Pummeling Style - Charge


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

9mm wrote:
Acedio wrote:
9mm wrote:
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.
Do you know how difficult it is to write a scenario that can hold off power gamers and yet be possible for non-optimizers to complete?
when you have no idea what is at the table? very. however there are plenty of basic tools that are just not used. Where is the heavy fog, the rain, healthy usage of difficult terrain? I'm not saying we should be facing lots of underwater combat, but I can't tell the difference between a wide open field and random dungeon half the time.

A) How exactly does increasing terrain effects balance out the power differential between power gamers and non-power gamers? In my experience power gamers are more apt to have the tools to negate terrain effects than non-power gamers, so all this would do is exacerbate the differences, not equalize them.

B) One or two encounters with difficult terrain effects is fine. More than that turns an adventure into an a grueling slogfest that is annoying to the players and twice as annoying to the GM who has to keep track of all the conditions. It also makes encounters take more game time in an environment already strapped for it. And, again, only makes the encounter more difficult for everyone. Not just the power gamers.

Silver Crusade 2/5

My ranger has his Goz Mask at the ready. :)

Scarab Sages 1/5

Renegade Paladin wrote:
Acedio wrote:
9mm wrote:
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.
Do you know how difficult it is to write a scenario that can hold off power gamers and yet be possible for non-optimizers to complete?
Not particularly. You simply include a variety of threats and a non-optional skill challenge. It's extremely difficult to build a character that can comprehensively defeat everything while defending against every save type at the same time and then picking locks and gathering information with Diplomacy.

Difficult, not impossible. With enough optimization, anything is possible.

The key is, stop adding DPR after you have enough to kill everything. Spend a feat or two on defenses and non-combat abilities.

Scarab Sages 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
9mm wrote:
Acedio wrote:
9mm wrote:
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.
Do you know how difficult it is to write a scenario that can hold off power gamers and yet be possible for non-optimizers to complete?
when you have no idea what is at the table? very. however there are plenty of basic tools that are just not used. Where is the heavy fog, the rain, healthy usage of difficult terrain? I'm not saying we should be facing lots of underwater combat, but I can't tell the difference between a wide open field and random dungeon half the time.

A) How exactly does increasing terrain effects balance out the power differential between power gamers and non-power gamers? In my experience power gamers are more apt to have the tools to negate terrain effects than non-power gamers, so all this would do is exacerbate the differences, not equalize them.

B) One or two encounters with difficult terrain effects is fine. More than that turns an adventure into an a grueling slogfest that is annoying to the players and twice as annoying to the GM who has to keep track of all the conditions. It also makes encounters take more game time in an environment already strapped for it. And, again, only makes the encounter more difficult for everyone. Not just the power gamers.

Start adding too much difficult terrain and all the power gamers will have Feather Step Slippers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am an inveterate power gamer. Many of my characters are built such that they could probably solo most scenarios if I really wanted to. One particularly could likely solo Bonekeep. I like numbers. I run DPR simulations just because I find the process of creating the perfect build facinating.

I still maintain that it is part of the social contract implicit in our hobby for EVERY player (and GM) to make every effort and not step on, run roughshod over, or otherwise cause others at the table to have a bad experience.

This means sometimes, MOST times, pulling your punches to not totally dominate scenes. This means observing and listening to the other players to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate. This means being part of a team and not being solo superstar extraordinare.

Do the authors have a responsibility to try and balance what they write? Sure.

Is it a duty of the GM to try and balance what they run? Absolutely.

Players? Should they be aware and respectful of the others sitting with them? YES.

Blasting apart combats with power combos just because you can, while leaving the rest of your fellow pathfinders in the dust wondering why they're even present is just flat out disrespectful and thoughtless. As is leaving your GM with the feeling he might as well just have handed you the chronicle sheet at the beginning saving everyone four hours. It's a great way to create bad feelings, resentment, and even drive folks away from PFS.

Other people are also there to have fun in the social activity of ours. Not all are power gamers or optimizers. They have every right to enjoy themselves, not just the power elite.

-j

Liberty's Edge 2/5

9mm wrote:

It isn't snobbery, It's contempt of people who think building competent characters is breaking the game.

No, it is indeed snobbery.

But contempt? The fact that you express contempt for those fellow players who have a differing play style than you leaves no doubt that you are the one with the problem. This is a social game based on cooperative play, contempt is very antithesis of that.

con·tempt
/kənˈtem(p)t/
noun
noun: contempt

the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

synonyms: scorn, disdain, disrespect, scornfulness, contemptuousness, derision

If you have no respect for your fellow players who have a different outlook than you do, then you are "doing it wrong". And if your derision shows through as much in person as it does here in your posts, then I cannot imagine that you would foster a positive gaming atmosphere.

I have to be honest that while I initially gave my support for the ability in question to be made available, the general attitudes expressed by several of the supporters here makes me think the campaign leadership knows their base quite well when it comes to limiting access to certain feats and abilities. There is a disturbing amount of whinging, in extremis arguments/statements and a sense of self entitlement at the expense of others permeating many of the arguments for it's unbanning. The disregard for fellow players and the Paizo staff by some only serves to further reduce any desire to support any issue being addressed.

Much of this thread has truly made me appreciate my generally casual, primarily "newbie", and occasionally frustratingly indecisive usual weekly group a lot more. They may not be the most efficient bunch some times, but they all have fun, don't try to break the game or ruin the experience for anyone else by doing so. Also, there is at the very least a sense of community and basic respect for one another.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I myself save broken builds for video games, not tabletop RPGs. It's not that I can't do it. I choose not to.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fomsie, let me flip that around for you. This feat is very much FOR the newbie. Experienced players are already familiar with how the rules for moving and fighting interact with high level play and either know how to avoid that trap or how to muscle through it one one big honking weapon of ULTIMATE POWER. Its the people that don't plan out their characters with 20 year life plan, flow chart and venn diagram that really start to need the feat after level 6.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fomsie, let me flip that around for you. This feat is very much FOR the newbie. Experienced players are already familiar with how the rules for moving and fighting interact with high level play and either know how to avoid that trap or how to muscle through it one one big honking weapon of ULTIMATE POWER. Its the people that don't plan out their characters with 20 year life plan, flow chart and venn diagram that really start to need the feat after level 6.

Well said.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fomsie, let me flip that around for you. This feat is very much FOR the newbie. Experienced players are already familiar with how the rules for moving and fighting interact with high level play and either know how to avoid that trap or how to muscle through it one one big honking weapon of ULTIMATE POWER. Its the people that don't plan out their characters with 20 year life plan, flow chart and venn diagram that really start to need the feat after level 6.

You seem to have missed my point in that post entirely. It is not power level or the like that this thread has come to make me appreciate my usual table of relative newbies for, it is the lack of "entitled, me first, complain about everything else to try to justify your point" mentality that has been on display by a number of posters in this thread.

I don't care about this ability being potent... though I do think the MoMS early entry needs fixing... and I am in the group that thinks that pounce is a nice tool, but vastly over rated by many on the boards, so I don't think it is too powerful at all. I do, however, think that the attitudes displayed in this thread towards other play styles, differing ideas and indeed other players themselves, has bordered on the disgusting, and for THAT I find it hard to be sympathetic to those clamoring for a new toy to be allowed.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Since it's been a while, it might be helpful to remind everyone of <John's post earlier> on the matter. Bold added.

John Compton wrote:

I'm open to discussing this feat, it's recently revised wording, and the above's impact on the feat's future in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. However, I must recognize that as a human being, there are certain types of emotional appeal that tend to have little impact on me; in fact, they can have the opposite of the intended effect for me. In the interest of promoting sound debate and providing you the fairest consideration of your platform, I ask that you refrain from melodramatic hyperbole, threats of character suicide, and the increasingly common "Paizo hates [monks/fighters/martials]" rhetoric.

Sound reasonable?

Undone wrote:

That sounds like grounds for banning master of many styles and leaving pummeling charge alone.


What about snake fang and fortuitous weapons? We're going to have like 10-15 style feats changed/errated because of MoMS which is a good indication that Pummeling charge which is significantly worse than greater beast totem since you can't pummeling with a lance, nodachi, or falcata (after errata) there's no valid justification for it being banned.

The above justification "It can be cheated early" Is a good justification to ban what cheats it. Not what is being cheated. After all I highly doubt that in practical PFS games spell perfection is a problem. I think if you could get it at level 2 it would be slightly more of a problem. Just saying.

I'm borrowing this from the Additional Resources page thread, as this is the better place to have the discussion. It's an interesting point that seems to mesh fairly well with the contents of this thread. It's also just different enough from the posts about Pummeling Charge that I am addressing it on a broader scale—not just in terms of that feat.

Let's consider the ramifications of this move. The Pathfinder Society approach would be to ban the archetype, for Mike and I rarely make rules exceptions and modifications for character options unless the option attempts to integrate with a feature that is already banned (e.g. replacing a wizard's Scribe Scroll feat with Spell Focus because of the ban on item-crafting). At this point, the master of many styles archetype has been out in the wild for more than three years, and based on my experience and what I read on the messageboards, it (and its means of ignoring prerequisites) has become a key component of many monk characters—including those who have multi-classed into monk largely or entirely for that purpose. Is it better for the campaign to ban the archetype, thereby seriously impacting many characters (including those who used the archetype "correctly**"), or is it better to just ban a few feats as they are published because they integrate with the archetype in what is perceived as a particularly dangerous way? What do I tell (making up a reasonable number) a thousand players when I ruin their character concepts so as to enable the character concepts of somebody else?

In brief, when is it better to disrupt many in the interest of implementing positive change to the system?

** In many debates about the disruptiveness/brokenness of a character option, there is the underlying assumption that there are innocent, "correct" ways to use the option as well as "broken," exploitative ways to do so. Those same debates tend to defend those who would use the option in the former way while being less forgiving of those who do so through the latter method. I'm just borrowing from this recurring theme to better explain my point without intending to cast judgment on whether the Pummeling Style chain has a good or bad use or where we are to draw that line.

Dark Archive 3/5 *** Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Sheffield

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fomsie, let me flip that around for you. This feat is very much FOR the newbie. Experienced players are already familiar with how the rules for moving and fighting interact with high level play and either know how to avoid that trap or how to muscle through it one one big honking weapon of ULTIMATE POWER. Its the people that don't plan out their characters with 20 year life plan, flow chart and venn diagram that really start to need the feat after level 6.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd be wary of dubbing something a newbie option when it's published in [hardback character options book #6].

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fomsie wrote:
"entitled, me first, complain about everything else to try to justify your point" mentality that has been on display by a number of posters in this thread.

For someone complaining players insulting each other you're certainly being insulting here, with no redeeming qualities in the criticism. Attitude is to vague to be constructive. Entitled is so overused its become meaningless, and accusations of a "mentality" are simple mind reading.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theshoveller wrote:


I see where you're coming from, but I'd be wary of dubbing something a newbie option when it's published in [hardback character options book #6].

Word gets around. If you're a monk or a brawler in PFS you will be hitting DR often enough to get pointed in the direction of this feat.

My only reservation about the newbis is that its a two feat investment, but a standard monk can pretty much walk into the two feats at their intended levels, and they're both useful on their own. Its certainly easier than any other way i can think of to advise a mid level monk on how to get through DR.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theshoveller wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fomsie, let me flip that around for you. This feat is very much FOR the newbie. Experienced players are already familiar with how the rules for moving and fighting interact with high level play and either know how to avoid that trap or how to muscle through it one one big honking weapon of ULTIMATE POWER. Its the people that don't plan out their characters with 20 year life plan, flow chart and venn diagram that really start to need the feat after level 6.
I see where you're coming from, but I'd be wary of dubbing something a newbie option when it's published in [hardback character options book #6].

If it weren't for Three separate websites that give free access to this sort of feat, I'd agree with you.

1/5

1) I'm firmly a believer that this was banned before Mike knew about the errata. (It happened right after it's highly unlikely he was privy to it prior to it going live)

2) I Firmly believe he thought the errata was unneeded and thought it worked with UAS only but thought pummeling charge was a problem anyway. (Why I'm not sure the other feats banned from ACG make 100% sense to me.) If he thought it worked he would have banned the style, not charge.

3) I don't think we're getting back pummeling charge in spite of what I think is fairly overwhelming evidence that it's inferior to existing options in multiple cases.

4) I also firmly believe it's only being banned because it's new. If this was in the CRB it wouldn't be banned. Case in point the druid wild shape and the big cat animal companion both of which in the core assumption are significantly better at doing what pummeling charge does. The only things from the CRB are things with duration permanent (Permanency), crafting which is a living game choice, and things which don't work with the organized nature well (Awakening, reincarnation, Leadership). Near as I can tell nothing in the CRB is banned on power level except arguably leadership which is more banned as a time sink/gold distortion mechanic. Pummeling style does not fit any of those categories.

5) Concluding we're not going to get pummeling charge back but I can't come up with a valid reason for it to remain banned other than it is new.

If the entry at level 2 is an issue we're going to need to start talking about the summoner first.

If the stacking of Sacred fist/MoMS for Pummeling/Dragon/Horn is the problem then I'm not sure what to tell you. Banning a feat based on a martial build which requires multiclassing and isn't even the problem component of the build (Quicken blessing is what pushes SF over the top in the long run). Keep in mind next book there will be a style feat which also gets banned/altered/errataed/nerfed because of some MoMS build. Almost 100% likely.

However it comes online early and there is ONE valid to ban something from this combination and that is it can come online early and noobs can interact with it.

However if the above is the goal it's easily demonstrable that at level 2 (The earliest accessible level for flurry charge) the summoner pet alone beats out the SF and requires less rules FU to use so "Making noob experience better" Can't really be a consistent goal here... since one requires more system mastery than the other and it's not even stronger.

So I'm at a loss.

I don't think even the most "Abusive" use is better than the "Fair" use of several other classes.

I feel it simply helps bridge the problem between melee and ranged characters.

I'm fairly sure after thinking about it despite all of this we won't get it back which is unfortunate because pummeling charge (Post errata) makes for some cool builds.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think claiming the Monk "needs" Pummeling Charge to compete is barking up the wrong tree and unlikely to move it onto the allowed list.

I think comparing it favorably to currently legal combat builds that already draw a lot of complaints (archery, gunslingers, pouncing barbarians, summoners, druids if you're David Bowles) is not doing you any favors. "Well, there are already OP builds available, so what's the harm in one more?" and "Monks should be able to solo combat encounters, too" are not compelling arguments for legalization. And even if that's not exactly what's being said, I think that's what a lot of people are reading between the lines.

The idea of banning MoMS seems to have been dropped from the conversation. I don't know if it's because the reality of that would be a much bigger hit to power builds than the loss of Pummeling Charge or if it's just not considered a realistic possibility.

The reality is that a one- or two-level dip in MoMS lets you bolt just about any Style feat onto any other chassis, and as more options are introduced (in both style feats and chassis), there are going to be more unintended consequences. That or future style feats will have to be designed with MoMS in mind and become largely irrelevant as they're scaled for level 2 characters.

1/5

redward wrote:

I think claiming the Monk "needs" Pummeling Charge to compete is barking up the wrong tree and unlikely to move it onto the allowed list.

I think comparing it favorably to currently legal combat builds that already draw a lot of complaints (archery, gunslingers, pouncing barbarians, summoners, druids if you're David Bowles) is not doing you any favors. "Well, there are already OP builds available, so what's the harm in one more?" and "Monks should be able to solo combat encounters, too" are not compelling arguments for legalization. And even if that's not exactly what's being said, I think that's what a lot of people are reading between the lines.

The idea of banning MoMS seems to have been dropped from the conversation. I don't know if it's because the reality of that would be a much bigger hit to power builds than the loss of Pummeling Charge or if it's just not considered a realistic possibility.

The reality is that a one- or two-level dip in MoMS lets you bolt just about any Style feat onto any other chassis, and as more options are introduced (in both style feats and chassis), there are going to be more unintended consequences. That or future style feats will have to be designed with MoMS in mind and become largely irrelevant as they're scaled for level 2 characters.

I was just analyzing the mentality behind banning it and the philosophy behind what was legal. I'm not saying OP should be legal or any of it should be illegal, I'm merely pointing out the reason for it's banning is incredible unsatisfying since it's just "New and powerful so ban it".

MoMS is simply impossible to balance because it's core feature, what actually makes it a MoMS is the problem. It's not something unintended or confusing it's straight up the core concept which is the problem. The concept behind "Ignore prerequisites to a type of feat" is incredibly powerful and really has to be exceptionally narrow to be able to be used. For example Zen archer violate's prerequisites but it's on a very narrow list with only a few super powerful feats that were known when the class was created. The list will never expand. MoMS has Splat creep syndrome. Casters have it but the problem is casters don't magically get 5th level spells at level 1 because a new 5th level spell comes out. Monk of many styles constricts design space and constricts what can be legal. The repercussions of banning it are huge but ultimately should be expected from a archetype who's sole purpose is to violate prerequisites.

The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.

In this situation I cannot come up with a reason to ban pummeling charge but I can come up with multiple really good reasons to ban MoMS. It sucks to be build disruptive I understand that but the truth is if something is systematically a problem and causes current and future options to be pushed off the table the root cause should be the target of the problem fix, not the symptom. After all master summoner and synthesis did recieve a belated ban.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.

I agree, so I guess the question becomes how do you fix that with a minimum of disruption to the campaign?

1/5

redward wrote:
Undone wrote:
The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.
I agree, so I guess the question becomes how do you fix that with a minimum of disruption to the campaign?

Ban MoMS, offer free full rebuilds to all effected characters.

The disruption is a bummer. There's no other word for it but it's good for PFS in the long term.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

redward wrote:
Undone wrote:
The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.
I agree, so I guess the question becomes how do you fix that with a minimum of disruption to the campaign?

We can keep the MoMS, but we'd have to restrict the dipping tricks. The point of the archetype is to have many styles, not one style without limits.

EDIT: I think fixing the MoMS is a job for the PDT though, not for campaign leadership. These problems affect the game as a whole, it's just PFS that's drawing attention to it.

  • Rewrite MoMS so that you only ignore the prerequisites of the first part of each style chain. That way you actually encourage picking up many styles. You can still take second and third parts of a style as a bonus feat, but you must meet the prerequisites.

    Or:

  • Rewrite MoMS so that you cannot ignore BAB/monk level prerequisites. You can still ignore other prerequisites like long chains of feats. It's still dippable at later levels but you get rid of overly early entry.

    ---

    In the meantime, I do think it's safe to un-ban Pummeling Charge.

  • The uncertainty over what weapons it works with has been resolved.

  • Now that it's limited to unarmed strikes, it's not OP, compared to other legal abilities. Your damage output will probably still be below 2H barbarians/paladins and archers.

  • Pounce is already present in PFS in less-restricted ways (wildshape, eidolon) at low levels, so while possible entry is earlier than intended, this doesn't make it much more available than other legal abilities.

    It's my understanding that PFS allows things unless there's a good reason not to. I don't think any sufficient reason to ban it remains.

  • Liberty's Edge 5/5

    PFS isn't going to rewrite the archetype.

    PFS is either going to ban it, or not.

    1/5

    Ascalaphus wrote:
    redward wrote:
    Undone wrote:
    The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.
    I agree, so I guess the question becomes how do you fix that with a minimum of disruption to the campaign?

    We can keep the MoMS, but we'd have to restrict the dipping tricks. The point of the archetype is to have many styles, not one style without limits.

  • Rewrite MoMS so that you only ignore the prerequisites of the first part of each style chain. That way you actually encourage picking up many styles. You can still take second and third parts of a style as a bonus feat, but you must meet the prerequisites.

    Or:

  • Rewrite MoMS so that you cannot ignore BAB/monk level prerequisites. You can still ignore other prerequisites like long chains of feats. It's still dippable at later levels but you get rid of overly early entry.

  • These are not options from a PFS perspective. If you want to change the MoMS archetype the absolute best thing you could do would be add the line "A monk of many styles may not multiclass."

    From a PFS perspective banning with full rebuilds (In the ban notes) would be ideal. Pummeling charge getting banned is just one of many many style feats which will eventually be banned. Who knows. is snake's fang and/or Fortuitous next? What about style feats in ACO? or the book after that?

    MoMS being legal will eventually to 3... then 4... then 5... things on the banned list as the list of things MoMS is legal over is will grow.

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    I have run into many players with perfectly reasonable "monk of many styles" characters, which they really enjoy playing and which complement the rest of the party. I've also run into a handful of players who have, as people have mentioned here, taken two levels of MoMS in order to build party elements that don't play well and overpower scenarios. I met one, last year at Gen Con, who told me that he only played his ranger / barbarian / monk when he traveled to large conventions, because his local players had decided they wouldn't sit at the same table.

    I wish this campaign had the attitude that we are all here to play the same game and have fun as a team, exploring, reporting , and cooperating. I wish we could, as a culture, exert polite pressure to keep people from bringing encounter-breaking characters to a table.

    (Am I guilty of claiming that a playstyle is 'bad, wrong fun"? You betcha, if it cuts off other players' participation and contribution to the game. The worst problem I've seen is the player who uses a super-effective build to trammel the contributions of the rest of the party.)

    I could wish forever, but I think that this community is too large, too diverse, and too ... impersonal ... for that. So I think that, yes, some options need to be banned or restricted. John and Mike are smart people, and I'm sure they don't need my two cents. But my preference would be to ban as few things as possible; one big thing, rather than lots of small things. I concur that MoMS is going to interface poorly with style feats and maneuver feats, and probably with the magic items designed to interface with them, and maybe some spells or racial abilities, as the game continues to build.

    I think it would be better to ban one big thing -- the Master of Many Styles archetype -- rather than lots of little things. And I realize that there are perfectly reasonable MoMS monks in the campaign, and I wish there were a way to allow them but stigmatize the players who are dipping monk to get ahead of some power curve.

    Lantern Lodge 3/5

    Andrew Christian wrote:

    PFS isn't going to rewrite the archetype.

    PFS is either going to ban it, or not.

    In fairness, they did just recently effectively re-write one option when they forbade early entry into Evangelist with spell-like ability qualification.

    Lantern Lodge 3/5

    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I wish this campaign had the attitude that we are all here to play the same game and have fun as a team, exploring, reporting , and cooperating. I wish we could, as a culture, exert polite pressure to keep people from bringing encounter-breaking characters to a table.

    I personally believe their are few problem character, but instead problem players. No matter how strong of a character one makes, the player always has the option of dialing it back a bit during play so that everyone gets equal spotlight.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    redward wrote:

    I think claiming the Monk "needs" Pummeling Charge to compete is barking up the wrong tree and unlikely to move it onto the allowed list.

    I think comparing it favorably to currently legal combat builds that already draw a lot of complaints (archery, gunslingers, pouncing barbarians, summoners, druids if you're David Bowles) is not doing you any favors.

    Every build draws complaints. People complain about the sort of damage that folks do with a 18 strength and two handed weapon is OVERPOWERED!. People also complain that the sort of damage you do with an 18 strength and a two handed weapon are insufficiently powered for scenarios and not pulling their weight. I don't think that you can listen to every complaint.

    Optimization is like driving. Anyone going faster than you is a freaking lunatic, but anyone going slower than you needs to learn how to drive. You of course drive "just right" and that holds for most values of you.

    Quote:
    "Well, there are already OP builds available, so what's the harm in one more?

    I think that the argument "this feat is not as good as using a 700 gp item from the core rule book thats been in the game for 15 years" is about as good as its possible to make in favor of the option NOT being over powered. High strength, two handed weapon and guy with bow are not overpowered options, they're the standard.

    Quote:
    " and "Monks should be able to solo combat encounters, too" are not compelling arguments for legalization. And even if that's not exactly what's being said, I think that's what a lot of people are reading between the lines.

    You cannot stop someone from misreading an argument so that they only hear what speaks to their preconceptions.

    Monks should have an option to be relevant damage dealers in encounters. I do not think that they are unless they do some very unmonk like things, like swing a temple sword to go through DR or become a zen archer. DR is almost constant after level 7 in many scenarios and monks can't have a golfbag full of fists.

    Encounters at most levels tend to be very mobile, making it almost impossible for the monk to combine their two main assets: the ability to flit quickly around the battlefield and to open a can of whoopass while standing still.

    Quote:
    The idea of banning MoMS seems to have been dropped from the conversation. I don't know if it's because the reality of that would be a much bigger hit to power builds than the loss of Pummeling Charge or if it's just not considered a realistic possibility.

    It would require a major re write of many, many characters at this point and I don't think that its a reasonably likely outcome, especially as I haven't seen a peep of complaint about MoMS until now.

    1/5

    Quote:
    It would require a major re write of many, many characters at this point and I don't think that its a reasonably likely outcome, especially as I haven't seen a peep of complaint about MoMS until now.

    <Insert obvious Crane Wing statements here.>

    I don't think MoMS or pummeling charge needs a ban but MoMS definitely fits the category of things you ban.

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Lormyr wrote:
    I personally believe their are few problem character, but instead problem players. No matter how strong of a character one makes, the player always has the option of dialing it back a bit during play so that everyone gets equal spotlight.

    That's absolutely true, and I didn't explain that well at all. Thanks.

    Dark Archive 3/5 *** Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Sheffield

    EvilPaladin wrote:
    If it weren't for Three separate websites that give free access to this sort of feat, I'd agree with you.

    I don't advise newbies to consult to SRD. It's only really useful when you already know what you're looking for, and I think the vast array of options scares the hell out of new players without someone to hold their hands.

    ...And of course, if we're holding their hands to build a character, then a two-step feat chain is not massively different from a multiclass build - the player is still relying on a veteran to explain why they need something and how it works. I say this as a PFS GM who's accrued two stars running for mainly new players and under-13s.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Pointing people to websites also tends to add to the syndrome of players being unaware they need to own the book to use the option.

    -j

    Scarab Sages

    I've been a long time supporter of banning MoMS. The archetype is a trap if you single class it and horribly broken if you abuse the two level dip into it. It needs to go away, and anyone playing one now should have a full rebuild. Grandfathering will not work, as shown by the Aasimar/Tiefling situation.

    It would be disruptive, but the long term gains to the campaign would outweigh the negatives.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    If the choice is between banning MoMS from PFS or officially nerfing every new style feat that comes out, then my vote is for the MoMS ban. PFS should not impact people playing at home trying to follow the rules.

    ^ This

    Due to MoMS and Unarmed Fighter, they will have to ban all the good style feats cause they will unbalance the game with early entry.

    1/5

    Slacker2010 wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    If the choice is between banning MoMS from PFS or officially nerfing every new style feat that comes out, then my vote is for the MoMS ban. PFS should not impact people playing at home trying to follow the rules.

    ^ This

    Due to MoMS and Unarmed Fighter, they will have to ban all the good style feats cause they will unbalance the game with early entry.

    The only alternative is adding "Monks of many style may not multiclass."


    Imbicatus wrote:

    I've been a long time supporter of banning MoMS. The archetype is a trap if you single class it and horribly broken if you abuse the two level dip into it. It needs to go away, and anyone playing one now should have a full rebuild. Grandfathering will not work, as shown by the Aasimar/Tiefling situation.

    It would be disruptive, but the long term gains to the campaign would outweigh the negatives.

    I would love this, I have some people that just quit playing. They dont have alot of time to play and it took them a year to get their one character to where he is. Then the nerfs to crane wing came with strict rebuild rules which dont allow players to fix the build.

    @Undone- I would rather them just phase it out.

    I lied, I would rather them fix MoMS. Quick and Dirty would be to give them more bonus feats, every 2 levels like a fighter. These feats can only be style feats, but they still must qualify for them. This would enhance the "Monk of Many Styles" feel. This would replace the current bonus feat class feature.

    Scarab Sages

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Slacker2010 wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    If the choice is between banning MoMS from PFS or officially nerfing every new style feat that comes out, then my vote is for the MoMS ban. PFS should not impact people playing at home trying to follow the rules.

    ^ This

    Due to MoMS and Unarmed Fighter, they will have to ban all the good style feats cause they will unbalance the game with early entry.

    Unarmed Fighter isn't a problem, because it only allows you to take entry level style feats. It's more broken for giving you proficiency in ALL monk weapons, but even that isn't that bad since it gives up heavy/medium armor and shields.

    Scarab Sages 1/5

    redward wrote:
    Undone wrote:
    The MoMS is a badly designed and will cause more things to get FAQ'ed/banned/changed. It's the 3.5 prestige dip issue all over again.
    I agree, so I guess the question becomes how do you fix that with a minimum of disruption to the campaign?

    The same way tieflings and aasimar were addressed.

    Existing characters with MoMS levels are legal, but levels in the archetype cannot be taken after X date.

    Lantern Lodge 3/5

    I personally don't see anything wrong with grandfathering the archetype. I also didn't have a problem with the aasimar / tiefling grandfathering. I think of it was a less severe correction than an outright ban with rebuild.

    251 to 300 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Pummeling Style - Charge All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.