Getting use out of Ultimate Magic


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 732 of 732 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
So that's your pessimistic outlook. So why do you take issue with people asking for support for gearless monks? Or support for other characters that have an alternate source of strength besides magic gear?

In a world full of magic, what's to stop someone from using your hypothetical gearless power source AND magic, throwing the balance of the game even more out of whack?

Not that I'm opposed to the monk just getting a bit of a boost in general.


Mikaze wrote:

No.

But apparently you forgot what I was debating for.

I was debating specifically for an alternate means of character strength besides magical gear. Be it "virtual gear", a simple set of tiered inherent bonuses, anything. AND that it COULD work just fine with the flavor of a fantasy setting, as could the concept of an ascetic hero that was just as fantastic as the standard magic gear lot.

From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.

Silver Crusade

Well LT and other people aren't all of us. So...

Yeah.

As to problems with a system that enabled magic gearless characters, well...developers and debate. I believe Revan's example from earlier, where one gives away their loot and essentially "buys" virtual gear offers one solid starting point, considering that it would progress by the campaign specific wealth limits along with the rest of the party.

And a number of us would like to give Paizo money for a balanced take on such a concept. Not to mention an official one that can be pointed to, which is a hell of a lot easier for a player to get to use rather than pages worth of houserules he had to make himself and now has to hope like hell that the GM will be open to it, allow it, and that this won't breed any resentment at the table due to the very special treatment he has to be given just to play his concept.

Silver Crusade

deinol wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
So that's your pessimistic outlook. So why do you take issue with people asking for support for gearless monks? Or support for other characters that have an alternate source of strength besides magic gear?

In a world full of magic, what's to stop someone from using your hypothetical gearless power source AND magic, throwing the balance of the game even more out of whack?

The language of the system involving that source, which should be tighter than the BoED VoP.

My personal take, if gearless source guy, who is getting his mojo from asceticism, resorts to standard magic gear use he's broken the way of life from which he gets his strength. He can't have both, it's one or the other. That's just my opinion on how it should work out though. Others might feel differently, particularly where multiclassing is involved.

Silver Crusade

Blazej wrote:
From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.

I was arguing all of it, and Irori was part of it. Unfortunately some sidetracked that into "OH SO YOU WANT TO BE A GOD". The whole reason I looked to Irori was because of his image and the nature of his apotheosis, and honestly how that inspired some hope that the concept of martial characters that can get by without caster-made magic gear crutches might be supported.

It also really did feel like the concept was being locked out, with statements about how one couldn't see how a life of asceticism should grant bonuses. I was arguing that it could and that it would make sense in a fantasy setting, as it just felt like that concept was being denied.


Mikaze wrote:
Blazej wrote:
From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.
I was arguing all of it, and Irori was part of it. Unfortunately some sidetracked that into "OH SO YOU WANT TO BE A GOD". The whole reason I looked to Irori was because of his image and the nature of his apotheosis, and honestly how that inspired some hope that the concept of martial characters that can get by without caster-made magic gear crutches might be supported.

Which, unsurprisingly enough, really has nothing to do with game balance or design. Anything having to do with game fluff is a fiction book, not a guideline for how the game works.

Silver Crusade

Cartigan wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Blazej wrote:
From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.
I was arguing all of it, and Irori was part of it. Unfortunately some sidetracked that into "OH SO YOU WANT TO BE A GOD". The whole reason I looked to Irori was because of his image and the nature of his apotheosis, and honestly how that inspired some hope that the concept of martial characters that can get by without caster-made magic gear crutches might be supported.
Which, unsurprisingly enough, really has nothing to do with game balance or design. Anything having to do with game fluff is a fiction book, not a guideline for how the game works.

And yet the flavor was held up as an example of why it couldn't work, hence countering it with a flavor oriented argument.

The discussion touched on it making sense flavor-wise and being mechanically feasible.


Mikaze wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Blazej wrote:
From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.
I was arguing all of it, and Irori was part of it. Unfortunately some sidetracked that into "OH SO YOU WANT TO BE A GOD". The whole reason I looked to Irori was because of his image and the nature of his apotheosis, and honestly how that inspired some hope that the concept of martial characters that can get by without caster-made magic gear crutches might be supported.
Which, unsurprisingly enough, really has nothing to do with game balance or design. Anything having to do with game fluff is a fiction book, not a guideline for how the game works.

And yet the flavor was held up as an example of why it couldn't work, hence countering it with a flavor oriented argument.

The discussion touched on it making sense flavor-wise and being mechanically feasible.

I seem to recall SKR dismissing some of your assertions as baseless assertions about the made up character in the fiction part of the game.

Silver Crusade

Cartigan wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Blazej wrote:
From my position, that wasn't what was being argued. It appeared to be more an argument over the mortal life of Irori and religious tenets of his faith (something I see SKR having some opinion on) as it interacts with the ascetic monk. I didn't see him (or other developers) say that it was impossible, nor that it was so hard that Paizo wouldn't do it, nor that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. From what I saw, SKR just was arguing the religion/deity part here and not an option for a game with few magic items.
I was arguing all of it, and Irori was part of it. Unfortunately some sidetracked that into "OH SO YOU WANT TO BE A GOD". The whole reason I looked to Irori was because of his image and the nature of his apotheosis, and honestly how that inspired some hope that the concept of martial characters that can get by without caster-made magic gear crutches might be supported.
Which, unsurprisingly enough, really has nothing to do with game balance or design. Anything having to do with game fluff is a fiction book, not a guideline for how the game works.

And yet the flavor was held up as an example of why it couldn't work, hence countering it with a flavor oriented argument.

The discussion touched on it making sense flavor-wise and being mechanically feasible.

I seem to recall SKR dismissing some of your assertions as baseless assertions about the made up character in the fiction part of the game.

Read back earlier, in this thread and the one that spawned it.

SKR said he didn't see why ascetic monks should get bonuses for being ascetics. That's where the flavor disconnect started.

His dismissal of the Irori stuff was misaimed, because it was never about him being a gearless monk. It was about him achieving apotheosis on his own, no Starstone, and how that resonates with the desire for martial characters that can rise to fantastic heights(ie: standard PC levels of power) without needing magical gear some caster had to make.


Mikaze wrote:
It was about him achieving apotheosis on his own, no Starstone, and how that resonates with the desire for martial characters that can rise to fantastic...

I really don't want to quote myself having just posted what I would reply here barely 4 posts ago.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
The reason I'd like a form of inherent bonuses is because then magic items can be exciting again. Sorry, going "Oh man +2 strength!" isn't exciting in the least. +x weapons are boring as hell.

That's why even for a system which replaces at least four of the big six ( leaving arms and armor ), there needs to some WBL, so that those interesting items will get bought for once. There are far too few players who try to get some of the less known magic items.

Silver Crusade

Cartigan wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
It was about him achieving apotheosis on his own, no Starstone, and how that resonates with the desire for martial characters that can rise to fantastic...
I really don't want to quote myself having just posted what I would reply here barely 4 posts ago.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

That doesn't change the fact that I said what I said about Irori in response to the earlier argument not seeing how asceticism should grant bonuses.

You hungry?

I am.


Mikaze wrote:

Read back earlier, in this thread and the one that spawned it.

SKR said he didn't see why ascetic monks should get bonuses for being ascetics. That's where the flavor disconnect started.

His dismissal of the Irori stuff was misaimed, because it was never about him being a gearless monk. It was about him achieving apotheosis on his own, no Starstone, and how that resonates with the desire for martial characters that can rise to fantastic heights(ie: standard PC levels of power) without needing magical gear some caster had to make.

I disagree that his dismissal of the Irori stuff was misaimed, but instead think that the Irori-thread was a great foundation to reach the conclusion you were aiming for.

Beyond what other things say about Irori's life, I would say that monks already do amazing things without the use of magic items. Their bodies become immune to all diseases and poisons. They can teleport themselves while age seems to stop taking it's toll on their body. They can eventually to speak to any living creature and can become an outsider. I would say that these are all amazing (whether or not they are all enough to make the class balanced) abilities to gain while not using magical items. If someone extended out the monk leveling table, I can imagine at some high point on there divinity being something they just get just like any other ability. This doesn't make them any more effective at operating without magical weapons though.


LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.

And yet people are still playing it. Quite a few in fact.

Enough that if I could stomach writing 4ed material I'd probably be making more money from that.

I didn't say that there aren't people who like MMORPG-style gaming and to each their own. I said it's been demonstrated that many players don't like that style.
I'm always amused when someone tosses out "MMORG-style playing" in a venue like this, intimidating that MMORG-like is something different than D&D, when most MMORGs including WOW are essentially built on a D&D model.

Here I have to disagree. MMORPGs may have evolved from D&D and other pen and paper games, but they are a separate thing and have evolved further and further from their roots over the years. I have played both, and enjoyed both, but they offer, to me at least, wildly different gaming experiences. Perhaps if the experience is not so wildly different to you, you are indeed playing a "MMORG-style" game.

Now, some of the flow is going in the other direction as well, and there have been entire threads here identifying the ways in which MMORPGs have influenced modern pen and paper RPG design. Some people like this, and some people don't. The influence is unmistakable in both directions, now, but they are two very different types of gaming.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:


My personal take, if gearless source guy, who is getting his mojo from asceticism, resorts to standard magic gear use he's broken the way of life from which he gets his strength. He can't have both, it's one or the other. That's just my opinion on how it should work out though. Others might feel differently, particularly where multiclassing is involved.

So, either he spends money on the virtual items, which feels less ascetic and more getting to buy magic items that can't be stolen. Or the money goes to my friend who can now buff me as well. Example, my group uses a staff to cast Hero's Feast every morning. They don't need cloaks of resistance anymore.

I'm all for an Unearthed Arcana style book that explores the boundaries like this. I'd love to see rules for low magic campaigns in general. But such a book is several years in the future, and will never be part of the core assumptions of the game. I would expect a monsters as PCs book first.

Silver Crusade

Blazej wrote:

I disagree that his dismissal of the Irori stuff was misaimed, but instead think that the Irori-thread was a great foundation to reach the conclusion you were aiming for.

Beyond what other things say about Irori's life, I would say that monks already do amazing things without the use of magic items. Their bodies become immune to all diseases and poisons. They can teleport themselves while age seems to stop taking it's toll on their body. They can eventually to speak to any living creature and can become an outsider. I would say that these are all amazing (whether or not they are all enough to make the class balanced) abilities to gain while not using magical items. If someone extended out the monk leveling table, I can imagine at some high point on there divinity being something they just get just like any other ability. This doesn't make them any more effective at operating without magical weapons though.

That conclusion was reached before Pathfinder even existed. It's what I've always wished the monk was. Which was why I was so grateful when the BoED VoP threw me that bone.

As for monks already being fantastic, they get all that but it still isn't enough to stand on even ground with his comrades without magic gear. They, and other martial classes, are still forced to lean on crutches made by casters to keep up in a standard adventure. Now if monks had an option to focus entirely on their monk stuff to unlock greater potential, that would be awesome. They could actually be a shining example of their way of life and not have it feel so hollow. Though again, it would be nice if a similar, general option were available to all martial types.

It would just be nice to have the hero's strength come from themeselves rather than their gear.

deinol wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


My personal take, if gearless source guy, who is getting his mojo from asceticism, resorts to standard magic gear use he's broken the way of life from which he gets his strength. He can't have both, it's one or the other. That's just my opinion on how it should work out though. Others might feel differently, particularly where multiclassing is involved.
So, either he spends money on the virtual items, which feels less ascetic and more getting to buy magic items that can't be stolen. Or the money goes to my friend who can now buff me as well. Example, my group uses a staff to cast Hero's Feast every morning. They don't need cloaks of resistance anymore.

No, not on literal virtual items. I saw that specific method working more along the lines of "donate money, build up karma". Build up enough karma, you can ulock potential bonuses and abilities from a specific list which can't be sold off. Not something like going through the equipment lists and picking what you want and just having it be invisible. And again, those abilities might not be able to be stolen, but they could be messed with in other ways, especially those that are supernatural in nature.

That's just one possible approach to such a system. For my players I'm making something that works more like a "videogame skill-tree" that a monk can use to slowly unlock chakras and develop his strengths in the direction he wants. That way they can emulate the BoED bonuses if they want, or they can go somewhere else with it, like aligning their body as a magic weapon and such.

That's just focusing on monks though, and a lot of people want a magic gearless/lite option for other classes as well. Nephelim came up with a far more robust idea meant as a ascetic approach for all classes. Check it!


deinol wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
So that's your pessimistic outlook. So why do you take issue with people asking for support for gearless monks? Or support for other characters that have an alternate source of strength besides magic gear?

In a world full of magic, what's to stop someone from using your hypothetical gearless power source AND magic, throwing the balance of the game even more out of whack?

Not that I'm opposed to the monk just getting a bit of a boost in general.

Already built into the game - bonuses don't stack ;p


Brian Bachman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.

And yet people are still playing it. Quite a few in fact.

Enough that if I could stomach writing 4ed material I'd probably be making more money from that.

I didn't say that there aren't people who like MMORPG-style gaming and to each their own. I said it's been demonstrated that many players don't like that style.
I'm always amused when someone tosses out "MMORG-style playing" in a venue like this, intimidating that MMORG-like is something different than D&D, when most MMORGs including WOW are essentially built on a D&D model.

Here I have to disagree. MMORPGs may have evolved from D&D and other pen and paper games, but they are a separate thing and have evolved further and further from their roots over the years. I have played both, and enjoyed both, but they offer, to me at least, wildly different gaming experiences. Perhaps if the experience is not so wildly different to you, you are indeed playing a "MMORG-style" game.

Now, some of the flow is going in the other direction as well, and there have been entire threads here identifying the ways in which MMORPGs have influenced modern pen and paper RPG design. Some people like this, and some people don't. The influence is unmistakable in both directions, now, but they are two very different types of gaming.

I dunno man. The first "style" of D&D was literally a dungeon where each room held a different monster for the players to fight and the plot was "An evil wizard did it."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
deinol wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
So that's your pessimistic outlook. So why do you take issue with people asking for support for gearless monks? Or support for other characters that have an alternate source of strength besides magic gear?

In a world full of magic, what's to stop someone from using your hypothetical gearless power source AND magic, throwing the balance of the game even more out of whack?

Not that I'm opposed to the monk just getting a bit of a boost in general.

Already built into the game - bonuses don't stack ;p

Bonuses of the same type don't stack. There are a lot of magic items and types of bonuses. Also, does having your now richer friend cast permanent enchants on you break your vow of poverty?

I'm just pointing out that something that alters the fundamental growth of one character but not others can introduce unintended loopholes and side effects. I'm all for exploring these kinds of things in a book of experimental rules. I just know realistically we are too early in Pathfinder's life to have Paizo go there. 3PP are perfect for this sort of thing.


Monks Suck Katana's are like mystic razors o' the godz they should do 1d27 +12 base, Mages are the bestest things evar play nuthin' else... Bards suck, clerics are overpowered and the stealth rules are perfect. PLEASE PAIZO ANSWER ME SO I DONT HAVE TO GM/READ/THINK and how the F@*# do MAGNETS WORK!??!?!?

Silver Crusade

nathan blackmer wrote:

PLEASE PAIZO ANSWER ME SO I DONT HAVE TO GM/READ/THINK and how the F@*# do MAGNETS WORK!??!?!?

People are GMing/reading/thinking up approaches to solve their problems.

The problem is that it doesn't help much when you're a player.


nathan blackmer wrote:

and how the F@*# do MAGNETS WORK!??!?!?

Ask and you will receive.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.

And yet people are still playing it. Quite a few in fact.

Enough that if I could stomach writing 4ed material I'd probably be making more money from that.

I didn't say that there aren't people who like MMORPG-style gaming and to each their own. I said it's been demonstrated that many players don't like that style.
I'm always amused when someone tosses out "MMORG-style playing" in a venue like this, intimidating that MMORG-like is something different than D&D, when most MMORGs including WOW are essentially built on a D&D model.

Here I have to disagree. MMORPGs may have evolved from D&D and other pen and paper games, but they are a separate thing and have evolved further and further from their roots over the years. I have played both, and enjoyed both, but they offer, to me at least, wildly different gaming experiences. Perhaps if the experience is not so wildly different to you, you are indeed playing a "MMORG-style" game.

Now, some of the flow is going in the other direction as well, and there have been entire threads here identifying the ways in which MMORPGs have influenced modern pen and paper RPG design. Some people like this, and some people don't. The influence is unmistakable in both directions, now, but they are two very different types of gaming.

I dunno man. The first "style" of D&D was literally a dungeon where each room held a different monster for the players to fight and the plot was "An evil wizard did it."

You're breaking the fourth wall; you don't break the fourth wall!

People's rose-colored glasses of nostalgia let them ignore what D&D used to be so they can criticize it today for not being as awesome, in-depth, complex, and sophisticated as it used to be. I mean back in the 80s, D&D was the Rome of tabletop gaming! They had aquaducts and indoor ship battles and concrete! Look at it now! Nothing but mud huts and stone wheels - and the wheels are square!


Cartigan wrote:
I mean back in the 80s, D&D was the Rome of tabletop gaming! They had aquaducts and indoor ship battles and concrete! Look at it now! Nothing but mud huts and stone wheels - and the wheels are square!

Hey, the wheels are square to make calculating reach and movement easier!


I'm baaack ;)

Mikaze wrote:
As for monks already being fantastic, they get all that but it still isn't enough to stand on even ground with his comrades without magic gear.

I disagree. You may recall my comparison earlier between my Vow of Poverty monk and my non-optimised barbarian. Well my barbarian has gotten worse.

My DM came to his senses and gave us a 25 point buy with no buy downs below 10 instead of the insane 35 points. Furthermore I discovered I was cheating with my barbarian by giving myself full BAB for my claw attack when it should be BAB - 5.

As such, I've rebuilt the barbarian a fair bit (taking 3 levels of Fighter (Weapon Master) to eke out a bit more power and for flavour), and I've now got a much more reasonable build of the following:

Heavy Flail 1: 0.65(26)+(0.1*2*0.65*26) = 16.9+3.38 = 20.28
Heavy Flail 2: 0.3(26)+(0.1*2*0.3*26) = 7.8+1.56 = 9.36
Lesser Spirits: 0.3(2.5)+(0.1*2*0.3*2.5) = 0.75+0.15 = 0.9

Theoretical DPR at Level 10 = 30.54

This is 6.945 less then my Vow of Poverty Monk. Given my VoP monk has spells cast on it (through wands and potions) I would say these two unoptimised characters are comparable.

So I still argue that the Vow of Poverty monk can be a viable option when compared with other non-optimised characters. It's only when you try to stand toe to toe with an optimised character that you have issues.

Silver Crusade

Except I've been, and have always been, arguing in terms of 15 point buy, which is the standard for APs.

And where are those potions coming from? Looking back at the linked build, it's still going the Fake VoP route. It's not really a VoP if you're pouring gold into equipment.

And again, I'm arguing for viability that doesn't require the monk to be a derpetologist. Dumping INT and CHA down that low doesn't help the case for players wanting a gearless monk that doesn't have to be min-maxed/optimized to hell and back in order to keep up with their comrades.


Mikaze wrote:
Except I've been, and have always been, arguing in terms of 15 point buy, which is the standard for APs.

I'm comparing a 20 point buy character with a close to 20 point buy character. I see little to no point removing 5-10 points from each of the characters given I'm comparing them to each other.

Mikaze wrote:
And where are those potions coming from?

Party members are giving me potions, as is allowed by the rules of the Vow. If you want to play a character that doesn't use consumables that's fine. But you're not playing a Vow of Poverty monk. You're making up a completely new Vow.

Mikaze wrote:
Looking back at the linked build, it's still going the Fake VoP route. It's not really a VoP if you're pouring gold into equipment.

I'm not pouring money into any equipment. My character wears no magical items.

Mikaze wrote:
And again, I'm arguing for viability that doesn't require the monk to be a derpetologist. Dumping INT and CHA down that low doesn't help the case

How much charisma are you going to have without the ability to:

* Own soap
* Own a shaving kit
* Wash your clothes
* Have spare clothes
* Have a method of repairing your clothing

You want to play a homeless person without any of the negatives of actually being homeless?

You're right, I have dumped Int. Not every character I play needs to be some mathematical genius. I'm willing to play a range of character builds.

Mikaze wrote:
that doesn't have to be min-maxed/optimized to hell and back in order to keep up with their comrades.

I still argue my monk isn't optimised. I am pathetically bad at optimising. A true optimiser would laugh at my attempts and create a much more powerful monk.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Except I've been, and have always been, arguing in terms of 15 point buy, which is the standard for APs.

I'm comparing a 20 point buy character with a close to 20 point buy character. I see little to no point removing 5-10 points from each of the characters given I'm comparing them to each other.

Mikaze wrote:
And where are those potions coming from?

Party members are giving me potions, as is allowed by the rules of the Vow. If you want to play a character that doesn't use consumables that's fine. But you're not playing a Vow of Poverty monk. You're making up a completely new Vow.

Mikaze wrote:
Looking back at the linked build, it's still going the Fake VoP route. It's not really a VoP if you're pouring gold into equipment.

I'm not pouring money into any equipment. My character wears no magical items.

Mikaze wrote:
And again, I'm arguing for viability that doesn't require the monk to be a derpetologist. Dumping INT and CHA down that low doesn't help the case

How much charisma are you going to have without the ability to:

* Own soap
* Own a shaving kit
* Wash your clothes
* Have spare clothes
* Have a method of repairing your clothing

You want to play a homeless person without any of the negatives of actually being homeless?

You're right, I have dumped Int. Not every character I play needs to be some mathematical genius. I'm willing to play a range of character builds.

Mikaze wrote:
that doesn't have to be min-maxed/optimized to hell and back in order to keep up with their comrades.
I still argue my monk isn't optimised. I am pathetically bad at optimising. A true optimiser would laugh at my attempts and create a much more powerful monk.

I looked at your build, and I don't actually have a problem with you dumping Int and Charisma. What really bothers me about your build is that you have a Vow of Poverty monk who appears on the face to have not lived up to the vow.

The active spells with Permanency are troublesome to me in that they require the monk to have at some point held onto considerable quantities of gold and to have paid another to create a lasting effect. I understand you could argue that some person could have held and paid on his behalf, but this too seems to go against the vow. I've used the comparison of a church priest living in a mansion, surrounded by the best of everything while professing to have taken a vow of poverty and that the church simply provides these things for him.

Either you live in poverty, or you do not. The idea that you profess poverty while having the expectation of continually being showered by copious amounts of gold, to me goes against the role-play of the mechanic. I have played VoP characters under 3.5, and role playing poverty generally precludes cost accounting for thousands of gold pieces in magical effects.

I understand that how I role-play may be quite different from how you role-play, but it appears to me that you are arguing for the viability of the VoP monk from a perspective that many/most/everyone-but-you seems to reject.

I would be interested to see if you could put together a viable 10th level VoP monk that did not have any high-cost permanent effects and did not depend on the continual gift of hundreds of GP in magic from other party members. Think more St. Francis, and less Pope Benedict. Or more Kwai Chang Caine (from Kung-Fu), and less Dali-Lama.


Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Either you live in poverty, or you do not. The idea that you profess poverty while having the expectation of continually being showered by copious amounts of gold, to me goes against the role-play of the mechanic. I have played VoP characters under 3.5, and role playing poverty generally precludes cost accounting for thousands of gold pieces in magical effects.

This is a high magic game. Getting buffs cast you on is par for the course. While it isn't common to get permancy cast on you, it can and does happen.

Basically I look at it from a roleplaying perspective of, this monk has no interest in material gains. He would quite happily live a peaceful life helping farmers. However for reasons beyond his control (i.e. the player actually wanting to join the campaign) he has been forced into a confrontational situation where he must fight and kill monsters on a regular basis to keep his friends and innocents alive.

He can keep going into these fights with nothing but the clothes on his back. Refuse to allow the Wizard or Cleric to cast buffs on him (despite the fact buffs getting cast on you is par of the course in battle). Or he can accept his friends requests that he have these spells cast on him, he swig these potions or he UMD a wand. His friends convince him to allow them to cast these spells on him or give him these consumables (the consumables being allowed by the poverty). They may try to convince him to wear an amulet of mighty fists, but the monk will refuse. He will draw a line and say "I will go this far for the sake of innocent lives and the well being of my friends, but I will go no further."

To me, that's roleplaying a principled character who is seeking to make up for a terrible wrong he did when he was younger. This is a character who is living up to his Vow of Poverty will stepping up and saving the lives of his friends and the lives of women, children and the elderly who can't defend themselves.

If I seem to get passionate about this character, it's because this character has all the flavour I can pour into him. I've read the vow. I've considered the reasons someone would and wouldn't take this vow. I've considered how they would uphold it in the face of adversity. How he would have to wrestle with the moral quandry of having his friends on the brink of death because of his choices.

I believe this character and the build (for me they're one and the same) do live up to the vow. I'll passionately defend it as well.

In response to this character I get told "I don't want to have to buy down in any of my stats" and "this character is just cheating and breaking his vow." Those arguments seem to ignore the flavour and reasons behind the character's choices. It ignores all of the flavour and simply looks at the crunch. To me there is no such thing as a character build. There are characters and there are numbers thrown down on a piece of paper. Without the flavour, there is no character. So to me when people present the above arguments, they're only looking at the numbers and are ignoring the character.

Silver Crusade

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'm comparing a 20 point buy character with a close to 20 point buy character. I see little to no point removing 5-10 points from each of the characters given I'm comparing them to each other.

And no one feels point-buy increments quite like the monk. At lower pointbuys on both of them the comparison is going to get harsher.

Considering that 15 is the standard, that's what I'm looking at when I make complaints about being able to keep up.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Party members are giving me potions, as is allowed by the rules of the Vow. If you want to play a character that doesn't use consumables that's fine. But you're not playing a Vow of Poverty monk. You're making up a completely new Vow.

If you're counting it amongst your resources that you're taking it for granted that you're going to have, you're more or less owning that stuff. Especially if they're just buying it with money you're giving them and they're just holding onto them for you.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'm not pouring money into any equipment. My character wears no magical items.

Again, the potions. AND the permanencies.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

How much charisma are you going to have without the ability to:

* Own soap
* Own a shaving kit
* Wash your clothes
* Have spare clothes
* Have a method of repairing your clothing

You want to play a homeless person without any of the negatives of actually being homeless?

By that logic a Vow of Poverty monk wouldn't be able to take Vow of Cleanliness either. And that's also tying CHA into things that don't define it as a whole.

Some of us want to be able to play a VoP concept and be a possible source of inspiration for others, rather than abhorrent to passers-by.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
You're right, I have dumped Int. Not every character I play needs to be some mathematical genius. I'm willing to play a range of character builds.

And some of us just want to have a 10 in INT. That's not saying you have to be a genius.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
that doesn't have to be min-maxed/optimized to hell and back in order to keep up with their comrades.
I still argue my monk isn't optimised. I am pathetically bad at optimising. A true optimiser would laugh at my attempts and create a much more powerful monk.

It's heavily dumpstatted, prohibitively so for a large range of roleplaying approaches many would like to take with the gearless monk concept. Hence the complaint about it forcing min-maxing. If the concept works out for you and you're happy with it, that's great. But that doesn't mean others aren't left out in the cold.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Without the flavour, there is no character. So to me when people present the above arguments, they're only looking at the numbers and are ignoring the character.

Again, if that concept and build is working out for you, that's great. I'm happy for you. But a lot of us have concepts that the current VoP mechanics just won't support, and if we twist the character into the numbers and expectations that would allow it to get by, it's no longer the character we wanted.

Some of us would like to play an ascetic monk that's fantastic without having to compromise his vows and beliefs in a world that screams at him to do otherwise.


To wash you don't need soap, it takes a bit more work to do though soap is only a detergent that helps to dissolve fats and thus loosen the dirt. Party wizard can also clean the monk via prestidigitation.

And no amount of charisma means that you can't own soap or be clean. Charisma is just a measure of personal magnetism and ability to sway other people's minds. You can actually be so cleanlines obsessed that you are instantly annoying and thus low on charisma for example.

Scarab Sages

Zmar wrote:
And no amount of charisma means that you can't own soap or be clean. Charisma is just a measure of personal magnetism and ability to sway other people's minds.

+1. Look how charismatic an aboleth is.

And they're covered in slime.


So my personal opinion after reading 11 pages?(yeah, I skipped a few, wanna fight about it?)
I want to make a monk using every vow at once. At the same time I want to be a summoner, sadly I'm only available to play activly in one game at the moment.

I feel as though the flavor of the additions in UM weren't that good over all. I feel the kind of direct the player down an interstate with multiple exits. Rather than ask the player, "where should we build this road to?"

With that in mind, however, I look into them (the flavor points of UM) as wonderful steps in the right direction. When I say that I mean we shouldn't, as players, say, "well I'm the lizard druid so I don't like birds...." and instead we should say, "I'm the evil tifling monk who likes to make babies cry because they are unapriciative of the things they have."

701 to 732 of 732 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Getting use out of Ultimate Magic All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion