I guess since the GM can control it all, it'll balance out fine in the end :)
The GM is already controlling all of that. If you've got a five member party he's got to ensure that there is enough loot given out appropriate for that size party. If one of them is a VoP Monk then he just sees that he's handing out the appropriate loot for 4. Piece of cake.
as I said I'n my previous post I think the vow is fine. it will really help with playing a monk like a spell caster with ki. ALOT of items can be bypassed with spells.
though I am curious if the party wizard doingpermanent magic weapons on your fist breaks the vow.
|
1. Not every option will be the best option ever. If it was, we'd have power bloat with every book.That's a straw man if I've ever seen one. I don't believe ANYONE has said every option HAS to be the best ever, only balanced enough so as to be usable in the standard games and adventure paths you yourself just described.Calm it down a bit. This is not a debate.
To explain a bit further, we have benchmark power curves that we shoot for most of the time, but we generally do not want to exceed them, because if we do, we move the curve and power bloat the whole system. So, in most cases we shoot for "close, but maybe a little less". No two options are ever going to be identical in power, since much of this depends on variables outside our control, many of which are campaign specific.
To this end, we shot low on this one. There are a lot of reasons why. What I was saying was an attempt to lay out some general assumptions about how we work.. not to imply broad consensus.
Lets just all ratchet it down a bit here. This thread is far too volatile for a rules piece that takes up one paragraph in a 256 page book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And thank you very much for this.
A weak class is an option, power bloat is a problem.
I'll take an option over a problem every time.
And thank you very much for this.
A weak class is an option, power bloat is a problem.
I'll take an option over a problem every time.
Uh, no.
Something can very easily be weak to the point of not being an option. It becomes a trap.
Director of Game Design
|
And thank you very much for this.
A weak class is an option, power bloat is a problem.
I'll take an option over a problem every time.
Uh, no.
Something can very easily be weak to the point of not being an option. It becomes a trap.
I thought for it to be a trap, it had to look attractive. I am not sure that anyone who comes to this game, with monsters, magic, and fantastic treasure is going to see "I get to have only one magic item total" as an attractive option right away. Thats not to say I am in the business of designing traps like this, but I am not sure that VoP qualifies in any case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I thought for it to be a trap, it had to look attractive. I am not sure that anyone who comes to this game, with monsters, magic, and fantastic treasure is going to see "I get to have only one magic item total" as an attractive option right away. Thats not to say I am in the business of designing traps like this, but I am not sure that VoP qualifies in any case.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't see it as a trap, I see it as an option that will never be taken by 99% of people playing the game.
Now, while I am not opposed to that 1% of people having something they want, I have to say that I personally feel that it could have been replaced with something that 15% or 20% of players might take and it would have been better.
Considering how tight the book is on space, and how much stuff got cut (such as cantrips) I can't help but wonder if that space couldn't have been better used for other stuff, rather than something nobody will take 99% of the time.
Please don't take it the wrong way, I love the book so far and am looking forward to Ultimate Combat. I am just calling it like I see it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A slightly related question: monks that take vows never get still mind - but what about monk archetypes that replace still mind? The vows don't re-grant still mind when the vows are rescinded (unlike paladin oaths for example). Can a ki mystic or monk of the empty hand take vows or not?
The wording is very specific "A monk who takes a vow never gains the still mind class feature, even if he abandons all his vows." This is distinctly different from "vows replace still mind". I'm in two minds about the intention as well, as not allowing the ki mystic and monk of the empty hand makes the least sense in terms of flavor, as they are the archetypes most prone to taking a vow of poverty.
|
Director of Game Design
|
Now, while I am not opposed to that 1% of people having something they want, I have to say that I personally feel that it could have been replaced with something that 15% or 20% of players might take and it would have been better.
Considering how tight the book is on space, and how much stuff got cut (such as cantrips) I can't help but wonder if that space couldn't have been better used for other stuff, rather than something nobody will take 99% of the time.
Please don't take it the wrong way, I love the book so far and am looking forward to Ultimate Combat. I am just calling it like I see it.
I get that, but for a piece of text that is roughly .06% of the book that might get used by 1%, I think we did ok.
Lets not get into micromanaging every content decision. Its just not productive and far too subject to taste.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I thought for it to be a trap, it had to look attractive. I am not sure that anyone who comes to this game, with monsters, magic, and fantastic treasure is going to see "I get to have only one magic item total" as an attractive option right away. Thats not to say I am in the business of designing traps like this, but I am not sure that VoP qualifies in any case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Is this an acknowledgement that the 'heirloom item of some value' can be a magic item worth hundreds of thousands of gold pieces?
If it is not too much trouble, Mr Bulmahn, could you enlighten me regarding the question above? (Can monk of the empty hand and ki mystics take vows?)
Thank you kindly
I get that, but most of us here have little time to argue about how many "very"s to put in front of low.
I have to quote this, since it's an awesome sentence :)
In any case, I'm sure most of Ultimate Magic is very good (despite the few vocal threads pointing out editing mistakes and variations on "this is broken/underpowered"), and I can't wait to get my hands on it :)
|
Director of Game Design
|
If it is not too much trouble, Mr Bulmahn, could you enlighten me regarding the question above? (Can monk of the empty hand and ki mystics take vows?)
Thank you kindly
If you take Vows, you cannot take another archetype that swaps out Still Mind. It has already been taken.
And Jason will do just fine. :)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Is this an acknowledgement that the 'heirloom item of some value' can be a magic item worth hundreds of thousands of gold pieces?Basically, you get one magic item. So... maybe
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Best way to drive an optimizier crazy: have a dev answer his query with a "maybe". :)
|
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to drive an optimizier crazy: have a dev answer his query with a "maybe". :)
The best way to drive a dev crazy is to argue with him in gigantic thread criticizing one paragraph of a huge book full of fun, interesting options, before the book is even out to the general public.
Turnabout is fair play. :)
Jason
Thanks Jason. I'm usually a player that avoids magic like its the plague - but Ultimate magic is still cram-packed with great options for me, I love it. Let's just say this makes me extra excited for Ultimate Combat.
...I'll have to ask my GM to find something to give-up other than Still Mind. Because I think a monk of the empty hand and the vow of chains are just tailor made for each other (yes, swinging the chains that bind you as an improvised weapon = awesome!)
Good night
Read my post from earlier in the thread. I don't think people have a problem that it's not shot higher than your benchmark, or that it was shot a little lower, it's that it was shot very, very, very low.I get that, but most of us here have little time to argue about how many "very"s to put in front of low.
Jason
I'm the guy who makes the crazy, fun, sub par multiclass characters in our group. I'm currently playing 2 casters in different campaigns. I didn't find one thing in the book that I wanted to take for either of them.
Want to be flippant about that?
Maybe you missed those words in parenthesis after my name above the post?
thats the thing that gets me about the forums to much focus on optimizing
|
|
And thank you very much for this.
A weak class is an option, power bloat is a problem.
I'll take an option over a problem every time.
Uh, no.
Something can very easily be weak to the point of not being an option. It becomes a trap.
From now on, I will be referring to you as Admiral Ackbar.
Flavor > Bloat
I didn't know Admiral Ackbar was made of straw.
And thank you very much for this.
A weak class is an option, power bloat is a problem.
I'll take an option over a problem every time.
Uh, no.
Something can very easily be weak to the point of not being an option. It becomes a trap.
From now on, I will be referring to you as Admiral Ackbar.
Flavor > Bloat
Flavor and survivability are not in any way mutually exclusive concepts. Just because something is good enough to survive an AP doesn't mean that it can't have tons of interesting flavor. Case in point, the Alchemist, the Pathfinder Paladin, the Witch, or the Cavalier. All can have really interesting and flavorful possibilities without sacrificing the ability to contribute to an AP.
On the other hand, something weak isn't necessarily flavorful. I could play a barbarian named bob the destroyer who fights with a club, no armor, and takes skill focus each level and be weaker without being more flavorful.
I could play a barbarian named bob the destroyer who fights with a club, no armor, and takes skill focus each level and be weaker without being more flavorful.
But be better of than a Monk with the Vow of Poverty.
I dunna care about that for me its about the story... optimal choices are all realative anyways power attack iron will toughness or what have you its all about what you want to do. more hp will help in some while better will will help in others. as long as you don't say get mage feats as a fighter or vice versa.
The whole build optimal choice thing to elitist
|
|
my 2cents: VoP is NOT a feat (as I saw several times in this thread).
you don't 'pay' anything to get it. it's +/- an archetype that trades out still mind.
then (as opposed to 3.5) you can't have money, but you don't have to give it away. (more share for the party, total WBL for the party is respected)
your single heirloom item could be something like a legacy item (house rule, I agree)
everyone complains about VoP, but what about VoCelibacy ???
you cannot touch/be touched (even friendly touch spells)... how do you heal ? you cannot sleep close to another one.
Anyway. I like those options. and if not for a PC, for flavorful NPCs.
(note for myself: play a multi-vowed monk for my next PC)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but what about VoCelibacy ???
Broken every time I grab a falling ally, carry someone out of a burning building, help someone climb over a wall, perform a Heal check on a dying person...
I get the frustration some of the developers feel about this one element being such a lightning rod, and there is a lot of good stuff in UM. I just hope they get the frustration monk fans have been dealing with for so long.
Here's hoping for Ultimate Combat.
(it'd also be nice to not be accused of powergaming/not-roleplaying when we voice concerns about our bare-handed martial artist concepts not being feasible in standard games, like those represented by the APs)
Here's hoping for Ultimate Combat.
Oh, God, yes. Hopefully they finally fix the class. In the "I did not mean neutered" way. :p
|
|
Here's hoping for Ultimate Combat.Oh, God, yes. Hopefully they finally fix the class. In the "I did not mean neutered" way. :p
I'm still figuring out the Qinggong monk. It looks more versatile; I just hope it can keep up and hold its own. I'm thankful for its presence in the book at least.
Here's hoping for Ultimate Combat.Oh, God, yes. Hopefully they finally fix the class. In the "I did not mean neutered" way. :p
** spoiler omitted **
Now I'm considering a paranoid, hypochondriac monk with vow of celibacy and vow of cleanliness.
"Aaah! Don't touch me! Dirty, filthy people! You'll give me the plague!"
Even after becoming immune to disease.
"I can feel the diseases wanting to get in. I won't let them, but I feel them clawing at my skin! Get away!"
Which may be counterproductive, if good for a laugh for a while. Still being a proper contributor to the party's righteous (or unrighteous) bludgeoning of bad guys and all that.
Best way to drive an optimizier crazy: have a dev answer his query with a "maybe". :)The best way to drive a dev crazy is to argue with him in gigantic thread criticizing one paragraph of a huge book full of fun, interesting options, before the book is even out to the general public.
Turnabout is fair play. :)
Jason
Too be fair, people freak because this is one small step to just being wotc, where you ignore quality and tell us to deal with anything you did that can ruin the game (yes if someone takes this it ruins the game for others because he could get them killed by essentially being a commoner, protect it missions suck). I'm not getting a discount because you put an idea about a way of roleplaying in a rulebook am I?
This is also most definitely a trap, who doesn't want to play a monk that doesn't carry anything? how is that not appealing when the class was basically created around that idea? Then you get killed because your a bald hobo in a bathrobe trying to kill a dragon O.o
And this is to everyone else, how the heck do you get that expensive item if you can't carry money? use your parties wealth? Now your just a money pandering hobo.
I just couldn't resist ^_^ link to inspiration
|
|
Best way to drive an optimizier crazy: have a dev answer his query with a "maybe". :)The best way to drive a dev crazy is to argue with him in gigantic thread criticizing one paragraph of a huge book full of fun, interesting options, before the book is even out to the general public.
Turnabout is fair play. :)
Jason
Too be fair, people freak because this is one small step to just being wotc, where you ignore quality and tell us to deal with anything you did that can ruin the game (yes if someone takes this it ruins the game for others because he could get them killed by essentially being a commoner, protect it missions suck). I'm not getting a discount because you put an idea about a way of roleplaying in a rulebook am I?
This is also most definitely a trap, who doesn't want to play a monk that doesn't carry anything? how is that not appealing when the class was basically created around that idea? Then you get killed because your a bald hobo in a bathrobe trying to kill a dragon O.o
And this is to everyone else, how the heck do you get that expensive item if you can't carry money? use your parties wealth? Now your just a money pandering hobo.
WoTC is all about Bloat.
If they erred, they did so on the side of caution.
Please let this always be the way they go.
It is an option. Some people like challenges in their game.
I too agree with Sean. Not to be kissing arse, but sometimes when I'm on the boards, I get discouraged by the overwhelming urgency to have "Maximized Characters" and anything less than said "Optimal" characters is a waste of time. I get both sides of the coin on this conversation. People want Paizo not to put out sub-optimal choices to choose from while others say to themselves," Self, I wish I had an option to play a Friar-type character who was a brewer of fine beers and could open a Pub to collect coinage in order to fund the poor under his care." I would imagine the First character would be Optimized greatly while the second wouldn't. Neither are wrong just different. I orignally thought the 3.5 version of VOP was insane, but my cleric always took it. Perhaps Paizo wanted to present one to that wasn't nearly as Insane, but gave a nice option in their opinion.
BTW, I still don't see how a monk is gimp. Saves, self healing, plenty of skills.....just my 2cp worth
I have the strangest feeling that the Vows seem so poor an option that someone somewhere will make them broken.
I don't think you can make something broken with them, that wouldn't be more broken without them (or at least without the vow of poverty). But - I do think I can make a playable monk with a vow of poverty, regardless of how much effective wealth he has. By "playable" I mean that he wouldn't be an unwelcome burden to the party but be able to add to the group effort as a whole.
I pretty much had the same idea, and I will probably end up playing the character cause I like the flavor of it...
An old Dwarven Zen Archer with Vow of Poverty, who has realized that all things material are just vanity, and forsakes them all in a personal quest for spiritual purity. His only possession? A longbow owned by his late human friend (Insert Name Here) he adventured with long ago, given to this Dwarf on the human's death bed.
I actually really, really like this idea. Though I wonder if each arrow counts as an item...I really hope not.
|
SKR, I am all aboard the role playing before mechanics issue, and agree that not every option can or should be the best one. My problem, however, is that the vow of X monk is a pretty well known character concept that is going to be completely worthless in any of the adventures or adventure paths that Paizo itself is publishing and pushing as their main "bread and butter" line of products.
if you play in a 2 or 3 PC party, chances are one of these guys won't be a monk... if you play in a 4, 5 or 6 player game, with a vow of poverty monk, I don't see how bad this can be. Hell, give the monk the Master Craftsman and Craft Arms and Armor feat and let him pool all his gold into enhancing his good old walking stick into a supra-ultimate-limit-break-explodin'-defendin weapon?
He can't craft as he is not allowed to own the materials/gold used in crafting.
He merely requires a patron! Perhaps he could get away with being a muse/ingenue. Will he pose for noodz?
|
|
If your one item is an amulet of mighty fists +5, you have used all of your resources getting and using expendable manuals/tomes to boost your stats, and you use appropriate boosting potions (like enlarge person, barkskin, etc.) from your allies, then I don't see how this isn't a valid option at all.
It won't be a great and powerful character, but it would still be able to carry its weight.
I agree with Ravingdork a 100% (this time!) :)