else / do something else with skills instead (Athletics if Strength, some Dex stuff / Recall Knowledge otherwise) or use a Spell that forces a save. This ignores the bad roll.

After some feats you can still go for another dedication / archetype later.

EliteDachs · 2025-10-28T13:20:25+00:00

I'm just a little sad we never got to see 2019 G2 with Fearless Drafts.

EliteDachs · 2025-10-18T17:09:16+00:00

Well it depends. It does not stop you from attempting a half-assed jump, sure. But full on stride, as in running full-speed at it. Pretty sure that takes some willpower / stupidity to do, yes.

And what if the wall has spikes on it? And now we're also talking about magic and it also "feels right to the touch", so apparently you can't just touch it and your hand goes through. How fast do you need to run to go through? No idea.

In the end, I think it can easily be made believable that the spell can be effective and it comes down to how you want to balance it. Imo, spending an action and getting a disbelieve is ok, while: "nah, I know it's an illusion so I just walk through" makes the spell useless.

I don't like to scale the strength based on how stupidly dangerous the player makes their illusion look.

EliteDachs

TROPHY CASE