Pretty sure something like that is down to a DM call, then.
Hmm. What's your initiative bonus like, AM?
AM UNSURE, BUILD AM YET TO BE FINALIZED. ROUGH ESTIMATES PUT AT LIKE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 6 AND 10.
Decent. To be on the safe side, build-wise, I'd be sure to throw in things to help go first in that first round, if you aren't already. Granted, it kinda makes the extra super long distance on the flying charge mainly for show, but, well, dang if it ain't showy. If you can't look awesome while doing something, as a BARBARIAN (as opposed to just a barbarian), what's the point, really?
So I got the itch to make an archetype for the Monk that makes it a bit more straightforward in combat and takes advantage of their mobility.
I want to give them the following:
the ability to make two attacks as a standard action along the lines of Flurry of Blows (better BAB-2, maybe only as part of a charge?)
+WIS to damage (and possibly to hit)
Pounce, essentially as an advancement of the first ability
better crit range for unarmed strikes and the essentially crappy Monk weapons
As this is an archetype, that means losing other abilities to make room for these, but I can't quite settle on what to remove. I'd prefer to keep FoB, and I am thinking of replacing the SR of Diamond Soul with some DR, as well.
So, what are people willing to lose to gain the above?
The question wasn't "do you hate gunslingers:" it was, essentially, "Is it the fact that guns are tech, not magical, that makes you dislike the gunslinger class?"
Discussion? - oh, and let's not do this:
John: Do you want salt?
Andrew: Uhhh, no. I'm drinking coffee.
John: So you don't like salt.
Andrew: Not in my coffee, no.
John: From that, it's obvious that you hate salt as a food additive or indeed in any context. How dare you say that salt sucks! And since I like salt, that implies that you hate me!
But a pinch of salt is a very good way to take away some of the bitterness of extra dark roasts, letting you enjoy more of the other flavors unique to them.[/Good Eats]
One of my players mentioned E6, but I have no real idea what it is.
scylis: Apophis of Disapproval wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?
If you had problems with balance in 3.5, you're still going to have them in Pathfinder. While some small things were done here and there, it's still, for the most part, the same as it was before.
Pathfinder is a good system, and is an improvement on 3.5, but it's probably not going to be your cup of tea, from the sounds of things.
Although, what you might consider doing is using it as the basis for an E6 campaign. That's something your group might have a lot of fun with.
Basically, there's only 6 levels. Past that, you get extra feats for every so much XP you gain. It keeps the game firmly in a "gritty fantasy" feel, if you want it to, and it stops level advancement short of where casters can reliably dominate the game and overshadow non-casters.
You can find its origins at ENWorld. Just google "e6 d&d", and it should be the first hit.
I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?
If you had problems with balance in 3.5, you're still going to have them in Pathfinder. While some small things were done here and there, it's still, for the most part, the same as it was before.
Pathfinder is a good system, and is an improvement on 3.5, but it's probably not going to be your cup of tea, from the sounds of things.
Although, what you might consider doing is using it as the basis for an E6 campaign. That's something your group might have a lot of fun with.
Precisely! It's a good fit for a full BAB class, since they'll generally do as good as another full BAB class.
My only issue is giving it to a non-full BAB class, and at what level is reasonable for that.
You lost me...
All other things being equal, a full BAB class is more powerful than a non full BAB class.
Hence, a non-full BAB class should get it at an earlier level, or a more powerful version, to compensate.
Yes?
Nope!
My issue is that a non-full BAB class getting this ability would make it more useful at low levels to use this ability rather than whacking people yourself. As in, it would be strictly more optimal for your bard / cleric / wizard / whatever non-full BAB class to grant that raging barbarian an attack, rather than taking an attack yourself.
This would overshadow quite a few of your abilities as well as your attacks. I know if I was a low level Bard and we had one other martial type, it wouldn't be clear cut on whether my first action should be to use IC or grant the barbarian an attack.
Shouldn't that be the point, though? The Warlord is a support class. Why would it be such a big deal to have one of the main ways of supporting the party at low levels be to allow the other members to get extra attacks? Why must the Warlord be the one that has to do the attacking themselves?
Maybe make it an archetype and have the ability replace something else, but if it's an option, I really think it should be pretty much the key feature of the build at low levels. Some people really like playing Lazylords and I don't see why it shouldn't be an option available.
...Yea. So getting rid of sneak attack. The question is, do I go with a full BAB and some new offensive abilities, or a 3/4 BAB and even more offensive abilities?
I wouldn't get rid of SA, but I would tone SA down a bit, while giving them other things. Like maybe half the SA progression. Give them DEX to damage and a scaling, flat bonus to damage with Finesse-able weapons as class features. I'd also throw in something more than Tumble that lets them disengage quickly if they look like they're about to be overwhelmed.
Don't know about the full BAB, though, or specific numbers for the damage bonus, as I don't feel like doing the math right now, but that's where I'd start from. The goal would be to have them do comparable damage to the more damaging fighting types without getting SA, and then pulling ahead a little when they do get SA.
I remember that the Conan RPG had a set % by which your riches would disappear each day you weren't adventuring to cover that. Combine that with the "down a container of booze @0 HP to regain HP" rule and you have two of the best rules evar and know you why I am fond of the Conan d20 system.
Eldritch Blast is still only dice for damage and not the high static damage that Fighters can pump out, plus it's a, what, Standard Action? So once a round. 9d6 for damage at level 20 isn't impressive.
A Warlock's best invocations are the equivalent of 6th level spells. At a time when real casters have 9th level spells. I've heard the comparison of "what would you rather have, a pop-gun with unlimited ammo or a rocket launcher with a handful of reloads?" And (without burning feats for more) they'll have 12 invocations to select over 20 levels. There's a strong chance they'll be picking up the ones TriOmega mentioned plus Utterdark Blast and Eldritch Doom. Utterdark Blast and the negative level it throws out with each hit only shows up at 17th level, though, so while nice, still isn't a 9th level spell.
Warlocks are nice and can be fun to play, especially if you can play to their flavor text w/o being a douche (suggestion: Dr. Byron Orpheus), and they have some nice abilities to them, but overpowered they are not.
Comparisons only at level 20 do not the whole story tell. Heck, a single-level snapshot does not the whole story tell. If we're going to compare, we should do snapshots every few levels and compare everything, not just damage. There's more to winning encounters than how much damage you can to if you hit.
Also, the Monk that throws out Stunning Fists 8 times a round is a Monk that fast runs out of Stunning Fists.
Well, banded mail seems to be a little disputed, historically, so I might be able to see it being rolled into the similar splint mail (/plated mail/splinted chainmail/plated chainmail), but they're definitely different from heavier examples of brigandine. I'd probably call a full body suit of brigandine a Medium armor (I think that's where it was put in a couple 3rd/3.5 books, IIRC), with studded leather being torso with maybe a tiny bit extra. Maybe make it similar to either hide or scale armor (scale being my personal preference).
Light brigandine and a jack of plate is what I'd default to for "studded leather". From what I've heard, there actually isn't any such beasty known as "studded leather" in a historical sense. Thus I'm totally for mithril "studded leather" being kosher.
Studded leather is for bikers and punks. Brigandine is for warriors!
Studded leather is for when you're BREAKIN' THE LAW - BREAKIN' THE LAW!
Light brigandine and a jack of plate is what I'd default to for "studded leather". From what I've heard, there actually isn't any such beasty known as "studded leather" in a historical sense. Thus I'm totally for mithril "studded leather" being kosher.
"Zombie (lord) pirate" is the correct answer. Part of the Triumvirate of Uberawesome Unstoppableness along with the Robot/Cyber Ninja and the Alien Cowboy.
The Duelist prestige class in the core book gets a parry ability. He can sacrifice an attack to make an opposed attack roll against an incoming attack against himself or an ally next to him. It works great for a TWF sacrificing his off hand attacks. You can get this ability by 8th lvl. Fighter5 Rogue 2 goes into the prestige class very well. People complain about the class and say its not good enough, but any time I have seen the numbers run it compares quite favorably.
Bummer that he has to forego TWF for the rest of his class abilities really.
No. He has to forgo attacks with his off hand. He can parry with that hand all he wants and still get his bonus damage.
That's an interesting interpretation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I know some DMs would run with it and some wouldn't.
I think it's a little hinky that you have to take anywhere from 1-3 feats to put a class feature to use in some sort of functional manner to still do somewhat mediocre damage (you're looking at a rapier at best for a weapon plus your STR will be nowhere near as high since Duelists are pretty MAD, even more so if you play to tropes and don't dump CHA). Especially since the more attacks you give up, the worse a chance you have to either parry the attack or hit them back. I don't see that as a good trade-off. About the only way I'd consider Duelist to be competitive and really worth it is if, somehow, I'd be able to get DEX to damage instead of STR.
However, there's a Pathfinder-compatible 3rd party base class that does the job rather handsomely, the ToS Swashbuckler. IM(ns)HO.
Actually I would say that just the following can make the monk very effective:
Allow flurrying with any specific weapon as a feat option.
Allow weapons to inflict additional damage, either replacing base damage with unarmed damage if it is greater or giving a damage bonus as the original monk had (+1/2 levels).
As the FoB is close enough to a full BAB as makes no odds you don't really need to increase the BAB.
The 3/4 but 1/1 when Flurrying can really, really affect when you pick up feats. They're levels behind the actual 1/1 BAB classes for picking up things like Improved Grapple/Trip/Disarm, for starters. If you're effectively giving them a 1/1 BAB for almost every situation where they'd want it, why don't you just give them a 1/1 BAB all the time?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind how the Monk was updated for Pathfinder, but due to the way the original Monk was designed for 3rd and then 3.5, the "backwards compatibility" is almost a straight-jacket. They did a good job of doing what they could within their own guidelines to try to make the Monk better, but there's only so much that can be done without changing a lot of the class. As is, it takes a lot of work and planning to make the Monk be something other than essentially the "trap" class for the game. Unless the APG allows you to strip out pretty much any class feature for something else either more skill monkey-ish or combat oriented, I don't really see that changing.
Something tells me the APG will address some of this... i.e. the ability to swap out monk abilities for things folks are asking for.
For example, get full BAB but drop flurry of blows.
Get +2 skill ranks/level but drop fast movement and slow fall. Or maybe get Skill Focus (X) whenever you would gain +10 movement to stagger the gain every 3 levels.
IIRC, they mentioned something about you can do several of the plug & play options as long as you don't give up the same class feature twice. I'd trust the options include nifty things we can't even imagine at the moment.
If they actually do that, I would literally remove all but the bare bones of the class and swap them out for things that will actually help me in combat.
Im bit confused how to count bab and base saves for characters multiclassing and taking levels in prestige classes.
For example a 6th lvl fighter has bab 0f +6/+1 and takes a level in duelist, how to calculate his new base attack bonus?
You add the BAB for all of the classes you have together. In your example, the +6 of the Fighter is added with the +1 from Duelist to get a total of +7 for your character's BAB.
Extra attacks come every time you reach a certain amount of total BAB that, when you subtract 5 from the lowest attack bonus you get still gives you a positive number. Examples really work best, here, because I'm not the best at explaining how it all works in my head without them.
The example 7th level Fighter/Duelist has a BAB of +7. 7-5=2, so he/she can make another attack with a +2 bonus, often denoted as +7/+2. Say he/she levels up and is now 11th level (Fighter 6/Duelist 5). Now they have a BAB of +11. 11-5=6, and 6-5=1, so he/she can make three attacks, the first with a +11 bonus, the second with a +6 bonus, and the third with a +1 bonus, often denoted as +11/+6/+1. That's before any other modifiers, naturally.
I've been thinking, if a static damage bonus progression isn't what we want to do instead of the unarmed strike damage increases, I think it should up the damage of all Monk weapons, but perhaps at a rate similar to what the Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome of Battle gives to non-Monks. I think it caps at 2d6 sometime around level 20 (book is buried ATM).
For my personal version, I'm looking at giving the Monk special "School Training Talents" (not sure on the name, yet, so we'll go with a placeholder for now) every few levels and a nice capstone ability at 20th that's particular to the "school" you chose. The idea is that you pick a "school" and you get to choose from a small list of abilities particular to the "school". Totally thinking of going with names like "Southern Mountain Crane Style" and such for the schools, though more generic ones would probably be better. Anybody have some good ideas for themes for some schools to write up?
I think they should still call it Flurry of Blows (sounds all wuxia-y, thus awesome), but I'm with you on pretty much all of that, Speaker. I think some of those could stay in a more skill monkey-y version, but for the combat-focused one? Yeah, no. They go.
Maybe do up a PrC with a bunch of that stuff called "The Enlightened Master" or something like that.
I think a spaced out +30 ft. bonus to their speed could work. I like giving them a boost to their speed. That's, what, half their normal bonus?
What do people think would be a good static damage bonus progression in place of the increased unarmed damage dice? My initial thought would be, starting at 4th, a +2 every four levels (so at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, the same levels that the current Monk gets an increase to their damage dice), capping out at +10 at 20th.
If coupled with a typical monk weapon and a flat increase of unarmed damage (i.e. 1d6 for damage plus static bonus), that puts them above the current curve for average damage, but behind the curve for max damage from 16th on. Does it need to be that high to compete if they're going to get other things besides straight up damage to actually make them the competitive combat machines we're looking to make them, though?
Another thing is that Amulet of Mighty Fists. If all you're getting from Flurry is the TWF tree when you get right down to it, why not make it only cost the same as two weapons?
I think that this item should be split in twain. One item that affects all natural attacks call Amulet of Bestial Might; Another that costs bonus equivalent squared times 4000 that only grants it to unarmed strike and keeps the original name (basically costs the same as two weapons enchanted the same). Make the second one capable of up to +10 equivalent and leave the first at +5 and everyone's happy*.
*Yeah, right.
I like that. Somehow getting a bunch of natural attacks briefly crossed my mind (the game I'm in currently features a druid w/ a large cat companion), but I just kinda shrugged it off to the side to think about later. Now I don't have to. Awesomesauce.
Also, check the Monks and Cestus thread for a good Monk alternative posted by Tri-Omega-Zero. Looks fun.
I have a problem with basing the viability of a class on a single snapshot level, regardless of where that level is, advancement-wise. I want a class to be viable and capable of performing as advertised across all levels.
I'm also going to side with Remco and say that people are really wanting too much out of the Monk, at times. That's why I mentioned that I thought the Monk should be split into two separate but related classes. Think of it like the James Bond submarine car from The Spy Who Loved Me. On screen, it looked like it was one Lotus that did everything, but really it took two different units to perform as shown in their respective departments (well, and a third "shell" to launch into the water in place of actually launching a super expensive and rare Lotus Esprit, but that's like Log the Timberrogue doubling as a Monk for a moment).
I think the skill monkey version of the monk would probably be best served with full on 3/4 BAB, but 8+Int skills and a class skills list quite similar to the Rogue. Maybe throw in an option for Trapfinding somewhere, too. Maneuver Training could stay, maybe throw in a line about using skill MONKey levels in place of BAB for feats relating to combat maneuvers. BAM! Now you have a great support character that's less focused on doing straight up damage (but can help out in that department). It would be a great platform for making a sort of "shadow shaolin" or a ninja character.
A straight-up arse beatin' Monk, though, is good with 4+Int. They just need better arse-beatin' abilities. And less non-arse-beatin' abilities, naturally. I like the idea of a static bonus to damage with unarmed strikes and monk weapons (which tend to be fairly crappy on their own), though I do think they need a better base damage for their unarmed strikes. What about a flat 1d6 from 1st level onward to put it on par with the other monk weapons with a feat (or the alternate ability option I mentioned in my last post) for later that increases the damage?
Another thing is that Amulet of Mighty Fists. If all you're getting from Flurry is the TWF tree when you get right down to it, why not make it only cost the same as two weapons?
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
Sounds like a warlock's invocations to me. And their eldritch blast. From Complete Arcane.
Or possibly the reserve feats from the Complete Mage. I'll have to remind my duskblade ally about those....
The warlock was a nice concept, but I don't think it was entirely fully realized. As for the reserve feats, those are almost entirely focused on damage dealing spells, plus they almost all require you to know 2nd level spells. I don't think focusing predominantly on almost pure damage dealing is able to properly capture the concepts mimicking the archetypes I'm thinking of here. Besides, neither the Warlock nor the reserve feats have been updated or brought into Pathfinder, so I don't think they should really be considered here.
To capture the feel I'm looking for, the class would need a decent "smorgasbord" of spells: a few ways of dealing damage and a bunch of utility spells, perhaps ones that mimic skill usage, amongst other things. Maybe some of the more non-combat-y spells are actually elaborate rituals that take more time than a round or two to actually cast. We're talking minutes, at least.
Very few of the characters you get in books and shows and whatnot these days have even the tiniest of hints that they are limited in how much magic they can do in a day in even remotely concrete terms. I just really wish that there was a class (or two... or three) that could emulate that feel without either lagging behind a little or being flat-out, full-on overpowered.
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
And I swear, if the board eats this AGAIN, making it the 4th time (at least) I've tried to articulate this idea... well, I guess I'll be really angry, but I will impotently shake my fist at these boards so hard, the people who run this place will feel it in their bones! Well, maybe not, but I will still impotently shake my fist at it and be angry. That part wasn't exaggeration.
If we're wanting to make the monk more of a combat machine, there's a number of abilities they get now that can be chucked because they're just not useful. Tongue of the Sun and Moon, I'm looking squarely at you.
I really think that one of the reasons the Monk suffers is that it wants to be both a skill monkey and a combat machine at the same time. Separating out the two mindsets into separate-but-related classes might be a good idea.
One think that would be cool for both would be a non-set progression of special abilities, something like a combination of a Ranger's Combat Styles and Rogue Talents would be cool. Pick a path/style/tree/school/whatever at your first level of Monk and then at points along the way pick from a list of abilities and feats that your choice of path/style/tree/school/whatever has determined. At nifty side benefit of this would be that it would be easier for a DM to insert custom Monk "schools" into their world which use a customized list of abilities and such. Bonus.
Another thing I'd like to bring up is that Abundant Step could be made a little more useful in combat. It doesn't have to me much, maybe say the ability to make a single attack immediately afterward.
Barbarian lost the ability to stay conscious regardless of hit points while raging, which can be a brutal loss. Also in 3.5, barbarian was hyper-dependent on either shock trooper shenanigans or intimidate shenanigans, neither of which are in Pathfinder.
I can see the argument for barbarian in T4, I'll admit, though they're lower then fighter and rangere. I honestly think monk wouldn't go, though. Only with hyper specialization and by planning the hell out of everything does a monk work - randomized items along can sink a monk, quite frankly. Same with fighter - fighter ain't a T3. T4 is for the super specialized, which fighter is - he can beatstick, and little else. Paladin on the other hand has abilities, better charisma, a better skill list, and spells to carry her forward when she isn't beatsticking evil.
I don't see the loss of that ability as a negative for the Barb. It seems like it almost assures their full on death. As it is now, don't they actually die die more often than not when they lose their raging HP if they're in the negatives?
I guess why I'm placing the Fighter in T3 is that the Warblade sits in T3 because it was "the best melee class ever", which the Fighter now does better. Everything I read that put the WB there had to do with its effectiveness in melee combat and nothing else. Fighters can be monsters in melee, flat out out-damaging them, but they also have the ability to deal with stuff at range with little problem (nowhere near effectively, but WBs don't even really have the option at all). Sure, the WB has Diplomacy as a class skill, but they usually don't have the CHA to use it.
But yeah, I'll echo your last paragraph (despite the board not wanting to fully quote it), including the distaste for vancian casting. I do think, though, that without a real careful build and a good player, a Monk needs all together too much time and care to effectively participate in most cases.
A magic user that can cast useful spells all day long from level 1. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
They don't have to be powerful on the level that spells are currently, because casting them all the live long day would just be flat out overpowered, no question. I just want useful spells, damage appropriate for whatever level you snapshot, and some utility stuff thrown in. Maybe a system set up to do more powerful things a limited number of uses or times per day with some prep work.
I don't know, maybe we've gotten different list/definitions for the Tiers along the way, ProfessorCirno, but most places I've seen put the Barb in Tier 4 for 3.5. Since it hasn't gone down in power, I'd keep them where they are. I think Barbs and Rangers are basically the poster children for T4: the Barb is good at basically one thing (smacking people with big things), but there are classes that do that better than it in most cases, while the Ranger has a lot that it can do, but it's only decent at all of it, meaning classes designed around doing those things individually will always outshine it when it's time to do those things, but the Ranger has many, many more things it can participate in in a pinch.
For Fighter and Pally, I'd put them in the same Tier, whichever one that is. I like the idea that they're Tier 3 because of how improved they are from before (because they are, hardcore), but I suppose I could settle for the tip top of Tier 4.
The Monk... I'll totally cop to throwing them a bone by putting them grasping Tier 4 by the tips of their fingers. The concept is awesome; the execution... not.
How about we frame it like the old Tier system? If that's the case, there's not a whole lot of change for the classes from before (I'm not overly familiar with the Pathfinder new classes, so I'll leave that up to others to fill in), but the little there is are big moves:
My Updates to the Tiers:
Tier I remains mostly the same:
Wizard, Cleric, Druid
Derp.
Tier II
Sorcerer (face it, it takes more work to rule the system for them than it does for Wizards, since they have to rely on a steady supply of scrolls from an outside source to cover what a Wizard can cover. They are, however, closer than they used to be thanks to Pathfinder)
Tier III
Fighter, Paladin, Bard
Fighters and Paladins are the "WHAT THE EFFING EFF?!" moment here with their Rocky-like comebacks (I consider 3rd/3.5 to be like the beginning of Rocky III for them), but Fighters really are the kings of general fighting and damage dealing non-magically, and the Paladin just flat out kills evil dead. They are the best at killing evil until they die from it, especially if that evil is also "Super Evil", such as outsiders. Paladins beat around demons and devils like they're their rented mules. Both, however, are of often limited use outside of that. I'd also like to note that the ability of the Cleric and Druid to do their jobs only better without throwing things other than buffs and wildshape around has been curtailed, which certainly helps their ratings.
Bards are just all around fun.
Tier IV
Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk
Rogue's are at the top of the Tier, currently, IMO, since they're flat out the best at disabling traps. Monk is up, though still a little on the low side, to me, thanks to MAD and the still present near random grab bag of abilities. Keep in mind that Tier 4 isn't that bad a place to be for a class. Tier 4 means you either can do a bunch of things well with no particular focus (everybody wave to the Ranger), or there is someone better than you at your special calling even though you're no slouch yourself (that means you, Barbarian and Monk). While Rogues are the best at disarming traps and have a boat-load of skills, higher Tier classes have ways to circumvent the traps wholesale and the Bard has a similar skill set and is often a much better party face platform. Basically, Rogues are within spitting distance of Tier 3, but barely pull up short.
All in all, every class is useful, though sometimes they need to work at it (Monks need careful building and love to be effective).
Why ya'll bashin' English? It's spelled "bestiary" and pronounced "bestiary". There's no smoke and mirrors on that one. Now all the *other* items mentioned above are certainly hinkey but "bestiary"? Nope, that one makes sense. I like my language quirky. I like it even more that people like Joss Whedon and tech like the Internetz are making it ever more quirky as time goes by...
Also something interesting to note. Think about how much money characters around 6th level and above are exchanging.
500 gold (in platinum) weighs 1 pound. That means if you sold something worth 2,000 gold and haven't had a chance to spend it yet you're packing an extra 4 pounds.
At 4th level, earlier tonight, we ran into a cache of 15k gold and silver (number of coins, not monetary value). Even with a bag of holding I, with the stuff we already picked up, we had to split 170 lbs of the stuff between my Fighter/Rogue and the extra brawny half-orc Druid. We're down two party members (there was some body swapping, and now the dwarf Spellblade is in the orc Sorcerer's body, the orc's in some random woman's body, both of them are now of the opposite gender, and both of them got cut off from us by the room that makes all of that happen, so it's just me, the Druid, and the Cleric) so the weight is a big deal. I shudder to think what would have happened if the three of us still together didn't have 16s and up for strength. We might have had to leave some of the loot there.
*shudder*
Even now, we have to dump our gear and worry about leaving it if we get into a fight now or most of us will be encumbered at least a little.
In the DEX replacing STR option, what about having the feat that gives DEX to damage require an extra STR benchmark above what Power Attack requires in order to get 1.5x DEX when using a two-handed weapon (I.E. elven curveblade)? Not meeting the benchmark means only 1x DEX to damage, one- or two-handed.
It'll suck up more resources during character creation using point buy or a better rolled stat that might have gone elsewhere otherwise when rolling stats. If they don't, it'll be a while before they can get the extra .5 through STR boosting items.
Would that help assuage the fears of those that fear everybody evar suddenly dumping STR and making it a dump stat for everybody forever?
Funny thing. You keep crunhing damage numbers and all that, and I still don't see it. All you guys are doing is putting Damage there and saying that the Dex guy with a ONE handed weapon deals a "little bit" less damage than the TWO-handed fighter... hum, ok.
The funny thing is that you are not saying that the Dex has way more AC, Initiative king, LOTS of good skills and a pretty great Reflex save while the strength guy has.... wow, damage.
Yes, all those dexterity skills that fighters have...?
Hmm. Do I want to spend three feats to replace my high strength with medium dexterity, or do I want to just take Improved Initiative which would give me better initiative, then Lightning Reflexes which would give me better reflexes, and then use my third feat to do whatever the hell I want?
Decision, decisions.
Here's the catch - fighters are already going to have middle line if not better dexterity. Gaining dex to damage replacing strength wouldn't give them a gigantic boost in AC, reflex, and initiative, because theirs is already good.
That was a conclusion I was coming to before my post got eaten. You can squeeze a +7 max dex out of mithral full plate if you wanted to, thanks to Armor Training. That's rather scary.
I had a post written out. With numbers. Based off of my previous post full of numbers based off of the wonky stats given and used in it.
Then the forum ate it.
In the end, though, what it came down to was this: How important is AC by level 15, really? It seems like much the better option to get some static miss chance/% thrown on you than to worry overmuch about AC. You can work your AC all you want, but Fighter dudemanguy with his +5 greatsword is almost certainly going to hit you at least once, maybe even twice with little problem.
I would also argue that Mr. Fishy is a good topic to argue over.
You keep saying that. "It makes strength worthless, it makes strength worthless, it makes strength worthless......." But I don't understand how it makes strength worthless, and obviously neither do my players.
Three out of four times overall, my players have opted to use strength instead of dexterity, because of feats. In the case of a non-human non-fighter who wants to two-hand a weapon, that's saving them three out of ten feats. That's 30% of their feats wasted trying to keep up with the strength guys who get access to their stuff for free.
I guess I should clarify. It makes Str worthless for those that take the two feats. Where do you get three from? A Fighter has 20 feats, and many other classes get bonus feats of some kind, Rogue and Monk especially, both of which can make tremendous use of replacing Str with Dex.
Also, would it stack with the Duelist's Precise Strike? If so, there is an extra 10 damage for the rapier wielding Dex fighter. With a 30 Dex that is +20 to damage.
So a rapier wielding Duelist and a greatsword wielding Paladin (the Paladin took the mount, not the weapon bond) are fighting an Iron Golem. Both with +5 weapons. The Duelist has 14 Str and 30 Dex. The Paladin has 30 Str and 14 Dex.
To Hit: Both BAB+15
Damage: Duelist 1d6+25, Paladin 2d6+20.
So the Paladin swipes his greatsword and takes a chunk out of the golem. Then the Duelist thrusts his rapier into the golem and leaves a small hole. Somehow the Duelist has done more damage. Huh?
Well, he hit him in a vital join! I hear you say. Fine, but realize the Dex fighter is now better than the Str fighter.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I understand you don't like the idea of dextrous fighters being effective, it's your call LordTwig, but please trust me when I say that this does NOT invalidate strength in any way. It's one alternative option.
Hell, it even prevents complete dumping of strength because you need 13 strength for power attack. That 6 strength halfling fighter is going
...
Actually, the DEX Duelist would be "better" than the STR Paladin when the Paladin ain't pityin' a foo with his Smite (being able to would bump his damage by... I believe the technical term is a "crapton"... which would be a nice +15 in this case, assuming only levels in Paladin were taken, and a super tasty +30 if Evil outsider or dragon, or an undead).
What I want to know is how is the Duelist managing to have 10 levels of Duelist at level 15? By my understanding of the prereqs, there's be 9 levels of duelist there, max. The class used to get into Duelist also matters, too. If those were fighter levels, there's likely another 3 damage to roll in there from Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization.
How would the Duelist compare to an equal level Fighter? If both have a BAB of 15, THW Fighter would probably be doing 2d4/2d6+27 damage to the (Fighter/) Duelist's 1d6+27.
Oh snap.
The straight Fighter also has an extra +3 to hit on the (Fighter/) Duelist thanks to Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Trainings. And more bonus feats to do more things with, such as critical feats, since the Duelist has prerequisite feats and getting DEX to damage requires another. So they break even on static damage bonuses normally, but the Fighter's weapon is bigger and can do more damage, he has a slightly better chance to hit, and when Power Attack gets tossed in, he handsomely defeats the Duelist in the damage contest thanks to using a two-hander.
Basically, I don't think your comparison there is anywhere near valid because it's done in a vacuum and doesn't consider a lot of factors.
Tome of Battle having a "fallout" or being "overpowered" is just lame :|
The problem with ToB was not it being over or underpowered, it's that it kind of re-wrote the rules on melee characters, making existing ones in effect less effective by comparison. The changes we are proposing don't effect existing builds based on strength, they are as effective as ever.
In fact, if not working with a concept, I'd have to say the people in my games have generally gone for the Strength meelee approach instead, because it means they have two more feats to work with to diversify their options.
Also an interesting side note, ToB did make Meelees more entertaining and diverse, but it didn't make them any more powerful than 3.5 Splat Melee was. There were maybe 12 different potential builds that outperformed ToB melees in an area of effective expertise, such as rape-pouncing.
The problem was not with the ToB classes in 3.5, though. Yeah, sure, any of them were better than the fighter, but in 3.5, fighters sucked. It took the super broken stuff like getting pounce to make them even halfway worthwhile. All ToB did was give melee people classes in Tier 3. Previously, the best they could hope for was classes that were good (but not the best) at something (I.E. Tier 4, and the fighter was Tier 5), but that something was almost never non-magic-using combat. Lords of Kobol forbid non-casters actually get nice things in 3.5.
Calling ToB classes and stuff in there broken because it was better than the fighter in 3.5 is hilarious to me. It's like calling the fighter and barbarian broken because they're better than the Complete Warrior Samurai or the Warrior.
I'd also like to add that Pathfinder fighters are leaps and bounds ahead of their 3.5 counterpart. They've got nothing to fear from ToB, mechanically.
