3.P Air Master Monk

[Vortenger]

Hey playground! I'm working on a build stub so I was wondering if anyone was up to checking up on the concept.

Due to some wonky wording in the Air Master archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/super-genius-games---monk-archetypes/air-master)'s language, it appears you can give up three higher level abilities: Wholeness of Body, Abundant Step, and Empty Body, to gain bardic level casting that can only used on [air] spells (from any spell list). This combined with Zen Archer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/zen-archer) and Qingong (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) archetypes makes for an awesome seeming tier 3 archer with a small array of useful spells.

Do the features match up properly to allow this build? Using Sacred Vows may be contentious, as you don't get Still Mind, but it seems solid otherwise. If able to bring 3.5 [air] spells in, the spell list gets dramatically more useful.

p.s. Did I do it? Did I make a monk that doesn't suck completely? (I know zen archers are decent, but any monk could use some more love...)

[Psyren]

Well, if you're using 3rd Party it's not hard to fix Monk :smalltongue:

But I question why you're taking Qinggong. Technically you can do it, but Air Master looks like it replaces your ki pool, so Qinggong won't actually give you anything. Similarly, the Vows won't do anything without a ki pool either.

[Vortenger]

Well, if you're using 3rd Party it's not hard to fix Monk :smalltongue:

But I question why you're taking Qinggong. Technically you can do it, but Air Master looks like it replaces your ki pool, so Qinggong won't actually give you anything. Similarly, the Vows won't do anything without a ki pool either.

Hey now, some of that 3rd party is pretty good! You yourself are interested in the occultist and PF's psi, are you not? Those are 3rd party...:smallwink: Anyways, my group has the opinion that OGL on the PFSRD is fair game until we find it to be too over or under-powered. Making a monk tier 3 seems relatively inoffensive. ( ...and I was inspired to make the best monk I could sans multiclassing after reading your pairing of qingong and hungering ghost archetypes in a different thread a few days ago.)

per the replacement entry of the archetype:
"This ability replaces flurry of blows, the bonus feat gained at 2nd level, ki pool, or the wholeness of body, abundant step, and empty body class abilities. Since an air master has no ki pool, he cannot spend ki points as part of the high jump ability. "

Bolded for emphasis. I do not think that it was the intent of the author to put it that way, but intent isn't the issue. It looks like a way to give a suite of abilities to a class that could sorely use them. And using that slip of grammar, it seems I do indeed keep my Ki Pool. The archetype would be a hard sell if all the replacement options were mandated.

Finally, as to why take Qingong, it is mostly to swap slow fall for Stoneskin, and Diamond Soul for Ki Leech, to keep the Ki rolling in. If those are unoptimized choices, please let me know what would be more appropriate.

[Cog]

And using that slip of grammar, it seems I do indeed keep my Ki Pool.
Not really. If you're going to go by strict RAW on it, then you can't ignore the following sentence, and so you explicitly have no Ki pool even though you haven't actually traded out the class feature.

[Psyren]

Bolded for emphasis.

While we're bolding:

"Since an air master has no ki pool, he cannot spend ki points as part of the high jump ability."

So by RAW, they have no ki pool, even if you take the "or" to mean they have some kind of choice.

[Vortenger]

Your interpretation is correct, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. If you didn't trade it away (since it was not a replacement) the line about having no ki pool would lose its grounding, would it not? I read it as the passage assumes you have traded away your ki pool (or rather was intended to take it AND everything else listed) and iterates the net effect of that in the following passage. As I indeed did not trade away my ki pool, (it was before the oxford comma-&-or that separates the text entirely) that sentence would not apply.

(I am well aware that this is based on a snippet of grammar, and that your interpretation is an accurate one. I just think that my interpretation would be equally accurate, based on the aforementioned terrible wording)

Is there objectively any merit to my claim?

edit: The archetype seems flavorful, and can add real utility and versatility to a class that has little. Losing the ki pool feels like giving up too much, however, and I was hoping to find a way that makes this bugger work without comprimising what makes a monk tick entirely.

[Cog]

Is there objectively any merit to my claim?
Not in the context of RAWness, no. If you want to bring this to your group, you'd likely be far better off by suggesting 'it's more balanced this way' than 'you should let me twist this really obvious typo out of shape'.

[Vortenger]

Not in the context of RAWness, no. If you want to bring this to your group, you'd likely be far better off by suggesting 'it's more balanced this way' than 'you should let me twist this really obvious typo out of shape'.

Agreed. Just trying to use my MtG style phrase parsing to not have to approach the DM at all (as per my previous statement of anything PFSRD is ok in our group, until it's not). Also I like to use exercises like this to check my understanding of the rules against that of the playground. Thanks for the enlightenment. :smallbiggrin: Back to Psyren's Hungering Qingong build then...