Wyrm Sniper

Less Lawful, More Good's page

Organized Play Member. 65 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Translation: it's not lockstep with my way of thinking so you're doing it wrong.
Have we really reached to point where we're arguing about style fluff? All we need now is someone to say they're a 9th degree blackbelt irl and demand we heed their expert opinion.

Silver Crusade

I mean for this playtest. We were told it was just 10.

Silver Crusade

I'm curious, why do people think there are going to be more classes?

Silver Crusade

Dispari Scuro wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
ZeroGear wrote:
Quite honestly, I'm surprised the brawler is not proficient with shields. While I do understand that shields are generally not considered to be part of "brawling" per say, shield bash is listed as part of the "close" weapon group. I could easily see someone punching others and bashing with a spiked shield at the same time, or going in with a buckler and a dagger (or bayonet and buckler for that matter).
As shield proficiency is a combat feat, he could technically use his martial maneuvers to do that.
Shield Proficiency is definitely one of the feats I would be taking on a brawler, since nothing stops a brawler from using one, and you can still flurry just fine.

Probably better off taking TWD and wearing a cestus or small weapon in your offhand or using snapping turtle style. You'll keep your ac bonus that way.

Silver Crusade

Never thought about it before, but are up and down legal choices for awesome blow directions?
Gotta admit, uppercutting a dragon in the air would be pretty epic. Or plowing someone into the floorboards to do collision damage.

Silver Crusade

I don't necessarily like the examples, but I do agree weapon style feats need to be a thing.

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:


I don't get this "mystic theurge" thing. Like, you can be a combination of a cleric and wizard? Idgi, why not just be a wizard or a cleric?

It's a really cruddy prestige class from the core rule book. The only thing it has going for it is the ability to share spell slots between arcane and divine classes. And that ain't much.

Silver Crusade

For the record I think that the neck slot issue, while having merit, is way overblown on the forums. I think in the grand scheme of things, taking up the neck slot is a valid price to pay for say unarmed fighters using twf instead of flurry. Ultimately though I think its just as reasonable to disregard such builds when balancing unarmed enchants since its such a specialized circumstance.
I think complaining about the neck slot has more to do with the general attitude on the forum that things are either perfect or utter crap, with nothing in between.

Silver Crusade

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I don't want to derail this into discussion about brass knuckles, but W. Kristoph Nolen also replied on my fan page, so I thought I'd repost my answer from there to here. In any case, if you want to continue discussing brass knuckles, make another thread about it (outside of the playtest boards), I don't want it here.

My reply about brass knuckles is:

Normal human unarmed strikes are weak (nonlethal damage, –4 on the attack roll if you want to deal lethal damage instead).

Brass knucks let an untrained combatant deal lethal damage without the –4 penalty.
Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or the equivalent class ability) lets a combatant deal lethal damage without the –4 penalty.

So the brawler (and monk) are already getting the benefits of brass knuckles, for free. So brass knuckles don't "stack" with the benefits of IUS. And when the brawler's or monk's unarmed damage scales up, the brass knuckles don't add to that because they already match brass knuckles at the baseline.

In the same way that a fighter could say, "how come I don't have a 1st-level ability that lets me deal more damage with a dagger?" The answer is "because you have martial weapon proficiency, which means you can use short swords, longswords, and bastard swords without a penalty, which are better than daggers." In other words, the fighter is asking "why can't I use an inferior weapon (dagger) to do as much damage as a better weapon I have access to (longsword)?" And for the monk and brawler, it's "why can't I use an inferior weapon (brass knuckles) to do as much damage as a better weapon I have access to (unarmed strike)?"

(Basically, monks and brawlers already have a built-in ability of "treat my unarmed strikes as if I were using brass knuckles, so I don't provoke AOOs and don't get the –4 penalty for dealing lethal damage.")

Also, because real world badass martial artists don't use brass knuckles, they use their fists; brass knuckles are for thugs who don't really know how to fight.

I'm moving on to other questions...

You make a valid argument...while completely ignoring the enchanting issue. The issue has always been, and the issue you chose to ignore is monks, brawlers, etc are told "limit yourself to 1d4 damage, or pay twice as much for enchants and limit yourself to +5" there's no upside in the current ruleset.

Of course you could say AoMF has the 'advantage' of enchanting the whole body. Which is fine for nonhumanoid creatures, but ever since Ultimate Combat it's been ruled that a flurry could be done with 1 hand or weapon. Hell the brawler rules specifically say it. So at the end of the day there's no effective benefit to the AoMF for people who use unarmed strikes.
That's what this whole thing boils down to for me. Paizo game designers stepped in and made a rule that rendered taxing unarmed enchants obsolete, but didn't get rid of the tax. The AoMF works the way it does because "that's the way it worked in 3.5". But in 3.5 it was assumed you needed both hands to flurry so yeah it made sense to give it a penalty. Well you changed the rules, now its time to stop ignoring the artifacts left in the wake of that change.

Silver Crusade

Prefer to just houserule the AoMF costs the same and functions like a masterwork +X weapon, but can only work with unarmed strikes and not natural weapons.
Keep the old version around with a different name for nonhumanoids.

Or you can just houserule fist weapons scale with unarmed damage. Either way there's no reason to impose nerfs on unarmed strike enchants anymore.

Silver Crusade

LoreKeeper wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
I for one am glad they get armor. I didn't want a high bab monk, I wanted a class that feels like a gritty thug, not some skilled martial artist. While there's room for polishing, I'm definitely happy with the feel of the class. If you want a monk, play a monk. If you want a guy who knocks someone's teeth out because he won't stop asking the party's bard to play Freebird, that's where the brawler comes in.

It's not about playing a monk though; it's playing a naked thug! Think Hulk, or in fact most of the superheroes - armor is rare for them. I am glad for the light armor proficiency too - I don't think it should be removed - but it should be viable to play a non-armored brawler.

Its not about having just A, or just B. It is about the freedom to take A or B and not having to suffer unduly for your decision.

If they made an archetype or variant that went armorless, you'd have to give them a stat to armor instead of a straight bonus. Like con to armor.

That said I still don't like the idea.

Silver Crusade

I would wager with utter certainty that that last one doesn't apply to arcane strike.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I for one am glad they get armor. I didn't want a high bab monk, I wanted a class that feels like a gritty thug, not some skilled martial artist. While there's room for polishing, I'm definitely happy with the feel of the class. If you want a monk, play a monk. If you want a guy who knocks someone's teeth out because he won't stop asking the party's bard to play Freebird, that's where the brawler comes in.

Silver Crusade

Level 1 Commoner wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this question has been asked and answered alot. But how do Blood Rage and Arcane Strike interact or are they mutually exclusive?

You can arcane strike any time you have a caster level and a swift action to spare.

Better question is have we confirmed whether or not the Bloodrager's caster level is class-3.

Silver Crusade

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Alright then, the stupid question: How do I become one of the game designers? Mechanically, these classes look pretty sound - conceptually, most of them are lacking in real creativity, without which you've got nothing, and that's what I'm good at.

"You guys are uncreative, without me you've got nothing." Hell of a pitch you got there, mang.

Silver Crusade

Scavion wrote:


Also, Where meh fuse styles at? I hope theres an archetype for it =P

Either there will be or there won't.

Silver Crusade

AncientSpark wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
Considering it normally takes a week to retrain a feat, I think a move action is a pretty sweet deal.
Not really, if you're attempting in-combat switching. It's the difference between impossible at a week to impractical at a move action.

Impractical is still a stretch. You honestly mean to tell me you think reducing yourself to a standard action for one turn is too much of a price to pay for magically swapping a feat? No offense man, but that kind of mentality is the reason game designers think players are unpleasable.

Silver Crusade

AncientSpark wrote:

I really do not understand why Martial Maneuvers needs to be an action greater than Swift. It doesn't feel like the Brawler is adaptable when he has to spend an action sitting there and thinking and really screws with the flow of the character. I understand that this might potentially have power level concerns...but it feels like, in their current state, Martial Maneuvers is wasted potential.

Alternatively, have the Brawler have a list of "pre-set" feats that they can shift to as a swift action and have a switch to feats outside of that list as a greater action.

Considering it normally takes a week to retrain a feat, I think a move action is a pretty sweet deal.

Silver Crusade

I largely like like the brawler overall. Still a couple things I'm disapoint about.
Maneuver Training: if nothing else would like the option to take weapon training in unarmed or close weapons instead of combat maneuvers.
Close Weapons scaling with unarmed damage: no offence SKR, but asking 'what is it you want' is kinda silly considering how many times it came up in the old thread.
Brawler's Flurry: I'd go the opposite of Alexander's suggestion, I think brawler's flurry should be simplified to just counting as TWF and it's path for the purpose of prereqs. It may be munchkiny, but if I were to take two weapon defense, it'd be simpler if I always had the bomus instead of only following a full round action.
Brawler's Strike: call me stubborn, I still like the idea of brawlers using fist weapons to bypass dr instead of having ki strike envy. To me it just fits their fighter heritage to have some connection to weapons. I'll say it again for the record, I suggest swapping Brawler's strike for weapon training at each level they would have gained a new type of dr bypass. The weapon training is in a single weapon they're proficcient in or their unarmed strike, and has the additional rule that weapons they're trained in scale with unarmed damage.

Silver Crusade

Virgil Firecask wrote:
I always thought Oracle was a Cleric/Sorcerer mix.

Because it is.

Silver Crusade

I think the full bab/full casting balance can be reached by giving them the lower bab by default but having a triggered ability that lets them treat their hd as their bab for x minutes.

Silver Crusade

Zark wrote:

Forgive my ignorance, I haven’t read thru all 893 posts, but I wonder does this class suck if it is forced to use a range weapon?

As far as I can tell it can’t even use a shortbow and it gets no bonus to attack or damage if using a ranged weapon.

Define sucks. They're as good as any high bab class when using a crossbow, but no composite weapons so no bonus to damage. Although I'd think for a guy built entirely around punching people, ranged weapons are something of a last resort. Just saying.

Silver Crusade

VM mercenario wrote:
Why don't they just give the Brawler the Exploit Weakness ability from the Martial Artist Monk? Seems to me it would be a perfect fit.

SKR already said they don't want to give them a mechanic that slows down combat. Whatever ability the brawler gets, it probably wont be one that involves an additional roll each round.

Silver Crusade

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've removed a post. Do not make disparaging comments about people with mental disabilities or use terms for such people as insults.

Ok I can appreciate that, but the rest of the post was valid and I really don't want to type it again. >.>

Silver Crusade

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
But that's not accurate. Nowhere does it say you can't use a shield to block if you aren't proficient.

You're missing the meat of the discussion. A mechanic like "proficient in shields as a weapon but not armor" is unwieldy. Do you have to rules patch it so a brawler is never able to use it as armor unless proficient? If a brawler take proficiency via feat or multiclassing does he keep his ac bonus? Does he get to choose each round if he gets the ac bonus at the nonproficient penalty to attacks?

There are simpler ways to build the class than introducing half proficiency.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
i agree that savage is just sort of a bad name for a class in general, assuming the class names are used in charicter, it just sounds condescending.

Joe: I'm Joe the monk. This is Phill the bard, Edd the cleric, and Mitch the Savage.

Mitch: Well **** you too, Joe.

Silver Crusade

Yeah, if it cancels out their AC bonus there really isn't any reason they shouldn't have the option to use a shield for AC.

Silver Crusade

Problem with calling Bloodrager 'savage', 'berserker', etc. is it's not indicative of their magic ability.
I like the Warlock idea, or Spellrager. Bloodrager kinda works still since it has to do with their rage going deeper than a normal barbarian and awakening primal powers in their blood, but maybe that too subtle to most players.

Silver Crusade

Caedwyr wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
I think all this shield business is going to lead them to reconsider giving brawlers proficiency in the entire close weapon group.
What do you see as Paizo's reasoning to do this?

They don't want brawlers to use shields, but they're part of the close weapon group so brawlers are technically proficient in them. If they go with the "proficient as a weapon but not ac" rule, they'll get to look forward to spending the next decade listening to people whine about "wah can't i use muh sheeld to block!?!?!?"

Silver Crusade

I think all this shield business is going to lead them to reconsider giving brawlers proficiency in the entire close weapon group.

Silver Crusade

Prince of Knives wrote:
C'mon folks, refluffing is not difficult.

Hey I can accept it...doesn't mean I have to like it.

Silver Crusade

If you're still monitoring this thread at the moment, Mr. Reynolds, I'd like to hear your take on the theme issue with brawler's strike. Is the Brawler being able to magically bypass DR despite not being a mystical class an issue worth mentioning, or should we just accept that it's a necessary case of gameplay and story segregation?

Silver Crusade

Scavion wrote:

How about the Brawler punches through DR equal to half his level when using Unarmed Strikes? Penetrating Strike and Improved Penetrating Strike could improve it as well if you're really crazy about getting through DR.

I do agree that Brawler Strike has to go.

I am ok with this idea too.

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:


Actually, I think the main problem is that an AoMF costs twice as an equivalent weapon. But, yeah, occupying an item slot also hurts a lot.

Sad thing is paizo themselves made AoMF obsolete when they ruled you can make a flurry with 1 fist. It makes the "one enchant, multiple weapons" tax pointless. Yeah its possible to make a character that uses twf for unarmed fighting, but its rare enough that its not game breaking to overlook it. When I dm I have a houserule that AoMF has a base cost of 2350g, can hold up to +10 like a weapon, and only works with unarmed strikes. The classic version is renamed Amulet of Ferocious Might, works with natural weapons, and is intended for non-humanoids.

Quote:


And I don't see how adding scaling damage dice to weapons make unarmed combatants more useful against creatures with DR.

It gives players the option to use special materials or enchants to bypass dr instead of relying on I Can't Believe It's Not Ki Strike. Really my main beef with brawlers strike is thematic. Can't get over "you're not mystic but your fists are magic because REASONS!"

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
I dunno, I still think "Half unarmed progression, can use it with Unarmed Weapons" is a better, more flavorful way to go.

I still say nerfing unarmed progression with or without weapons is unnecessary. Still think swapping brawlers strike for weapon training and allowing unarmed strike damage with trained weapons is the most elegant solution. If a player chooses to go straight unarmed, they can still take unarmed as their first level of weapon training and get a ccumulative +4 to their attack and damage. If a player wants to use weapons they can get up to 4 melee weapons with full unarmed damage.

Silver Crusade

Any word on Brawler weapon damage scaling with unarmed strike?

Silver Crusade

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Tell you what Paizo, anywhere you find a really compelling critique, take it over a survey. Fully 68.89% of statistics are misleading.

Problem with that is just about everyone fully believes that their assessment is the most valid and well though out response there is. We have to consider that we don't necessarily represent the entirety of the playtest audience. Even within the forums its easy to get fooled into thinking you've tapped a vien of public demand. In a thread with 600-1000 posts, 'me and four other people on the last page' doesn't really constitute a massive outcry.

tl;dr - Don't get mad and think the designers are ignoring the players if something you don't like ends up in the final release.

Silver Crusade

Can we expect any surprises with the revised pdf, or will it just be codifying the updates we've seen in the class threads?

Silver Crusade

More worried that swappable feats in general are going to be a throwaway mechanic. Seems likely that a lot of players are just going to have their go-to set of feats that they use every encounter. Yeah its cool in theory to be able to switch from tank/puncher/grappler/whatever, but in practice it doesn't seem like it will come up often unless the DM tailors the adventure with that variety in mind.

Silver Crusade

drbuzzard wrote:

So you're saying the numbers don't matter. OK. Makes for a short discussion (hint biggest damage die doesn't mean diddly and improved crit on a 20x2 weapon is a wasted feat).

How about we accept this? Nobody said you had to optimize. However balance has to be considered on that basis because to do otherwise means you aren't really balancing, just picking random numbers from a hat.

I'm saying I've never seen the theorycraft and the actual gameplay add up. People whine endlessly about balance, but when game day rolls around monks are either at the top in martial damage or close enough to not matter.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
You're missing a lot. If you want to find out why unarmed strikes vs weapons is so terrible, go read 1 of the thousands upon thousands of Monk threads.

I'd rather not. Or rather I've skimmed said threads before, saw a writhing pit of minmaxing lunatics and stepped away.

My only real gripe is the downsides of unarmed fighting are there, but they're not enough to warrant the hatred people give it. Yeah the crit profile isnt optimum, but you still have the biggest damage dice in the game and improved crit as a bonus feat option. AoMF needs to be updated to make it more attractive since paizo canonized you can flurry with one fist, so yeah there's that.
I know most powergamers will never be happy until monks get a built in +10 enhancement bonus at level 3, and they all have math to back up why that's perfectly balanced. I honestly can't be made to care. I played monk variants in the last 3 games my group ran and had no problem being competative in damage output with unarmed strikes. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it crippling? No.

Silver Crusade

Kekkres wrote:
it also gives weapons like brass knuckles and the cestus a reason to exist because as is i don't think i've ever seen a use for them.

They're good for flavor reasons if you wanna make an 'unarmed' character without blowing a feat for imp unarmed strike.

Silver Crusade

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:


No they're not, but it sort of dangles an option in a player's face that is never a viable one. The Zen Archer is really the only weapon-using Monk archetype that holds water IMO, but there doesn't seem to be a way to make an equally strong monastic sword fighter from the class. For that sort of guy you have to go magus kensai.

Oh c'mon, the Sohei is hell on wheels.
I had actually forgotten about this one. So +1 for monks as is, but the problem remains for all but those 2 archetypes. The class favors the use of unarmed strikes, the game environment favors the use of weapons, and a vanilla monk is caught between a rock and a hard place.

I'm probably missing something, but other than the AoMF having a +5 limit, I really don't see how a monk is hurt by using unarmed strikes over weapons. And even if you absolutely feel that they are, there's no reason the class should grant scaling damage to weapons if no other class does. You just make the choice, use better unarmed strikes or weapons like the other martial classes. A monk using a weapon isn't at a disadvantage compared to any other class using the same weapon.

Now again that shouldn't reflect on the brawler. I think the brawler should get scaling weapon damage, but only because 1) giving them I can't believe it's not ki strike doesn't fit thematically, and 2) all the weapons in the close group are 1d4 damage. At least monks have a couple 1d8 options.

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
Oh c'mon, the Sohei is hell on wheels.
Now I feel like building a roller-skating Tiefling Sohei Monk...

Only if the DM considers them a mount for the purpose of the monastic mount ability. Seriously, roller skates won't last 3 rounds in combat without evasion.

Silver Crusade

Ellis Mirari wrote:


No they're not, but it sort of dangles an option in a player's face that is never a viable one. The Zen Archer is really the only weapon-using Monk archetype that holds water IMO, but there doesn't seem to be a way to make an equally strong monastic sword fighter from the class. For that sort of guy you have to go magus kensai.

Oh c'mon, the Sohei is hell on wheels.

Silver Crusade

Ellis Mirari wrote:
I definitely support this idea, and honestly think it should be that way regardless, even for monks. What's the point of using weapons at all when the damage on your unarmed strikes keeps scaling up? If you can swing that hard with just your fists, why would you deal LESS damage with a sword? Makes no sense to me.

Well to be fair, Monks aren't expected to use weapons.

Silver Crusade

Kekkres wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:

On another note, is anyone else bothered by the flavoring of the Brawler Strike ability?

He definitely does need to be abel to overcome DR with his unarmed strikes, don't get me wrong. But the "treated as magic" just feels weird for this sort of character that has no ki power. I'm more comfortable with the idea that his blows have become so powerful that they ignore X points of DR, or something like that. Might be just me though.

i recalll earlier up someone suggested stunting the damage growth a bit but also applying "unarmed damage" to all "unarmed" type weapons such as brass knuckles cestus spiked gauntlets and so on. which fixes the damage reduction issue nicely.

I still say give them weapon training in a single weapon they're proficient with at each level they would gain a new brawler's strike and let them apply full unarmed dmg when using any weapon they have training in.

Silver Crusade

I don't think the warpriest shouldn't have to wait till lvl20 to treat their level as their bab when using their deity's favored weapon. It feels like it could be similar to the 4e paladin at leat in theme. A martial champion of a specific god rather than good in general. Maybe their casting could be reworked to more powerful when casting spells within their god's domains to go with weapon specific bab. Rather than the normal "high bab, low casting, low bab high casting but never both" convention, the warpriest could have high both within then restrictions of its god's domains, but low with everthing outside.

Silver Crusade

Personally one change I'd like to see is clean up the flurry mechanic to where you simply get the two weapon fighting feats as bonus feats, possibly with the addendum that they only work with unarmed strike or close weapons. With brawler having high bab there's really no need to differentiate a flurry from a full attack action and it would simplify the crunch text when it comes to whether or not brawlers can use feats with 2WF as a prereq.

Silver Crusade

Wis to ac won't stack with light armor and just force you to take another high stat.
Fuse styles is cool, but wouldn't dump levels into a low bab class just to get it. There are cool monk archetypes, but nothing I'd be willing to stall class progression for.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>