Valeros

Rameth's page

219 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't think the Samurai needs to be a class. It doesn't even need to be a Archetype. A Samurai would simply be a Fighter/Cavalier/Archer, if you wanted to do be true to what a Samurai truly was.

Now I do think there could be some sort of Iaido Archetype, that would be cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Rameth wrote:
stuff

At this point, we're very strongly considering publishing these subsystems in a Player's Guide style PDF, but that's over a year away so a lot can change between now and then. The rules as they currently stand have some necessary spoilers for the plot in there, and by putting them in a player's guide with a spoiler free layout isn't something we have room to do in a print product.

I toyed with the idea of doing a limited public playtest as well of these rules, but that's irresponsible to consider at this point when the project's already behind schedule.

We'll see.

I know that I would even pay for a PDF of that subsystems rules. Maybe 5 or 10 dollars? I wouldn't mind buying it and then purchasing the AP at a later date.

I hope there's something that can be done. Hope everything continues to go well for you guys!


Is the Kingdom/Settlement/Warfare subsystem going to be released prior to the release of the AP? I plan to buy the AP when it comes out but I would definitely like those rules beforehand to include in my games.

A PDF perhaps?


So far I LOVE 2e. My group and I were having some issues playing the play test at first but now that we've been playing the full version everyone seems to be having a good time. We love how modular it is and I love how deadly the combat can be. In 1e I always had issues with encounter design. There was always one player who was stronger than the rest or could one shot somebody or was completely useless because he did the wrong build. Now I'm not saying that can't happen in 2e but it's a lot less likely that your character will be completely useless or totally overpowered. Whereas in p2e I'm usually having 1 or 2 characters drop in moderate to severe encounters and no one dropping in lower level encounters. I really wish they would have done away with Vancian casting as I really hate it but overall it just feels right. All in all it's definitely my favorite d20 system.


I'm doing it in my games atm. One of them is brand new players and we're playing Age of Ashes so I'll tell them about it when the APG comes out. But my other group is already doing it and may change some things when the APG releases. It's too cool a concept for me to leave out. I don't want someone to not be a Beast Master if it means being less of a Rogue in their eyes or something like that. If everyone is doing it and I plan for it then it doesn't really change much. It doesn't give you the same power a Gish class and lets you really make the character your own. I see it as a win win.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Very good considering the system. The bonuses are small because they (Paizo) KNOW that we will find a way to stack as many as possible. I remember there was someone who was talking about that around 4th level you can get hits reliably on a 2 or 3 (I don't remember exactly). All from stacking those +/- 1's and 2's. So while a +1 all by itself might not seem super appealing you instead should be looking into how many bonuses you can be pulling overall.

For instance if you have a Bard, Barbarian, and Rogue in your group.

Bard casts Inspire Courage for a +1. Barbarian uses Intimidate for a -1 from demoralize. and then the Rogue flanks with the Barbarian for an additional -2 to his AC. So that's a total of +4 (relatively) on your attack roll.

Now some people may argue that you need a specific party build to accomplish that but P2e has so much customization that AT LEAST one person in the party should be trying to debuff. So you can stack some stuff at least. It is a party game after all. Everyone should be working together.


Yako Zenko wrote:
While I could continue much of this discussion that is currently happening. I am pretty sure most of it is no longer discussing snowball vs chilling spray... Perhaps a new thread to compare 1st level spells in general, is in order?

I think you're right lol.


Draco18s wrote:
Rameth wrote:

Bringing up Ray of Frost actually proves my point even more so. Ray of Frost is better than Snowball as well and it does almost the same thing.

Ray of Frost does the same amount of damage roughly every spell level until around 4th and by then there are MUCH better spells then Snowball. Plus Ray of Frost has 120ft range AND the Crit Success is the exact same as Snowball. And to top it all off it's a Cantrip.

Snowball is def underpowered and should be fixed. I say it should do at least 2d8 and be almost comparable with Hydraulic Push, which does 3d6.

Ray of Frost is 1d4 plus 1d4(per +1 heightening). That's half of what Snowball does; 2d4 plus 2d4 (per +1 heightening).

Ray of Frost only slows movement on a critical success, and by the same amount as Snowball's success.

So, I'm less convinced that Ray of Frost is strictly-better than Snowball (but it does out-range it, but I think this falls into the "apparently combat spells are 30 foot range now" with weird exceptions).

Snowball and Ray of Frost have the same Crit Success effect. Plus, as Evilgm said, Ray of Frost does 1d4+mod so it does relatively the same amount of damage until higher levels.

Plus the fact that Ray of Frost is a CANTRIP makes it blow Snowball out of the water. A Cantrip should not be the same, or better, then a leveled spell.


Vlorax wrote:
Rameth wrote:
I don't see why Titan Wrestler wouldn't stack with Brutish Shove. From reading the both feats they seem to mesh perfectly fine. Am I missing something?
It's because Brutish Shove says you can only Shove if the target is your size or smaller, Powerful Shove later lets you shove things Larger than you.

Ah it seems in my quick reading I skipped the most important part.

Well it seems that Brutish Shove requires a two handed weapon, instead of having a hand free. It also has an upgrade option later on so it seems fine.


I don't see why Titan Wrestler wouldn't stack with Brutish Shove. From reading the both feats they seem to mesh perfectly fine. Am I missing something?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

While I agree that snowball has its advantages I also agree with the original poster that chilling spray is basically the better spell.

Multiple targets and an effect on a miss makes up for a lot. If I'm a squishy trying to stay out of combat I really want considerably MORE range than 30 feet. Not to mention the REAL reason that one uses low level area of effect spells, swarms :-).

I think that snowball is definitely underpowered. Its arguably less powerful than ray of frost at first level (does less damage but has a rider). At second level it still isn't clear due to the lack of range and is pretty much worse than acid arrow.

I don't think that I'd ever spend a spell slot on snowball unless it was for thematic reasons (and even then I'd prefer Ray of Frost much of the time).

Bringing up Ray of Frost actually proves my point even more so. Ray of Frost is better than Snowball as well and it does almost the same thing.

Ray of Frost does the same amount of damage roughly every spell level until around 4th and by then there are MUCH better spells then Snowball. Plus Ray of Frost has 120ft range AND the Crit Success is the exact same as Snowball. And to top it all off it's a Cantrip.

Snowball is def underpowered and should be fixed. I say it should do at least 2d8 and be almost comparable with Hydraulic Push, which does 3d6.


I was looking at these two spells and they are nearly identical except it seems, to me, that Snowball is just worse.

Quote:

PFS Standard Snowball Spell 1

Attack Cold Evocation Water
Source World Guide pg. 112
Traditions arcane, primal
Cast Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
You throw a magically propelled and chilled ball of dense snow. The target takes 2d4 cold damage and potentially other effects, depending on the result of your spell attack roll.

Critical Success The target takes double damage and a –10-foot status penalty to its Speeds for 1 round.
Success The target takes full damage and a –5-foot status penalty to its Speeds for 1 round.
Failure No effect.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d4

Quote:

PFS Standard Chilling Spray Spell 1

Cold Evocation
Source Gods & Magic pg. 107
Traditions arcane, primal
Cast Two Actions somatic, verbal
Area 15-foot cone
Saving Throw Will
A cone of icy shards bursts from your spread hands and coats the target in a layer of frost. You deal 2d4 cold damage to creatures in the area; they must each attempt a Reflex save.

Critical Success The creature takes no damage.
Success The creature takes half damage.
Failure The creature takes full damage and takes a –5-foot status penalty to its Speeds for 2 rounds.
Critical Failure The creature takes double damage and takes a –10-foot status penalty to its Speeds for 2 rounds.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d4.

I mean other than Chilling Spray targeting Ref saves (which is arguably the hardest save to hit) it can target multiple opponents and it's penalties are for 2 rounds instead of 1. It's damage scales the same as Snowball and Snowball only has a 30 ft range, which never gets better. I can't for the life of me see why someone would want to use Snowball over Chilling Spray.

What do you guys think?


Wouldn't this technically already be covered by Athletics with the Shove action? I know that you technically must get a Crit Success in order for it to seem like a throw but that's basically what you're doing. Unless you are trying to throw someone as an attack then yeah that would require a feat.


I honestly think the Magus shouldn't be a Spell Casting Class. Just give it lots of spell like abilities and focus points. Since they aren't doing half spell list classes anymore I don't see how it could be any different. A full spell casting class that isn't good at fighting wouldn't be a good fit for a Magus.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As people have mentioned above nearly half the Bestiary takes influence from someone's culture. We would have to remove half of the Bestiary to appease everyone. It's a monster from a fairy-tale. It doesn't need to be changed.


That wouldn't make any sense considering some of the other style attacks might not have an equivalent body part. How would a human do a Dragon's Tail attack? Or a Falling Boulder attack? The names are obviously just for flavor.


I think the main thing is the players have to choose to stop it in order to be damaged. Otherwise they will just be moved. So it's probably better for the Golem to March once, or when advantageous, and then attack. Cause if it did it three times in a round and did no damage that would be pretty silly lol.


Do you get access to it if you are a premium member? Or would you still have to pay for it?


Okay hopefully I'm missing something but I bought the PDF from Paizo and now I have to buy it again from Rolld20 for 48 dollars?

Why would I want to do this?

It doesn't just be like "Oh you bought the PDF already? Here's all the stuff on Rolld20"


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad there is a black and white one as the color one is just ugly. I really liked the playtest character sheets. Oh well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What archetypes are in the Core book other than the multiclass archetypes?

EDIT: Nvm I found the answer, should have used the search function earlier.


Have the Combat Maneuvers changed/improved from the playtest? They were very lackluster from what I remember. Can you give a quick run down on them? Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If something is viable then that means it is capable of working within the system. I can be almost any class and TWF and not really be worse off. Will I be optimal? No. But will I be able to kill the monsters? Yes.

The Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard don't even have access to anything other than d8 Weapons (with a few exceptions like Cleric Diety Weapon). Now is it somehow less viable for a Wizard to use two a Club and a Dagger for his backup melee weapon instead of a Staff? Or is a Druid somehow worse for using a Scimitar and a Sickle instead of just a Scimitar? No they are not.

Now the only other classes are Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. The Fighter and Ranger support TWF in their class builds and the Monk can TWF with 2 Monk weapons and is still able to use most of their Monk abilities (though I would say Weapon Monks still need a little more love).

So the Barbarian and Paladin are the only classes that gain access to those hefty D10 and D12 weapons but don't get anything for TWF. So yes MAYBE it's not in their best interest to TWF but they can still get a d8 and a D6 and mix and match weapon traits for some nifty effects.

That means 2 classes are actually "worse" for TWF. So no TWF isn't as bad as the people keep making it out to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a reason. Maybe I don't want to. I can do damage just fine with 2 weapons or using a 2-hander. Not everyone cares about doing max damage all the time. As long as it isn't bad it's fine. TWF is not bad by any means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.

I’m not...

I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.

For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.

Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada.

Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4).

By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman.

People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way.

Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim?

My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10.

People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.


I know this cannot be answered in absolutes but I would like to know if any of the developers can tell me/us how much more stuff is going to be in the final draft of the book. One of my players main concerns is that there just isn't enough in the playtest to Warren switching to the new system. I said it's impossible to cram 10 years of content into a single playtest book but his point is valid. So I have this question.

How much more will we see in regards to Ancestry, Skill, and Class Feats as well as Backgrounds, Archetypes, Prestige Classes and Spells?

25% more? 50%?

I know this cannot be answered right now as we have 2 months+ of playtest left but just in a general ballpark how much more will be included?

To everyone in the forums how much more would you like included? I would like the following,

Ancestry/Heritage Feats: Maybe about 4 more per Ancestry. Whether that's 1 heritage and 3 Ancestry or 2 and 2 I don't really mind. About 4 more seems good.

Skill Feats: I honestly think there should be a LOT more skill feats. Like double what we have now. Really let our characters flesh out our skills. I love the new system but it's just not beefy enough.

Class Feats: I'm not sure how many more I would like. Maybe 2 extra every time a class feat is gained. That seems okay.

Backgrounds: I am actually quite happy with the current backgrounds so maybe add like 4 or 5 more. I'm not quite sure.

Archetypes/Prestige: This is something I hope there is a whole chapter of the book dedicated too. I want at least a dozen Archetypes (not including the basic Class Archetypes) and maybe 4 to 6 prestige classes.

Spells: I think some more "cool" spells need to be added. I don't have a specific number but throw some cool new spells in there. Really make this edition your own.

What do you guys want to see in the core rulebook upon release?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite thing from this whole post is people saying 85 F, around 30 C, is too hot. That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. 85 F is like perfect weather. When it's regularly 115F, 46 C, where I live you realize people don't know real heat.

Carry on lol.


It's because then you have to add in your natural ability and experiences to get your actual modifier. Like a lvl 1 Druid who has a 16 Str actually gets a +0 instead of a -4. That same Druid using untrained Medicine gets a +1 due to her Natural Wisdom. It depends on a lot of things.

It makes training more important.


You're reading that sentence by itself while it's actually a continuation of the sentences before. In the example it says,

"So if you had a Hardness 3 shield and blocked a 6-damage attack"

This could have been interpreted before as the shield taking 1 or 2 dents, hence the confusion, and if it took 2 dents it would be broken. But the new update continues to say,

"you would take 3 damage and the shield would take 1 Dent because 6 damage is equal to or greater than its Hardness. Note that it no longer gets broken due to the update."

So it's just clarifying that it takes 1 sent and not 2. It's not saying that shields cannot be broken at all, just not in that example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Wandering is an exploration tactic, not an activity.

Well now you're connecting one thing, exploration and encounter modes (and the actions used in encounter) but not going the other way around. If Exploration Mode HAS to use the same game rules as Encounter Mode (which I would argue it doesn't but you seem to think it does) then that means everything in Exploration Mode HAS to have a corresponding action compared to Encounter Mode.

So that means the Tactics take 1 or more actions. While Activities are simply things that take take more then 1 action.

So it would make sense that wandering, which is about 1 1/2 stride actions would be an activity (as it's more then one action).

Now, it says you can order the Animal to do an Activity that it knows. As I just explained through reasoning a tactic has to be an activity, which the animal has to know cause it can wander itself. So you can order it to do so.

Now if you try and say "Well no they don't have to be the same cause they are listed differently" I would say well yes exactly. Cause they are different they don't work the same. So none of the Encounter Rules apply to Exploration because they are different modes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's crazy how people can be different cause I feel like this book should have about 50% more then it has now. More Ancestry, Backgrounds, Class and Skill Feats. Then it would be good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:

I fully get the logic behind the +4. I largely agree with the +4. What seems to be skewed is the base DC for the checks. I can attest that the five people playing this game under me have been quite vocal about how much they dislike skill checks they are supposed to fail a lot. As game design, it just doesn't feel good.

This is also a really weird one to be using leveled checks for. Why is this check a level 9 check? This feels like exactly the sort of thing that should have a "static" DC. If the group were doing this in the same area at level 10, would it make sense for the DC to be higher?

That is also a very good point. Like it they were level 5 would the check be 24? 20+4 for group rolling? I don't really care about static DCs as much as the next guy but this was one of the exact things they said they weren't going to do. Like one of the hardest survival checks listed is level 4. So it makes sense that it could maybe be a level 5 or 6 which means the max it could be is 24 or 25.

As I've mentioned before in another thread it seems every check in the book is a leveled check. I think someone screwed up lol.


Which one could argue that Wandering is an activity that an animal knows. So you could command the animal to wander "that way" and it would do it.


I'm probably going to house a lot of stuff once the full game comes out. I always do, even in P1E. But for the playtest I'm trying to play RAW as much as I can because it will help the playtest more.

Also a Fighter would have a +6. He's the only one but yeah.


Well other then common sense says so if you want a specific rules answer I guess I'll give it a go. Under Command an Animal it says,

"you might be able to instruct your animal to move to a certain square"

Now it doesn't say how far away that square is so you could theoretically tell it to move to a square 300ft away and it would go there within the best of its ability, which if it doesn't want to fatigue itself it will wander on its own. So the only time you would need to use Command an Animal again is if you need to change directions, which makes sense.


Colette Brunel wrote:
Rameth wrote:
Why is that? Command an Animal and Handle Animal are both untrained Survival checks with very low DCs. Ride seems to be a feat specifically for encounters. What rule says you can't ride a horse for overland travel?

See point #8 in this thread.

While I am plugging my own threads, I might as well show an update of my hardcore campaign journal describing the events of the first part of The Mirrored Moon, here. It is not a long update, but it is an update.

Except that wandering is a single tactic so if you order the horse to wander it will just move at its travel speed. I highly doubt a horse wouldn't be able to wander. Again I'm sure that Ride and Command and Handle Animal are for Encounters not Exploration.


Colette Brunel wrote:
One PC is a bear companion druid, but unfortunately, the rest of the party did not pony up for the Ride feat, which is all but necessary to viably use a mount for overland travel.

Why is that? Command an Animal and Handle Animal are both untrained Survival checks with very low DCs. Ride seems to be a feat specifically for encounters. What rule says you can't ride a horse for overland travel?


They would definitely need mounts and a little bit of luck. A Horse has a speed of 40 meaning they can move 32 miles a day. That's almost 3 hexes a day. But if they find the slain mercenaries way before they find Ramlocks tower then they'll just lose out on that point. But yeah if they're walking it seems there's no way to be able to get it. They'll need mounts.


I believe because it's invested it's considered an active ability.


Yeah the classes don't hold up to close scrutiny. Even in P1E they don't hold up lol. Just enjoy it for what it is.


Draco18s wrote:
Rameth wrote:
The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for.

I agree, but I also disagree.

Stances do give you some edge against your opponent and the only way the rules can reflect that is by, well, giving you a power up.

Do note that the stances the monk gets are no where near "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!" but rather more like "This stance makes it easier to jab my fingers into the joins in your armor" or "This stance makes it easier to swiftly kick, keeping you at a distance."

I may have exaggerated a bit much but my original point is true. In REAL combat a stance does very little. Stances are something you get into during duels, when you have time to prepare, and do not hold up after the initial clash of combat. Plus real combat is not a duel. It's hectic and chaotic and there is absolutely no time to get into stances. Granted I may be getting too "real" for the developer's tastes but I am correct.

Edit: For the record I love anime lol


Hmm I guess I never thought of it that way. I will have to see how it plays out tomorrow night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay when I first looked at the new DC table I was like okay whatever as they were relatively the same. But then I started looking at the new skill checks for Mirrored Moon and I was like dude c'mon.

Every Hex has a DC 30 Perception or DC 27 Survival base?? Why??

Only 3 classes have master perception at that level and none of them (Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue) have any reason to have more then +2 MAYBE +3 Wis. So even with a +2 Item bonus that means they would generally have a +15 or so Perception. That's only a 25% chance to find anything after 2 DAYS of searching?? Now Granted the Survival check is a little more doable but 27? Why are these checks so high?

There's not a single important check that's lower than 25. That's just not okay.

I mean yeah someone could roll a 20 but these just seem way to high for no reason. Was this intended?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about making Proficiency AND Magic items increase damage but they don't stack? It would take some tweaking but if you make +1 Prof and a +1 Weapon give +1 to hit and +1d but not stack then you don't have this issue of a level 20 Fighter doing a d8 with a non magic sword but still making the strongest of swords relevant, as you can't get that extra +2/+2d anywhere else.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Reverse wrote:
If the expectation is that the PCs will fight multiple enemies, multiple times a day, and that all enemies will try to mercilessly kill PCs at all costs, then the end result is going to be a lot of dead PCs.

This is the expectation of the game. Seriously, look at the xp table: a level 1 party is supposed to kill 25 level 1 monsters to level up; then at level 2 they have to kill 25 level 2 monsters; etc.

Being expected to fight 25 enemies over the course of a level and fight 25 enemies that are dead set on murdering you with no regard of their own lives as soon as they see you over the course of a level are two very different things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is true RIGHT NOW but in a month? Who knows. If you want to make the playtest better PLAY IT and TAKE THE SURVEYS. They've already changed (and are going to change) 3-4 major things in the game. They are obviously listening and changing things to make a game that people want to play. Many people have already talked about Ancestry and how it was underwhelming, or just plain bad, compared to last edition. They will make changes.

If you were planning on PLAYTESTING don't run away at the first sign of trouble. That doesn't help anyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would just like to take the opportunity to say that I both HATE and LOVE the Monk class. As Martial Artist for 9 years (and counting) and having played 3.x for over 17 years I used to love the Monk class (I still enjoy it but not as much as I used to).

The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for. It also assumes that Monks (Martial Artists) don't use weapons, or that only a few do. ALL old martial artists used weapons. ALL of them. Not using weapons is a modern thing (within the last 100 years or so).

So after getting that off my chest (lol) what exactly is the Monk going for? It seems to me to be a mix of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon & Iron Fist. It does well to give this sort of feel I think but I've yet to see a good Monk played in my games as the the one Monk I saw played had a 12 Str so his damage was garbage.

I really think they dropped the ball on the Monk. They should have done it like the Druid and given them different options. Like Mystic, Brawler and Weapon Expert. Let all of the options be available but you get bonuses within your chosen discipline. Like toward the end the Brawler is Legendary in Unarmed only, Weapon Expert is Legendary in his chosen weapon, and Mystic stays lower but gains access to a cool Ki power.


It was either probably meant to be Agile or it was meant to have some sort of trample ability.

1 to 50 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>