notshown's page

"I'm playing a swashbuckler/fighter/dervish that isn't the best at hitting or dealing damage, but with combat expertise, he puts up a huge AC, soaking up attack actions that would otherwise damage other party members. Convert that character to a monk, and you get superior saving throws along with evasion; now he's able to make spellcasters waste spells on him, too. This frees up others to position themselves, focus on other enemies, apply healing, or do whatever it is they're good at doing."

How, exactly, are you 'forcing' anything to 'waste' attacks or spells on you in this scenario? With the possible exception of seeming to be the easiest target to squish in the surprise round, I see "ignore in favor of targets that are an actual threat to my well-being" as being the modus operandi of most intelligent foes.

Now, I have played a monk/occult slayer dwarf who proceeded to survive a 16th level sorceror unloading into him with spells for 6-7 rounds, but that was primarily due to three factors:
1- I had mettle from some other PrC that I don't remember
2- The sorcerer was very poorly designed, throwing mostly damage or save-lose spells. If he'd had any terrain manipulation or no-save, just suck spells, I would have been toast.
3- It was one-on-one, so I was the only target.

"Forcing" may not have been the best choice of words. Perhaps "obliging" would better satisfy you? I suppose I could have also said "waste actions" instead of "waste attacks or spells", as that would have better helped me make my point. Semantics aside, this thread is filled with descriptions of how monks make themselves useful in combat. They can harry spellcasters, set up flanks, deal with weaker enemies, and put themselves between dangerous foes and vulnerable allies, to name a few options. My personal favorite is to make enemies waste actions. Anytime your character has to do something you'd rather not have him so, you're wasting an action. You want your barbarian to swing his axe; if he's trying to break a hold person spell, he's wasting his action. Ditto for a spellcaster in a grapple.

Monks have tremendous potential to disrupt their foes' plans (didn't you know "monk" is short for "monkey wrench"?). Additionally, it's not easy to deter a monk from his intended course. They're difficult to escape from and even harder to kill. If that is not a serious threat, I don't know what is.

I have a concern with the druid's ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally. At mid-to-high levels, it can potentially add a lot of creatures to an encounter, slowing combat and generating confusion. Additionally, the druid's player gets a disproportionate amount of the DM's attention each round (Now there's three griffons, and they attack, then my animal companion attacks, then the dire wolves from last round attack and try to trip, and now I'll cast another spell...) Who hasn't been at a table with that guy?

My solution is to roll wildshape and spontaneous casting into one ability: spontaneously cast beast shape and elemental body spells. Treat this as burning uncast spells to power a spell-like ability to assume the form of a natural beast or elemental being. This should allow druids a lot of flexibility without soaking up an undue amount of time and attention while maintining the flavor of the class. I would allow some of the character's magical equipment to remain effective in the new form, such as collars/necklaces, bracelets, anklets, etc, depending on the new form.

I've never playtested this (sorry), but I'd love to get some input.

~ notshown

The monk is not a frontline combatant. He is not a DPS machine. He should not be treated as one unless we give him an offensive ability that makes him one.

The monk isn't by himself; actions are the single most valuable thing a character can have in this system, and denying your enemy an action is correspondingly powerful.

Thank you and thank you. Monks don't have to (nor should they necessarily) be equal to fighters in combat; if you want to play a damage-hashing machine, play a fighter. Because any PC monk will be a part of a diverse team (probably), they do not have to be great, or even good, at everything. I'm playing a swashbuckler/fighter/dervish that isn't the best at hitting or dealing damage, but with combat expertise, he puts up a huge AC, soaking up attack actions that would otherwise damage other party members. Convert that character to a monk, and you get superior saving throws along with evasion; now he's able to make spellcasters waste spells on him, too. This frees up others to position themselves, focus on other enemies, apply healing, or do whatever it is they're good at doing.

I think everyone has a concept of what a monk "should" be, but we're ignoring what "could" be. Pathfinder rules gives everyone expanded access to feats, so use those feats (and multiclassing, and magic items) to fill in your particular details.

IMO, the monk should be ascetic and introspective, so his strengths should come from his Wisdom and/or Charisma (I would like to see less reliance on magic items, but the system heavily relies on magic for balance, so I can get over that). I love the idea of applying the unarmed strike bonuses to farm tools and implements (i.e. simple weapons). I think monks should gain ki pool (adamantine) before ki pool (lawful) because we see (IRL) martial artists of various skill levels smashing planks, bricks, and blocks, whereas a lawful strike would seem to be attainable only at higher levels of enlightenment. I'm also intrigued by the idea of different disciplines that are chosen at a low level that could further define a monk's role (dragon style favors a balanced approach to attack and defense, tiger style favors strong offensive maneuvers, crane style favors defense and resistance, etc).

~ notshown

P.S. To anyone with real martial arts training and knowledge, please do not take offense at my childish naming convention. I'm just throwing stuff out there.

This is about the level of backwards compatibility I'm looking for.

See, I'm lazy. 90% of the time I'm just going to run 3.5 adventures as is, without changing the stats, even if I'm playing Pathfinder. I'll run the new rules for creating new characters and grappling and all, but I'm most likely not going to go back and re-stat everything. So when I say "backwards compatibility," I mean I want to be able to run most 3.5 baddies in Pathfinder without changing anything.

Agreed. Some degree of conversion is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be a painstaking recreation of every statblock in an adventure.

Hit points are simple. Rogues and wizards get an additional one or two per level to account for the hit die upgrade. If there is a more significant boost to 1st level hp, simply tack a few more on, or assume the NPC needs "just one more hit" to bring him down. I mean, what DM doesn't want to milk another round out of his baddies?

Skill bonuses are easy, too. If the creature in question should have a good bonus to a certain skill, assume it does and give it the max bonus (HD + 3 + relevant ability bonus, under the 1.1 rules). Remember few skills are actually used in an encounter against the PCs, so skill conversion should be a snap. No one will be dissecting your stat block looking for misplaced skill points.

Feats are a little trickier, but the key here is having a solid understanding of the rules, past and current. A sticky note on a stat block updates Power Attack calculations, attack bonuses, and such (it's also a good place for CMB, AC, and hp adjustments). In a pinch, you can drop defunct or undesirable feats from a statblock and substitute easy to implement ones like dodge, toughness, or quick-draw. Quick, neat, and requires only one change.

Spellcasting is the most worrisome, but even that doesn’t have to be brutal. Again, understanding the differences between rules versions is key. If the average combat is three to six rounds long, you only need to look at the six highest level spells the caster can access (adding one or two more for quickened and swift spells). Chances are, you'll be familiar enough with low level effects to wing them if combat stretches on longer than anticipated. The point is, you don't need to figure out a full spell list for the NPC, just the stuff he's most likely to use against the PCs before getting squished.

Hope this helps!

~ Andrew V

ithuriel wrote:

Either way the name is pretty silly.

I had come up with a very similar feat called 'Where the &#%@ Did that Come From?'. I think Razor Sharp Chair Leg is probably better.

Oh, no. Your name is is waaaaay better. It has my vote.

~ Andrew

Basically, I was working on a project to "rebalance" the Core classes in D&D awhile back, and then I realized it was pointless, so I stopped. However, I had the work saved, and the second class that I worked on was the fighter. Allow me to show you what I did <snip>

Interesting. Do you see this working with the standard fighter bonus feat progression (that is, a bonus feat at 1st and all even levels)? I would suggest bonuses from feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (and any such "improved" and "greater" feats) should not stack with the attack and damage bonuses you describe because that's probably just too unbalancing.

I also feel like those feats are not as much "choices" for fighters as "requirements". If you are going to play a dedicated fighter (as opposed to multiclassing), you're probably going to take Weapon Focus at first level and Weapon Specialization at 4th. You almost have to: it's your job to hit as often as possible and for as much damage as you can scrape together. So rather than burn feats for this, make it a class ability.

I think the fighter's Weapon Training class ability (as described in the Alpha Release 1.1) should start as early as 2nd or 3rd level (early enough that a dedicated fighter can enjoy its benifits sooner, and costly enough that multiclassing with levels in fighter doesn't net too big a bonus for a one-level investment). These bonuses should not stack with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (etc). In this case, they'll effectively replace them for the fighter. You can still make them available to other classes (perhaps requiring a +5 BAB for WS instead of a minimum fighter level), but the dedicated fighter will be free to use his feats to define his style or put an unexpected trick up his sleeve.

Further, the bonuses to attack and damage gained through Weapon Training at higher levels could be a little more customizable. For instance, the example given in the text says "when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level." Why couldn't the newly selected weapon group get the +2 bonus instead, leaving the first group at +1? The player should have the choice. Of course, once the choice is made, it should stick.

With this in mind, it's probably not necessary to have the fighter earn a new feat at every level. I would suggest dropping either the general feat progression (for all PCs) or the fighter bonus feat progression back to one every 3rd level. Otherwise, it's just too much stuff for the fighter.

Well, that my 2 coppers.

~ Andrew

I have two issues of Pathfinder coming to me from the "rollover" and I'm officially subscribing today. Therefore, my card shouldn't be charged until the third issue ships. Can I excpect to receive the Player's Guide with the first issue or the third?

Thanks in advance, and thanks for the great job you did with Dragon and Dungeon magazines.