Big Fish's page

I've made this comment in numerous other threads, but I'll repeat it in abbreviated form here.

Monks should be proficient with all simple weapons, and one or two Martial. The exotic 'Monk Weapons' are not only silly, but unnecessary because the majority of them already exist, with a slightly different price, as simple weapons.

Nunchaku=Light Flail
Kama=Sickle
Bo=Quarterstaff

etc etc

Monks should be able to use maces, spears, daggers, light flails, sickles, quarterstaves, clubs, etc. Monks should be able to use spears, especially to flurry.

Need I remind anyone that 'Kama' is Japanese for 'Sickle' and that other than price the two weapons have identical stats. That's just ridiculous.

And as for European monks...anyone remember the Knights Templar? They were a monastic knightly order.

(I posted this while sleepy, please excuse grammar/spelling and general incoherence of ideas, I did my best.)

Monks should be able to flurry with any weapon they're proficient with, and should be proficient with all simple weapons.

In my experience I've never played with /anyone/ who uses power-attack the way that it was supposedly used to slow down play: That is, with probability calculations and spread-sheets.

I /liked/ power attack the way it was.

Everyone I've ever played with generally just used it as a method to A. Take a small penalty of 1-2 to hit with a two-hander to gain 2-4 extra damage against foes like goblins orcs or kobolds so they could cleave.

B. Take a larger penalty to beat damage reduction.

That's it, I've never, ever seen optimum damage output per round calculations and if anyone ever did that I'd kick them from my table.

I didn't ever really see any need for a change to Power Attack, Cleave, or Great Cleave, but then again I don't have any problem with the Rogue's Sneak Attack either.

To me they seem to work fine, but I don't use spreadsheets or anything scientific, I just like what's fun.

You know, I personally /love/ Vitality and Wound points because they not only clarify what Damage really means more than the abstract hit-point system, but they necessitate armor actually blocking damage, and make critical hits deadly, all things I enjoy.

VP/WP system is the system we often see in movies, character shields, character importance. It takes the abstract hard to explain method of hit points and makes it, for me, easy to explain suddenly, and makes the RP that much more immersive.

They make PC's more survivable at low-levels, and more vulnerable at high levels. If you only can use Vitality when aware and capable of responding to an attack they make all Classes capable of sneak attacks and surprise knockouts provided they roll well. (and with a tweak to Rogue's sneak attack, they suddenly don't need all those extra D6's and can focus the class and balance elsewhere.)

They add an element of randomness and grit to the game, especially when the loss of wounds causes a loss of combat effectiveness, and suddenly heroes may be bad-ass but they're also Mortal.

However, I've learned that people seem to like randomness when it comes to rolling for HP's making your Barbarian one shot away from death at 5th level, but they don't like the same thing when a 15th Level hero Critted by a dragon is in the same dire straits.

Personally I dislike SWRPG Saga edition for how much they've moved away from SWRPG Revised, which was in my opinion one of the most fun D20 games I've ever played, and I still continue to play it. It just needed a few tweaks, extra feats, and they changed the entire system to be much much worse.

I've also learned that what I like is largely not supported by the community, so I will just have to play my SWRPG Revised or UA in the privacy of my own home.

I like the new racial Write-Ups, though Elf is my favorite. maybe Pathfinder could take some...hints when they write up Wood and High Elves, hmmm?

Honestly, the Elf Write-Up for D&D 4E is perfect and exactly what I imagine and Elf to be. I really dislike the Elf Stats in 3.0 and 3.5.

No favored classes.
No chance for spell failure, armored Mages can exist.
Proficiency gives a bonus to weapon use, rather than non-proficiency a penalty.

I like the skill list. It's short, sweet, and makes sense. I like Athletics and Acrobatics and Stealth and Perception (Maybe Initiative as a skill too) and etc. Though I think it's a bit shallow, should be able to spend a feat to become an expert at the skill, get another +5 bonus.

I like the different tiers of armor, and the shortened weapon list.

I like how attribute and feat gains are more frequent. That's the biggest thing for me, really. I don't like 4E's mechanics at all and think it feels like playing Magic: The Gathering, but I like the fact that your attributes go up 2 at a time, or all at a time, constantly, and that you get feats every two levels. (Even if 4E feats are pretty lame.)

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

It amazes me how often I hear players say that they love random ability scores and hp because they make the game more exciting and realistic, and yet I've heard all of one or two gamers suggest rolling for other permanent character stats like skill points, feats, spells, even levels. It just doesn't seem very consistent to me.

TS

*Raises Hand*. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I would LOVE to play a game that everything was randomly generated at character gen. Race, class, HP, ability scores, HP, skills, feats, even starting level! Everything!

Then everytime you level up, you roll to see if how many skill points you gain, how much HP, and roll to see if you gain a feat or gain a point in a ability score. I even figured it out for abilities score increases and feats!

For feats, roll 1d3 (or 1d2 for Pathfinder RPG). If its a 3 (2 for Pathfinder RPG), you gain a feat. For Ability score increases, roll 1d4. On a 4, you gain a point in a ability score determine by roll 1d6 and consulting the following chart:

1: Strength
2: Dexterity
3: Constitution
4: Intelligence
5: Wisdom
6: Charisma

I would so play game using such a system.

This game already exists, it's called 'Warhammer Fantasy' and it's a very good game. But in Warhammer Fantasy, the variances that make a character are not so ridiculous as rolling a d10 every time you level up as a tank. Your Wound points range from around 8-15, and they tend to only vary by 3 points or so. Nobody will choose to play a Soldier with 12 Toughness (Attributes are on a 1-100 scale, wounds on 1-10 based on attributes), and if they /do/ they can spend EXP to increase their attributes so they don't suck. Also, rolling for profession is optional, so if you DO get stats that make a bad soldier, you can pick another profession, and unlike D&D's heavily restricted classing, it allows you to move from profession to profession.

D&D's system of randomness makes no sense. It should either be back to the silly, nonsensical unbalanced game of 2nd Edition, or forward to a balanced, Streamlined points based game. Having it be somewhere in between is just...frustrating.

You can't enjoy being totally random because you'll get a sub-optimal character that can't survive encounters equal to his level, you have to plan your feats and class and skills and equipment perfectly only to have it dashed by bad rolls that hamper you permanently...but you can't play it completely as a point-based game either.

I'm just utterly gob smacked how many people think that randomly rolling HP is a good idea that adds something to the game.

It may be a sacred cow, but when you use point buy for abilities, you shouldn't have to be rolling for HP.

How does it make sense, how is /that/ realistic that every time you learn something new you become randomly tougher, or possibly not?

Need I remind one D&D characters are HEROES not ordinary people who might roll all 8's and 2 on their first Level HP (For 2nd Edition)

I think 4E goes too far with a lot of things, but non-random hit points is one of the few things I /like/.

A game can either be a number-crunching power-gaming mathematical balance-fest, or an utterly random unforgiving wacky fest of explosions and dead PC's. Mixing and matching elements tends not to work so well.

The special weapons of a monk are not just rebranded common weapons even though they were based on them. They have acquired modfications in form, material and balance to specially mesh with a monk's moves. So you may be a karate master but that dagger is just a crude long knife to you. In some cases like the quarterstaff, or the longsword for a Hurrianic monk, it is not the weapon that has been adapted to the monk, but the monk to the weapon.

And the monk is inherently an Asian class, just as a knight with a charging lance is inherently middle ages European. The only offensive weapon European monks had were the boards they slapped thier heads with. :)

All the monk weapons are farming implements, like Shinobi and Okinawan peasants who learned to use common tools as deadly implements.

I'm not entirely certain you know what you are talking about.

Also, there is no Knight Class in core, there's a Fighter, who is cross-cultural, and there were European monastic orders...who trained in the martial arts (not kung-fu and all of that flash) some just for the purposes of exercise, and some later actually became military orders. However, grappling and wrestling was involved.

This whole 'Asia is Magic' thing bothers me.

I personally think monk weapons should go the way of the dodo. As has been pointed out, most of them are mechanically identical to existing weapons, just cheaper or exotic instead of simple. The best way to go, I think, would just to let monks use their special abilities with any weapon in which they are proficient, then just make them proficient in simple weapons and unarmed strikes. Yes, they can take feats to expand their monk capabilities - or splash levels in fighter - but that's a cost. They're not getting something for nothing; they're still expending a permanent resource to improve their existing abilities.

Thematically, I think it would also make the monk fit in a lot better with the rest of the default-European-themed PCs. There are plenty of European martial arts (savate and pankration, just to name two) and the monk having a bunch of weird Asian-themed weapons (and Asian-named powers) has never made any sense to me. It sets them apart and creates a frission for people that just want to play their street brawler or peasant-warrior without making him a Street Fighter knockoff.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with Asian-themed monks either - in an Asian-themed setting. I've personally always held that the cultural trappings associated with a class should be as neutral as possible, so that when you have a different culture, you can introduce its powers as feats, feat trees, or even alternate class abilities instead of a whole different character class: A samurai is a Japanese-themed fighter; a shugenja is a Japanese-themed cleric; a wu jen is a Chinese-themed wizard; and so on. This is one of the reasons I haven't much cared for any Oriental Adventures-style RPG book yet released: they try too hard to make Asia different mechanically instead of different stylistically.

I think that since Pathfinder is supposed to be a fresh start for 3.5 while maintaining backward compatibility, this would be the perfect time to make a break from the monk's shoehorned Asian...

Here here.

Monk should be able to represent a /Wide Variety/ of Archetypes just as Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard can. The fact they've been shoehorned into a single cultural Asian fist-fighter and nothing but would imply that they're /not/ a core-class, and I think they should be.

A Sufi warrior who lives by the sword and silk and nothing but, a Greco-Roman Hero who wrestles and beats his foes, these should all be things a Monk should be capable of representing.

Also, I RP in Asian/Arabian and Meso-American settings fairly often, to try and mix it up out of the standard European fantasy. I never use the crazy classes in those other books, the core classes are almost always perfect. Samurai=Fighter, Ninja=Rogue, Wu-Jen=Wizard, etc, etc. A whirling Dervish can easily be a Barbarian with a little Unearthed Arcana tweaking their rage into a Whirling Frenzy, and giving them a big nasty curved sword.

Also, Monks should be able to use Simple Weapons. For the purpose of the game, a Short-Sword represents many things, including a Dao, and a Light-Flail Can represent a real weapon, or one bristling with spikes, or even a Nunchaku. Also...a sickle is a sickle, the same size, damage, and weight, used for threshing grain, it's a stick, with a blade...that's it. Changing it's name doesn't make it magical, it's a farm implement.

I'd still like to see the favored class mechanic removed as an automatic bonus or penalty, and supported by Racial Feats that can be taken as an option to reinforce the characteristics of a race's favored class(es).

Ditto.

Honestly, why not just have more Racial Feats that let a race be better at what they're good at, like Elves with Perception and Bow Feats that let them get above and beyond humans, Dwarves with Hammers, Axes and Shields, Halflings with Stealth, etc.

How about some real bards?

Shakespeare
Will-A-Dale
Homer

How about the Skalds, the sort who kept tales like Beowulf alive?

I read the books over, and while there are /several/ ideas I really like and would house rule into my 3.5 Games, or hope to find in Pathfinder, my general opinion is a great, sinking disappointment.

It's just not my D&D, it's something different, an entirely new game that appeals to players (And alot of them) I cannot even begin to understand. I just like my characters being somewhat unique, and a series of more than just a stack of numbers and combat powers.

D&D has always been combat heavy, but 4E is practically a tactical miniatures game.

I like the Elf Racial Write up, and alot of the skills, and ideas for some of the powers, but overwhelmingly this is not an RPG to me, this is a complicated boardgame.

Yea, a short sword is more of a foil-type weapon, or an epee. The OP is thinking of a broadsword. It wouldn't hurt to house rule a broadsword with identical statistics save it is a slashing weapon as opposed to a piercing weapon.

Wait, wait...a foil-type weapon, or an epee? Then why don't they CALL it that. I was under the impression the weapon you're talking about is a Rapier...

I doubt Rogues are sneaking around, stealthily wielding and dual wielding foils.

Also, house-rule? Seriously? Whenever something is done poorly in the main system, and someone suggests 'house rule' that most people will use, I die a little inside. :P

Edit: Reposting this from elsewhere.

Personally, I think that Skills should not only be made into smaller, more useful groupings, but be made into a major part of the game, like in Iron Heroes.

When a Fighter has Athletics, Ride, Warfare, Endurance, Dominance, and Craft: Weaponsmithing on his skill list, who loses? (Assuming he's a Human Fighter with

Is it the high-skill classes, who people fear no-one will play if people with 2+Int Skill points get more SP and skills? No. Because I would never play a Rogue if I wanted to play a Fighter anyways.

Class lines are rigidly drawn, but each class should have enough skills to be useful in multiple situations, and those skills should actually mean something, especially in combat.

The Fighter should be able to fix and repair his sundered weapons, ride a Horse, Run, Jump, and Climb, Intimidate and Coerce, and come up with good combat strategies when the odds are against him.

I do not understand why people think that's 'being good at everything'. In the real world, are Soldiers good at everything, since they can do more than just fire a gun, and are trained for specific tasks? Is a Scientist with multiple disciplines who can use a computer and sing good at everything?

More skills is better.

Also check this thread.

Personally, I think that Skills should not only be made into smaller, more useful groupings, but be made into a major part of the game, like in Iron Heroes.

When a Fighter has Athletics, Ride, Warfare, Endurance, Dominance, and Craft: Weaponsmithing on his skill list, who loses? (Assuming he's a Human Fighter with

Is it the high-skill classes, who people fear no-one will play if people with 2+Int Skill points get more SP and skills? No. Because I would never play a Rogue if I wanted to play a Fighter anyways.

Class lines are rigidly drawn, but each class should have enough skills to be useful in multiple situations, and those skills should actually mean something, especially in combat.

The Fighter should be able to fix and repair his sundered weapons, ride a Horse, Run, Jump, and Climb, Intimidate and Coerce, and come up with good combat strategies when the odds are against him.

I do not understand why people think that's 'being good at everything'. In the real world, are Soldiers good at everything, since they can do more than just fire a gun, and are trained for specific tasks? Is a Scientist with multiple disciplines who can use a computer and sing good at everything?

More skills is better.

No.

While your [THINK TANK] (mind the spelling!) is poorly launched ;)

I can't the resist the title of this thread.
I already posted my favorable skill list in other threads and I will do it here too:
.

ACROBATICS - Balance, Tumble and Escape Artist for squeezing through tight spaces and escaping grapples
ATHLETICS - Climb, Jump, Swim and Run/Endurance (see SWSAGA for ideas)
DECEPTION - Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Haggle (for prices)
DIPLOMACY - Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motiv, Negotiating a contract/arrangement
DISCIPLINE - Concentration, Autohypnosis and what else you might come up with...
DOMINANCE - Command, Interrogate, Intimidate
HANDLE ANIMAL - Guide, Ride and Calm domesticated Animals (actually training (wild) animals should be a feat or class feature)
INVESTIGATE - Find Traps or hidden items, research a library, investigate a crime scene
KNOWLEDGE - several, don't know yet
LANGUAGES - Decipher Script, Speak language (with new use similar to DS but for spoken words just heard/evesdropped)
LEGERDEMAIN - Escape Artist (for bindings), Sleight of Hand, Use Rope
MECHANICS - Use/Disable Device, Open locks
MEDICINE - Heal, Profession (Herbalist)
PERCEPTION - Listen, Spot, Smell/Taste, Touch
PERFORM - Specializations: Actor, Juggler/Jester, Music, Oratory, Dance
SPELLCRAFT - Spellcraft, Use Magic Device
STEALTH - Hide, Move Silently, Shadow
SURVIVAL - Two Subskills, similar mechanic: Urban, Wilderness
TRADE - Appraise, Craft/Profession (choose specialization)
WARFARE - Use Siege Engines, plan Strategies and War Campaigns, Small Unit Tactics (improves Initiative)

If you need it put fly somewhere too (either to Acrobatics, Athletics or separate).
.
.
.
SOME FEATS I WOULD ADD IN REGARD TO THIS LIST:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EMPATHY (WIS 13+): You may use your Perception skill to sense enchantments, moods, blabla in persons or larger groups.

TRAIN ANIMALS (Handle Animal 4(1+3) Ranks): You may use your Handle Animal skill to actually train animals (use normal...

This list, I love even more. Loooove.

Also, check out this thread.

Personally, Favored Classes would be alright if they made more sense, but at the moment they don't quite, because I still think Elf=Wizard is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. (And don't quite like their Int Bonus much either!)

That being said, however, I feel the best way to handle favored class is allow races with favored classes slightly improved racial versions of a few class abilities.

Maybe Dwarf Fighters get better DR by 5 for Armor Mastery, and their bonuses to 'Dwarf' Weapons like Hammers and Axes is 1-2 points higher than a human fighter.

Maybe the Halfling Rogue gains an extra bonus to Reflex Saves with Evasion, and can make sneak attacks with thrown weapons at 60 feet?

Maybe the Half-Orc Barbarian gets an additional point to their rage pool every few levels ,and one or two unique Orc Powers they can choose from in their either/or power list?

Endurance Athletics and Acrobatics have always been good ideas, IMO. Fly in Acrobatics, now there's an interesting idea...

Anyways, I can see Fighters with Endurance and Athletics, that is, if they got more skill points.

A good fighter should have Ride, Athletics, Endurance, and maybe Armor or Weapon smithing.

Sounds like a good change to me, I don't see why not.

I think this should be the place to discuss what changes you want made to the skill list:

Just Ideas and Explanations! No Bickering!

This is my idea for the skill list

Acrobatics: balance and tumble
Appraise
Athletics: jump, climb, and swim. I assume everyone knows how to swim!
Craft: architectture and engineering also profession
Concentration
Deception: Bluff and Sense Motive
Diplomacy
Disguise
Escape Artist: tieing ropes
Handle Animal: ride
Heal
Intimidate
Knowledge-
(Arcana): spellcraft
(Divine): Religion and spellcraft
(Dungeoneering): survival
(History)
(Local): gather information, geography, nobility and royalty, also urban survival
(Nature): survival
(Planes): survival
Linguistics: speak language, forge, and decifer
Operate Device: Disable Device, use magic device, and open lock
Perception: search, listen, spot, and smell
Perform: profession
Sleight of hand: draw weapon faster than usual
Stealth: move silently and hide

I agree with everything here except Handle Animal and Ride should probably be different skills. On should have to do with how good you are with animals, and one is riding pre-trained creatures (or ones you just have trained with Handle Animal.) Anyways, you use Handle Animal on a Badger, ride on a Horse.

I've thought having Athletics and Acrobatics was a good idea for a long time, I made a post about it but the forums ate it, dunno where it went.

And if they dig with their bare hands, they automatically move 50x MORE dirt than if they use the special 'Sukoppu' that only they can use. That's beyond stupid, and into the realm of brain-damaged.

Lol...as ludicrous as this example is, it's so so so apt.

Why do monks even have monk weapons? I mean, honestly. Would you rather deal 2d10 damage and use stunning fist to boot, or just deal 1d6 damage? Why would any monk above 1st level EVER use a weapon, the way the rules are written?

So, make the kama a sickle, which it is. Make monks proficient with simple weapons. Insert the following text: "A monk can use her Flurry of Blows ability with any weapon with which she is proficient. When wielding a weapon with which she is proficient, a monk deals her unarmed strike damage (plus the weapon's enhancement bonuses, if any), or the weapon's normal damage, whichever is greater."

That way, a kama-wielding monk makes sense. A monk could also blow a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency (longsword), and use that, if he or she really wanted to.

I support this message.

WOTC employees should be hung for making up a new weapon that is essentially the same weapon as a pre-existing weapon, only with the Japanese name for said weapon.

Kama=Sickle

We don't need 'Shovel' on the equipment list, followed by 'Sukoppu' with identical stats, but only Monks can dig with it.

I think this is a relatively good idea, and while I do agree that speed is important in Jumping, I think that speed comes more from Strength and Running than it does from being super agile.

I think we should have an Athletics Skill (Strength Based) which combines Climb, Swim, and Jump, and allows you to maintain long-distance running/hiking, why do we need the Run feat? (I've never seen anyone take that feat, unless it was to make a character who's only good at moving fast, but not actually play it.)

We should also have an Acrobatics Skill (Dex Based) Which combines Balance and Tumble, and allows one to perform several skill feats or other things similar to what was mentioned in Iron Heroes.

Heck, I think that I loved the idea of skills having more to do directly in combat, it'd be nice to see Athletic Fighters and Acrobatic Rogues mixing it up with their skills.

I'm happy.

Or let Monks actually choose between being fist gods or being good with weapons.

As-is, the Monk and the Fighter aren't really stepping on eachother's toes. The Monk is an agile, quick-moving mobile combatant who doesn't stand there taking hits, and inflicts status effects.

The Fighter is a heavy hitter with lots of armor, and HP, who stands there toe to toe slugging away at the enemy (At least based upon the most popular type of fighter, and the Armor Mastery)

Why not give a Monk the chance to actually get good with weapons? Agile spear/staff fighter without armor, agile short swords (butterfly swords) without armor? Wouldn't sneak-attack or disarm traps or use scrolls like the rogues, either...

Maybe making Monks just a fist-only class is a bit cheesy.

*Proud proponent of the Monks Using Spears Initiative*

Many of the people who are /against/ the addition of extra skill points to classes, seem to want to offer the chance to for example, spend a feat and gain extra skill points, or say that you should just take skill focus, or buy a lot of intelligence.

I don't really think that will solve anything, I think that's really missing the point of the entire argument.

Really, it's just like saying to a French Peasant: "If you want more food, just go sell your children, you don't need them, and the money you'll get can buy you more food. I don't see the problem." :P

That's an exaggeration, but I've never met anyone who would gleefully sacrifice multiple feats to gain all those bonuses to various skills.

More skill points seems so-far to have hurt nothing in gameplay, and the people against it just think it feels wrong and that people should stop whining. I don't see any good reason /not/ to change it when the entire system is changing so much with Pathfinder.

I still think the Fighter should represent the pinnacle of Martial focus, no matter what they choose to focus on, be it Longsword and Shield, Spear, Bow, or Mace, they should rule at it, and have access to extra feats.

This could be done with the Fighter Weapon Groups, provide 2-3 feats for each group of weapons that only fighters can get above and beyond what other characters can.

A Ranger is good at two weapon fighting or a bow, but he also spots, listens, tracks, has spells, and an animal companion.

The Fighter, if he/she chooses two-weapon fighting, should be untouchable and whirling, a bow, a fountain of arrows, a mace, shake the ground, etc.

I think there should be /some/ choice to be in Chain or Leather, personally, instead of Full Plate too, but meh, I accept people don't groove with that.

This thread makes me very sad.

Honestly, I'd like to see monk proficiencies get expanded. The current repertoire is limited in stereotype, and unfairly so.

In part, to address this, I would say monks are proficient with all simple weapons. (Of course, I could also see a trained monk kicking serious rear with a longsword, too.)

I support this message.

Rogue Damage output close to fighter?

Except their AC is nowhere near as high, and they have about half the hit points.

Nerf a Rogue's ability to dish out damage in massive amounts to a single foe, and you may as well make it useless for anything but skills.

That would certainly be cool.

4E's design philosophy to me seems more like:

Only one Multi-class for you! Scratch that, that's too much and will take away from the role of your base class, here, have Tumble, are you happy? That's the best you'll get, go defend, stop trying to be a Striker!!! *Mean angry face for emphasis*

Oh, and I also support the "ditch monk weapons, replace with simple weapons" approach. I hadn't thought of it before, but I definitely agree.

So do I, but it doesn't stop people from regularly suggesting the invention of a whole slew of complicated new weapons that are near identical to them anyways. :P

Butterfly Swords? Come on, they're just Short-Swords with neat handles!

New Improved trip sucks, then. I liked the old version. :P

quest-master wrote:

Here's a fun one for front-line fighters defending their injured comrades.

REACTIVE TRIP [COMBAT]
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip
Benefit: You may use this feat when an opponent attempts to move through a square you threaten or when an adjacent opponent attacks and misses you with a natural roll of 1. You can immediately make a special trip attack against the opponent as a free action. In this case, you are not knocked prone if your attack fails by 10 or more.

Can't you already Trip as an attack of opportunity?

I thought so.

Which would make that anti-charge feat even more sick if you had Improved Trip and were a Rogue. Enemy charges you, he misses, you get an AOO and he's flat-footed, you trip, you succeed, he falls, you attack, he takes a sneak attack and has fallen and can't get up. :P

You know, people might hate me for this suggestion, but why not offer alternative features to most of the new class powers Paizo has given fighters (Which I like) to represent alternate fighting styles.

What about a Dodge mastery to choose from along with Armor Mastery?

How about an Archery Supremacy ability (no, Fighter is not a ranger, but a lot of them make good archers in a pinch) that lets them fire arrows to make difficult terrain, etc?

Big Fish wrote:

I want to feel that the Monk is part of the Pathfinder setting. That the Monk exists alongside other classes, using weapons that are part of the world, but doing things differently from how a Rogue or Fighter would do them.

I want to avoid the fate the Monk received when 3.0 Plunked them down oh so unceremoniously with a weapon list of things nobody in the game world has ever heard of or pronounced, with a flavor that doesn't even jive with most of the artwork.

Monastaries were plunked down in previously existing settings where they didn't exist, all to find some explanation for these strangers existing somewhere in solitude training and using weapons nobody else knows how to use.

They were called Monks for a reason, they're not just average sword swingers who got a bit of ambition in thier stride, or pocket picking street punks. A large part of the appeal for roleplaying the Monk has always been the exotic atmosphere of mystery they bring with them. And yes, they were based largely on Chinese Saturday flicks and other related media. Turn them into just "everyday folks" and you might as well just drop the class entirely in favor of creating some new feats for fighters and rogues to use. The flavor can be changed, to the point we're they're Hobgoblin Martial Artists instead of Monks, but the exotic is always what gave this class the fun it had.

It's hard to imagine what the criteria is you're shooting for? Do you want the Monk to be an automatic part of Squirrel's "Fantastic Four"? If so, which of those classic roles would he be looking to displace? I don't think you can regear the Monk to replace any of the standard fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue set for a standard pre-bought module, but home campaigns can be made a lot more flexible than anything you buy from a store, even if that store is Paizo.

In the settings that Monks were taken from, the weapons they use and much of what is 'exotic' about them IS familiar and well-understood by the other characters. Martial artist monks are largely taken from Asian settings (though I wouldn't mind something like desert monastics with scimitars and no armor) Where all of the 'exotic' flavor and weapons you talk about exist outside their monastery as well.

There /are/ differences between a Fighter and a Monk in an Asian/Anime/Wuxia setting, and that's what I think they should focus on, rather than making the monk represent 'guy who came to Medieval European Fantasy world from a monastary in Mystical Asia' and make it 'Guy who trains martial arts in a monastery and uses martial arts, farm implements, and simple weapons as a focus for his meditation.'

Otherwise why not include a class based on Australian mysticism who uses only Aboriginal weapons, because it's cool, even if it doesn't fit in?

That's why I like a lot of Pathfinder's new art and fluff, making the world seem more exotic, so it fits together. Even the WOTC campaign settings had trouble fitting Monks in for the most part once they were introduced in core.

I dislike the generic +2/+2 Feats. I agree, get rid of 'em!

Especially due to some of the skill consolidations.

The Knowlede (Warfare) suggestion to my idea about a Tactics skill obviously means you didn't get the point of me saying 'Turn Knowledge Skills into actual skills with unique entries' :P

What about just having many of the Knoweldges turned into straight-up skills.

A 'Tactics' skill would be very cool.

I personally feel that EVERY class certainly wouldn't be hurt by +2 skill points, even with the combinations of many old skills into a single skill.

I wouldn't mind a more skill-focused game where even fighters are expected to rely more on jumping around, mobility, or secondary skills...

...but I know the majority of the people on the boards don't ant Rogues, Monks, etc, to get +2 skill points too.

That being said, I'd be happy if just all the classes that previously got 2 skill points got 4.

I know some that at least Herald was looking for a Monk think tank. Squirrelloid and I have both come up with an alternate Monk.

Squirrelloid's is Here
Mine is Here
We've both taken different approaches to the monk.

Let's think about it, in a CIVILIZED manner.

Honestly, I like the 'Fall From The Heavens' and the 'Leap Of The Heavens' as well as 'Monk's Stride' but I think I like many of the ideas in Squirrelloid's build better. (Notably the variety of combat maneuvers that impose movement effects, and the use of simple weapons.)

That being said, I do think some of the abilities Squirrelloid has given his monk are a bit too powerful, or do too much damage. I very much enjoy the flavor of them, though.

If both of these versions were combined, it'd make a very cool class focused on mobility and shutting down the mobility of others.

Add a Longspear with all these movement and movement shutting down abilities and you have one hell of a character.

Edit: I am, of course, biased towards anyone who uses one of my ideas in his builds. :P

I think that one of the reasons they went this way is for speeding up play. I definitely see the advantages of being able to pick and choose exactly how much you power attack, but it can really lag up combat when you have a fighter sitting there watching each attack until his turn comes up so he can do the math and come up with just what the best return ratio would be for each of his attacks with a power attack.

With the current system you can have a seperate line where you write your power attacking attack bonus and damage just like you would with a different weapon, and its unlikely to change unless you get a strength buff.

I agree its not a perfect system, both this and the original system are strong in one way and weak in another. It seems the best way to determine which would be best for the book is to decide whether one way seems to cause more problems then the other for more people, and also to consider which is more easy to house rule in for those who do want the other system.

-Tarlane

I don't think the problem with your example is the feat, I think it's the player playing the fighter.

If he's holding up the game by doing math, he's not being a very good player.

Kick the graph-heavy min-maxers in the shin and let me have back my adjustable power-attack.

Even if the game gets harder, however, more PC capabilities tend to make me happier.

I get extra skills? I am happy, doesn't matter that I now have to make regular skill-checks to avoid horrible death, in-fact, that's very cool.

Monsters get stronger, but I get more feats? Sure.

Personally, I think that Bards being able to do more than just sing and play a lute would make the class quite a bit more attractive to people that used to scoff at it.

What about a Warrior Poet, anyone? Reciting passages from ancient epic to inspire his allies before battle, donning armor, wielding sword and shield among his comrades as he shouts passages of encouragment?

How about a seductive dancer clad in silk adept with the scimitar, able to disarm or stun her foes with her dance?

Bards should have more options, they may be iconic but I'd argue they're the /least/ loved and most picked on of the core classes.

I hate to be a spoilsport, but I think that for the people who advocate the adding of a ton of exotic weapons that are easily representable by pre-existing 'western' (weapons are almost universal on that list anyways) as exotic and 'monk' weapons is a very, very bad idea.

The less need for Monks to follow crazy rules with weapons that don't apply to anyone else and nobody else can use, the better.

Monks need to feel like more a part of the everyday game, and less a niche class that was thrown in from another setting.

Naginata=Glaive, you can make a light glaive if you really wanted to, but less exotic weapons, please?

Exotic weapons should be things that are hard to use and not regularly found, not farming implements and slightly different shaped swords.

Edit: Let me clarify,

I want to feel that the Monk is part of the Pathfinder setting. That the Monk exists alongside other classes, using weapons that are part of the world, but doing things differently from how a Rogue or Fighter would do them.

I want to avoid the fate the Monk received when 3.0 Plunked them down oh so unceremoniously with a weapon list of things nobody in the game world has ever heard of or pronounced, with a flavor that doesn't even jive with most of the artwork.

Monastaries were plunked down in previously existing settings where they didn't exist, all to find some explanation for these strangers existing somewhere in solitude training and using weapons nobody else knows how to use.

I like the direction the Pathfinder Fluff and art is going, almost into exalted territory, making the Monk feel at home. This is what we need, not more silly exceptions.