Oh yeah, I kinda missed the point this is for mostly for DMs (but what if your DM is a munchkin XD?) I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits. Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities. It should be lowered in cost, imo.
Aren't Bonus Languages determined by Intelligence score anyway? Honestly, that alone made me call into question the entire validity of this particular piece. Language selection is just more like a cultural reflection, no? Who race X tends to associate with, live near, etc.
So ... in essence the solution is to make it more like 2e, right? ;-) Seriously - all that stuff you discuss is WAY closer to 2e's take on just about everything vs. 3.x's take (or PF by way of legacy). I find those observations very interesting. Are you and old-timer like myself? Honestly, I feel much the same way (for the record). @Prof: as usual, snark to the max! Love it! ;-) @Bigstupidfighter: Umm ... if you have characters ignore a monk that's attacking THEM, that is the height of meta-gaming. How the HELL can they *possibly* know they can't hit the guy? If he shows up and starts smacking the hell out of them, HE *IS* a threat. If he's that much harder to land a hit against, again, he's a threat - or something to throw spells at and let the casters at 'em (oh, wait - too bad he's a MONK w/all the best defenses in game against magic - save for Divine Grace). I seriously can't take your criticism of a high defense making a monk irrelevant in combat. He will *always* be relevant by measure of who he attacks and where he puts his efforts to be located on the field of battle. He completely matters *at least* for his zone of control/AoO's he can make and the space he physically occupies. That he engages someone, and then that someone pointedly ignores his presence is meta-game in the most extreme case I can imagine. I've been running games since 1988 or so, and I've never ONCE ignored a character with my NPC's that came up and challenged an NPC directly - they had the NPC's attention BECAUSE THEY ATTACKED THE FRAKKIN' NPC!!! If it's a wizard under attack, then typically the move is like a defensive move - teleport/blink away, etc. Point being, my characters *always* respond and react to the reality of what is in front of them - they don't look at the world like it's a freakin' system of #'s and game the "reality" of their immediate combat life. They act like they are in a freakin' combat with people trying to kill them - not like they are in some simulationist system that lets them know the enemies statistics out of hand. If they miss - they miss ... and that's all they really know. There *is* no potential for them to think, "well, his defenses are way too high for me to hit, so I'm going to move on to someone else" mostly because there *is* no moving on - that guy trying to beat them to death will STILL keep trying to beat them to death - so it's a good idea to pointedly NOT ignore them. Sorry - but logic like that kills me. The class has problems, and there are traps - no argument there. It's very hard to make monks work "right" (thus this extended discussion). I'll tell you what though, if I'm at a table where a GM *EVER* meta-games his critters to ignore "the things they can't hit" that's the moment I stand, protest, and leave the game. That's crap-tastic as far as GM skills go. There's nothing wrong with employing tactics that are sound in-game. But when that stuff crosses into meta-game knowledge and planning of things characters can not POSSIBLY be aware of, I draw a line. I never do this to my players, and I'll be damned if I'll sit at a table where the GM is trying to do that to me.
Hmm ... this isn't *my* character death (I generally GM), but it's pretty epic. The PC's were on a long quest continent-hopping to try and accumulate items of massive power before the evil conqueror's managed it first (abbreviated here clearly). Essentially, we're looking at about 2 years worth of adventuring to get to this point in the story I'm about to describe. The PC's had made their way into the depths of this defensive labyrinth that was designed to forever contain one of the artifacts they were searching for. They made it to the lowest level and came face to face with a Baalor that was tasked with forever guarding this item until it was defeated. Being a Baalor, it created a portal to the abyss and had a way to open it for a time (rather than just a straight up gate - it had time to kill, so it basically crafted a magical item of it's own to aid in it's task). Anyway, the battle is going very dangerously, with threats of impending death on all sides by the PC's, and finally one of them managed a fatal wound on the Baalor (or at least a plane-banishing wound). So as it is dieing, it opens the gate ... and leaves it open. The final level of the labyrinth was huge - like large enough to hold a small pyramid (atop on a pedastal rested the artifact), and had still maybe 200' on all sides, and a ceiling that was at least 400' high. The portal was on the far side of the pyramid, and the combat took place all right there near the pyramid. So 200' away this portal is opened and activated as the Baalor is disappearing ... and demons start to pour through the opening. Hordlings if I remember right - just ... hundreds of them start pouring out of the opened portal and start streaking towards the PC's as fast as they can. The PC's are panicked - they rush up the pyramid to get the artifact, and then start running like crazy back up the way they came - I mean, they're hauling for everything they're worth (knowing that nothing less than a small army of demons had just been let loose upon them). They get to a spot close to the opening and they begin to plan and argue about what should be done. They've all been playing together for a long time, and their adventures together have given them strong connections to each other, but none of them had any good plans for how to stop THAT many demons. The corridor they took leading to where they had stopped to discuss, however, was about a 5' wide corridor and had a run of some 400' of pathway to that spot. While everyone is arguing, the bladesinger that was there just fades into the background, and after a while everyone asks, "Hey ... where is Galevon?" At which point, I inform them that Galevon is missing ... but that they can hear faint foot steps fading away - already far down the corridor. (the player had passed me a paper while the others were playing out their strategy discussions in character - his paper said something to the effect of "walk away slowly and unnoticed, and just head down into the corridor - once there, cast up all of my defensive and offensive spells, and wait." I was stunned, but decided to not show it and just nodded nonchalantly.) By this point the PC's were trying to figure out a way to hold off the demon horde or find a way to generate enough of a lasting defense that they *might* be able to stop the entire horde from moving past that spot where they were. They finally got to the point of trying to decide who should take the point and so they wanted everyone's say - at which point, when they wanted Galevon's opinion, he was not there to weigh in. The looks of shock and realization that went around the table were SO completely worth the wait. Galevon had taken the decision out of everyone's hands and was going down to hold off the hordlings in a narrow choke-point. System-wise, were were using GURPS, and all things layered up, there *was* no one that could get the defenisve boons he could manage, especially on the passive side (PD was like an auto-defense vs. an attempted one), so he was clearly *the* most likely to handle overwhelming odds ... even so, it was overwhelming odds -he'd clearly just made a suicide play to buy the others some time. The PC's had more in-character dialogue about moving to save him, about joining him, about continuing the quest, etc. Ultimately, it was the paladin that reminded them to not waste his effort and that their goal was more important - that Galevon knew that as well, and it was why he chose as he did. The character said this with tears in her eyes, but respected his choice. In the end, the PC's moved forward and when they told the keepers of the artifact that they had successfully retrieved it, but that hordlings were coming up and they did not know how long they would be kept at bay, they collapsed the primary tunnel system that opened into the labyrinth. We didn't play out his combat down there, but it went without saying that it was an epic confrontation with an unavoidable ending. It was probably the best character death we'd had in-game. Most of us still talk about his sacrifice and the way it played out.
Assuming you can't switch your scores, ranged damage-builds won't be optimal. Rogues aren't good at sniping ranged, and other chars will need strength for damage, again, only if you want the optimum. I ... can't disagree more. Str for archers is a luxury - something *nice* but not necessary. Especially as you'll need to keep Dex high for your best "to hit" chances normally. Str should be like a tertiary stat at best for Archers, IMO. Good to have, but not necessary to get damage. PF, thankfully, helped them w/the ranged PA option of Deadly Aim. If you go w/a str-based archer, you'll need to spend the extra $ on the compound options to the bow to increase it's cost. Kind of minor higher in levels, but killer early on. Even still, it's to get only whatever you can dedicate to your str in the first place (already a lower priority for the task at hand). So ... maybe you get a +2 composite bow ... yippee!! +2 flat isn't that much damage to write home about w/the bow's base being 1d8. Going full on twink here, the bow fighter can by level 20 have his +5 to damage from wpn training, a +4 from the specialization feats, and whatever the weapon itself has going on (irrelevant as it's equipment and can easily be matched with a similar character type - ala: Zen Archer archetype Monk). Then there's Deadly Aim to factor in, so he can trade in a +6 to hit (1, base, then 1 more for each 4 BAB points, by level 20 it's 6) to pick up a +12 to damage. So, he's doing 1d8+21, or averaging about 26 points or so per hit. He'll also be striking at a *mere* +1 over the non-PA rout. (the +5 from WT and the 1st degree of Focus go on the chopping block to pump up the damage.) That's not shabby at all! Ok, so Zen Archer Monk, using flurry here - he gets 3 more hits than the archer (though I may be off not factoring in the Rapid Shot or Many Shot for above) - but my point is just having a few more "to hit" chances than the fighter archer. Ok, so this guy uses 1 ki point he can use his Unarmed Strike damage on his arrows ... that's pretty hardcore for ranged damage. Well, he's doing 2d10 damage at range (true, it costs, but it's a fantastic investment). He can flurry and get multiple shots off - all doing the unarmed base rate, and he has specialization himself. He can also have deadly aim in play if he wants. Anyway, his average damage he'll have +2 to his damage from the specialization. If we go with the Wis-to damage enchantment on the weapon (why wouldn't we?) he can add that as well to his damage in a way the regular guy can't. the standard archer doesn't really have a good "add X to damage automatically" for him beyond the DA feat - and it's damn good! Anyway, point here going w/a maxed out stat in Wis is that he gets to add his wis to that damage inflicted as well. So he'll get + "full stat" to both hit and damage. Fighter Archer will have say full stat (dex likely) in his To hit, but not his damage. Assuming the monk will not use DA (just to keep his striking potential on par with the Fighter's), he'll still come in -2 under for the 2WF way that the flurry works ... so the fighter has the edge in to hit going by 2 points. Back to damage: monk has a +2 from specialization and then he'll have + wis mod (call it a +12 or so yes?) to damage he inflicts. So a +14 total (again, leaving all enchantment-type stuff the same minus the wis mod one as that's THE point of using this Zen Archer guy). His damage is 2d10 + 14 ==> about an average of 26 damage as well per hit, but he's doing it at a -2 on his strike chances compared to the pure fighter archer (again, not factoring in Rapid or Multi Shot feats). Advantage - the monk can manage this w/out using the Deadly Aim and his average damage about equals the fighter archers damage output. Looking a bit optimistically, if he gets max damage, he'll have a damage output of 34 compared to the fighter's 26. Of course, on the low end, he can also end up at a 16 vs. 26. So ... w/NO strength used, it's a pretty good edge that the zen archer monk has - he can *at least* hang w/the fighter archer in damage output category.
In general, I get the weapon / not-weapon distinctions made for enchantments and all the rest. However, MY suspension of disbelief gets broken the MINUTE you apply similar claims to punching "weapons" as, IRL, a punching weapon is ALWAYS an "add on" to the punch of the puncher (man ... sounds weird). I mean, the very point and purpose of brass knuckles is to put metal on your hand and increase the chance of inflicting both more force and/or shattering of bones. This is handled quite nicely, IRL, and requires you pick up what boils down to a small piece of metal. Similar effects happen if you grab a roll of quarters - added weight in your fist ==> more momentum delivered on impact ==> greater damage (in D20 maybe a higher die type/side, OR a flat +x to damage mod, and/or maybe an increased threat range). Now, however, it's looking like if you want to mimic something similar you'll need to enchant your "roll of gp's" or else it's just not going to work, right? Lame. *rolls eyes* I'm fine with the weapon distinctions being made - they're weapons in the end, but when the MOST simple enhancement to punching and kicking is getting dragged and limited through "game balance" I cry foul. It's a terrible rule/limitation/design premise/whatever - and I'm not for it in the slightest. I'll be FIRMLY house-ruling some different mode of function for these "simple" punching/kicking enhancements from now on. Probably, my solution will be to rate these sorts of weapons as "base unarmed damage +X" and leave it there. They ALWAYS work as damage-adders ... screw balance! Basic common sense needs to take root at some point. I draw the line here for my games moving forward and refuse to step backwards into non-nonsensical logic. Unarmed attacks are THE weakest attacks pc's can make ... UNLESS you're a monk. So, you want to craft rules where non-specialists benefit (like the RW) from added weight and such in hand to improve their WORST attack possible, EXCEPT for the ONE class that specializes in using that worst attack mode? I think I have to echo TriOmega here: Why do you (not a specific *you* mind you - general and open to anyone) hate monks so much? Seriously, limiting the cestus with rules as above rewrites the rules and expectations for ONE class compared to all others ... it really makes NO sense unless there is some sort of oversight (ie: lack of realization of the more general function of how it works for all characters), or flat out NEED to inhibit/limit the outlying class. All that said, I do NOT think a cestus fits as a monk's weapon. It was a gladiator's weapon in ancient Rome. WTF!?!?! The *closest* thing I can come up with is from Kickboxer w/VanDamm and the hand-wraps dipped in glue, and then dipped in broken glass ... and that's hardly close. I guess if you're going that *broad* to define "cestus" ok - it can work. Same with brass knuckles, too ... neither weapons are of Eastern style and flavor, but hey - it's D&D/Pathfinder, so who knows? Maybe they're a little bit "West Side" since their immersion side by side with so many Western influences along side of their own. ;-) TriOmega - whatever that conversion is ... I like it!!! I like it quite a bit!
Well, here’s the scoop on my Fighter adjustment idea. First off, this is a direct attempt to amp up the fighter’s role in the game, no so much in “combat effectiveness” but in a way to sort of turn the base fighter class into the “one stop shop” in order to craft just about ANY pure-fighter concept. As it stands, they are too focused purely upon weapons and armor, IMO. So, I’m setting this idea forward: fighters should have additional features beyond just feats and/or weapon or armor training. These are good additions to the fighter, but, IMO, it still leaves the fighter out in the cold vs. the things the other melee-types (not to mention full casters) can accomplish. Paladins and rangers cast, along with a number of other options at their disposal, and I’m currently revising the Barbarian towards a higher damage output and toughness/resilience boost for it’s concept and “niche” – all bring more “class specific” features to the table than the Fighter does. Rather than compete in a “miracles abound” fashion (ie: magic) I’ve decided to just add some layers and options to open up different styles of fighters and combat that, generally, isn’t really focused upon in the base game mechanics. Some other options, rather than focusing upon what isn’t possible, just emphasize other elements that are generally overlooked entirely. Finally, I also intended for any one of these features to become things that would make any fighter using them to be better than ANY other class that attempts the same style (although perhaps not barbarians in damage dealing – that’s a goal anyway). Ok, so design philosophy time:
Note: This is intended to begin at level 1 and add an additional style feature at every 3 levels thereafter, topping off at 7 style abilities total by level 18. So, the existing framework of the PF fighter is left alone with “Fighter Feature” being added to the abilities column at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Format-wise, because there are so many options (see design point #4) I’ve sort of grouped them with bolded heading. There are MANY options here, so I’ll probably spread it out into multiple posts in this thread initially.
So, if you gain 20 from rage, and you lose 25, you lose another 20 when then rage is done? That's silly. Yes. Yes it is, isn't it? Reasoning behind is that the barbarian doesn't "really" have that extra 20 hp, but while he has the enhanced con going (ie: rage effect) he *acts* like he does ... but as soon as over, he keels over ... dead. Thus - the thread suggestions that keep popping up. Silly? Certainly not "fun" at the least - not for me and many others as well, IMO. |
