extra reach is what the feat lunge is for
As a side note, does anyone remember the Boneclaw from 3.5? It had a reach of 20 and Combat Reflexes with a Dex of like 20. That thing was supposed to be CR 5 but it wiped our level 5 party out in no time flat.
Is reach still that big of a deal in PF or has it become less of an "I win" ability?
Taking monkey grip for the bump in damage die always seemed a waste to me. Going from a pair of 1d8 longswords (or a 1d8 longsword and a shield) to a pair of 2d6 greatswords (or a 2d6 greatsword and shield) never felt worth a feat and a -2 to attack rolls for what averaged to roughly 2.5 additional damage with each strike- marginally above what weapon specialization would do, but with penalties to attack.
The appeal to me was to take monkey grip and wield a polearm (halberd was my favorite) and pair it with a shortsword other light weapon. That way you're constantly threatening a 10' square, and really rocking out. And, hell, this isn't even overpowered anymore since the Polearm Fighter variant lets you do this at the low cost of a SINGLE weapon. So yeah.
If you think monkey grip is dumb, fine, that's a totally valid viewpoint. But if you think it's broken or overpowered you're not really examining the mathmatics behind the feat. It's perhaps too underpowered for 3.PF, and at best lets you emulate a specific fighter ability at a higher personal cost.
You know I believe the whole thing about carrying a whole extra long weapon is fine. However just take some delight hen they do try to use it in tight quarters and they will be forced to use a weapon they haven't specialized in. This feat is only dangerous for balance in the hands of a munchkin power player. So I say let them learn a lesson.
"ok, I swing my huge weapon in this corridor to slay them all"
OK, as you swing you weapon you hear a clink as your weapon hits the wall.
You know I believe the whole thing about carrying a whole extra long weapon is fine. However just take some delight hen they do try to use it in tight quarters and they will be forced to use a weapon they haven't specialized in. This feat is only dangerous for balance in the hands of a munchkin power player. So I say let them learn a lesson.
"ok, I swing my huge weapon in this corridor to slay them all"
OK, as you swing you weapon you hear a clink as your weapon hits the wall.
But...it's not dangerous for balance. Like at all. We've discussed and shown how it's not dangerous for balance multiple times in this thread.
Have you ever seen a picture of the pokemon psyduck?
That's how I look right now.
I think if you want to be playing w/"realistic" takes on weapon reach and advantages conferred, etc - you should NOT be playing *any* version of D20 anything ... GURPS is that-a-ways and they do exactly what you're after very, VERY well, actually.
I highly recommend it for THAT style of play/emulation. I do NOT, however, even *slightly* turn to D20 for *realistic* takes on any-dang thing period!!! At all!! EVER!!!!
So, to sum up: Real = GURPS; Fantastic nonsense that will make you scratch your dome = D20 in all it's glory.
But...it's not dangerous for balance. Like at all. We've discussed and shown how it's not dangerous for balance multiple times in this thread.Have you ever seen a picture of the pokemon psyduck?
That's how I look right now.
Don't get me wrong munchkin power players are dangerous with even the most balanced of rules.
The worse damage dice up is a D12 medium weapon. This brings it to a stunning 3D6 damage. To top this off it is a martial only damage dice type last I checked so you don't even need a feat to get it usually. Great Axes has a x3 multiplier with a great axe. So that is an up of +2 minimum damage, +4 average damage, and a +6 maximum damage. That might be worth a feat with a -2 to hit. A -2 to hit in power attack is equal to +4 to +6 damage with flat out. However this feat adds a restriction to a specific weapon made one size larger, similar to an exotic weapon. So the -2 to hit, with the MAXIMUM increase of +6 damage on a lucky die roll is too little at higher levels. Having a base attack bonus of +4,5, or 6 would keep this in line with power attack.
Is this strong? NO, maybe with only a -1 to hit.
Is anime-ish? I agree I have read a few accent stories of Kings wielding two great sword like weapons. So its more like anime is mimicking historical legends just like J. R. R. Tolkien and DnD.
Is it broken? Noway really. As far as damage potential, even pimped out with dual large size bastard swords (which is impossible with the 3.5 version of the feat, and took an additional feat on top of monkey grip) they would be no where near that of power attack or that of a caster's fire ball to a group of targets.
Just for general info, there are two versions of the monkey grip feat, and it appears as if the two are getting mixed.
3e version: you had to chose one weapon, this specifically allowed you to wield a two-handed weapon, one-handed (e.g. wielding a greataxe with one-hand). There is a -2 penalty when used in this way.
3.5e version: you can wield any weapon sized for creatures one size larger than you with the same effort that it would take a normal wielder to use it. But this does not allow you to use weapons that are sized for you with any less effort. There is a -2 penalty when using larger weapons.
|
The problem I have with the monkey grip feat is this:
1) There's a monkey grip in real life.
2) I'm a martial artist, I know what the monkey grip is (you basically 'scoop' with your hands instead of opposing the fingers against the thumbs). It's very useful.
3) It is not useful for holding weapons. If you hold a weapon with the monkey grip, you are likely to disarm yourself and will be easily disarmed. Not to mention your swings will be weak, the weapon you're holding will be slower... it's bad.
4) What it IS useful for is grappling/wrestling/combat maneuvers. A monkey grip on somebody's neck will control that guy.
I don't mind that some stuff is fantasy and disassociated with real life. But this real life label could be well-used as a grappling feat of some kind, perhaps allowing you to pin enemies quicker or something like that. Using it as a weapon-relevant feat seems unnecessarily stupid to me.
I know some folks love it. I'm not trying to rain on that parade. One of my friends used this to great effect on his Leap Attack fighter in 3.5. But it could be much more true to life than it is without losing any coolness.
Monkey Grip + Enlarge = trouble...
Just for general info, there are two versions of the monkey grip feat, and it appears as if the two are getting mixed.
3e version: you had to chose one weapon, this specifically allowed you to wield a two-handed weapon, one-handed (e.g. wielding a greataxe with one-hand). There is a -2 penalty when used in this way.
3.5e version: you can wield any weapon sized for creatures one size larger than you with the same effort that it would take a normal wielder to use it. But this does not allow you to use weapons that are sized for you with any less effort. There is a -2 penalty when using larger weapons.
I was going off the 3.5e version myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is anime-ish? I agree I have read a few accent stories of Kings wielding two great sword like weapons. So its more like anime is mimicking historical legends just like J. R. R. Tolkien and DnD.
That's really more or less the thing. Anime isn't a genre. It's like complaining that a feat is "too literature-y." If asked, I'd bet money I could find an anime example of anything.
Besides, D&D is anime as hell. We've all been there. We've all wanted a big and epic and suspenseful game and story of romance and good vs evil, of destined villains and humble heroes rising up to face them. We've all wanted to play Record of Lodoss War.
And then we end up in Slayers every time.
lol i am currently watching record of lodoss wars right now, i actually consider it to be my quintessential dnd inspiration
lol i am currently watching record of lodoss wars right now, i actually consider it to be my quintessential dnd inspiration
Well it should since it was a "replay" of actual D&D sessions.
Check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War
|
Is anime-ish? I agree I have read a few accent stories of Kings wielding two great sword like weapons. So its more like anime is mimicking historical legends just like J. R. R. Tolkien and DnD.That's really more or less the thing. Anime isn't a genre. It's like complaining that a feat is "too literature-y." If asked, I'd bet money I could find an anime example of anything.
Besides, D&D is anime as hell. We've all been there. We've all wanted a big and epic and suspenseful game and story of romance and good vs evil, of destined villains and humble heroes rising up to face them. We've all wanted to play Record of Lodoss War.
And then we end up in Slayers every time.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I stated that I don't like oversized weapons.
I dislike oversized weapons as a concept; that isn't really related to anime. I just think it's stupid, regardless of medium. I don't care if they're in literature or mythology or anime; they're ridiculous, implausible, and annoying. I prefer that my fighters wield realistically sized weapons when I'm a player and that they stick to plausibility when I'm a DM.
I also don't like anime. Huge swords are common in anime; their use in D&D reminds me of anime, which makes me like them even less. But, anime or not, I just don't like oversized weapons.
Fighters don't need huge weapons to be fantastic. Slaying a dragon is just as cool (actually, in my opinion, it's infinitely cooler) if you're just using, say, a normal-sized longsword, which works better in D&D anyway, even with Monkey Grip. That's why I like Monkey Grip; I believe that it's general underpowered nature reflects the stupidity of using a huge sword. I don't houserule it at all; it doesn't grant reach, and it just reduces the penalty of oversized weapons to one slightly more manageable; you burn a feat slot for a dead-end feat that only gives you a marginal bonus.
It's really a matter of personal taste. If you and your group like oversized weapons and think Monkey Grip should be better than it is, then go ahead; it doesn't harm me in any way to know that you disagree with me. I personally regard oversized weapons the same way I regard Mites; they annoy the crap out of me, and I leave them out of my games. Obviously, your mileage may vary.
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
Beowulf, Hercules, and Roland didn't wield comically large weapons. Seriously, if the PC fighter showed up to a fight with a sword as big as he was, I'm pretty sure that the bad guys would laugh at how silly that idea is.
This is why I like the Monkey Grip feat. It lets you wield an extra-big sword, but it doesn't really confer an advantage; no reach, and a bit of extra damage at a pretty respectable penalty to hit. My problem comes in when it grants reach (something I'm not allowing it do as a DM). Then it's just broken. As it is, it successfully conveys the stupidity of oversized weapons; they're not much better than standard weapons, and you have to waste a feat that you could be using on something useful, like Power Attack (which also leads to more cool stuff instead of being a dead end).
As Dork Lord said, a Fighter can be fantastic without breaking plausibility. Anyone who manages to take down a dragon, Lich, or greater demon is fantastic as it is; they don't need a ridiculous weapon to do it. A 20th level Figher, Barbarian, or Paladin wielding a normal-sized weapon can hold off a legion of inexperienced soldiers (quite fantastic), slay giants, survive huge number of offensive spells, and use a bow accurately at 500 feet. I see no reason why a character is less fantastic because he's wielding a reasonably sized longsword instead of some 12-foot long, 4-foot wide greatsword. Your mileage may vary, but I can't stand it when my games play like an anime.
Hercules did however hold the weight of the earth on his shoulders, Thor lifted a serpent that could circle the earth. So why is the Anime Hero with the big f'n sword any different? Hell we allow magic that allows people to come off almost super heroic. Suspending a little bit of realism for flavor and uniqueness in a lot of cases makes the game more enjoyable to play. There is a big difference with a player going hey if I take Power Attack, Monkey Grip etc I can do obscene amounts of damage and my character during a defining moment in her career ended up with a Frost Giant's sword. (Amiri anyone? Look how big they portray her sword. It is about the same size and width of the Zanbatos wielded by both Sano from Kenshin series and Cloud from Final Fantasy.)
What tires me most is how many DM's and Players alike seem to think that heroes are cookie cutter all use x weapon, wear y armor, and act z way. It becomes boring and old hat. I want my players to play "Heroes" I want the fantastic epic stories used in myth, fiction novels, fantasy movies and yes some anime. I love story lines subplots and the whole epic heroic journey.
|
|
*Reasonable Argument*
I agree with just about everything you said right there. Heroes should have something to differentiate themselves from others. Of course, I think that oversized weapons are the wrong way to do it, at least in my opinion. They're just plain implausible and stupid. They're not the only way to have a cool character. I would rather play a fighter who wields magically enhanced French Toast than one who uses a giant sword; that's how much I hate oversized weapons (I know, it's pretty irrational. But stuff like that just angers me on a subconscious level; I don't know why). I never said that I approved of Amiri's use of a large-sized B-Sword, but then again, I don't use iconics, so it isn't that big of an issue for me. It isn't stomping on a player's creativity to tell him as a DM that he can't use a giant weapon (at least effectively; once again, I love that Monkey-Grip is underpowered); it's laying out a reasonable expectation for your campaign. You seem to be implying that ridiculous swords are the only way to be creative as a player and have deep, heroic subplots, which is just plain wrong. There are so many options for fighters that it isn't even funny. For example, a Fighter could easily differentiate his fighting style from everyone else's by say, being a Phalanx fighter from the APG or a Duelist or some other rarely-used but cool and reasonable choice. It's not that hard, and I'm certainly not nerfing/being unfair to Fighters as a DM by not powering up a feat that isn't even available in core.
I personally don't have an issue with Monkey Grip, though I think it works better as a racial ability. It's not in Pathfinder, for whatever reason, so I guess that makes it easier to disallow.
You can't really "prove" an opinion, that goes even more so for an opinion for something that's not "real". The following comparison works well for me.
"Do you want mustard on your hot dog? No? Oh, you don't like it."
"Can I have Monkey Grip? No? Oh, you don't really like it."
My group is pretty laid back and usually doesn't worry about those kinds of things. We like the story of the characters and how they interact with the world more than the difference between 1d6 and 1d8 damage.
I don't see why everyone is so bent on trying to make Squidmasher accept oversized weapons. If he doesn't think that oversized weapons fit in a world of dragons, teleportation, and polymorphing he can outlaw it in the games that he DMs.
Anyway back to the OP's question, no I don't think it's not overpowered in anyway. However it really is of too little benefit to be called an achievement, so if you were to bring it to your pathfinder games, you should import it in as a trait. I would also give it a Str requirement of 16 or so.
I would also give it a Str requirement of 16 or so.
I would make it at least 20 if you're going to tack on reach.
i just really like the idea of using a weapon that is bigger than i can usually usethat can screw you depending on the dm. Ever tried swinging a 5 ft or larger sword in a 5ft wide, 7 ft tall hall way? not very practical.Finally someone who thinks as I do! :-D
So many folks are just like "the rules don't say you can't, so screw physics".
Ever played Silent Hill 2? Remember Pyramid Head dragging that huge blade behind him? That's what I imagine wielding a Large sized sword would be like.
The 10 foot sword in a 5 ft hallway example, which I have heard before, makes sense, but they already have a crappy feat. No need to make it worse.
Hey guys. Lets muddy up the waters a bit. Longswords are just large Shortswords so they should be implausable. Same goes for Greatswords which are just large Longswords. And Shortswords, why they are just larger versions of Daggers. No one should be able to wield these mighty weapons because they are essentially larger versions of smaller weapons. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be using my dagger to fight this dragon over here.
|
|
Hey guys. Lets muddy up the waters a bit. Longswords are just large Shortswords so they should be implausable. Same goes for Greatswords which are just large Longswords. And Shortswords, why they are just larger versions of Daggers. No one should be able to wield these mighty weapons because they are essentially larger versions of smaller weapons. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be using my dagger to fight this dragon over here.
The dagger is just an oversized sewing needle.
Jokes aside, your argument doesn't hold much water. First, a longsword is not just a large shortsword, and so on down the line. The hilt-to-blade ratio in each weapon is vastly different.
More importantly, my objection to comically large weapons isn't that they're bigger versions of normal weapons, it's that they're too big to be reasonably used (at least effectively). Greatswords are fine; they're just swords meant to be used in two hands; they aren't ridiculously large, they're just large. Late medieval knights ran around with two-handed swords all the time. I don't have a problem with big weapons. I have a problem with ridiculously big weapons. Look up "Zweihander" on Wikipedia for an example of how big a Greatsword is. Notice how it's about half the size (width-wise; length is pretty similar) of Amiri's sword, which is apparently supposed to be one-handed. That's the kind of stuff I object to.
Hey guys. Lets muddy up the waters a bit. Longswords are just large Shortswords so they should be implausable. Same goes for Greatswords which are just large Longswords. And Shortswords, why they are just larger versions of Daggers. No one should be able to wield these mighty weapons because they are essentially larger versions of smaller weapons. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be using my dagger to fight this dragon over here.The dagger is just an oversized sewing needle.
Jokes aside, your argument doesn't hold much water. First, a longsword is not just a large shortsword, and so on down the line. The hilt-to-blade ratio in each weapon is vastly different.
More importantly, my objection to comically large weapons isn't that they're bigger versions of normal weapons, it's that they're too big to be reasonably used (at least effectively). I can understand a Greatsword (because it's reasonably sized for a two-handed weapon, at least the ones that I'm thinking of), but take a good look at Amiri's sword in the Core Rulebook and tell me it doesn't look silly/unwieldy/impossible.
I have played just about every Final Fantasy game since I so I'm probably the worst person to comment on whether or not that sword looks silly/unwieldy/impossible. If anything, it could stand to be bigger. >.> <.< >.>
I would also give it a Str requirement of 16 or so.I would make it at least 20 if you're going to tack on reach.
Yeah ... I kind of like this idea, BUT ... it's now a matter of adding even more benefits to the single-stat build-types.
Just sayin' ... the idea of making it somehow "harder" is good. Tieing it strength ... kind of bad.
Certainly a good idea, though.
lol - on the "effort" front, the big honkin' weapon most certainly *would* be damn useful in combat ... but that's talkin' realistic, not feat mechanics.
Feat mechanics - we've done to death. It gives bigger damage die, requires no additional effort, etc, etc, etc.
"realistically" IF such a thing was to be made "plausible" then it WILL grant reach (it's made for something that hits in the 9-12' in size range, people!). It WILL carry/require greater effort (don't care WHAT your str is - it's freakin' HUGE - there's no way to get proper leverage, really). If/when it hits, it will make a MASSIVE wound (ie: higher damage die - about the only thing granted by the feat, actually).
That's pretty much realistic right there. Maybe the answer would be to just modify the feat for that stuff above? (of course - those banning it - feel free to ban it.)
I'm just posting this in response to the nonsense of "it'll never work in combat! It's not practical!!"
Dudes - IF you're strong enough to lift something THAT damn big and use it you WILL be able to strike at guys that are much further away. You WILL hit them harder, and it WILL require a HELL of a lot more effort of your part to manage it EVEN IF you're strong as hell.*
*small caveat for super-human strength in the range of Spider-Man and company that can benchpress a city-buss or something. THOSE guy's could maybe manage such a feat, but even someone in the 30's it's too much, IMO, to manage such a thing.
|
|
lol - on the "effort" front, the big honkin' weapon most certainly *would* be damn useful in combat ... but that's talkin' realistic, not feat mechanics.
Feat mechanics - we've done to death. It gives bigger damage die, requires no additional effort, etc, etc, etc.
"realistically" IF such a thing was to be made "plausible" then it WILL grant reach (it's made for something that hits in the 9-12' in size range, people!). It WILL carry/require greater effort (don't care WHAT your str is - it's freakin' HUGE - there's no way to get proper leverage, really). If/when it hits, it will make a MASSIVE wound (ie: higher damage die - about the only thing granted by the feat, actually).
That's pretty much realistic right there. Maybe the answer would be to just modify the feat for that stuff above? (of course - those banning it - feel free to ban it.)
I'm just posting this in response to the nonsense of "it'll never work in combat! It's not practical!!"
Dudes - IF you're strong enough to lift something THAT damn big and use it you WILL be able to strike at guys that are much further away. You WILL hit them harder, and it WILL require a HELL of a lot more effort of your part to manage it EVEN IF you're strong as hell.*
*small caveat for super-human strength in the range of Spider-Man and company that can benchpress a city-buss or something. THOSE guy's could maybe manage such a feat, but even someone in the 30's it's too much, IMO, to manage such a thing.
My views on oversized weapons aside, that's a really bad idea balance wise. Giving the larger weapons reach, while it may make sense, screws the game. You get some guy with a Large Guisarme and Improved Trip enlarged by the party Wizard, and then he threatens every square within a 30 foot radius. Nothing can reach him, nothing can touch him, and you as the DM are forced to either tell him to tone it down or make every encounter you want to be challenging be a ranged one in which our big Guisarme wielder is useless. It's not a pretty place to be in. I've been there before.
|
|
My views on oversized weapons aside, that's a really bad idea balance wise. Giving the larger weapons reach, while it may make sense, screws the game. You get some guy with a Large Guisarme and Improved Trip enlarged by the party Wizard, and then he threatens every square within a 30 foot radius. Nothing can reach him, nothing can touch him, and you as the DM are forced to either tell him to tone it down or make every encounter you want to be challenging be a ranged one in which our big Guisarme wielder is...
Not every square, mind you! Let's look at the facts:
Normal reach: 5 ft.Reach weapon: 10 ft., cannot attack adjacent.
Large creature with a reach weapon: 20 ft., cannot attack within 10 ft.
Large creature with a Huge reach weapon: 30 ft. reach, cannot attack within 15 ft. (? Is this right? Or is it 40/20?)
So he does have a reach of 30 feet. But he can't attack or AoO anybody within 15 feet of him. This is an enormous liability.
|
|
My views on oversized weapons aside, that's a really bad idea balance wise. Giving the larger weapons reach, while it may make sense, screws the game. You get some guy with a Large Guisarme and Improved Trip enlarged by the party Wizard, and then he threatens every square within a 30 foot radius. Nothing can reach him, nothing can touch him, and you as the DM are forced to either tell him to tone it down or make every encounter you want to be challenging be a ranged one in which our big Guisarme wielder is...Not every square, mind you! Let's look at the facts:
Normal reach: 5 ft.
Reach weapon: 10 ft., cannot attack adjacent.
Large creature with a reach weapon: 20 ft., cannot attack within 10 ft.
Large creature with a Huge reach weapon: 30 ft. reach, cannot attack within 15 ft. (? Is this right? Or is it 40/20?)So he does have a reach of 30 feet. But he can't attack or AoO anybody within 15 feet of him. This is an enormous liability.
With Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip, it isn't that relevant. He just trips them before they get close, then 5-foot steps back on his turn to keep distance. If worst comes to worst, another enlarged character (like the Cleric) can just stand between him and the enemies.
That is, unless they changed the AoO rules in Pathfinder so that you can't use a Combat Maneuver for one.
|
|
Enemies will figure this out and start using stuff like invisibility to get close. Or use ambush tactics. Or Spring Attack. Or teleportation... you get the idea.
Eventually, yes. But Monkey Grip only has a prerequisite of +1 Base Attack, Guisarmes aren't particularly expensive, and Enlarge Person is only a 1st level spell. The reach/Monkey Grip build dominates low-level play, and can easily win any melee combat encounter with the right help from spellcasters at higher levels (See Invisibility, Dimension Door, some of the spells from Complete Arcane that delay incoming teleports). And Spring Attack, while useful for an enemy attacker, still doesn't beat this combo because of the sheer quantity of threatened squares.
If you're a creative enough DM, you can still challenge someone like this, but it's definitely a hassle. You'd better get used to planning a lot of unconventional encounters in advance, and you should probably throw away any plans for a melee boss.
If trip "owns" the early part of the game, and reach can be had, and etc ... this sound to me more like a symptom of a "broken system" or a "too lazy to bother" GM. {sounds FAR more harsh than intended and it is NOT an attack on ANYONE - AT ALL! Just stating it plainly is all.)
system-wise, if that "breaks" the game for you ... then either modify those rules that allow this in the first place (not a bad idea, honestly), OR find a new system. Really, it's a polarized things as I see it. Either the system "works" for what you want it to do, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then see House Rules, but 'round these parts "them's fightin' words" more often than not from what I can tell.
GM info-wise, it's a case of NEEDING to know AND EXPLOIT the weaknesses of the build. That reach/NON-threatening breakdown above, for example. Since trip-locking is NOT possible (RAW anyway, and clearly made this way in PF), then make enemies that can avoid AoO (Spring Attack is a good way, hell, even Mobility grants a +4 to AC for AoO's). Plus, play to odds - chances are, if overwhelmed, reach-monkey-McFighty WILL run out of either AoO's if enough targets decide to pig-pile on him (hello, "aid another" maneuver btw!). So, victory through attrition. If that fails ... there is NOTHING about an AoO that guarantee's a strike. it's a roll, just like any other (which means you *can* miss an AoO) - again. play the percentages and eventually he WILL miss the AoO and take a charge on the chin w/Vital Strike to ride it out.
So, "GM's got to balance the encounter around X character's abilities" is not a very strong argument. GM's *should* be balancing EVERY encounter around the entire PARTY'S abilities. So ... no - that's a "fail" answer in my book. Cookie-cutter adventures can't account for every situation and circumstances. GM's ... dedicated ones anyway *can* and *should* do so to provide his/her players with the best challenges and experiences possible. If one move, power, spell, or whatever "breaks" the game then there's as likely to be something wrong w/the GM as there is the build, IMO.
But hey - I'm "old school" and don't expect Adventure Paths and designers to anticipate every possible need of my various groups. I'm not afraid to whip up something on the fly, or to bring the challenge to the group, as they step up their competency as characters within the game world. ;-)
{again - let me reiterate I'm NOT attacking anyone here - or trying to. Just stating my take on GM issues really and the role of a GM in general.)
|
|
*Snip*
Meh, I found the best solution was just to use the Monkey Grip straight out of RAW and not houserule it. I'm just warning you that you open the door to some really broken stuff if you give it extra reach. It's ultimately a matter of your players; mine are huge optimizers, and so I generally don't increase the power of feats as it is (especially ones that I feel should be underpowered). It shouldn't be as broken in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5 since trip-locking is apparently gone now (yay!) and the Spike Chain is no longer a reach weapon that can attack adjacent squares (that was what really set the combo over the edge). I suppose such a build would be far more balanced now than it was then. Still, due to personal opinion about oversized weapons which I have gone into abundant detail about, I don't like powering up Monkey Grip.
My personal problem with tailoring every encounter to play to the weaknesses of my reach monkey's build was that it felt contrived and somewhat ridiculous that every bad guy in the world was completely ready to neutralize his favorable aspects. Personally, I don't like having to throw away entire types of encounters (melee boss fights, melee fights with less than 4 enemies in general) just because one player found some way to dominate them. But, this is more of a DMing style debate than anything else; we're derailing the thread at this point.
Does an ogre wielding a large greatsword have any more reach than if they are just making unarmed strikes?
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
If your players want a fantastic game like that you should let them have it, and everything that goes along with it...Those heroes didn't fight little monsters, they fought mythical beings that easily killed lesser men...Let them have their 25pt build, heck let them have a 30 point build, but throw Ogres at them at first level, dragons by fifth, etc etc etc. Or just set them at a 20th level, and make the story the focus and let them know that advancement will be non-existent, so choose wisely!
Just my 2 coppers
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
If your players want a fantastic game like that you should let them have it, and everything that goes along with it...Those heroes didn't fight little monsters, they fought mythical beings that easily killed lesser men...Let them have their 25pt build, heck let them have a 30 point build, but throw Ogres at them at first level, dragons by fifth, etc etc etc. Or just set them at a 20th level, and make the story the focus and let them know that advancement will be non-existent, so choose wisely!
Just my 2 coppers
Well now, that has more to do with what makes a hero both mythically and historically, and believe me that's a post longer then anything else in this thread, so we'll let that lie ;p
Unless people REALLY want me to share.
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
If your players want a fantastic game like that you should let them have it, and everything that goes along with it...Those heroes didn't fight little monsters, they fought mythical beings that easily killed lesser men...Let them have their 25pt build, heck let them have a 30 point build, but throw Ogres at them at first level, dragons by fifth, etc etc etc. Or just set them at a 20th level, and make the story the focus and let them know that advancement will be non-existent, so choose wisely!
Just my 2 coppers
Well the thing is your talking like monkey grip is powerful, which as is it is horrificly under-powered. Its like, "Hey GM, I want to take this feat that gives my spells nifty light effects that do nothing but look nice, but I take a -1 to their save DCs.
Ive personally never liked the thematics of moneky grip, but i understand why some think it mechanically inferior to Power attack but lets use this scenario.
level 6 fighter, has Monkey Grip, Power attack, furious Focus, vital Strike.
Party Wizard now Enlarges him and he is hiting for 8d8 20?
Seems pretty on the strong side.
So, you're OK with a Fighter falling from 300 feet and taking 70 damage on average ? Meaning that a Fighter from level 10+ will just walk away from that ? Because that's basic realism, you know. ;-)
>.< It may just be a game, but it's not a board game. It's a game where it's important to be able to immerse yourself in the setting and your character. I can't do that if basic realism is thrown to the wind. Play your games the way you like, but I want it known why I feel the way I feel.Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean basic physics should be ignored. I know, I know... the rules don't say you can't swing a 15 foot long sword, right? ;-)
There's not caring about reality and there's taking suspension of disbelief to ridiculously inane heights.
No I'm not and I never said that. :-p
I've actually said in other threads that I dislike that aspect of hitpoints. If I'm running a game and a Fighter falls 300 feet and survives he's probably going to have a broken leg or two. He survived because he's experienced and tougher (mostly it's because as an experienced adventurer he knows how best to land to avoid instant death or grabbed onto a cliff face or other things to help lessen the impact) Is that in the rules? Nope, but it makes sense. Likewise I wouldn't allow someone to take a 2 round swim in a river of lava and come out just fine because it "only" deals 20d6 hit points a round. I actually had a player try that in one of my games.... he was trying to prove how tough he was. He was very upset when I told him his character sunk beneath the lava and was never heard from again.
Yeah, you have a point. Human flesh just should not be that tough. If you go swimming in lava with out magic protection, you should be dead period, no matter how tough you are.
Ive personally never liked the thematics of moneky grip, but i understand why some think it mechanically inferior to Power attack but lets use this scenario.
level 6 fighter, has Monkey Grip, Power attack, furious Focus, vital Strike.
Party Wizard now Enlarges him and he is hiting for 8d8 20?
Seems pretty on the strong side.
Spells are spells. It is not their capability to cast themselves. A fighter can be the toughest, meanest thing, and deadly of characters if the casters specialized in buff spells and used them on the fighter. However that becomes a a delusion of their actual capability, specially when you don't list the minuses, because with monkey grip furious focus does nothing so that is still -2 to hit, and charging still grants a -2 to hit.
Yeah, you have a point. Human flesh just should not be that tough. If you go swimming in lava with out magic protection, you should be dead period, no matter how tough you are.So, you're OK with a Fighter falling from 300 feet and taking 70 damage on average ? Meaning that a Fighter from level 10+ will just walk away from that ? Because that's basic realism, you know. ;-)
>.< It may just be a game, but it's not a board game. It's a game where it's important to be able to immerse yourself in the setting and your character. I can't do that if basic realism is thrown to the wind. Play your games the way you like, but I want it known why I feel the way I feel.Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean basic physics should be ignored. I know, I know... the rules don't say you can't swing a 15 foot long sword, right? ;-)
There's not caring about reality and there's taking suspension of disbelief to ridiculously inane heights.
No I'm not and I never said that. :-p
I've actually said in other threads that I dislike that aspect of hitpoints. If I'm running a game and a Fighter falls 300 feet and survives he's probably going to have a broken leg or two. He survived because he's experienced and tougher (mostly it's because as an experienced adventurer he knows how best to land to avoid instant death or grabbed onto a cliff face or other things to help lessen the impact) Is that in the rules? Nope, but it makes sense. Likewise I wouldn't allow someone to take a 2 round swim in a river of lava and come out just fine because it "only" deals 20d6 hit points a round. I actually had a player try that in one of my games.... he was trying to prove how tough he was. He was very upset when I told him his character sunk beneath the lava and was never heard from again.
I would've had him get stuck in the lava when he tried to get out. :)
|
Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean basic physics should be ignored. I know, I know... the rules don't say you can't swing a 15 foot long sword, right? ;-)
There's not caring about reality and there's taking suspension of disbelief to ridiculously inane heights.
Unless the campaign setting specifically ignores basic physics.
Unless the campaign setting specifically ignores basic physics.
Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean basic physics should be ignored. I know, I know... the rules don't say you can't swing a 15 foot long sword, right? ;-)
There's not caring about reality and there's taking suspension of disbelief to ridiculously inane heights.
Wait ... just the "campaign" now?
"Well shoot, boys! There goes casting!! Right out the dang winda',too ..."
;-)
Unless the campaign setting specifically ignores basic physics.
Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean basic physics should be ignored. I know, I know... the rules don't say you can't swing a 15 foot long sword, right? ;-)
There's not caring about reality and there's taking suspension of disbelief to ridiculously inane heights.
If the DM wants to make that announcement before game starts, that's fine. Personally I think that's opening up a can of worms he or she does not want to open unless he or she wants his or her players running roughshod all over them. I would never do that personally.
Unless the campaign setting specifically ignores basic physics.Wait ... just the "campaign" now?
"Well shoot, boys! There goes casting!! Right out the dang winda',too ..."
;-)
There's that argument again. I know you likely meant this as tongue-in-cheek but it's an argument many people have used and it drives me up the wall.
Yes, casters can break the laws of physics, but by the rules they are allowed to do so in specific ways that each spell allows. If they try to break the laws of physics in ways the spell doesn't do, the DM has every right to say "no".
PC: "I use Magic Missile to fly over the chasm. It's magic so I should be able to use it to break the laws of physics. The folks on the Paizo boards said so"!
DM: "Uh... no".
Non-casters don't have the ability to break said laws of physics without the aid of magic items and even then they are limited to what the magic items are capable of doing. Allowing the Fighter (for example) to completely ignore his surroundings and fight normally even when those surroundings should at the very least give him a penalty if not prevent him from fighting at all is allowing them to do something not even a Wizard can accomplish. If you want them to have the class ability "ignore physics", that's fine, but you should make it known to the entire group beforehand that you're planning on making such allowances for certain players.
