|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:To be honest, my only real concern with the class is the fact that they can cast and attack in the same round. It's a full round action, with many constraints, but I still think there might be an overpowered combo of spell+attack to be exploited. Well, practically none of that is any more overpowered than the right spell to begin with, so yeah. Now for numbers on the Fighter business: quote:He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus but may take the remaining attacks at any point during his movement. quote:Shield Master (Combat) So lets see, Mobile Light Shield+Longsword Fighter. Level 11, just coz. Str of 22(racial increase + Belt of Str 4) Dex of 18(Gloves of Dex +2) You'd be wearing a mithril breastplate, at best, to maintain the mobility. A set of +3 weapon, armor and shield as well. AC is +9(armor)+4(dex)+4(shield)=27, ignoring misc magic So the attack sequence is +23/+18(shield, you can't afford Greater TWF until 12th level earliest) and +21/+16/+11 You lose your highest bonus attack(that is your shield, which is cool, it hits lighter than your sword). You can do the reverse, but it lowers your damage. +21/+16/+11 1d8+11 and +18 1d3+6 Apply power attack(-3) +18/+13/+8 1d8+15 and +15 1d3+9 and you move 30ft in the process. Now, a straight fighter, with a polearm, filling out the same 6 feat slots taken Power Attack, Furious Focus, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike. While replacing the last three with Combat Expertise, Improved Trip and Greater Trip would be much much more effective(trip, stab them one, and when they try to get up or move, trip them again), lets just go for a straight up damage comparison. Equipment will be a Guisarme and Full Plate Armor Str of 24 and Dex of 16, same items and increases as the above +3 weapon and armor AC is +12(armor)+3(dex)=25 The attack sequence is, charge + Power attacked Vital Strike. +25 6d4+22 and you move 60ft in the process. And then the opponent is trapped there for a more traditional full attack anyway due to your reach. So assuming you took the silly route and pushed Vital Strike instead of picking trip or some similar trick, you're a whole +7 more to hit, and not exactly much less damage. You benefit easily from traditional buffs like Enlarge Person(which don't accidentally turn off your feats by failing to meet prereqs). More importantly, you don't need to wait till level 11 to be able to perform your function while moving, the 2H fighter works from level 1, and all the feats except Power Attack are optional.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
I'm not sure why I'd want a mithril breastplate, especially with boots of haste and stuff like that around. You don't need that much mobility, just to be able to attack after moving. Nor do you want Power Attack here. Besides, there are boots of haste around. The armor speed penalty doesn't matter very much. You can get where you need to. You have a whole bunch of feats (fighter feats AND regular feats) for everything from AC bonuses to damage bonuses (weapon spec, etc--the more hits, the more each damage bonus does), you have enhancements for your weapon, you have the standard fighter +X AB/damage, etc. Also, you seem to be counting "shield proficiency" as a "feat down" when the Fighter gets that on his own. A level 11 PF fighter has no trouble having all of the feats I'm talking about by level 11-12, with a bunch to spare to boot. In that case the fighter is getting his weapon attacks and losing a shield attack. +9/4/-1 with the weapon (+11/6/1 if you're dual-wielding shields), and +11(if hasted)/+6/+1 with the real shield, which is a nice clustering. I'm also not sure where you're getting "1d3", which seems ridiculously low for spiked heavy shields or whatever it is he should be using. Yes, the two-hander works from level 1. Mobile Fighter is only super-awesome once they get their "move and full attack" feature. Once there, is outperforms pretty much any other fighter. Maybe you don't have any trouble spending most of your rounds full attacking as a Fighter because the enemies don't move around much and last multiple rounds in melee, I dunno. Generally, though, full attacks are NOT guaranteed--every other round, maybe? You can't trip someone who's getting up from a trip BTW, it doesn't work that way. Tripping is also going to be fading out by level 11, as enemies get magical flight, become really big, etc. LogicNinja fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Firstly no, Shield Proficiency was not counted. Shield MASTERY was. Shield Mastery works with Shield Bash, which assuming you want to use your feats, you can't use spiked shields with it. Using a heavy shield would also drop your to hit bonuses even further, unless you were using a short sword as your off hand weapon. So yeah, you can have a bigger base dice, off with another 2 to hit. 4 if you use spiked shields, depending on the DM. quote:I'm not sure why I'd want a mithril breastplate, especially with boots of haste and stuff like that around. You don't need that much mobility, just to be able to attack after moving. Nor do you want Power Attack here. As to the bolded bit...are you serious? Your lowest accuracy attack missing(it was going to anyway), in exchange for a +6 to all your main weapon and a +3 to all your off hand damage? While you're rocking Haste? I thought it was all about the extra attacks? You're talking about something like a +30 damage total at the cost of missing with attacks you're not likely to hit with to start with. Essentially though, the low accuracy attacks means that even WITH your full attacks, you'd hit with 3(2 from 3 reasonably high accuracy attacks, 1 from your three low accuracy attacks) attacks. In contrast, a proper reach weapon fighter would be working with AoOs, Stand Still, Dazing Assault(which by the way he can spare the -5 to hit for), etc. He charges in, hits once, then the opponent would be taking AoOs for pretty much everything and unlikely to get away. With magic items or a helpful caster, a size increase can be thrown in to extend reach even further, holding more people under threat of Trip or Stand Still. An archery fighter would be pincushioning everything in range already of course. Maybe he wants to be mounted, maybe not. A charger would go with lance and basically make enemies explode into red mist with single attacks. A Phalanx fighter takes a more passive role, holding ground etc effectively by covering allies. Useful in a cohort, not very in a PC. In comparison, a TWF Mobility fighter is merely competent, not superb. A Mobility Fighter works, but most effective builds with this makes use of reach weapons to avoid taking AoOs against Medium opponents(and Lunge to extend it to Large), not by flushing 5 feats down the drain trying to get TWF to work. And, if you're sure you can kill them with a full attack, then you can avoid AoOs for up to Tall Large opponents and Tall Huge opponents with Lunge. One such trick is....Stand Still again, you move up to an opponent, hit him with Stand Still when he tries to close, and then disengages to attack another(in order to preserve your mobility attack bonus). quote:You can't trip someone who's getting up from a trip BTW, it doesn't work that way. Tripping is also going to be fading out by level 11, as enemies get magical flight, become really big, etc. And yes, its fading out by level 11, but the fact is that large opponents are even MORE inimical to mobile fighting, barring a large investment in tumbling or some other ways to avoid AoOs. A trip optimized character will flip a giant over without much difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
veekie posted:Why not? And if not, just hit them with your AoO, and when they move out of your reach, trip them again. Because you can't use a trip attack on somebody who's already prone, and until the guy is upright again he still counts as prone. A lot of people have missed that rule, so you aren't the only one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Well, Plan B still works, trip them again when they move after getting up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
veekie posted:Well, Plan B still works, trip them again when they move after getting up. Polearms have a 10ft reach, don't they? Can't it take a 5ft step towards you and be in your deadzone or a step back and swat you with a Disintegrate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 09:25
|
|
|
Well, the fundamental trick of the whole trip business, when you can make it work: -Standing up from Prone is a move action that provokes an AoO, unless they have the skill to acrobatically stand -While Prone, you can only move 5ft as a move action. Crawling also provokes an AoO. So he hits you. -Once you stand up, you're left with a standard action and still within polearm reach. -Your options once vertical are to --5ft step towards the enemy and take a standard action(don't trust this to allow casting, you are still threatened by armor spokes/gauntlets/some other hands-free melee weapon). You do this if you're melee. --5ft step out of reach and take a standard action. You do this if you're a caster or archer. --Move out of reach with your standard action, provoking an AoO. This is where he trips you. Again. -This is a pain in the rear end if he manages to get even more reach than that. On the tripper's round -If you're prone, he full attacks you. -If you're in under his reach, he takes a 5ft step to put you into his reach, and full attacks, starting by tripping you. -If you're outside his reach, he takes a 5ft step to put you back into his reach and full attacks, starting by tripping you. -If you managed to get away, he charges and...trips you again. This is a fairly rewarding approach for melee, it gets much trickier to avoid in enclosed spaces, but you can force yourself into their reach and they might not have room to back away. It can also interdict a number of enemies, but you're better off using Stand Still to keep enemies in place. It lasts to higher level because, barring spellcasters, most fliers still use wings(and you can trip winged fliers). In the case of spellcasters, I recommend just hitting them really really hard. Its the only way to be sure. Countering Reach enemies present a problem, since they can be perfectly happy to fight you right where they are. Grappling enemies with good reach are a bigger one, the polearm isn't going to be much good there and your secondary stuff like spikes or gauntlets. Things that can get you out of reach without provoking also ruin the plan, the Anklet of translocation from 3.5 for example. But a prepared and dedicated pratfall engine would want to have one of those anyway. It does take relatively high dex(not as high as archery or TWF, but around 4 points less is still quite a lot) and pretty heavy armor(because the best way to get out of the mess is to kill said tripper).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 09:52
|
|
|
Yeah, you can just cast arcane mark on your weapon for a free attack as a Magus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
edit: nm, just clicked
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
This is a big thread so maybe it's been discussed, but has anyone looked at or tried out the Gunslinger class based off the recent Playtest earlier this year? http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8j5e for reference. I have a Player who rolled up a rifleman-type Ranger using the rules for firearms in the Pathfinder Chronicles - Campaign Setting guide, and so far it's working out well. However, I talked to a guy at the local game store recently who clued us in to the new class rules. Frankly, I'm wondering/worried about power in the balance of play. I like the old exploding dice rule which the Playtest seems to omit, and the Grit system looks interesting, but they upped the damage on the firearms and have some rules that could potentially invite abuse regarding using AC touch attack for firearms attack rolls. I guess I'm worried that the new rules are possibly overpowered as sometimes supplements mess with the balance of play. Any help/advice would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Kumo posted:I guess I'm worried that the new rules are possibly overpowered as sometimes supplements mess with the balance of play. Any help/advice would be appreciated. I don't know how much you've dug through on the Paizo messageboards but there's more than enough discussion about the gunslinger here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/ultimateCombatPlaytest/gunslingerRound2 The opinions seem to run the spectrum from "Arrg, this is totally broken!" to "why would anybody want to play this?" so it's a little hard to get a straight answer to your question about balance. Of the three playtest classes Paizo posted this one seemed to get the most feedback, so I'm not too worried about the final product being overpowered. The only thing that I can see being annoying about Gunslinger is that one of the main ways they get grit points back is to reduce an enemy to 0 HP. So, you’ll have your Gunslinger player constantly saying things like “Dude, don’t kill that bugbear this turn, let me kill it so I get a grit point.” Or if another player ends up killing something the Gunslinger player will complain that he “stole his kill”. This would vary based on the player, obviously, but I could see it happening. At any rate, Ultimate Combat will be out next month, so you won’t have too long to wait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Kumo posted:This is a big thread so maybe it's been discussed, but has anyone looked at or tried out the Gunslinger class based off the recent Playtest earlier this year? The one major major upside the Rifleman Ranger has is if he attempts to stay a ranged combatant, he isn't rendered completely ineffective by several different spells (not in conjunction, you only need any one of them)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
The problem with the Gunlinger is that Paizo won't budge on their firearm rules (where it's a touch attack within the first range increment). Introducing armour penetration in that way is really inelegant, and it also just makes you wonder why, as it's not realistic. I love the idea of them advancing the tech level slightly of the default setting, but I'm kind of disappointed with how they've done the rules. The class itself looks like it'll get a third iteration. The responses from the dev team have been a little odd, I don't think they expected it to get slammed so hard (the first draft was essentially unplayable) and while the second is a great deal better, the firearm rules are what they need to address.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
I can see their point on the subject, I don't think any of the armor out of the core book could stop a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
If you're going historical, armor stops bullets better than it stops arrows(blunt lead shot vs an armor piercing pile arrow, the lead shot is more likely to deflect than punch through), at least until they got to rifling and better powder. The early muskets like they seem to be using are mainly notable for being crossbow-like in ease of training peasant mobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:I can see their point on the subject, I don't think any of the armor out of the core book could stop a bullet. Why is it realistic that my armor can't stop bullets, but I can take several of them with no problem. Someone made a rule, fell in love with it, and now that it doesn't work, is trying to justify it under the guise of realism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Does it ignore magical armor as well? I can't seem to grab the playtest rules for myself right now; if it ignores magical armor, too, that just seems like sort of poor planning. And if it doesn't, it's not going to be a 'touch' attack for very long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
Ulta posted:Why is it realistic that my armor can't stop bullets, but I can take several of them with no problem. Someone made a rule, fell in love with it, and now that it doesn't work, is trying to justify it under the guise of realism. The funny part is really that modern armor designed to stop military spec, armor piercing bullets is really just a breastplate(Kelvar backed by ceramic impact plates), but that armor fell out of favor not because of guns ripping through them(soft lead hitting shaped steel tends to splash and leave a dent). They just weren't cost effective, nor that practical in a battlefield where mobility is increasingly important. And then when you consider it just punches through armor made of magic force fields....well we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
To my understanding the whole thing with the touch attack is only close up. After that it hits to regular armor like anything else, which makes sense to me really and means you have to put yourself in more danger to get the hit. I never got why people cling so hard to strictly pre-gun rules in their games though. I guess its for the same reason you see some not allow classes like Samurai, Ninja and Monk...because its from the wrong place or time period than they want their world. So far I'm loving the Playtest, going to run a game with a Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai...and more than that, I'm going to alter somethings. No more of this "misfire" crap. D20 needs to stop being so scared of guns. No other weapon with such a terrible reload time and normal damage will go off and hit the user, why should a gun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Doesn't the gun only explode after rolling a misfire twice? When you can bring it back down to 1 out of 20 every time you take a rest, who cares that it goes up every time you use a special type of ammunition? While I don't agree that every gun has a 5% chance to misfire(or 5% of 5% chance to explode), there is a misfire/jam rule in lots of systems that use guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Doesn't the gun only explode after rolling a misfire twice? When you can bring it back down to 1 out of 20 every time you take a rest, who cares that it goes up every time you use a special type of ammunition? Thing is revolvers don't jam, they can lock up and they can misfire, but those are usually issues that caring for them well and using well cared for ammo will take care of. I think that the misfire rule in all kinds of settings is a bit over the top and its just a way to make guns seem less appealing. The game I'm going to run just won't have bows anymore because it wouldn't make sense in most situations. There might be some, but I want to try running a sword gun campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
Firearm rules shouldn't be special. Just make them simple weapons with decent damage, sub-longbow range increment and a nice critical. Bam. Reloads being on a par with a heavy crossbow is fine. The issue is that their attractiveness wasn't due to armour penetration, it was as veekie said, that you can just hand a gun to somebody and have them proficient with far less time and effort than it would take to train them as an archer. You don't need physical strength, you just need to aim. It's all tied up in the abstractness of AC and HP though. I suppose if I was to use them, I'd remove the touch attack thing and make them simple. That said, I love the idea of having firearms in D&D. They are a staple in most fantasy outside of D&D, and so really they should be included.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
Mojo Jojo posted:Firearm rules shouldn't be special. Just make them simple weapons with decent damage, sub-longbow range increment and a nice critical. Bam. Reloads being on a par with a heavy crossbow is fine. Pretty much how I feel, I mean the idea of them as exotic weapons (which used to mean hard to use...now it just seems a way to make a strong or presumably attractive weapon out of the hands of anyone not willing to waste a feat) is stupid. Guns are about as simple a weapon as one can have effectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:To my understanding the whole thing with the touch attack is only close up. After that it hits to regular armor like anything else, which makes sense to me really and means you have to put yourself in more danger to get the hit. I never got why people cling so hard to strictly pre-gun rules in their games though. I guess its for the same reason you see some not allow classes like Samurai, Ninja and Monk...because its from the wrong place or time period than they want their world. You have to realize the era of guns they're modeling: 1st generation guns: Once you get past the age of bombards and other artillery pieces and metallurgy gets good enough for hand held guns. They are essentially crossbows with more kick but worse accuracy over a distance. You need to put the right amount of powder, load the shot and then apply the flame. This is slower than crossbows(which, btw, would takes longer to load than the 2 seconds D&D has), so generally you get one or two shots off, then use the gun as a large metal club or spear(with bayonet). This improves in various ways: Ignition - You start from the burning taper(which is ridiculous, since you need to light it before combat and then shove it into the hole), then move on to matchlocks(you still need to light the taper, but theres a mechanism to make sure it goes into the hole smoothly), flintlocks(i.e. the same mechanism in cigarette lighters) and blasting caps(i.e. modern guns). Be You'd need at least matchlock to be PC usable(it's essentially just an additional move action to draw the weapon and light the taper). Flintlocks make them comparable to bows. Powder - Most of these just affect shot power, reliability and range. Too little powder and the shot goes nowhere, too much and your weapon explodes. Advancements are more consistent powders(theres a problem with any particular weight of powder being too powerful or weak), pre-measured mixes(just pour one sachet in for one shot), and much later, cartridges(independent of or combined with bullet) and then magazines. Once you have consistent powders and cartridges, misfires are down to crossbow level. Cartridges reduces it to the load times of a crossbow. Magazines bring it to a bow. Metallurgy - Again mostly it's largely power, accuracy and range. Early gun barrels tend to warp or crack from the pressure and heat of firing, so they tended to burst or just leak. They also tended to be hideously heavy, as the compensation was just to add more metal(which incidentally made it a great bludgeon). Improvements with hardening technique brings it up in reliability, and combined with powder consistency, largely eliminates misfires. Metallurgy improvements also makes rifling possible, which improves range increments. Bullets - Lead shot, then shaped lead shots, then jacketed bullets. The earliest have terrible range, since their shape isn't aerodynamic or heck, even regular. Shaped bullets came around when rifling turned up, which improved distance, but still generally splashed against good armor with only dents(the proof of a good breastplate of this era was basically to shoot it at point blank, and if the armor holds, its cool). Good armor was much more expensive than good guns though. Loading - You simply go from muzzle loaded, to breech loaded(this took some improvements in metallurgy, since the moving part of the breech needs to be able to handle the pressure and also hold the force), to revolvers, to magazine loaded. From what it looks like, the guns used there are Flintlock, pre-measured powders, plain lead shot, muzzle loaded and early metallurgy. That'd place them at comparable loading times to heavy crossbows(pour powder into flash pan, load bullet), worse armor penetration than crossbows(lead shot vs steel bolt), and generally shoddy range. A more practical era for gaming might be Flintlock, Cartridges, shaped bullets, Breech loading(or revolver for the wild west feel) muskets. That'd give you a more damaging heavy crossbow with the loading times of a light crossbow, but worse range increment and no misfires. EDIT: And yeah, all versions are Simple. You do have feat investment, but thats Rapid Reload.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
veekie posted:You have to realize the era of guns they're modeling: Well those guns aren't even fun to use, I wouldn't want them in a game until there was at least flintlocks and this game I am about to run is almost old west style, with swords for some reason. Its really just for laughs and to see how the classes work. I made this gunslinger character: http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=310543 One of the fun things is, no magic users in the party, no healer so it will be slightly harder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
Well for Wild West you'd need Flintlock, cartridges, case hardening(but no rifling), shaped lead bullets and breech loading/revolvers. I'd treat larger calibers and better powders as virtual strength score, with recoil acting as per Mighty. So that'd be... Simple Large Revolver 1d8 /x3 Range 50ft. Reload every 6 shots as a full round action. 1 handed. Using 2 handed halves Mighty strength requirement Small Revolver 1d6 /x3 Range 50ft. Reload every 6 shots as a full round action. Light. Mighty requires twice as much strength for the same caliber when used in off hand. Speed Loader - Reduce Revolver load to standard action. Stacks with Rapid Reload to a move action. Rifle 2d6 /x3 Range 100ft. Reload as standard action. Half Mighty strength requirement. EDIT: Mighty would be just larger caliber(+50gp per rating? +100?) You simply add the Mighty rating to the bullet damage, and if your Str is less than the Mighty rating you take a -1 to hit for every point short. You only need half the rating in Str for firing 2 handed and double it for off hand. veekie fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
To detract a little from the great gun debate(Which I honestly don't care one way or the other, when it gets published we'll see how it turns out, the pre-existing gun rules are erratic and one solid set would be nice). I want to harp on something mentioned earlier as a side note. The idea that the monk is somehow strictly eastern/wouldn't fit with all campaigns. While the main concept is blatantly eastern its easily adapted (without any rule changes, just aesthetics) to well, a monk. As in the European concept; you know those order of guys who'd take solemn vows and devout themselves to the order. European martial arts a real thing, and in some ways cooler than the eastern counterparts, just ignored in our culture at this point. Back back in the days most of probably didn't live through called Advanced dungeons and dragons, or "Second Ed" there was this class called the Friar, with pictures blatantly showing a European monk complete with his silly hair cut. Same drat Class. If nothing else I truly cannot imagine a fantasy setting where a hand to hand brawler, with some kind of code or strictures they might impose on themselves, couldn't fit in. Samuri and Ninja could make similar arguments if they'd want to, but Monk has a solid standing as a non-region specific archtype. There's a reason its in the basic book, not a supplement. Okay, end rant. Just gets my guff when people start talking about forbidding classes because they don't 'feel' right for the game. I mean, wizards not existing in a low-magic campaign is one thing, or no clerics in a land where the gods have been banished, but its to 'eastern' is just a terrible reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Discordian Angel posted:To detract a little from the great gun debate(Which I honestly don't care one way or the other, when it gets published we'll see how it turns out, the pre-existing gun rules are erratic and one solid set would be nice). I want to harp on something mentioned earlier as a side note. The idea that the monk is somehow strictly eastern/wouldn't fit with all campaigns. While the main concept is blatantly eastern its easily adapted (without any rule changes, just aesthetics) to well, a monk. As in the European concept; you know those order of guys who'd take solemn vows and devout themselves to the order. European martial arts a real thing, and in some ways cooler than the eastern counterparts, just ignored in our culture at this point. I really could see how that would work, I mean there is a lot of backlash it seems against Eastern things, and the reason is understandable. There are so many people who join games and want to basically make anime characters that are undefeatable and use a katana that blocks the fingers of gods and people try to keep those types out of their games by restricting the classes to certain things. I've hardly ever seen the monk used because of that and other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
The monk is basically the odd man out in 3.X because the class describes a character from a wuxia work, while the rest of the game lacks most of the usual wuxia tropes. Also monks really only represent one (albeit a quite commonly heroic) wuxia archetype, while the others go largely unrepresented. (Meanwhile publishers are aching to spit out Japanophilic material, Paizo included.) Also the class abilities are all over the place: Tongue of the Sun and Moon, what the gently caress is that poo poo? And getting both fast movement AND a Flurry of Blows, which are really mutually exclusive? The monk basically belongs in its own supplement, and probably its own game. A wuxia RPG sounds pretty loving sweet, actually. Anybody know of a good one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I've hardly ever seen the monk used because of that and other reasons. Well the big reasons(amongst anyone who likes to be useful) are: -Full attack dependent, when their speed bonus gets wasted and their moderate-low AC gets them mauled. -Mobility, the speed bonus is easily outclassed by magic(small issue), overlaps with magic(bigger issue), becomes less than relevant when you start flying around and slow fall is outclassed by a cheap magic item/spell. I want my flying kung fu monks dammit :P -Fake Equipment-independence. It pretends to not need gear, in a game where all the power is in gear. --Weapons, Unarmed Strikes are more difficult to enhance than armed combat and the special monk weapons are special in the  sense. What genius made them Exotic?--Armor, Nowhere near enough AC bonus/DR/hp to full attack in melee. You go splat if the target survives -Output. Stunning Fist is nice and all but you can't really rely on it(since Fort is the best monster save) and well...if you're going to have AC like a rogue, maybe deal damage like one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
It's rare to see monks outright disallowed. It's more often that the players don't pick the class because nobody can think of how to mesh the concept into the setting. While there may be scope for a super disciplined martial artist in the traditional D&D/Pathfinder setting, most people (including myself) are unaware of it. And the in-book fluff does nothing to sort that out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
Well, on the same mechanics you could probably run with a refluff into tribal warriors(go around in nothing but woad), if you really wanted. Wrestler priests as well can fit, some gods may grant physical perfection over spells in their devout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
veekie posted:Well, on the same mechanics you could probably run with a refluff into tribal warriors(go around in nothing but woad), if you really wanted. Wrestler priests as well can fit, some gods may grant physical perfection over spells in their devout. I'd love to suplex some monsters in the name of my God.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
 Would need a particular sort of setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
veekie posted:Well the big reasons(amongst anyone who likes to be useful) are: On the flipside we did design a Monk who could run 180km/hr.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 10:12
|
|
|
Magic Rabbit Hat posted:Aren't they really, really stat dependent too? I've never made one, but my friends were talking about how Monks needed Wis, Con, Dex and Str to use most of their abilities and still deal any kind of damage. They came up with the idea to let their fists be affected by Weapon Finesse, but that seems like a bit of a clumsy solution. Extremely so: Damage - Strength, for raw damage(especially given that you aren't getting weapon enchants as much as weapon users) and Wisdom(Stun DCs and most of the special attack forms) Accuracy - Strength, by default, but you can use Finesse, or borrow Intuitive Strike to use Wis to hit. Not recommended, coz your damage is terrible enough as it is. Feat Prereqs - If they're picking up from the Combat Expertise tree, for the trip and stuff, they need Int 13. Others need Wis and Dex. Fighting feats also take Str. Durability - Con, everyone needs it. but with low AC and needing full melee attacks, with no possibility of Reach or effective missile weapons. Defense - Dex and Wis to AC. Remember that a Dex 18 with light armor would have the same AC as a monk with Dex 18 and Wis 18. Or you could get full plate and totally obliviate it. Throw on a shield to mock them further. Seriously, for starters you need to give the monk a +4 headstart, on the AC bonus. Even +6(light armor + shield or Medium) won't go awry, they're supposed to be hard to hit, and have lower HD than most tanky sorts will anyway. Skills - Well they don't get much here, but you have movement stuff and stealth stuff. The diplomacy stuff is a lost cause. Powers - Wis, ki points, save DCs... Honestly you can just drop Dex and Wis, get heavy armor proficiency(maybe with a fighter multiclass), then just punch for massive damage, ignoring the armor dependents. I got a monk rewrite somewhere I could drop in when I get home or something. veekie fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 11:10
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:The monk is basically the odd man out in 3.X because the class describes a character from a wuxia work, while the rest of the game lacks most of the usual wuxia tropes. quote:A wuxia RPG sounds pretty loving sweet, actually. Anybody know of a good one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
The problem is that the monk isn't a "dude who punches monsters to death", he has all these other powers related to being super disciplined and whatnot. The class could merrily be axed and replaced with a "brawler" fighter variant though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
veekie posted:I got a monk rewrite somewhere I could drop in when I get home or something. Oh yeah, I got a monk rewrite for you all done already, it's called the Unarmed variant of the Swordsage class in the Tome of Battle, enjoy your monk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Oh yeah, I got a monk rewrite for you all done already, it's called the Unarmed variant of the Swordsage class in the Tome of Battle, enjoy your monk. Yeah I know about that one, but not everyone wants to be an initiator so  This is for those people. Mind you, this is still based on the oriental supermonk concept, it just doesn't use the martial maneuver mechanics. If you want a straight out brawler I suggest a barbarian or fighter ACF. EDIT: Goddamn linebreaks never work the same across any two forums. EDIT: Moved to next page. veekie fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 15:01
|
|