Fergie |
I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.
I agree 100%! I don't think this is the right context or thread to figure it out, but I think there is a large demand for this, and it isn't unreasonable.
EDIT: Been thinking about poverty sucking, and couldn't help remember this...
While it may suck in our society, I have met some folks who were devoted to Jainism, and they seemed a lot happier then most "rich" folks I know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
ProfessorCirno |
In all fairness (please don't kill me, Cirno), Wizards without headbands are not even close to being as good as wizards with them.
Of course, a fighter with no sword lags well behind both of them.
Oh, I completely agree!
What I'm saying is, spellcasters can make up for no gear. A naked sorcerer or witch or cleric is still a force to be reckoned with.
A naked fighter could never break out of his jail, and that's basically all fighters do when they're in jail in fiction, fantasy, and mythology.
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
[Also you just dumped far more then ten new abilities on a class for free. What do you think spells are? I guess spellcasters are the only ones allowed to have a significant boost to power and utility (they needed it so much, too!)
Except every time we add a wizard spell, it's not like every wizard in the game (1) automatically learns that spell, and (2) gets the ability to cast that spell each day in addition to all of his other spells he was casting per day before that new spell existed.
Take feat, gain access to all traps.
So you're saying that by taking a feat, a character should gain the ability to create (Wis bonus) traps per day in any combination of the ten available traps?
Do you think a wizard should be able to take a feat and immediately gain (Int bonus) extra spells in his spellbook and per day in any combination of (list of ten spells)?
How is either of those proposals balanced at all?
You've already set up monks as the "gearless" class. They don't wear armor, they basically don't use weapons.
No, they're the mostly-weaponless, definitely-armorless class. They're not the potionless, rodless, wondrousitemless class. If you're asserting that they are such a thing, I don't think we're going to be able to find a middle ground.
Adam Daigle Director of Game Development |
ProfessorCirno |
Except every time we add a wizard spell, it's not like every wizard in the game (1) automatically learns that spell, and (2) gets the ability to cast that spell each day in addition to all of his other spells he was casting per day before that new spell existed.
He has that already. It's called "being a wizard."
Every level he gains two spells, and scrolls are hilariously cheap.
And let me correct you - every time you add a wizard spell, that wizard learns that spell almost automatically by spending a bit of gold, and then does indeed get the ability to cast that spell each day (if they so choose).
So you're saying that by taking a feat, a character should gain the ability to create (Wis bonus) traps per day in any combination of the ten available traps?
Do you think a wizard should be able to take a feat and immediately gain (Int bonus) extra spells in his spellbook and per day in any combination of (list of ten spells)?
They do have that. It's called "buy the scroll for a negligible amount of gold"
How is either of those proposals balanced at all?
Welcome to why people have been complaining about wizards all this time, I guess?
No, they're the mostly-weaponless, definitely-armorless class. They're not the potionless, rodless, wondrousitemless class. If you're asserting that they are such a thing, I don't think we're going to be able to find a middle ground.
You're right, they aren't wizards.
ZING!
You are, however, missing my point. Indeed monks are not a potionless, rodless, wondrousitemless class. But they don't really use rods and potions are garbage, so that more or less leaves wondrous items. Probs not coincidentally, wondrous items are exactly where their armor and weapons come from. And that's one of their flaws.
With monks, they get the bad from having no weapons and the bad from having no armor and the bad from being focused on wondrous items with no goods. The reason people are asking for a completely gearless monk is because they want you to pick between the class having magic items or not having them. Putting them halfway inbetween just leads to misery.
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
Dude, if you can't see the difference between:
(your proposal)
Ranger: gets (Wis) extra traps per day, every day, for free
and
(your equivalent proposal)
Wizard: gets (Int) extra spells per day, every day, for free
and
(the reality)
Wizard: can create one-use scrolls to accomplish a few extra spells per day, for a few days until they're used all up, but spends gp and time to create such things
Then we're done here.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
ProfessorCirno |
Dude, if you can't see the difference between:
(your proposal)
Ranger: gets (Wis) extra traps per day, every day, for freeand
(your equivalent proposal)
Wizard: gets (Int) extra spells per day, every day, for freeand
(the reality)
Wizard: can create one-use scrolls to accomplish a few extra spells per day, for a few days until they're used all up, but spends gp and time to create such thingsThen we're done here.
Just an FYI: wizards can scribe scrolls into their spell book.
You uh.
You seem to be missing that part.
Every new spell you add is something that can - at very low cost - be added to the spellbook, vastly increasing the wizard's versatility.
This is even more hilarious when you remember that you explicitly added a feat that lets wizards memorize spells in the middle of the day faster and easier then ever before.
So lets play it your way.
My proposal: Rangers take a feat, learn all traps. Can use them [WHATEVER] times per [WHATEVER]. That's it, the end.
Your proposal: Rangers gain one trap every time they take a feat. Wizards on the other hand get an enormous amount of spells they can add to their spellbook at negligible cost every single time a new book is released.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Irrelevant to what we're talking about, but thanks for your input.
It's perfectly relevant. You're saying that trap access should be similar to spell access, when spells are dissimilar. If traps are much weaker, then it is reasonable to give access to them in a different, more-generous way than spells.
Arthun |
I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.
IMHO the rules to do that are already there.
"GP"(PP, CP, SP,...) and "Wealth per Level" are, for me, kind of abstract and not that much about "ingame" money, wealth and trading. For me, they are another pool of "points" like XP, HP, Skillpoints etc.
You don't want magicshops and +x weapons?
Why not look at the wealth per level and say "Hey, my players are now level xy and they did a good job helping church XY so they get some training from this church which increases their attack and damage with "typical weapon of church XY" by X points - and surprisingly this is worth the amount of wealth they should have at that level"
Ok, it's a little more complicated then that because u got different characters who "need" different things, but I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say.
I don't think that you have to use "goldpieces" to get your characters their "wealth per level".
ProfessorCirno |
Sean K Reynolds wrote:It's perfectly relevant. You're saying that trap access should be similar to spell access, when spells are dissimilar. If traps are much weaker, then it is reasonable to give access to them in a different, more-generous way than spells.Irrelevant to what we're talking about, but thanks for your input.
This, too, is an important note.
Let's say we go by your worst case scenario and just let rangers use as many traps as they want whenever they want - they automatically gain all traps and can use them all day long. What does that mean?
...Not a whole lot!
Well, ranger can use Alarm trap a lot. That's...um. Well ok, they also have fire trap, which is almost negligible amounts of damage. Ok, not looking good. But wait, there's ice trap which is...a single target entangle.
Huh.
yukarjama |
I really am sorry that the UM VOP doesn't work for you. But you're asking for something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game, and one page or one paragraph isn't going to create something that (1) gives you what you want, (2) is balanced against the other characters, and (3) is also realistic in any sort of way.
How about making a whole new book talking about gearless characters? Judging from the posts in this thread it will sell pretty well. :P
Russ Taylor Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6 |
1) You can by and large make a gearless wizard, and he'll still perform pretty damn awesomely.
Said wizard gets spanked by a proper wizard with an int boosting item, con boosting item, save and AC boosting items, and a sack full of pearls and metamagic rods. And that's not digging very deep into the equipment options.
otter cake |
Sean K Reynolds wrote:It's perfectly relevant. You're saying that trap access should be similar to spell access, when spells are dissimilar. If traps are much weaker, then it is reasonable to give access to them in a different, more-generous way than spells.Irrelevant to what we're talking about, but thanks for your input.
+1
Some people will like the ranger traps, because they want to be ranger trappers. But in the discussion about what is roughly equivalent from a 'fairness' or 'game power' point of view...I'd say that being able to cast haste and slow at level 5 is more powerful than getting access to every single ranger trap...much less one measly trap.
otter cake |
ProfessorCirno wrote:Said wizard gets spanked by a proper wizard with an int boosting item, con boosting item, save and AC boosting items, and a sack full of pearls and metamagic rods. And that's not digging very deep into the equipment options.
1) You can by and large make a gearless wizard, and he'll still perform pretty damn awesomely.
I think the point was that if you capture a party, strip them naked, and throw them in jail, who do you think in general has the best chance to escape/triumph:
1) the caster2) the non-monk melee-er, or
3) the monk?
Bet most of the time it's the caster. (Yes, I know that wizards can't do much without their spellbooks. They're not the only kind of caster.) And this was BEFORE Ultimate Magic came out. So it's kind of strange to hear all this about how people were trying to make sure the rangers or the monks or whoever didn't get too much of a good deal, or how new archetypes can never be a power-up from the original.
ProfessorCirno |
ProfessorCirno wrote:Said wizard gets spanked by a proper wizard with an int boosting item, con boosting item, save and AC boosting items, and a sack full of pearls and metamagic rods. And that's not digging very deep into the equipment options.
1) You can by and large make a gearless wizard, and he'll still perform pretty damn awesomely.
I respond to this literally the very next line.
Read the post before you respond.
ShadowcatX |
I dislike it because it makes it damn near impossible for someone to play the concept of a poor/gearless monk that can keep up with the party without being little more than a sidekick or a liability and it involves having a piece of very expensive gear anyway.But hey, thanks for the label.
It was "damn near impossible" before. Now, with this in the book it is ever so slightly easier.
Again it seems to be it just isn't powerful enough to make people happy.
Before UM came out you could choose to do that of your own volition and just say you were forsaking wealth and you and the party would just have to deal with the consequences. OR you were using the original Voy of Poverty which actually enabled the concept of a poor gearless monk that could keep up with the party and still participate without feeling like a dead weight around their necks. This isn't about wanting to be superpowerful, it's about wanting to be able to hold your own.
And how has any of that changed except now you can do it and get rewarded (slightly) for it? Is the old Vow of Poverty feat suddenly written out of all books? Are DMs across the country banning it now that didn't ban it last week? (I certainly didn't get THAT memo. . .)
This is an option in a book that gives a little bit of power to a very weak type of character. It is better, IMO, than not giving that amount of power to that weak character.
One other point, I never said optimizers couldn't be roleplayers. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Mikaze |
Mikaze wrote:
I dislike it because it makes it damn near impossible for someone to play the concept of a poor/gearless monk that can keep up with the party without being little more than a sidekick or a liability and it involves having a piece of very expensive gear anyway.But hey, thanks for the label.
It was "damn near impossible" before. Now, with this in the book it is ever so slightly easier.
Again it seems to be it just isn't powerful enough to make people happy.
It isn't survivable enough or capable enough at doing what a monk should be doing thematically. Unless the monk's theme is supposed to be "hapless liability".
Quote:Before UM came out you could choose to do that of your own volition and just say you were forsaking wealth and you and the party would just have to deal with the consequences. OR you were using the original Voy of Poverty which actually enabled the concept of a poor gearless monk that could keep up with the party and still participate without feeling like a dead weight around their necks. This isn't about wanting to be superpowerful, it's about wanting to be able to hold your own.And how has any of that changed except now you can do it and get rewarded (slightly) for it? Is the old Vow of Poverty feat suddenly written out of all books? Are DMs across the country banning it now that didn't ban it last week? (I certainly didn't get THAT memo. . .)
The original VoP has no real, reasonable equivalent at all in PF, and nwo the name's been taken by something which absolutely does not fit the bill. The original VoP also cannot be used in PFS. The original VoP is also 3.x material and any player hoping to get to play a gearless monk that hang with the party is going to have to hope like hell that the GM will allow it. And these days it seems like most PF GMs have gone PF only.
This is an option in a book that gives a little bit of power to a very weak type of character. It is better, IMO, than not giving that amount of power to that weak character.
It would have been better to give that weak character some actual help and not swipe the name of one of the few things that ever helped it out. Just my opinion of course.
One other point, I never said optimizers couldn't be roleplayers. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Extend that same courtesy to others and don't make value judgments on whether they like or dislike a new game feature(ie: "If the shoe fits")
Mikaze |
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.I agree 100%! I don't think this is the right context or thread to figure it out, but I think there is a large demand for this, and it isn't unreasonable.
Good God yes. I most certainly would buy it, provided it actually allowed such characters to make it through a standard Pathfinder AP.
Mikaze |
I really am sorry that the UM VOP doesn't work for you. But you're asking for something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game, and one page or one paragraph isn't going to create something that (1) gives you what you want, (2) is balanced against the other characters, and (3) is also realistic in any sort of way.
But the original VoP did do that, or at the very least got closer to the mark. It had problems, but it was a solid notion that could have been built upon.
And by what standard of "realistic" are we working with? I'm genuinely confused on this, whether it means realistic in terms of being able to pull of the mechanics, or realistic in terms of the game world, in which case I'm really confused.
As for why so many want gearless monks, the guy's entire schtick is that he is his weapon. Yet he's still dependent on magical bling.
I'm sorry if all this is coming across as hostile. It isn't. I'm just frustrated that the thing that did the most to help the monk work within his theme seems like it's never going to get a PF analogue now that it's place has been taken by something that doesn't help him at all. I'm just frustrated as a monk fan, period. And things like UM VoP and True Sacrifice for Healing Hand monks just leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
And doubly frustrated when such disappointment is written off as simply "wanting to powergame" or "can't appreciate the flavor".
Ævux |
Actually we have three lizard druids now. There is also the serpent druid from the APG.
Pretty much I have the same disdain for the Master chemist. Sure its not what I want, but the fact that so many good mutation discoveries are ripped from alchemist And also the fact that a really good Dr. Jeckle Mr. Hyde will never be touched again.
Not like how we have now where we've got Dr. Monroe, Dr. Frankenstien and a number of other Doctors that I haven't found a refrese to yet.. But we won't have a Dr. Jeckle/Mr. Hyde.
Likewise, the flying lizard shamman we won't ever get a druid that has heavy draconic flare.
Zmar |
...
Before UM came out you could choose to do that of your own volition and just say you were forsaking wealth and you and the party would just have to deal with the consequences. OR you were using the original Voy of Poverty which actually enabled the concept of a poor gearless monk that could keep up with the party and still participate without feeling like a dead weight around their necks. This isn't about wanting to be superpowerful, it's about wanting to be able to hold your own.
...
Errrm... what exactly prevents you from using the old VoP in your game? With UM you've received another option, but thats about it.
Zmar |
About the trapper... there could be a middl ground perhaps. Ranger getting access to one trap wis/day and receiving a book of traps to which he could add traps for a fee, buying or finding or reverse-engineering designs in a way similar to spells. And the feat could just work as extra traps just like there are extra channels etc.
Ævux |
Mikaze wrote:Errrm... what exactly prevents you from using the old VoP in your game? With UM you've received another option, but thats about it....
Before UM came out you could choose to do that of your own volition and just say you were forsaking wealth and you and the party would just have to deal with the consequences. OR you were using the original Voy of Poverty which actually enabled the concept of a poor gearless monk that could keep up with the party and still participate without feeling like a dead weight around their necks. This isn't about wanting to be superpowerful, it's about wanting to be able to hold your own.
...
Well in my games.. the Dm doesn't want anything 3.5 anymore
Zmar |
Zmar wrote:Well in my games.. the Dm doesn't want anything 3.5 anymoreMikaze wrote:Errrm... what exactly prevents you from using the old VoP in your game? With UM you've received another option, but thats about it....
Before UM came out you could choose to do that of your own volition and just say you were forsaking wealth and you and the party would just have to deal with the consequences. OR you were using the original Voy of Poverty which actually enabled the concept of a poor gearless monk that could keep up with the party and still participate without feeling like a dead weight around their necks. This isn't about wanting to be superpowerful, it's about wanting to be able to hold your own.
...
In that case you were left with nothing or the new UM feature which is still better than nothing, if not perfect, no?
Ævux |
The dragon shaman isn't focused on things draconic. hell its even worse than other shamans in your wildshape ability. (You suffer a -4 to wildshape, then lose your 8th level use)
Not only that but its bonuses only work with things that are lizards. Seperent shaman, is all reptiles mostly.
And also, sometimes nothing is better than having a bag of flaming poo left at your door step.
Mok |
In the wizard vs trap discussion, I'd put aside the wizard for the moment with it need to collect spells and instead look at all of the divine casters. Every book that is released with spells in it just increases the list of spells that the divine caster can immediately choose from to use. No collecting and scribing there.
I like that the traps have their own sub-system, but they come off having the use and utility of a sub-group of spells. It seems like it would have made more sense to just treat them like spells for the purpose of setting up the trap, just expend a spell use for the day. However, keep its subsystem in place.
While these traps aren't realistic in a simulationist stand point, it's hard to properly weigh them in system design off of that metric.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Erik Mona Chief Creative Officer, Publisher |
I am currently playing a monk in Bulmahn's office campaign, and I am keen to see viable options for lots of different archetypes related to the monk. I get why folks are frustrated over the vow of poverty issue, even while I also understand what Jason and Sean are saying about items and treasure being important elements of the spine of the game.
There's some really great stuff in Ultimate Combat for monks (style feats, in particular, and the style master monk specifically), and I will be acting as an in-house advocate for monk goodness wherever I can.
MONKS UBER ALLES!
magnuskn |
I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.
Now I am agreeing with Cirno for the second time in a week... this is setting a bad precedent. :-/
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling. And that is why people hunger for an alternative system, which still allows you to take on the monsters as written in the Bestiarys.
Personally, I think a median system would be an interesting idea. You would still need a Sword of Awesomeness and the Armor of Hefty Plating to shine as a hero... but by the design you wouldn't be needing the other four "Big Six" items ( Amulets of Natural Armor, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance and Stat Boosters ). That means that those bonuses should be given player characters simply by leveling up, i.e. getting tougher and more experienced. Convert Natural Armor bonuses to AC into "Competence Bonuses" and Deflection Bonuses into "Heroic Bonuses". Adjust the WBL to about 40% of what players get normally and you got a system where it looks like that the PC's experience is the source of their power. And it would be a hell of a lot easier to balance a VoP, even in the current form, with a system such as that.
Just an idea for a future book.
xXxTheBeastxXx |
ProfessorCirno wrote:I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.Now I am agreeing with Cirno for the second time in a week... this is setting a bad precedent. :-/
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling. And that is why people hunger for an alternative system, which still allows you to take on the monsters as written in the Bestiarys.
Personally, I think a median system would be an interesting idea. You would still need a Sword of Awesomeness and the Armor of Hefty Plating to shine as a hero... but by the design you wouldn't be needing the other four "Big Six" items ( Amulets of Natural Armor, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance and Stat Boosters ). That means that those bonuses should be given player characters simply by leveling up, i.e. getting tougher and more experienced. Convert Natural Armor bonuses to AC into "Competence Bonuses" and Deflection Bonuses into "Heroic Bonuses". Adjust the WBL to about 40% of what players get normally and you got a system where it looks like that the PC's experience is the source of their power. And it would be a hell of a lot easier to balance a VoP, even in the current form, with a system such as that.
Just an idea for a future book.
That is a very, very sexy concept.
-The Beast
idilippy |
magnuskn wrote:ProfessorCirno wrote:I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.Now I am agreeing with Cirno for the second time in a week... this is setting a bad precedent. :-/
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling. And that is why people hunger for an alternative system, which still allows you to take on the monsters as written in the Bestiarys.
Personally, I think a median system would be an interesting idea. You would still need a Sword of Awesomeness and the Armor of Hefty Plating to shine as a hero... but by the design you wouldn't be needing the other four "Big Six" items ( Amulets of Natural Armor, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance and Stat Boosters ). That means that those bonuses should be given player characters simply by leveling up, i.e. getting tougher and more experienced. Convert Natural Armor bonuses to AC into "Competence Bonuses" and Deflection Bonuses into "Heroic Bonuses". Adjust the WBL to about 40% of what players get normally and you got a system where it looks like that the PC's experience is the source of their power. And it would be a hell of a lot easier to balance a VoP, even in the current form, with a system such as that.
Just an idea for a future book.
That is a very, very sexy concept.
-The Beast
Definitely agree. I'd like the option to play a campaign with interesting magic items without worrying that the PCs will be dropping them all for the "big 6" either by choice or necessity as the AP goes on. Also, I like the concept of the wandering monk with nothing but the clothes on his back and a walking stick fighting evil and helping the poor wherever he goes.
Anyways, the style feats sound intriguing, now if only Ultimate Combat was coming out even sooner!
Slaunyeh |
I really am sorry that the UM VOP doesn't work for you. But you're asking for something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game, and one page or one paragraph isn't going to create something that (1) gives you what you want, (2) is balanced against the other characters, and (3) is also realistic in any sort of way.
While I do agree with everything you said, it does leave me wondering: Why even offer the option if the basic premises is that "being gearless can't work in standard D&D/PF"?
Stasiscell |
You can't just throw that out for one guy and expect a smooth experience, any more than you can run a campaign that's standard except for "there is no metal armor" or "there are no clerics" and expect a smooth experience.
so darksun never existed? have my years spent running arround in athas wearing bone plates been a lie?
0gre |
Sean K Reynolds wrote:so darksun never existed? have my years spent running arround in athas wearing bone plates been a lie?You can't just throw that out for one guy and expect a smooth experience, any more than you can run a campaign that's standard except for "there is no metal armor" or "there are no clerics" and expect a smooth experience.
Dark Sun is a whole campaign setting with it's own separate set of assumptions that change a lot of core assumptions.
Shadow_of_death |
I really am sorry that the UM VOP doesn't work for you. But you're asking for something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game, and one page or one paragraph isn't going to create something that (1) gives you what you want, (2) is balanced against the other characters, and (3) is also realistic in any sort of way.
So what your saying is, you guys put something in a hardcover official expansion of the pathfinder line that completely goes against the basic assumptions you want your consumers to play with?
Not having gear is a power-down for ANY class. Period. It's just that nobody tries to make a "gearless fighter" or "gearless wizard" and expects it to keep up characters toting 100k gp worth of gear. But for some reason they think monks should be able to.
I'm gonna guess by "they" you mean the paizo design team
Exhibit A: VOP
You put this option in an official book, by doing this paizo has officially stated that this is a legitimate option for character creation in homebrew, PFS, and adventure path play. It clearly isn't (ie: Sean wrote: "something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game")
+1
And what are you doing awake? It's 1 in the morning!
Hooray for being a Washingtonian!
-The Beast
2:00 am and going strong!!
Edit: forget spending feats on ranger traps, bear traps can be magically upgraded, are cheap as hell and have beautiful DC's to break out of by level 1. Freaking love those things.
LoreKeeper |
Sean K Reynolds wrote:Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.I wouldn't make a habit of making game books with material that sucks by design.
I disagree here. Nobody forces anybody to play a vow of poverty monk. I may want to play one, and I get a tiny reward for it. I can live with this.
I think the real problem is that players don't want to be able to trust/work-with their GM. If the vow gave concrete and definite bonuses significant to playing a item-less monk, then the player could always refer back to that. As it stands, he is at the mercy of the GM to be kind, understanding and willing to let the vow of poverty monk be a viable character. Can't you just extend a little faith onto your GM. The game isn't players-vs-GM, but players-in-a-story.
Granted, there will be some GMs that state "you want to play without items, so be it" - and in that case you may be well served with ignoring one paragraph worth of option in Ultimate Magic.
...
The only thing that peeves me about the vows is giving up Still Mind. That's a relevant ability that is replaced for no good reason in terms of balance (other maybe than making sure Zen Archers cannot have vows). The vows are sufficiently punishing that they are a "net zero or negative" balance on the class - having to give up a class ability for that should be unnecessary. Or if you have to give up something, make it be something that does not limit what archetypes can take vows. (For example, "use up" the 2nd level monk bonus feat to take vows.
Name Violation |
Quote:I really am sorry that the UM VOP doesn't work for you. But you're asking for something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game, and one page or one paragraph isn't going to create something that (1) gives you what you want, (2) is balanced against the other characters, and (3) is also realistic in any sort of way.Quote:Not having gear is a power-down for ANY class. Period. It's just that nobody tries to make a "gearless fighter" or "gearless wizard" and expects it to keep up characters toting 100k gp worth of gear. But for some reason they think monks should be able to.I'm gonna guess by "they" you mean the paizo design team
Exhibit A: VOP
You put this option in an official book, by doing this paizo has officially stated that this is a legitimate option for character creation in homebrew, PFS, and adventure path play. It clearly isn't (ie: Sean wrote: "something that goes against one of the basic assumptions of the standard game")
Quote:+1
And what are you doing awake? It's 1 in the morning!
Hooray for being a Washingtonian!
-The Beast
2:00 am and going strong!!
Edit: forget spending feats on ranger traps, bear traps can be magically upgraded, are cheap as hell and have beautiful DC's to break out of by level 1. Freaking love those things.
3:50 am and wide awake
If you wanna be pennyless that's your business. Maybe your god will reward you in the afterlife.
But don't expect anyone to pity you for your choice and give you "stuff"(abilities) because you don't want other "stuff"(items)
meatrace |
Sean K Reynolds wrote:It's perfectly relevant. You're saying that trap access should be similar to spell access, when spells are dissimilar. If traps are much weaker, then it is reasonable to give access to them in a different, more-generous way than spells.Irrelevant to what we're talking about, but thanks for your input.
+1
BPorter |
ProfessorCirno wrote:I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.Now I am agreeing with Cirno for the second time in a week... this is setting a bad precedent. :-/
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling. And that is why people hunger for an alternative system, which still allows you to take on the monsters as written in the Bestiarys.
Personally, I think a median system would be an interesting idea. You would still need a Sword of Awesomeness and the Armor of Hefty Plating to shine as a hero... but by the design you wouldn't be needing the other four "Big Six" items ( Amulets of Natural Armor, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance and Stat Boosters ). That means that those bonuses should be given player characters simply by leveling up, i.e. getting tougher and more experienced. Convert Natural Armor bonuses to AC into "Competence Bonuses" and Deflection Bonuses into "Heroic Bonuses". Adjust the WBL to about 40% of what players get normally and you got a system where it looks like that the PC's experience is the source of their power. And it would be a hell of a lot easier to balance a VoP, even in the current form, with a system such as that.
Just an idea for a future book.
I can support this 100%. De-emphasizing magic bling, AS AN OPTION, would be a very good thing. I would pre-order such a book today.
However, I'm pretty concerned that I may be agreeing with ProfC, even tangentially... ;)
BPorter |
Dude, if you can't see the difference between:
(your proposal)
Ranger: gets (Wis) extra traps per day, every day, for freeand
(your equivalent proposal)
Wizard: gets (Int) extra spells per day, every day, for freeand
(the reality)
Wizard: can create one-use scrolls to accomplish a few extra spells per day, for a few days until they're used all up, but spends gp and time to create such thingsThen we're done here.
And on this point, I'm 100% behind SKR. While I'd like magic items to be a less required facet of the game, I DO NOT want meta-gaming 4e-like "trap-spawning" refreshes.
Some of us are heavy on the "internal consistency/story" side and strongly downplay the "well I should get X because the wizard gets Y" side.