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
Jason Bulmahn said this in response to someone on another thread claiming that the Vow of Poverty option was so underpowered that only about 1% of people who made monks would use the option.
I couldn't respond, as that thread has, since, been locked, so I'm responding now:
What a load of crap.
Jason, I adore your work. The Magus is fantastic, and words of power is (almost) everything I hoped it would be. I won't even make the claim that you designed this vow (actually, I would be hard-pressed to believe it, given your track record). I even consider Ultimate Magic to be a really good book (not APG caliber, but still good) with a LOT to offer, but really?
Claiming that, since it only takes up .06% of the book, and 1% of people will use it, that makes it a win is total garbage. Imagine, if you will, that you didn't include vow of poverty, and instead included...say...Jolt, one of the cantrips that were meant to be in this book but got cut for...some reason. What percentage of people do you think would be using a brand-spanking-new electric cantrip? I'm betting a helluva lot more than 1%.
We could take this further. What if we got rid of the god-awful Dragon Shaman archetype (seriously, that thing needs a thread all its own to rant about) and included another cantrip that got cut...penumbra, maybe. Or how about vitriol? How many people would use those? A lot more than those who are going to choose to play a poorly designed lizard druid that happens to sometimes get wings.
You claim that we shouldn't micromanage every content decision in the book. But what about the bad ones?
Sorry, but I needed to rant, and the fact that likely fun, interesting spells got cut while the Dragon Shaman and Vow of Poverty options got the go-ahead...it feels insulting to me as a player and customer of Paizo.
I really hope that Ultimate Combat makes up for some of the pitfalls in UM.
-The Beast
As with any option presented in any book anyone produces concerning /anything on earth/ not just games:
You can't please everyone. Not everyone will like everything. The fact that you yourself do not like it, does not mean they shouldn't publish it or include it.
If you do not like it, do not use it. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that because *you* think it is crap, that everyone else automatically does also. There will be some things in every book that various and sundry people do not like. Its just the way things work.
-S
|
I just had to put up a general opposition to this post. I for one am one of the people who can see myself using the Vow of Poverty in play, its actually something I would develop and class around and I enjoy that fact. Its very different that existed in the pathfinder rules, while(to use your example of jolt) there already is an electric based cantrip called electric charge.
Dragon Shaman, is something I see as being situational, but I don't see it as necessarily being underpowered. I've seen druids based on vermin before, why is the idea of one focusing on lizards or dragons so odd? Would a dragan shaman druid among a bunch of kobolds or lizardfolk be so different than a druid among gnolls who focused on hyena?
The additional rules in the supplement are there to give diversity and I think his response is quite accurate, just because you aren't going to use that diversity doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't. You would rather have more spells than class options, I stand on the opposite side of that argument. The book gives both, you don't need to take offense that they worked to accommodate all play types and feel they didn't focus more purely on yours.
Instead of posting an inflamatory rant maybe you should post a detailed criticism of the product or a review.
What would you have liked to see more of?
What didn't you like?
Less rant, more constructive criticism.
I apologize for the inflammatory nature of my post. I was, at the time, in the midst of reading through the Vow of Poverty thread, which as you likely know, got out of hand. My blood was boiling.
I do believe my point--that new and interesting spells and features would be, objectively, a much greater gain than (at least) the two options I presented--stands. I'm not even a huge spellcaster fan (I have no urge to play a full-caster, and the only half-casters that interest me are the bard and magus), but new cantrips are exciting. He presented an objective argument, that 1% use was a net gain over .06% usage of book. My attempt was to suggest that options that would see much greater use would be a much better use of the book's space.
I got hot-headed and out of hand.
@Selgard: I NEVER suggested that anyone other than myself felt this way. Please do not assume facts that are not in evidence.
@Tarlane: Your point is accepted. I am not aware of Electric Charge, and it is not in either the d20pfsrd or the PRD. Is it 3pp?
I'll be sure to think before I type,
-The Beast
|
I do believe my point--that new and interesting spells and features would be, objectively, a much greater gain than (at least) the two options I presented--stands. I'm not even a huge spellcaster fan (I have no urge to play a full-caster, and the only half-casters that interest me are the bard and magus), but new cantrips are exciting. He presented an objective argument, that 1% use was a net gain over .06% usage of book. My attempt was to suggest that options that would see much greater use would be a much better use of the book's space.
Thanks for taking it down a notch :D
I think that is a relevant complaint but take a second to think about how the book is laid out and written.
Each section of the book is given a specific amount of page space, in this case the monk section was given three pages. Should Vow of Poverty have been removed they wouldn't have been able to add another spell, they would have had to add another Vow, or possible add some abilities to the Qinggong Archetype. Similarly the Druid section is given a specific number of pages and that Shamen option would have been replaced with another Druid option, not additional spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone seems to forget that non-optimizers do exist. And if I had to wager, I'd say they vastly outnumber the optimizers. These are the people that play to play concepts. They may not fully understand the rules, or just don't care to be fully optimal. They just want to have fun in a roleplaying game. I have no clue why everyone on these forums but me and a few others seem to forget about these guys.
Vow of Poverty has great flavor. So does Dragon Shaman. Who cares if it's not optimal? I'm a shaman of motherfrakkin' dragons!
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you clarify what you meant by "it feels insulting to me as a player and customer of Paizo."? As in, you're actually insulted about options in the book? Surely that can't be the case, so I was wondering if you could clarify that.
I do believe my point--that new and interesting spells and features would be, objectively, a much greater gain than (at least) the two options I presented--stands. I'm not even a huge spellcaster fan (I have no urge to play a full-caster, and the only half-casters that interest me are the bard and magus), but new cantrips are exciting. He presented an objective argument, that 1% use was a net gain over .06% usage of book. My attempt was to suggest that options that would see much greater use would be a much better use of the book's space.Thanks for taking it down a notch :D
I think that is a relevant complaint but take a second to think about how the book is laid out and written.
Each section of the book is given a specific amount of page space, in this case the monk section was given three pages. Should Vow of Poverty have been removed they wouldn't have been able to add another spell, they would have had to add another Vow, or possible add some abilities to the Qinggong Archetype. Similarly the Druid section is given a specific number of pages and that Shamen option would have been replaced with another Druid option, not additional spells.
You make a good point, and while I could argue against the vows altogether, freeing up a page to be used later in the Spells chapter, that is not a topic to be argued here. I concede that you probably know much more concerning the industry than I do, and that there are likely many factors that neither of us are taking into account. Consider this thread dead.
-The Beast
Everyone seems to forget that non-optimizers do exist. And if I had to wager, I'd say they vastly outnumber the optimizers. These are the people that play to play concepts. They may not fully understand the rules, or just don't care to be fully optimal. They just want to have fun in a roleplaying game. I have no clue why everyone on these forums but me and a few others seem to forget about these guys.
Vow of Poverty has great flavor. So does Dragon Shaman. Who cares if it's not optimal? I'm a shaman of motherfrakkin' dragons!
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you clarify what you meant by "it feels insulting to me as a player and customer of Paizo."? As in, you're actually insulted about options in the book? Surely that can't be the case, so I was wondering if you could clarify that.
Please, please, please don't rehash the old thread's nonsense where everyone who said vow of poverty was bad mechanically was apparently an optimizer who never cared about role play. I love to role play, more than optimizing to be sure since I'm terrible at the latter, and I had an issue with vow of poverty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that stands out to me as being incredibly annoying is Masterpieces.
Imagine if a wizard had to use a feat every time he wanted to learn a new spell. Masterpieces!
If one feat gave access to multiple masterpieces, they'd be fantastic. As it stands, they're just horribly too difficult to get to be worth the effort.
One of the things that stands out to me as being incredibly annoying is Masterpieces.
Imagine if a wizard had to use a feat every time he wanted to learn a new spell. Masterpieces!
If one feat gave access to multiple masterpieces, they'd be fantastic. As it stands, they're just horribly too difficult to get to be worth the effort.
Well, IIRC masterpieces CAN be taken in place of a spell... and expand the standard "expertise" of the bard (I remember a flesh to stone effect, as an example, even if needs several rounds).
Dunno. I should play them - they are "different", I cannot adjudicate this.
Paladin Oaths are a great idea.. but most of them need to give up too much. Delay the smite (see APG) or half the divine grace bonus could have been enough - no need of complete removal IMHO.
I do believe my point--that new and interesting spells and features would be, objectively, a much greater gain than (at least) the two options I presented--stands. I'm not even a huge spellcaster fan (I have no urge to play a full-caster, and the only half-casters that interest me are the bard and magus), but new cantrips are exciting. He presented an objective argument, that 1% use was a net gain over .06% usage of book. My attempt was to suggest that options that would see much greater use would be a much better use of the book's space.Thanks for taking it down a notch :D
I think that is a relevant complaint but take a second to think about how the book is laid out and written.
Each section of the book is given a specific amount of page space, in this case the monk section was given three pages. Should Vow of Poverty have been removed they wouldn't have been able to add another spell, they would have had to add another Vow, or possible add some abilities to the Qinggong Archetype. Similarly the Druid section is given a specific number of pages and that Shamen option would have been replaced with another Druid option, not additional spells.
You make a good point, and while I could argue against the vows altogether, freeing up a page to be used later in the Spells chapter, that is not a topic to be argued here. I concede that you probably know much more concerning the industry than I do, and that there are likely many factors that neither of us are taking into account. Consider this thread dead.
-The Beast
Word counts and page space is a b&#*~. Believe me I know. When given a limit of about 1500 words sometimes you have only 500 words to do what you want to do. Other times you need 3000.
Then editors get a hold of it and some thins are considered too weak, too powerful, not the flavor they want, too similar to soemthing else, etc. etc.
Really if you manage to get one out of a hundred players to consider what you did awesome that's still worth the effort compared to 0 out of 100. The goals always 100 out of 100 but that can be somethign of a double edged sword as well...but I won't get into that.
One of the things that stands out to me as being incredibly annoying is Masterpieces.
Imagine if a wizard had to use a feat every time he wanted to learn a new spell. Masterpieces!
If one feat gave access to multiple masterpieces, they'd be fantastic. As it stands, they're just horribly too difficult to get to be worth the effort.
Well, IIRC masterpieces CAN be taken in place of a spell... and expand the standard "expertise" of the bard (I remember a flesh to stone effect, as an example, even if needs several rounds).
Dunno. I should play them - they are "different", I canno adjudicate this.
Paladin Oaths are a great idea.. but most of them need to give up too much. Delay the smite (see APG) or half the divine grace bonus could have been enough - no need of complete removal IMHO.
Most of them really aren't worth the loss of a spell known, though.
Everyone seems to forget that non-optimizers do exist. And if I had to wager, I'd say they vastly outnumber the optimizers. These are the people that play to play concepts. They may not fully understand the rules, or just don't care to be fully optimal. They just want to have fun in a roleplaying game. I have no clue why everyone on these forums but me and a few others seem to forget about these guys.
Vow of Poverty has great flavor. So does Dragon Shaman. Who cares if it's not optimal? I'm a shaman of motherfrakkin' dragons!
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you clarify what you meant by "it feels insulting to me as a player and customer of Paizo."? As in, you're actually insulted about options in the book? Surely that can't be the case, so I was wondering if you could clarify that.
Do not make blanket assumptions about optimizers vs. role players. As has been stated many times before by many more intelligent people than myself, the two terms are NOT mutually exclusive.
Oh. And the dragon shaman has terrible flavor, which is my actual problem with the archetype. It is NOT a shaman of dragons. It is a shaman of lizards that can potentially get wings for a few minutes per day. It does not get a draconic companion, cannot wild shape into a dragon, cannot communicate with dragons any better than a standard druid, and only gets 2 powers that relate to dragons in the slightest. One grants you a single aspect of a dragon for a number of minutes per day equal to your level, and the other gives you energy damage on your bite attack (something dragons do not get, might I add), which you only have when you are utilizing the aspect or transformed into a lizard.
I plan to give that archetype a full review later. For now, let this thread die.
As far as clarifying my statement, I feel insulted that the paizo designers felt that certain design choices were intriguing and well-designed enough when, after only a cursory examination, it is quite evident that they are not.
-The Beast
Agree on the dragon shaman : / it feels like something "nerfed". Perhaps they considered the option of true dragon features and shapechanges too powerful.
Or outhining the draconic sorcerer.. dunno.
And sorry, I stuck with pathfinder because I wanted mechanics and flavour fitting.
If the Dragon Slaying Strike does not kills dragons, is not "for roleplayers". It's wrong.
Agree on the dragon shaman : / it feels like something "nerfed". Perhaps they considered the option of true dragon features and shapechanges too powerful.
Or outhining the draconic sorcerer.. dunno.
I'm actually working on a re-design as we speak. It's almost complete. It focuses on the shaman choosing a totem dragon (one of the true dragon types) and the powers it gains being based off that totem. I'm building a dragon companion (one universal template for all the true dragon types, with breath weapon interchangeable).
-The Beast
something I posted in the original thread about the vow that I don't think people are considering. This might make people see it in a more positive light, perhaps.
- As Jason pointed out, if this is a trap, it is a lousy one. Besides, players new to the game, which would be in greater risk of making bad choices have much to get accostumed to before going into the "advanced option" books. This concern is unnecessary, I would say.
- It appears to me that one of the Pathfinder design choices has been to offer options to many different styles of play. In a low magic game this could be a viable option, while many other options usually considered great would cease to be so. Perhaps I would set my adventures in the mana wastes ?
- Lastly, don't forget these books are not merely player's options, but also GM toolsets. The vow of poverty, as written, is a great way for a GM to build an antagonist with high-level interesting abilities, but which is balanced against a party of lower level due to his lack of proper equipment.
something I posted in the original thread about the vow that I don't think people are considering. This might make people see it in a more positive light, perhaps.
- As Jason pointed out, if this is a trap, it is a lousy one. Besides, players new to the game, which would be in greater risk of making bad choices have much to get accostumed to before going into the "advanced option" books. This concern is unnecessary, I would say.
- It appears to me that one of the Pathfinder design choices has been to offer options to many different styles of play. In a low magic game this could be a viable option, while many other options usually considered great would cease to be so. Perhaps I would set my adventures in the mana wastes ?
- Lastly, don't forget these books are not merely player's options, but also GM toolsets. The vow of poverty, as written, is a great way for a GM to build an antagonist with high-level interesting abilities, but which is balanced against a party of lower level due to his lack of proper equipment.
Your points are noted. Know that I don't hate Vow of Poverty, and do see its use. I was merely forced into using it since it was the subject of my original point. I would have much rather used the Shark Shaman, the Dual-cursed Oracle, or some of the new spells. However, the constraints of the % argument required I use the Vow of Poverty.
-The Beast
Why in god's name is Trapper Ranger a thing.
Rangers should get all traps automatically because they're really, really, really not worth a feat each. They're p. cool! But they're not one freaking use per feat good.
The archtype itself is just awful.
I'm not sure if the awful feat was made to supplement the awful archtype or the other way around.
Is it so hard to just go "Hey take this one feat and your ranger gets all traps" and leave it at that? Boom, more word space for those cantrips.
the dragon shaman is neat I don't see the issue. he's a shaman of komodo dragons with fantasy dragon themes overlaid. I don't see why this is bad.
As far as clarifying my statement, I feel insulted that the paizo designers felt that certain design choices were intriguing and well-designed enough when, after only a cursory examination, it is quite evident that they are not.
So you just give it a cursory examination and decided it is bad? Maybe you should see it in play first to see how it actualy plays. I mean that is what I usualy do...and I often find such awesome hidden gems.
the dragon shaman is neat I don't see the issue. he's a shaman of komodo dragons with fantasy dragon themes overlaid. I don't see why this is bad.
There is already a Saurian Shaman. There is nothing in the archetype truly draconic.
Make it even weaker than a standard druid, but keep the flavour. Now we have Lizard Archetype A and Lizard Archetype B. Waste of space.
saurians and lizards are not the same thing. though maybe I am looking at it wrong that I didnt see the two archetypes the same. though with my Komodo dragon reference earlier do the Pf equivalenns have septic spit?
saurians and lizards are not the same thing. though maybe I am looking at it wrong that I didnt see the two archetypes the same. though with my Komodo dragon reference earlier do the Pf equivalenns have septic spit?
Yeah, sauria is a paraphyletic group (the way systematics has to say "we don't know what happened but these dudes sound familars each other") and "lizards (lacertilia)" it's a suborder.
But in game terms, you have either lizards which spit venom and bite, or magical lizards able to fly spit fire and cast spell.
And barring the fly and a Dragon Bite, the Dragon Shaman has more stuff which (IMHO) remember me lizards than dragons.
IMHO to balance stuff with "draconic" powers (dragon shape 1 and 2 instead of the elemental one, a pseudodragon as animal companion, a breath x times/day, no at will WS for the most powerful forms) the Druid could have been cut of a lot of powerful stuff. BUT at least resembling a dragon shaman.
This is a "lizards with energy bite shaman".
-The Beast
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.
Why in god's name is Trapper Ranger a thing.
Because you can't just dump ten new abilities on a class for free without it giving a significant boost to the ranger class's power and utility.
Rangers should get all traps automatically because they're really, really, really not worth a feat each. They're p. cool! But they're not one freaking use per feat good.
Except it's Wis bonus/day, not 1 use per day or per feat.
So you either make each of them weak enough that you can add them all to the class, or you make them strong enough that the character has to give up something for them (like a feat for one of them, or spellcasting for all of them).
Setting these traps is a full-round action. Creating a trap with the standard rules would take hours, days, or months, so this is clearly a faster, better option... which means there has to be a cost for it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.
Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.
Vow of poverty- I would grant the player the advanced template, Endure elements, sustenance, fast healing, and at 4th level his unarmed strike would gain a +1 enhancementment bonus that would increase every 4 levels(max +5 at level 20) and twice the stat bonuses(but one for physical and one for mental). I might allow for special weapon properties with there unarmed attacks using ther Ki as well and maybe using there cha mod for deflection bonus to ac and resistance bonus to saves.
Yeah the Dragon shaman archtype was very disapointing
I like vow of poverty enough to want to play it. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a subpar option compared to what power level the monk could achieve, but I think it's worth it anyway - especially for a low-level campaign that ends around level 6 or 8.
At very high levels, especially after level 14, the incentive to keep to the vow is very low indeed. Fortunately it can be rescinded within the rules given for it.
What I find annoying is giving up the "still mind" class ability. I find the power level of the vows are net-zero already given what you give up (no potions, no items, attack-AC-speed penalty, etc) - so I don't see why a class ability needs to be given up to take a vow. Particularly as this precludes some archetypes from taking vows, which I think is a pity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.
This made my Monday. ;)
One thing that I always find amusing is the "net nerdrage". A book comes out and some folks scream bloody murder that "power creep" is back and too many choices are ruining the game.
Then when they read the book some other folks scream about how the book was horrible and everything sucks to high heaven.
The game is about choices. Some of them are good for a character and some of them are bad for a character. The good and bad of the choice could be RP related, ease of play related, power level related, etc. Not everything needs to be done just to make your character tougher. And not everything has to suck to avoid power creep. A good mix is a good thing and that is what we have.
That being said, I LOVE the fact that the Vow of Poverty is what it is. It should SUCK for your character in a world were hero's are like Christmas trees and you are the single character willing to give up that power to uphold an ideal. If you make it like it was before being poor is better then being rich because you get EVERYTHING the decked out rich guy has for free... but you do not have to carry anything. ;)
Enjoy the game folks and have fun with it. If something does not work for your group play nice and either house rule it or do not use it.
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.This made my Monday. ;)
One thing that I always find amusing is the "net nerdrage". A book comes out and some folks scream bloody murder that "power creep" is back and too many choices are ruining the game.
Then when they read the book some other folks scream about how the book was horrible and everything sucks to high heaven.
The game is about choices. Some of them are good for a character and some of them are bad for a character. The good and bad of the choice could be RP related, ease of play related, power level related, etc. Not everything needs to be done just to make your character tougher. And not everything has to suck to avoid power creep. A good mix is a good thing and that is what we have.
That being said, I LOVE the fact that the Vow of Poverty is what it is. It should SUCK for your character in a world were hero's are like Christmas trees and you are the single character willing to give up that power to uphold an ideal. If you make it like it was before being poor is better then being rich because you get EVERYTHING the decked out rich guy has for free... but you do not have to carry anything. ;)
Enjoy the game folks and have fun with it. If something does not work for your group play nice and either house rule it or do not use it.
+1
|
Pathfinder really shines because you can make A LOT of different concepts and carry them out. You get really inspired by flipping through the books..
Unless you want to play a gearless monk that can stand right alongside his companions without needing an assortment of jangling magical gear, like every barehanded martial artist in popculture and legend.
I hate how some keep insinuating that those that don't like the UM VoP don't like it because they're optimizers. I am not an optimizer. Concept is the most important thing for me when I build my characters. And the UM VoP absolutely wrecks it, both in terms of flavor and mechanics. It's a power-down for the absolute last class that needed one, and it makes it even harder to be anything more than a fifth wheel or a burden on the party.
That and the flavor itself falls short, because you're still dependant on a piece of expensive magical gear to keep up. Only now you're COMPLETELY at the mercy of the GM to give you a handout and special treatment for it to work.
That said, looking forward to Ultimate Combat. Hopefully it'll help monks keep up, though it probably won't have any solutions for the gearless monk concept since UM took the one helpful option they had and turned it into the exact opposite of what they need.
Being poor sucks in the real world. Choosing to be poor in a fantasy universe as an ascetic way of life to achieve enlightenment and sacrifice for the sake of others should offer something more meaningful and flavorful than an extra ki point every two levels.
I'm glad the UM VoP works for some folks, but please don't pretend that those that don't like it have no legitimate reason for it.
Pathfinder really shines because you can make A LOT of different concepts and carry them out. You get really inspired by flipping through the books..
Unless you want to play a gearless monk that can stand right alongside his companions without needing an assortment of jangling magical gear, like every barehanded martial artist in popculture and legend.
I hate how some keep insinuating that those that don't like the UM VoP don't like it because they're optimizers. I am not an optimizer. Concept is the most important thing for me when I build my characters. And the UM VoP absolutely wrecks it, both in terms of flavor and mechanics. It's a power-down for the absolute last class that needed one, and it makes it even harder to be anything more than a fifth wheel or a burden on the party.
That and the flavor itself falls short, because you're still dependant on a piece of expensive magical gear to keep up. Only now you're COMPLETELY at the mercy of the GM to give you a handout and special treatment for it to work.
That said, looking forward to Ultimate Combat. Hopefully it'll help monks keep up, though it probably won't have any solutions for the gearless monk concept since UM took the one helpful option they had and turned it into the exact opposite of what they need.
Being poor sucks in the real world. Choosing to be poor in a fantasy universe as an ascetic way of life to achieve enlightenment and sacrifice for the sake of others should offer something more meaningful and flavorful than an extra ki point every two levels.
I'm glad the UM VoP works for some folks, but please don't pretend that those that don't like it have no legitimate reason for it.
Well said Mikaze.
|
|
I'm still not really sure how they were supposed to get around the whole "published adventures dole out X amount of treasure to 4 characters, now one isn't accepting any (but is still amazing), how do we deal with this?" problem. I totally get the posts Sean has made on the subject. It simply presents a design hurdle that has no obvious solution, especially given that treasure distribution is run differently from table to table.
|
|
I'm glad the UM VoP works for some folks, but please don't pretend that those that don't like it have no legitimate reason for it.People who don't like it dislike it because it doesn't grant them enough power. In other words the cost to benefit ratio isn't optimized. If the shoe fits. . .
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.
Before UM came out you could play a monk (or any class) with a vow of poverty and not get anything for it. No one had a problem with that. Now you can do the same only you get power for it and people gripe that it isn't enough power. C'est la vie.
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.
Did the original VoP have problems? Yes. But it still did a better job of enabling that theme of character.
Then again I guess you're right. Wanting to be able to play that theme of character in a standard AP without dying all the time, missing all the time, endangering my freinds' PCs, and hoping the GM will bend over backwards to keep me in the game means I'm an optimizer after all and not a "real roleplayer". :(
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.
Psh, like YOU'D know. You're making GAME DESIGNER money :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you want to play a gearless monk that can stand right alongside his companions without needing an assortment of jangling magical gear, like some barehanded martial artists in popculture and legend.
Fixed that for you.
D&D/Pathfinder isn't pop culture and legend. It's its own thing. Ryan Dancey used to say, "the D&D rules is a very good simulator of a typical D&D game." D&D isn't Tolkien. It isn't Forbidden Kingdom. It's not Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's not Blind Fury. It isn't The Crippled Masters. The game assumes from the very start that gear is an essential part of being an adventurer. 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.
To different degrees, a fighter, monk, and wizard (with spellbook) are all going to suffer without any gear. When you're playing a game where people can teleport, raised the dead, and survive multiple bites from a dragon, you're not playing the sort of game where a guy with no equipment can keep up compared to the plate armor warrior and the master wizard. There's a reason why "I have no equipment" martial arts movies have the protagonist fighting (1) other martial artists, (2) mooks with standard weapons. They don't fight dragons. They don't fight balor-type demons. If you want a game where the "I don't have equipment" guy is an up-to-par character, you need to either change the game so that nobody has tons of gear (like Exalted, which is an anime-style high-fantasy martial arts game where a starting character can punch-out a T-rex), or play a low-level game where gear isn't as important.
"My character is a badass even though he doesn't have any equipment" is a paradigm-changing statement as much as "my character is a badass even though he doesn't gain levels" is a paradigm-changing statement. You can create campaigns where they work, but you can't do it in a vacuum. You can't expect E6 characters to keep up with standard D&D/PF characters, and you can't expect gearless characters to keep up with standard D&D/PF characters.
Conan doesn't have tons of magic items.
Gandalf and Merlin don't have tons of magic items.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser don't have tons of magic items.
Ancient Greek heroes don't have tons of magic items.
And most wuxia-style martial artists don't have tons of magic items.
But none of those characters or stories are very much like D&D/PF.
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.
It's a power-down for the absolute last class that needed one, and it makes it even harder to be anything more than a fifth wheel or a burden on the party.
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.
good stuff
I agree with most of what you said. In fact I think making a gearless or less geared character requires alot more then a single ability could provide. I would expect much of a single hard back book would be required. Say one based around dialing up or down magic and magic items in your game *wink wink nudge nudge put this in the idea hopper*
|
|
Most of them really aren't worth the loss of a spell known, though.One of the things that stands out to me as being incredibly annoying is Masterpieces.
Imagine if a wizard had to use a feat every time he wanted to learn a new spell. Masterpieces!
If one feat gave access to multiple masterpieces, they'd be fantastic. As it stands, they're just horribly too difficult to get to be worth the effort.
Well, IIRC masterpieces CAN be taken in place of a spell... and expand the standard "expertise" of the bard (I remember a flesh to stone effect, as an example, even if needs several rounds).
Dunno. I should play them - they are "different", I canno adjudicate this.
Paladin Oaths are a great idea.. but most of them need to give up too much. Delay the smite (see APG) or half the divine grace bonus could have been enough - no need of complete removal IMHO.
The masterpiece idea was pretty good. The execution of those ideas in Ultimate magic was just not very well done. The abilities are on the weaker side requiring multiple rounds for many while requiring far too much to be given up in return. Honestly, you could give all of them to a bard for a feat and the bard would still not come even remotely close to a dominating role in combat.
|
|
I'm still not really sure how they were supposed to get around the whole "published adventures dole out X amount of treasure to 4 characters, now one isn't accepting any (but is still amazing), how do we deal with this?" problem. I totally get the posts Sean has made on the subject. It simply presents a design hurdle that has no obvious solution, especially given that treasure distribution is run differently from table to table.Um, there is no design hurdle. The new vow of poverty isn't amazing, so it doesn't matter if your full share of the treasure gets split between your allies. That's one of the few redeeming features of the new vow of poverty.
That's precisely my point. My point is directed toward people who want the UM VoP monk to be amazing despite having no equipment. They solved the hurdle the only way they could. Try to make a VoP monk as good as a level appropriate fighter with gear, and then let me know how you solve the problem I'm referring to.
I'm not confrontational, here. I'm saying there really isn't a good way to do it. If you have an idea, I'd love to hear it, it's an interesting puzzle.
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.
I was just thinking that something taking .06% of space and being used by 1% of people is like a 40% Return On Investment. awesome!
I think the bardic masterpieces are great. What's the cost of giving up a spell-known? Human bards, at least, can favored-class to make-up for the cost. So to me the cost of a bardic masterpiece comes down to "do I want to use one of my level-up favored class bonuses to get a masterpiece?" The answer is an emphatic yes.
SKR- "Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks."
Snicker, snicker.
I think the problem here is that folks are looking at the "VoP" in two different ways.
Some folks want to play an equipment-less character, who is about as effective as a regular WBL character. For the record, this is the approximate difference at level 10:
AC: -6 (-2 Armor,-2 Deflection, -2 Na) (Note: for a shield using character, this would probably be -9!)
Saves:
F -4
R -3
W -4
HP: -10
Hit/damage: -1/-6
Note: this was first written up for a 10th level fighter here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/brainstormHowToDoLowMagicWithoutRewritingTheSystem&page=3 #107
However a monk would be fairly similar.
We see similar things in folks who want to play unarmored barbarians, and the like. It should be noted that the devil is in the details, but limiting magical wealth has little effect in the beginning of the game (healing potions excluded) but makes it virtually unplayable at the highest levels.
The VoP that is presented is not meant to fill in this blank, it exists for different reasons. If folks want a reduced or no magic character, it is going to take more to balance then VoP, as presented in the 3.5 or Pathfinder versions.
I think lowered item dependence can fairly easily be done, at least up to about 15th level, but it requires the player, GM, and campaign to come up with a solution, and doesn't automatically work well as something designed to work with almost any campaign.
Why in god's name is Trapper Ranger a thing.Because you can't just dump ten new abilities on a class for free without it giving a significant boost to the ranger class's power and utility.
Take feat, gain access to all traps.
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!)
[quot]
Rangers should get all traps automatically because they're really, really, really not worth a feat each. They're p. cool! But they're not one freaking use per feat good.Except it's Wis bonus/day, not 1 use per day or per feat.
How many traps known does each feat give you?
So you either make each of them weak enough that you can add them all to the class, or you make them strong enough that the character has to give up something for them (like a feat for one of them, or spellcasting for all of them).
Setting these traps is a full-round action. Creating a trap with the standard rules would take hours, days, or months, so this is clearly a faster, better option... which means there has to be a cost for it.
Take one feat, gain access to all traps. Look at that, I made them slightly harder to get then the free spells you give wizards every single book.
Again, imagine if you had to take a feat to learn every single individual spell. Suddenly the design seems a bit off?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There's two issues to this.
1) You can by and large make a gearless wizard, and he'll still perform pretty damn awesomely.
Here's where the whole wealth per level breaks down. Fighters have armor and a weapon (or weapons) and a bevy of defensive items to increase their AC and nodes of utility and and and
Wizards cast a spell done.
Fighters also frequently need more stats high which leads to needing more and bigger stat-giving items.
2) You've already set up monks as the "gearless" class. They don't wear armor, they basically don't use weapons. Unsurprisingly, they suffer a whole lot from it (Well and a bevy of other things)
People are asking support for the archtype you already made. And hey, you've already solved that...for spellcasters, who can cast themselves into no longer requiring items. Will a wizard with naught but their spellbook be weaker then a wizard decked from head to toe with shinies? Absolutely! Will he still be viable? Yes! Will a fighter without his shinies be viable? Not in the slightest.
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.