Orc

Martialmasters's page

Organized Play Member. 258 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:
A little disappointed with the point buy variant. For me one of the potential appeals was looking for a way to make it easier for players to diversify their points and put less pressure on them to min-max their main attribute, but it sounds like the PB variant does the opposite and reduces their overall stat spread but lets you min-max even more.

Dunno why your surprised.

You pretty much all of 2e operates on the assumption that your character has optimal stat allocation for your class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like what a lot of this discussion is missing is the assumption of good faith. I do not believe a GM, acting on good faith, would have you get hit by a fireball, which does not damage the nice shirt you're wearing or your spellbook in your bag, but would harm your familiar who is hiding in your shirt/bag, your GM is probably not operating in good faith.

It's a silly debate to begin with because if your using your familiar it's not hiding on your person anyways.


Rysky wrote:
Or we play with GMs who have opponents go after the bigger threats to themselves (the PCs) rather than ignore the Barbarian introducing the greatsword to their face in favor off going after Smoog the party mascot.

Hey the creature downed those guys that the familiar is trying to save. It is not out of character in the slightest to stop that


I find use for the familiar as a focus battery.

While I do not think the feat is weak. I think the familiar is weak.

Basically most of it's "features" and tactics with them either risk combat or is something you do in combat that would make it a Target.

Giving it items, stabilizing players, delivering touch attacks. All of these mean any intelligent creature is going to see the familiar as something worth taking out. Do ok, let's not do any of that basically ever.

Scouting, really dependant on the familiar form (Wich means you have the time to switch it's form), the possible enemies, and the DM.

The DM is probably a big one. If I played PFS, I'd never use a familiar because I don't know how the DM is going to handle it's use.

You all talk about, not playing with a DM who *hates* familiars.

I just think if you play most things in terms of even relative common sense and the DM properly role plays the enemies that have a brain... Then familiars are just a liability for many things, your likely to spend more time with 1-2 dead feats then with functioning ones.

I can't help but get the feeling many DMS in here play with soft hands. I guess my groups are a bit more...gritty? I dunno


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

The Witch Familiar isn't useless, it's literally their "Spellbook" and saying that they can't survive is 100% up to player agency since there are countless things a PC can actively do to protect their Familiar.

The more this thread goes on, the more I suspect that this is an issue relating to risk aversion.

They already have more HP than a Spellbook after the first few levels (And also get to roll Saves to prevent death), can be directed to stay out of danger, can be replaced for free (Unlike a Spellbook which you'd have to pay 100% of the cost to recoup the contained Spells), and also has Damage Avoidance that can be taken that is akin to the Evasion of yore but you can choose any type of Save. They're more durable than most any almost any other physical objects that a Character relies upon.

Also, the Spell Delivery feature doesn't only exist for you to cast Touch Range spells on enemies, it's also great for beneficial effects like Restoration, Mending, Lock, Disrupting Weapons, Invisibility and dozens of other effects at a range of 25-40 feet. That is some truly incredible utility with near-limitless ways it can play out but you seem to be casting it in the light that its only function should be to cast offensive spells when that perspective is ignoring the vast majority of the useful functions of Spell Delivery.

1- the related discussion to witch familiar was that it was so important that to risk it's demise by having to do anything is folly.

2- as for your player agency argument. That's silly. Of course they won't actively try to get it killed. It's just many of it's features combined with the very aspect of the familiar itself means in doing many of it's possible activities you risk losing your spell book for a week.

No manner the precaution you take unless you keep it well away from harm at all times you risk losing your spells. So it's best to just not use any of those features


WatersLethe wrote:
Reminder that we haven't seen the final version of witch.

Yes I did already mention that.


Ravingdork wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.
Nope. This was a live play session done in person, around a real table.

Weird that they would be silent.

I guess best suggestion I have is make sure everyone voice's their opinion before such actions in the future and make sure they say something.

As for the DM, only thought I have is maybe ask what kind of campaign he expects so you know how to taper your actions accordingly.


Timeshadow wrote:

But you really don't have to. As has been stated if you just want the "benifits" of the fimiliar then take your little cricket familiar and put him in a metal box with some fluf to cushon him and never take him from your renforced beltpouch. You now have access to an extra cantrip and a focus point. Take the extra feat and alchemest dedication after lvl 5 and now you get an extra 1st lvl spell and an extra reagent with next to no risk to yourself. Heck Im sure you could even convince your gm to let you take a pet rock as ppl have joked about earlier in the fourms.

If you always look for the worst that's what you will find. Try being a glass half full kinda guy and just enjoy this flexable feat or not and just don't take it if you feel it's not worth the risk.

I was specifically talking about witch. Wich does far more for them than what you described


Timeshadow wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.

While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.

The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.

That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.

I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.

This could be in intresting and fun to play character. A witch who is super paranoid about her familiar dieing and builds her spells and abilitys accordingly. You could even give the familiar a reckless personality so he/she has to constantly "save" it.

Fun yes. But binary as that's how I'd feel forced to play all of them. Also your idea while funny is mechanically and cooperatively not sound to group play if you're willingly risking making yourself useless for a week due to the fun of it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a side note, dedications make fast great use of focus points.

Monk with wild order druid dedication can easily have 3 focus by level 6 and have effective wild shape animal forms until level 11 where you could have taken thousand faces by 8 to gain it's heighten effect of enlarging you and since it's with wild shape you still get the +2 to hit, or after 11 morph on a monk is great to add 2d6 bleeding persistent to your attacks.


Timeshadow wrote:
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.

While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.

The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.

That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.

I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.


Ravingdork wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.
I don't recall there being universal agreement. I remember one or two people agreeing and everyone else staying silent/neutral. I took that as acceptance. It wasn't until we started to move forward with the plan that the GM objected. I suspect the fighter wouldn't have objected at all if we hadn't been taking so long (he was likely wanting back in the game).

Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.

Easy to have miscommunication in those medium's. Best I can suggest is hold off until everyone has a vote in unless the DM is actively pressing you for time


Can't wait for gmg to come out honestly. And apg as well. Will add so many options


Sounds like you have a tendency to decide for the group on when to barge into a unlikely to survive scenario in hopes for a heroic moment but more often than not you end up dead or someone else.

Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.

Either way the DM isn't giving you your hero moments just because your brave in the face of danger. I can only assume he wants you to earn it instead.

This is just what I can gather from the main post.


Do the ASI bumps work the same?


Vlorax wrote:
citricking wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

Just wanted to mention here that the GMG has a Variant Rule that changes the ability scores to be more equally balanced.

It removes con and rolls it into strength.

Splits dex into two scores(dex, agility) with agility being the ac/save stat, dex becomes the ranged/unarmed atk and finesse dmg stat.

charisma goes to will saves, wis/int otherwise unchanged.

Thanks for sharing!

That seems really harsh on ranged/finesse fighters compared to the current set up.

You mention finesse damage, is that for everyone or just thief rogues?

In that variant everyone gets Dex to dmg if it's greatee than str

Very interesting. I think current ability scores are better than they used to be clearly. Not perfect.

I'd be curious to trying out those variant rules.

Any of you use it? What was your thoughts?


From my experience. As a healing font cloistered cleric with the medicine skill at level 1.

My heals while appreciated. They were honestly far less impactful than battle medicine.

Given the nature of the encounter's it wasn't often where I had the need to ranged heal spell for 2 actions.

So do I think they are necessary? I think it depends on group composition and group tactics.

Even with 18 ac I was bright from 17hp to dying... Twice in the same day.

My monk with 21ac 19hp. Dying one hit.

Then most encounter's where this didn't happen I or another party member were brought under 5hp in a single round.

Rather than battle medicine to conserve my heals I healed to conserve my battle medicine lol.


Mind blanked. The bleed doesn't come online until level 11 but that's ok because animal form will carry you all the way there


Thanks for the replies.

I like the concept of morph and after several people here discussed the value of starting with a different order, I wondered, that's kinda like taking wild order as a dedication? Lightbulb! Though it strays away from druid a bit.

Go monk.

1-ki strike
2- druid dedication
4- wild shape
6- order spell
8- wholeness of body
10-?
12- meditative focus
14-?
16- Ariel form
18- meditative wellspring
20- plant form (though probably just golden body)

By level 6 I can spend a focus point in morph and gain 2d6 bleed damage as a monk not a druid.

At 6 I can wild shape and get a +2 to hit on top of martial to hit getting temporarily up to fighter levels of hit bonus?

The user is by level 16 or so your probably just better off using morph but by that point you've gained fly and a massive persistent bleed effect.

Seems pretty cool


pauljathome wrote:

I've only theory crafted form control, not actually seen it in action.

Note that I don't believe that it is possible to apply striking runes to wildshaped druids. The clear intent is that the abilities listed are what you get. How that interacts with things like monks increased unarmed damage, sneak attack, even monks flurry are less than crystal clear.

But I basically agree with you. Form control has uses outside of combat but it is somewhere between nerfing you into uselessness and sheer suicide IN combat against anything approximating appropriate challenges for your level.

I think you need arms for some of the wild morph options so definitely no snake with claws and arguably no deer with claws (ape with claws would probably be ok but not at all clear which claw damage would "win")

My understanding is the rules on combining morph with shape is that the shape has to not have the feature in order to gain the morphs version.

No granting morph wings to a flying Shape as it already has them. Etc.

So a snake doesn't have a claw attack or wings was my thought.


First World Bard wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Issue is you only have 1 focus point.
This, specifically, is a common complaint about Animal and Wild order druids. The advice often given is to start as a Leaf or Storm druid, as both of those orders start with 2 focus points. Then, at 2nd level you can take Order Explorer to pick up Wild Shape. If you don't care about Wild Morph, you don't even need to bother with Order Magic. All you miss out on is having Wild Morph/Pest Form at 1st level, and Wild Morph at 2nd (since you can't use Animal Form until 3rd level). As a druid with a high Str, you can probably get by at 1st/2nd levels with a club in one hand and a wooden shield in the other, with Sheleigh for significant combats. (1st/2nd level is really the only time when Shield Block is worth anything to a druid anyway, since Sturdy Shields are steel).

My current theorized build is taking monk dedication at 2 and 4/6 taking ki powers so I have 3 by level 6. Plus I can use my unarmed strikes when not shifted if need be and take advantage of the handwraps I would invest in.

Not perfect, probably be a last d in ditch thing to do. But it helps streamline and without form control there isn't really any feats I want at those levels regardless.


Claxon wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.

These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.

So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.

Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting

Where the f&#& did you get that from? Please don't tell me that "My idea of fun is not having fun".

If you want to be a face you can, don't invest in wisdom and invest in Charisma. Outside of like 2 specific abilities, monks don't need wisdom for class related things. It's for saves and perception.

You can build the character you want, a face monk. But you can't have it all. You can be charismatic, and have AC, and have good svaes, but you will sacrifice damage. Or instead sacrifice AC and reflex saves. Or sacrifice hp and fort saves.

You have accept that you are REQUIRED to SACRIFICE something, you don't get to be good at everything.

You could even make a dex monk with low (12 strength) and invest in Dex, Con, Wis, and Charisma once you start to level up. Maybe your charisma isn't max, but you're probably going to be okay.

If that is how you feel that's fine, but I still disagree. In the end all it means is outside of taking Mountain style I won't ever be building a monk with a secondary stat and goal other than strength/dexterity because to be starting with under 18 in my to hit/damage/Athletics (as if I'm going to need to put points in str I'm not going to dump the only skill it grants) because i can never actually make it up later.

As for me telling you what your ideas are, sorry, phrased it poorly. Rather it was supposed to be how I interpreted your comments because in the end that's what it amounts to me.

As a non charisma based class, if my charisma isn't 16 at the start I don't have much interest in trying to be a face.

The fact you phrase your last bit as (probably be ok) just reinforces my feelings. As you yourself are not certain it will be fine. Looking at the math, you won't be fine, you will be subpar, why would I invest months if not years into such a form of self inflicted woe, as I see them.

Role play comes fairly easily to me. So it is the mechanics I build upon as I can routinely miss finer points to a system otherwise.

I see no game play value in a monk statted differently than the examples I have given.

If I want to play a monk. 18str/16dex/12con (unless I want ki blast or more DC based ki powers are introduced).

If I want to play a sorcerer?
18cha/16dex/12wis(for the small initiative boost)

Wizard? 18int/16dex/12wis

Cleric? 18wis/16dex/12con

Druid? 18wis/14dex/14con

But then the really crazy stuff.

Warpriest cleric? 16str/12dex/16cha dump wisdom

Wild order druid? 16str/14dex/14con

Despite their inherent martial deficiencies while trying to emulate one, I like these characters more because to make their mechanical shtick work you need to tank their main stat and pick spells accordingly. I think druid does this a bit better due to wild shape giving you +2 to hit.

This has little directly to deal with Monk's Dex to damage argument. Merely trying to show how my mind works. I see little value in making a

12str/18dex/16cha monk as I won't be a good damage dealer at start of the game, Wich is my purpose, and will always be behind the curve for both my main role in the party as well as my chosen secondary.

Appreciate everyone's viewpoints TBH, in a different game I may agree but in 2e I'll stay within the Little boxes created for me

I'll play a Bard to face next time. :)


Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I feel Martialmasters' point of view is valid

Martialmasters preferring to play high strength characters is perfectly valid.

Pretending it's the only possible way to play the game and constantly belittling anyone who disagrees is more of an issue though.

If you feel I belittled anyone I'm sorry. I tried to phrase it so that it was apparent as to being my opinion. I messed up with claxon in trying to make a point that fell flat.


I don't see that. For me it's that difference between being -1 behind a 18cha player and -2. My idea if interesting is just different I guess


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.
Have you tried a pet rock?

You know... Try as I might for some reason the pet Rock doesn't help me "focus"


Ok. Let me really look at this.

Are familiars worth it?

For me, yes. But not in the way most would use it. I would only sink one feat in for my familiar. It would gain movement type because that's required. Then I would take the familiar focus ability.

That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.

Wich I will add that to my gnome evocation wizard build actually. Means by level 14 I'll be able to use force bolt 6 times before needing to refocus. Nice


Timeshadow wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.

But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.

I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.

Name me one 1st lvl class feat that gives as many options and oppertunities as a fimiliar?

There needs to be a downside or everyone and their dogs would have a fimiliar it would be auto take.

Maybe, that just means it probably some have been a caster specific feature and not a feat.

As it stands I'll always opt for consistency and reliability in my feat choice's unless I simply has no other use for the feat slot


I see where you are coming from Unicore but I still can't seem to agree.

First hurdle is giving myself 16 charisma at level 1 as a monk. Outside of mountain style Wich still has to make sacrifices but I am willing to their. But without I'm beholden to 18 in either str or dexterity and 16 in the other. This is because as a Monk your first and foremost purpose is being a mobile damager. To willfully hurt your main purpose seems folly.

So no, I'm not weighing 16cha monk face because I cannot justify it unless I'm playing a non combat game. Rather it would be a 12 or if tanking 2 stats in order to get 14. Despite me seeming like a possible mechanically driven min/maxer I'm against going to such extreme measures for a +1, I'm not that much of a min maxer.

So comparing 12 Cha face monk to 18cha face sorcerer is what I have going. And that 3 modifier variance not vs the sorcerer but vs the social DC's of deception, intimidation and diplomacy means you are more of a liability at a job you had to sacrifice and invest more into than the sorcerer or Bard.

I'm actually ok with a +1/-1 variation in 2e. +2/-2 is very hard for me to stomach. Beyond that, just no, it's not even a conversation to really be had with me (in a general sense not in the sense we should cease our discussion)

Dex to damage means, boom. I have a 18dex/16cha level 1 monk and I can justify it. This is why my face monk is my mountain style. Because I can tank dexterity. It didn't break anything. The inverse can be true.


Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.

But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.

I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.


Ravingdork wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
The Monk could max out the Focus pool by level four, and have potentially every Focus power, or boost to focus regeneration, available to it. That puts it at level 20 with a Human Monk with 9 Focus powers and two Focus regen increases.
But what if we throw in a few dedication archetypes?

Unless ancient elf can take the perfections path dedication at start. 4 is the fastest you will aquire focus points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cavernshark wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
I don't understand why it's shocking that a class feature as extensible as the familiar wouldn't also require some investment on the part of the player.
There's a difference between "spending all of your resources improving a feature" and "spending all of your resources to HAVE a feature."
I can't speak to a game where you only get a single class feat ever. Sounds kind of a lame house rule, personally, but I hope you have fun with it.

I mean technically it costs more than one feat to maximize a familiar and I think he's questioning the value you get from that investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Timeshadow wrote:

How about insted of looking at the bad side we look at the familiar as a single class feat (or raceial feat) that gives all these options?

Is there a single feat or even pair of feats(adding enhanced) that gives this huge selection of options and abilitys?

The drawback is that it is possable to have the fimiliar killed but it's replaceable in a week. There are a ton of ways to help protect your fimiliar from hideing it in a backpack to a special carrier to (one of my favorites) a gourd Leshy keeping him in his head.

The feat also unlocks a ton of roleplaying options cause no matter how you slice it your fimiliar is another entity for you and your companions to interact with. Outside of combat Familiars do whatever they instinctually/personality wise would do. This could be as little as purching on a shoulder and looking cute to rifleing through other ppl's packs looking for shiney things to make a nest out of, or singing bad evlen poetery. The sky is the limit. All for just one or two feats.

Don't look at it as a downgrade from PF1's familiars look at it as a dam good and fun PF2 Class Feat.

Role playing is the easy bit. What I'm looking for is non liability benefits.

Someone mentioned that there drain familiar ability for a focus point does not replace drain bond linked focus feat but adds to it.

That has potential use for me as I love going gnome for the action to regain focus and drain bond with linked focus feat to do the same.

But in my experience, familiars are combat liability and one week without my feats is a potential deal breaker.

Scouting is occasionally useful. But more often their are spells that can do that or better.

Everything else I've seen mentioned the familiar does quite poorly, so am not sold on those benefits.


pauljathome wrote:

That looks pretty right to me.

One thing to keep in mind, a lot of the value in the forms spells is the sheer versatility that they give you. Need to swim? Animal Form. Opponent is on a platform above you? Animal Form. Opponent is far away? Animal Form. Need to scout? Pest Form.

A pure martial will beat you on raw damage and/or on defences a lot of the time. And that is just fine. You bring a LOT to the table to counter that lower damage output. Spells are still kinda useful :-). You've probably got decent wisdom and so can be good at some quite useful skills.

I haven't played one at high levels since the playtest but my plan for my druid (PFS) is to be good with weapons AND spells AND wild shaping. So, depending on the situation, he can swing his longsword while casting spells (or moving and raising his shield) but when he needs (or wants to because its cool :-)) he can rip opponents apart as an ape.

Thanks for the reply.

What's your thought on form control? I feel while it's neat to extend your focus points that the lowering of spell level of the form hurts it's combat ability too much to make you viable since your ac will be worse than your base form Wich will already scale poorly and your to hit won't be any better than base form. Literal only saving Grace is if you're DM let's you apply your striking runes to the form and the ability to sink a second focus point to gain claws and wings from morph into a form that has neither (snake comes to mind). But even then, while awesome sounding. The numbers just don't seem to hold up.


The Raven Black wrote:

I feel Martialmasters' point of view is valid, if not universal. We all have different ways to play and put importance on different things. And I am always in awe of this hobby of ours that has room for so many people.

Also I wanted to thank people on this thread for sharing calculations and well-considered arguments, as well as personal experience and system mastery. It opened my eyes even more to the nuances and subtleties of PF2.

Thank you all.

I think if you are ok with such deficiencies and want to role play it and you group is ok with one of your damage oriented character's doing low damage out of the gate. It's fine.

And even then play how you want.

I can only State my groups expectations as well as my own out of character performance.

Good everyone was able to help.


Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


But some people like role playing mechanical deficiencies, I suppose that's valid and should be supported
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Effectively from levels 1-4 especially. It is even if it's not what you intended.


As much as I'd like seedpods with a str modifier. It even makes sense given how they would be"thrown" or "shot" from the leshy body. Maybe even propulsive.

But as currently written I'd probably side with no strength for now but would match it's range to what's in the bestiary since their is zero relative info.

Wich is it really that bad? Most ranged weapons don't get it, you have the added safety of range, it's built in to work with handwraps letting you be a switch hitter without expecting higher than average wealth levels.

Leshy seem like amazing Monk's in this regard since you can flurry of blows at range out of the gate.


I find 2e's druid to be an oddball. Shield block at base shocked me especially with the low skills and no innate crafting skill to repair. Medium armor but limited to hide. D8hp so no bonus spell slots.

Then you have wild order. I find the transformation spells interesting.

If I made a gnome druid with voluntary flaws

Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14
Wis 12
Cha 10

And I increase strength, con, wisdom and your choice of Cha or int.

Getting handwraps of mighty fists with appropriate runes as I level.

My Max spell level forms will have the same to hit as my base form, Wich is that of a caster.

The damage won't always be better due to striking runes. But I guess jury is out on whether striking runes can enhance the die number of certain low die number forms.

So why not just play 18 wisdom and say only increase strength for feats? Why not rely on these forms for your combat?

Well because your a wild order druid!

It seems the entire value of this druid is in its focus powers.

Morph scales with your handwraps resulting in the ability to do a massive 4d6+3d6 runes+4d6 bleeding by high level. 11d6+6 seems pretty good! You get some interesting benefits based on other forms, and with DM consent can combine them with some wild shapes (flying snake with claws says hi). Seems one of it's big benefits is you don't become huge. But your ac and to hit is that of a caster. -2 or -3 behind a martial.

Wild Shape, the same thing as your spell slot forms but if you use your own to hit you get a +2, Wich if your build is as the one I shown, basically result's in you improving your to hit to almost that of a equal level 18 starting strength barbarian. Wich seems quite good.

So thus the real value seems to be in using your focus point to wild shape for martial to hit rating, or when size is an issue, morph.

Issue is you only have 1 focus point. In comes monk dedication. Giving us powerful fist and easy access to 3 focus points by level 6. Monk's flurry at 10 if you'd like.

By 5 your gnome ancestry let's you regenerate 1 focus point as an action per day,. Level 6 you can go wild shape 4 times before you need to refocus/rest. Then you still have your Max rank spell slots for backup forms. 7 forms before needing a rest.

Form control is interesting though hard to fit, I'm hesitant due to the reduction in ac and general combat viability just for a longer duration form that's basically slightly worse than me just using a spell slot (but again it lasts longer)

Other issue is my feats are pretty taken up. Levels to gain more forms seems to be

8 (flying)

14 (plant)

16 (monstrosity)

Why those? Primarily for morph effects. Flying and reach with a damaging claw attack.

Once your out of focus points and Max level slots your relegated to mostly buffing and utilities with either ranged cantrips or foolishly trying to powerful fist flurry of blows something.

Am I missing anything? I'm basically learning druid today. Ideas, opinions? Am I better off just playing a animal instinct barbarian?


Unicore wrote:

Also, I don't really see dex to damage fixing the "face monk" problem. There is no feat support for a face monk anyway. You might as well be rogue Thief, and MC into Monk so you can get the skill boosts and feats to be a face character, going with an 18 Dex, 16 CHA and then boosting Con to make up for the class HP loss.

Ahh see this is where my mechanic mind gives way for a want to role play.

I don't need feat support I just wanted to be a face monk because the image was appealing.

But given my stat constraints, I choose not to


Unicore wrote:
you could go 16 STR, 16 Dex and 16 CHA relatively easy. you'r abilty to intimidate enemies will make up for -1 to your attack.

Or I could let the Bard/sorcerer do it.

Or mountain style and tank Dex I guess


Garretmander wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.

These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.

So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.

Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting

Are you thinking a character only exists at levels 1-4? Are you ignoring stat bumps, and that for a DEX based character the +1-3 damage post level 5 matters very little? The difference between an 18 and a 19 is nothing, and the difference between an 18 and a 20 in your non-attack stat is minor verging on pointless.

A face monk won't have high STR and DEX, sounds like an interesting tradeoff to me. My only real concern is that off-build builds are currently unsupported by feats.

I've mentioned before that after level 4 the variance becomes less of an issue. But if I start a game within those levels I will stat accordingly.

It does not sound interesting to me. It sounds like a mistake. Though I do mountain style for 16 Cha build. That's as close as I can get and only thanks to said style.


Still disagree. 2 less ac your taking a dirt nap at level 1.

You've given up on being perceptive I guess and your not intimidating many formidable opponents being that far behind.

This games tight math leads to my responses. I view a deviation greater than 2 from optimal as unacceptable/non viable for my means.

Still have fun with the game. I'll just play a sorcerer if I want to get l face and a fighter/champion if I want to tank ac. Etc. I'll stay in the little boxes the game outlines for me.


Unicore, read it all but still disagree. Not much else to say. 2e I'll only play a monk if I'm ok with no face/tertiary skills and features because the base mechanics no longer support it.

But if face DC's scale the same way as saves and AC? 14 starting Cha is secondary face at best. The emergency face when the Bard or sorcerer cannot be found.


Captain Morgan wrote:
I feel like it is worth noting that your 10 strength monk does the same damage as a 10 strength archer. Yeah, the archer gets to do it at range, but they still have the risk of rolling all ones on their d6s or d8s and doing crap damage.

As you said. They get docked for the safety of range.


Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats.
Then don't? "All finesse characters must have 18 strength" is a rule you've invented for yourself. It's not necessary. It's a self inflicted problem.

I said I wouldn't go below 14 ever. But much more likely not below 16.

It's only self inflicted on the sense that the game allows you from levels 1-4 to trap yourself into a fun little game play loop of hope to hell you don't roll low for damage. Nothing more impressive than watching that produce flame double your damage while rolling minimum.

But some people like role playing mechanical deficiencies, I suppose that's valid and should be supported


Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.

These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.

So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.

Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting


FlashRebel wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I laugh when I hear people justifying things with RAW these days. 2nd Edition has more or less killed the concept of RAW. The new Gamemastery Guide makes it pretty clear too.

Thanks for the Jab! Appreciate it.

We also follow logical flow and common sense.

Your not a master of what your a master of is dead

A game needs clearly defined rules that every player must abide to to even be considered a game. Respecting the RAW and believing there is something wrong with the current ruleset are not incompatible points of view.

Given what you quoted I'm not following but to address your reply, that is fair?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

no one builds a STR 16 rogue if they all get Dex to damage for the cost of a feat. Interesting means that low DEX monks and rogues builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, low STR monk and rogue builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, and Monks and rogues both have good reasons not to have to tank one or the other.

That is what I mean by interesting. What easy access to Dex to damage eliminates from the game is characters boosting both attributes.

1- playable is not the same thing as interesting.

2- if you had Dex to damage they would still have things that the other cannot do.

3- most martial builds I build with general guidelines.

No armor non monk? 18 Dex, 16 if I cannot get 18. Monk I'll do 16 Dex 18 str and still maintain fighter level ac but with better action economy and mobility. Either way whichever stat is 18 str or Dex. The other is 16.

Light armor? 16 Dex, 18str

Medium armor? 12 Dex, 18str

Heavy armor? 10dex,18str

Any time I pick a class in melee that cannot have 18str I do 16.

Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats. Being able to pick one and tank the either means you have points to spare if you want more hp. Better perception. More skills. Better face skills. Etc.

That's more interesting, suddenly my monk can be a minor tank. Or better ki DC. Or actually be a monk face.

This goes for making More interesting builds opening up dedications earlier like sorcerer/Bard etc.

It's to the point where I'll voluntary flaw my int/Cha just to start with 14con or wisdom. Though I don't always.


Henro wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack

???

Are these numbers minimum damage? For which STR values? Keep in mind I'm advocating a 12-16 STR for most DEX builds.

I too advocate that.

My example if just levels 1-4 10str vs 18.

I don't want to spend 4 levels dealing with that personally.


WatersLethe wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack

I'm dumb, can you spell out the math for me? Also, why are you using minimum damage and not average?

Because average assumes your dice will agree with you. The amount of times I've done negligible damage just due to dumb luck is heart baking

1d6 weapon
1d6 sneak attack

4 is the modifier for the str rogue

You all can base your values off of average and that's fine. But I'm not optimistic enough in my rolls to tank my minimum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

A human scoundrel can have medium armor to start and proficiency with a hatchet to have a 18 CHA, and STR 16 with a dex of 12 for maximum AC, only one less damage than a thief, and be the best face character in the game. By level 10, you can have a Dex of 16 and switch back to light armor before your proficiency boost matters. Scoundrels don't really need to max dex, which I think is cool.

But you could be a scoundrel with an 18 Dex, 16 CHA, 14 Con and a 12 Wis to start, get proficiency with the spiked chain, Trip and feint very well and almost always expect to attack with sneak attack even without moving into flanking/leaving yourself exposed. Again, by level 10
the damage difference is minimal and you are a brutal debuffer. Distracting feint is brutal if you have any blasting going on in your party.

The same is true of Dex based monks. Choosing not to boost strength will cost you a couple of points of damage with you attacks, but allows for a lot of interesting character options. What removing Dex to damage as a generic option has changed is the assumption that every character can choose between Dex or Str with the maximum consequence of 1 feat investment.

Gonna have to steal that scoundrel build.

But I still disagree in the creation of interesting builds. Nothing you said you couldn't do while still having Dex to damage. If you think interesting is doing less damage than I'll stand corrected. Because that's really the only difference.

1 to 50 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>