Yay, another "GTFO my game!" post. Lovely.
Hm, Personally I find evrybody complaining incessantly to more correspond to that attitude. Like I said, expressing your opinion is fine. Paizo is well aware of differing opinions. Yet people persist, AS IF THEY COULD FORCE PAIZO TO CHANGE. Personally, I have no problem if you play with 3.5 VoP and the rest of PRPG. I personally don´t have such strong fixations that I would refuse to play in a game depending on such rules minutae, I play based on story, fun, etc. Anyhow, I think I´ve shared my opinion here, so all can return to the same small group of people whose echo chamber must seem like it´s important and broadly representative of something.
Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.
Actually, I'd take up about four pages of the book and as an optional rules system, that'd be totally fine. If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.
Oh, what, you mean the best part of Ultimate Magic?
Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.Actually, I'd take up about four pages of the book and as an optional rules system, that'd be totally fine. If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.
I think it'd take a whole lot more than four pages. It'd take messing about wiht Monster CR's, adjusting spells, complete rewrites of most classes. Alternate reward systems, etc. etc.
Sure, doing it is easy. Doing it so that it's a viable method of play is not.
Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.Actually, I'd take up about four pages of the book and as an optional rules system, that'd be totally fine. If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.I think it'd take a whole lot more than four pages. It'd take messing about wiht Monster CR's, adjusting spells, complete rewrites of most classes. Alternate reward systems, etc. etc.
Sure, doing it is easy. Doing it so that it's a viable method of play is not.
Uh, no. What is needed is a.) a table which shows the new alternate bonuses, b.) an adjusted WBL table and c.) fluff. The Vow of Poverty from BoED took up two pages. With artwork.
Yet another concept study. A monk 12 duelist 8 with absolutely no magic equipment or allied buffs at level 20.
- AC 29; can combat expertise +5, fight defensively +5, ki dodge +4 for 43 AC
- piercing flurry +26/+26/(+26)/+21/+21/+16/+11 (2d6+8 20/x2)
- greater trip flurry +30/+30/(+30)/+25/+25/+20/+15
- several maneuvers (greater trip, improved grapple, steal and dirty trick)
** spoiler omitted **...
May I ask, sir, how the AC43 +26(with 3 more +26 and 4 iterative attacks) stacks up against a monk with the, as it is so collectively dubbed "Christmas tree monk" geared with appropriate WBL "ornaments?
I ask because I'm curious to see the math breakdown, with all the Ornaments, what would I get if I was strict to WBL?
Certainly, my good man:
- +3 attack
- +3 damage
- +3 AC
- +60hp
- +3 reflex
- +3 fortitude
- skills increase
headband of mental prowess +6 (90,000)
- +6 AC
- +3 will
- ki points increase
- skills increase
- keyed skills
bracers of armor +8 (64,000)
- +8 AC
ring of protction +5 (50,000)
- +5 AC
amulet of mighty fists +5 (125,000)
- +5 attack
- +5 damage
cloak of resistance +5 (25,000)
- +5 fortitude
- +5 reflex
- +5 will
pale green ioun stone (30,000)
- +1 attack
- +1 saves
- skills increase
dusty rose ioun stone (5,000)
- +1 AC
manual of dexterity +4 (110,000)
- +2 attack
- +2 reflex
- +2 AC
tome of wisdom +4 (110,000)
- +2 AC
- +2 will
- ki points increase
manual of strength +2 (55,000)
- +1 damage
carpet of flying (5x5ft) (20,000)
slippers of spider climbing (4,800)Summary: 832,800 of 880,000 spent
- attack +11
- damage +9
- reflex +11
- will +11
- fortitude +9
- hp +60
- AC +27
On Mistee Thousantkuts that equates to
- AC 56; can combat expertise +5, fight defensively +5, ki dodge +4 for 70 AC
- piercing flurry +37/+37/(+37)/+32/+32/+27/+22 (2d6+17 20/x2)
- greater trip flurry +41/+41/(+41)/+36/+36/+31/+26
- Fort +21; Reflex +31; Will +25
belt of perfection +6 (144,000)
Uh, no. What is needed is a.) a table which shows the new alternate bonuses, b.) an adjusted WBL table and c.) fluff. The Vow of Poverty from BoED took up two pages. With artwork.Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.Actually, I'd take up about four pages of the book and as an optional rules system, that'd be totally fine. If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.I think it'd take a whole lot more than four pages. It'd take messing about wiht Monster CR's, adjusting spells, complete rewrites of most classes. Alternate reward systems, etc. etc.
Sure, doing it is easy. Doing it so that it's a viable method of play is not.
Then get to work. Go for it. You have apparently already done the work and merely need incentive to go write both table. You can even skip the fluff. You've written more in your posts here than in your proposed system so it can't be beyond you. :P
Cartigan's talking about an entirely low magic campaign. Not an optional idea for one player.
|
Yay, another "GTFO my game!" post. Lovely.
Personally, I'd love it if you'd just come play my game with me, ostensibly using one of the 2 bajillion builds that are available. If gearless monk is the only thing that can bring you joy, I honestly don't know what to say about that, other than that I'm sorry (and I mean that sincerely).
Uh, no. What is needed is a.) a table which shows the new alternate bonuses, b.) an adjusted WBL table and c.) fluff. The Vow of Poverty from BoED took up two pages. With artwork.Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.Actually, I'd take up about four pages of the book and as an optional rules system, that'd be totally fine. If we can get mostly useless pages about pre-written spellbooks in Ultimate Magic, there should be space for something like this, too.I think it'd take a whole lot more than four pages. It'd take messing about wiht Monster CR's, adjusting spells, complete rewrites of most classes. Alternate reward systems, etc. etc.
Sure, doing it is easy. Doing it so that it's a viable method of play is not.
Then do that yourself using the WBL table and the magical abilities that give you bonuses based on caster level.
That isn't a low-magic game, it's a "pretend the game is low-magic by giving non-casters inherent bonuses every so often."
Since Carty and LT are probably heading us toward a Ross/Liz intervention and thread lock, let me see if I can redirect their lively, if not entirely gentlemanly, debate.
I think almost everyone agrees that both D&D and PF were specifically designed to support a wide variety of playstyles. I think, that, with considerable GM discretion in the area of houserules and rule interpretations, they arguably both succeed in that design goal.
That said, combat has always been a huge part of the D&D/PF experience for most, but not all, groups. I do think that combat has become progressively more important/dominant through the editions, but not to the point that any individual GM/group can't buck the trend and play differently if they would like to.
What I have seen, in this thread and many others, is a loud outcry from what is at least a sizable minority of players against magic item dependence/power creep/high magic assumption/perceived superiority of pure caster classes (I realize these are all different things, but I see them as related). There also seems to be a corresponding desire for official Paizo products that will provide options for these people.
Now, I'm not a professional game designer, but if I were, I think I would take this as a challenge and as an opportunity to produce products that there seems to be at least some market for. Now, of course this could all be sloughed off to third party developers, and many of those already have taken this task on and produced some admirable games/optional rulesets. I would take it as a compliment that people are still clamoring for the "Paizo treatment" on these issues. It shows brand loyalty and trust in the quality of your products, which I would not see as bad things if I had a purple golem next to my name.
I hope that gives James, Sean and the rest of the gang something to think about.
Ultimate Combat isn't really the place to have that discussion either. A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them. Ultimate Combat should be dedicated to improving the capability for mundane characters to compete with magical characters. A book, or significant section of one, would have to be dedicated to the conversion of Pathfinder to a low-magic system.
Imo Cartigan is correct. You would need a complete book of alternative systems / ideas. An "Ultimate Options" book that would provide ways to alter the core game to achieve different types of campaign. Nicely put in your posts above this btw Cartigan. Saved me all kinds of time replying to other posts :D
Then get to work. Go for it. You have apparently already done the work and merely need incentive to go write both table. You can even skip the fluff. You've written more in your posts here than in your proposed system so it can't be beyond you. :PCartigan's talking about an entirely low magic campaign. Not an optional idea for one player.
What I'd like is official Paizo support for an alternative optional system. Wow. With the reactions some people are having, it's like I am asking for the core game to be changed completely.
Personally, I'd love it if you'd just come play my game with me, ostensibly using one of the 2 bajillion builds that are available. If gearless monk is the only thing that can bring you joy, I honestly don't know what to say about that, other than that I'm sorry (and I mean that sincerely).
And another misrepresentation. It's as if the side who apparently hates the idea of such an alternate system even being offered cannot deal in other means but hyperbole and ridicule.
|
|
And another misrepresentation. It's as if the side who apparently hates the idea of such an alternate system even being offered cannot deal in other means but hyperbole and ridicule.
No, I've been very up-front with what my opinion is, and I'm not using hyperbole at all, nor am I ridiculing you. I don't want the developers that are integral to continued release of mainstream PF products to divert their time - any amount of time, really - into optional rules systems for niche character concepts. I wasn't really overjoyed about Words of Power for the exact same reason (it was the lowlight of UM for me, and I haven't really looked at it, although it may be very well designed). No ridicule, no hyperbole. I just hope they don't spend time on this concept, because it's so very limited in application and demand.
Likewise, because I know it's something that you're interested in, I'm apologizing for my opinion, because it marginalizes your opinion. No ridicule, no hyperbole.
No, I've been very up-front with what my opinion is, and I'm not using hyperbole at all, nor am I ridiculing you. I don't want the developers that are integral to continued release of mainstream PF products to divert their time - any amount of time, really - into optional rules systems for niche character concepts. I wasn't really overjoyed about Words of Power for the exact same reason (it was the lowlight of UM for me, and I haven't really looked at it, although it may be very well designed). No ridicule, no hyperbole. I just hope they don't spend time on this concept, because it's so very limited in application and demand.
Ah, okay. So it's a "I don't want feature X to get any attention, because it takes away from imaginary feature Y, which I am interested in." Okay, that's fine.
Likewise, because I know it's something that you're interested in, I'm apologizing for my opinion, because it marginalizes your opinion. No ridicule, no hyperbole.
Riiiiight.
|
|
Defensiveness
Look, man, I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not trying to leave this conversation with you thinking I'm a total a-hole (I surely don't think you are one), but you're making it tough.
Did you ever see that part in The Godfather where Vito, speaking to Salozzo, says, "[...]good luck to you -- as best as your interests don't conflict with my interests"? That's all that's going on here. Developer attention paid to gearless monks takes away from developer attention paid to anything else, which I would by default have more interest in than gearless monks, which seem to me to be out of the genre of D&D. Honestly, monks as they are seem out of the genre to me. It's my opinion. I think they're kind of dumb. You don't, which I can respect. But it doesn't change my opinion.
I guess I don't understand why there can be pages of ranting about the need for rules supporting gearless monks, and I come by and say "I hope that concept isn't supported", give my reasons, and it's somehow different.
To me, "Ultimate Magic", the term, implies an in-depth exploration of magic and a wide range of options in the campaign, not just the tightly focused option of more magic/items.
Using the magic book to cover low-magic rules still makes no sense to me.
It belongs in campaign advice.
|
As far as I can see there are 2 schools of thought. Correct me if I'm wrong.
One: That characters should have a certain power level on their own, with no help and no party and if this requires a bit of special rules or effects so be it. This is the side that generally believes vow of poverty is worthless. (Am I correct in this assumption?)
Two: That poverty is meant to be a bad thing and if that penalizes a character, oh well, its meant to be a concept and its meant to be a penalty. (Am I correct here as well?)
I tend to agree with Mikaze on most of his stuff here, but there is actually a 3rd school of thought that wishes this would either move to a more relevant thread or that Paizo would change the name to "stupid S#&* about the Vow of Poverty and Unrelated at all to Ultimate Magic Past Page One or So".
DefensivenessLook, man, I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not trying to leave this conversation with you thinking I'm a total a-hole (I surely don't think you are one), but you're making it tough.
Did you ever see that part in The Godfather where Vito, speaking to Salozzo, says, "[...]good luck to you -- as best as your interests don't conflict with my interests"? That's all that's going on here. Developer attention paid to gearless monks takes away from developer attention paid to anything else, which I would by default have more interest in than gearless monks, which seem to me to be out of the genre of D&D. Honestly, monks as they are seem out of the genre to me. It's my opinion. I think they're kind of dumb. You don't, which I can respect. But it doesn't change my opinion.
I guess I don't understand why there can be pages of ranting about the need for rules supporting gearless monks, and I come by and say "I hope that concept isn't supported", give my reasons, and it's somehow different.
No, it's fine. I've been quite tense the last days, so it's probably me just being grumpy.
"low magic items" is not the same as "low magic". Conan is an example. It's got Armagedon level magic, but doesn't suffer from the Christmas tree effect.To me, "Ultimate Magic", the term, implies an in-depth exploration of magic and a wide range of options in the campaign, not just the tightly focused option of more magic/items.Using the magic book to cover low-magic rules still makes no sense to me.
It belongs in campaign advice.
Is Conan a series based on D&D level progression and system balance?
For those who don't know, Conan was created before DnD was - making it impossible to base Conan on DnD.Is Conan a series based on D&D level progression and system balance?"low magic items" is not the same as "low magic". Conan is an example. It's got Armagedon level magic, but doesn't suffer from the Christmas tree effect.To me, "Ultimate Magic", the term, implies an in-depth exploration of magic and a wide range of options in the campaign, not just the tightly focused option of more magic/items.Using the magic book to cover low-magic rules still makes no sense to me.
It belongs in campaign advice.
For those following along at home, I was being sarcastic.
For those who don't know, Conan was created before DnD was - making it impossible to base Conan on DnD.
Is Conan a series based on D&D level progression and system balance?
No, D&D is a system that was specifically based on Conan. The inability of a system to create that which inspired it the most is not a "pro"
For those who don't know, Conan was created before DnD was - making it impossible to base Conan on DnD.Is Conan a series based on D&D level progression and system balance?No, D&D is a system that was specifically based on Conan. The inability of a system to create that which inspired it the most is not a "pro"
..So your claim is the system is based on Conan. SPECIFICALLY. Yet Gygax couldn't properly recreate Conan back with the original system? I am pretty sure that defeats your assertion by itself.
|
|
Add "The Original D&D" to your list of things that don't use the Christmas tree effect - which, of course, was introduced into D&D much, much later than the original D&D.
Yet, in one form or another, thousands upon thousands, and probably millions of people worldwide play it. I see at least...heck! 10 or so of those people here right now arguing about the "Christmas Tree Effect". It might not be as big a problem as you think it is. Just sayin'.
Then get to work. Go for it. You have apparently already done the work and merely need incentive to go write both table. You can even skip the fluff. You've written more in your posts here than in your proposed system so it can't be beyond you. :PCartigan's talking about an entirely low magic campaign. Not an optional idea for one player.
What I'd like is official Paizo support for an alternative optional system. Wow. With the reactions some people are having, it's like I am asking for the core game to be changed completely.
No, we're telling you that the system you proposed is neither as easy nor as quick as you make it seem to be. And if it is why haven't you done it yet? Obviously you know something we don't
Add "The Original D&D" to your list of things that don't use the Christmas tree effect - which, of course, was introduced into D&D much, much later than the original D&D.
Yet, in one form or another, thousands upon thousands, and probably millions of people worldwide play it. I see at least...heck! 10 or so of those people here right now arguing about the "Christmas Tree Effect". It might not be as big a problem as you think it is. Just sayin'.
It's a great marketing trick - filling crap bloat with magic items to grind for rather than do the harder task of coming up with novel, exciting, mind expanding content. I can't deny that some people will buy it.
All I'm saying is that many people don't like it and would like for their style of game to be supported as well.
You know I read statements like this than I go over all the third party publishers, independent game designers and free homebrews that are obscure, collecting dust, or are otherwise ignored and I die a little inside.
You're trying to pass it off as some hugely difficult problem. It's not. Conan d20, for example, didn't have the Christmas Tree effect. Unfortunately, due to licensing issues with the Howard estate, Conan d20 is no longer supported, but it was quite popular when it was.
Believe it or not I agree. But it doesn't take two pages like some are proposing.
Here's the thing. It's all very well and good if you think that feats/powers/abilities/etc. which reduce or eliminate gear dependence are outside genre, or too complicated, or whatever. I don't necessarily agree with the assessment, but it's not really wrong either. Whether having those kinds of mechanics in the first place is a good idea is a matter of opinion and play style.
But a mechanic was published. By it's very nature, a character option called Vow of Poverty which provides a benefit for forsaking equipment, purports to provide mechanical efficacy to the 'mystical ascetic warrior' concept.
Or, in other words: if the Pathfinder Dev. Team is justifying the accepted fact that VoP monks are considerably underpowered with the argument that ascetics/gearless adventurers should be ineffective...why did they make the mechanic in the first place?
Gearless characters are fine and well as long as everyone is like that. The game can be played without any of that magic stuff, but it requires DM to compensate. The only problem starts when you start mixing gearless characters with standard ones. VoP wasn't apparently developed as a fixture of this, it just gave a character or NPC monks something extra to play with if they decided to bring a knife into a gun fight.
Toward alternative options... Ultimate Options or Player Companion: Low Magic Heroes?
And perhaps:
Player Companion: Item Creation (please don't use this as an excuse for another fight)
Toward Words of Power - I think that the system is interesting and tries to catter to those who had problems with the Vancian magic (another mine I'd like you to avoid folks!) and could be playtesting idea for later use (biiiiig conspiracy here, not just an AP).
|
It's never stated that he did without those. But he DID rise to godhood on his own. That IS stated. He explicitly frowns on the Starstone gods for ascending with the help of a magical artifact. That IS stated.So you agree that nowhere in any text does it say that Irori was an ascetic, and/or that he never used magic items.
So that means you can't use him as an example of "a monk with no magic items," because I never said anywhere that he was such a thing.
No. I am not using him as an example of "monk with no magic items". I'm using him as an example of the concept that a martial type can be truly fantastic, rising to greatness(his apotheosis), without relying magic doodads or artifacts(like a Starstone).
That is a very desirable concept that a lot of people would like to be capable of playing with on a smaller scale.
What about the desire for ascetic characters that can work this way? Is that going to be dismissed by the developers as badwrongfun and not worth looking into?I never said that playing a monk like this is *wrong.* I did say that that sort of change is a major shift in the expected paradigm of the game, and affects more than monks, and hiding that in the small section on monks in UM wasn't the place to put such a thing.
Or are we just going to continue to be attacked for playing the game wrong and wanting to have badwrongfun?Nobody's telling you you're playing the game wrong. I'm saying the game isn't built to do that.
We've had a number of people in fact tell us that we're wrong for wanting to do it and have support for it in Pathfinder. And it's hard not to feel dismissed when complaints are met with a terse "Poverty sucks".
Is Paizo willing to give this concept a chance? Are there any developers on the team that are actually interested and open to making something available that makes a martial character that can stand on roughly equal ground with standard characters without relying on the work of casters?
It's hard to feel hopeful about that given what's been said. I just don't believe that it can't be done or that Paizo can't pull it off, after the BoED VoP at least came close to the concept. To say that it can't be done because the system isn't built for it when something could be built to support it... It's disheartening. On top of a full decade of frustration and disappointment with the class.
Sean, no where does it outright say that Irori was an ascetic, but it's lines like this that strongly, strongly, imply it:A lot of what I write about the gods is deliberately left vague and open to interpretation (cf. Erastil being sexist), just like Earth religions. That way, different GMs can have different interpretations of godly philosophies and develop interesting things for their campaigns (and you can have different countries in the same GM's campaign interpret these things in different ways,...
And ascetic is what Irori screams in everything I've ever read about him.
What I have seen, in this thread and many others, is a loud outcry from what is at least a sizable minority of players against magic item dependence/power creep/high magic assumption/perceived superiority of pure caster classes (I realize these are all different things, but I see them as related). There also seems to be a corresponding desire for official Paizo products that will provide options for these people.
Now, I'm not a professional game designer, but if I were, I think I would take this as a challenge and as an opportunity to produce products that there seems to be at least some market for. Now, of course this could all be sloughed off to third party developers, and many of those already have taken this task on and produced some admirable games/optional rulesets. I would take it as a compliment that people are still clamoring for the "Paizo treatment" on these issues. It shows brand loyalty and trust in the quality of your products, which I would not see as bad things if I had a purple golem next to my name.
I hope that gives James, Sean and the rest of the gang something to think about.
I dearly wish Paizo would take this on.
It's well and good to say "just houserule it" and GM's can do that fine. That's less feasible for players.
Gearless characters are fine and well as long as everyone is like that. The game can be played without any of that magic stuff, but it requires DM to compensate. The only problem starts when you start mixing gearless characters with standard ones.
Why?
Why is it so bad for an adventurer whose strength is bolstered by magical gear and an adventurer whose strength is bolstered by strict asceticism and greater oneness with the universe to be on roughly equal ground? In a fantasy setting no less.
VoP wasn't apparently developed as a fixture of this, it just gave a character or NPC monks something extra to play with if they decided to bring a knife into a gun fight.
And BoED VoP came much closer to that mark. It laid groundwork that could be improved upon. So why is it being written off as unworkable?
"I want no gear on my monk" is a viewpoint that's held by only a subset of Monk players, which are themselves only a subset of D&D players. In my understanding of the economies of scale in the RPG industry, a rules subsystem for gearless characters sounds like exactly the sort of thing that a 3PP would handle. Maybe they're the ones to ask. Maybe continually prodding SKR isn't...
As long as we're playing "majority rules, damn the rest", I wonder which is more numerous: Those that wanted the UM VoP or those that wanted something closer to the spirit of the BoED VoP, but more refined?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, we're telling you that the system you proposed is neither as easy nor as quick as you make it seem to be. And if it is why haven't you done it yet? Obviously you know something we don't
I have done it as a houserule. Took me about four hours. I want it as an official alternative rule.
No, we're telling you that the system you proposed is neither as easy nor as quick as you make it seem to be. And if it is why haven't you done it yet? Obviously you know something we don'tI have done it as a houserule. Took me about four hours. I want it as an official alternative rule.
Well, the good thing is that Paizo is known for listening to its fans. :)
Scroll up a bit ;)
I can see both parties as equally right actually. On one side you have people who'd like to play characters who are mechanically not too hindered for playing a concept. On the other you have people who see the vow as a sacrifice and by saying "I give away power from items, now give me my power back!" You haven't sacrificed anything at all really (which is why I'd have preferred if it gave you some other powers perhaps).
The VoP should have really be written differently IMO, so that it doesn't disrupt the tools of trade. It should have given you a tight budget on your items but otherwise required you not to utilise or own any wealth and not willingly taking consumables and given other limits to your behavior perhaps, but not making you drop everything. That vow should have been really more in line with the others in terms and scale of sacrifice. If anything I wonder what was RAI of this thing really.
BoED VoP was meant to do what you want from VoP now, but current VoP is entirely different option under the same name, which is IMO meant to be just another RP choice and not an item replacement. For a replacement you'd really need to tweak basic mechanics heavily.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again: if it's intended to be 'just an RP choice', then why have a mechanic at all? Any character is capable of refusing to use items, deliberately crippling themselves in the process. Once you've decided to make an actual mechanic, though, you've effectively already decided to support the mechanical efficacy of the concept, which UM Vow of Poverty fails to do.
Incidentally, as regards the complexities of the mechanics, I whipped this Vow of Poverty up in about two minutes: The character maintains a simple and ascetic lifestyle; he wears plain, simple clothing, and carries with him little more than the clothes on his back, a bowl and/or cup for food, water, and begging, and perhaps a Simple weapon. He must take a fair portion of any adventuring loot and donate it to the church/his monastery/assorted other good causes. In return, at every level up, he gets to spend 'virtual WBL' equal to (or, if you prefer, slightly under, say 85-90%) standard WBL for his character level, filling virtual item slots with virtual items, and enhancing his unarmed strike or simple weapon as if it was a masterwork manufactured weapon.
Simple, straightforward, and it seems relatively well-balanced to me. Not perfect, I'm sure, but I'm not a professional RPG designer, and I whipped it up quickly. I can't imagine it would take that much tweaking to turn that into a mechanic that could slot easily into any Pathfinder game willing to have ascetic characters in the first place.
Being gearless isn't suppossed to be crippling, it's suppopssed to just be an altrnative character concept.Of all the classes, the monk is pretty much the least gear dependent.
Actually this is a misconception. Monks need quite a bit of gear to get anywhere near on par with other classes.
If you want a non gear dependent class that title would likely go to the SUmmoner or Sorcerer.
No. I am not using him as an example of "monk with no magic items". I'm using him as an example of the concept that a martial type can be truly fantastic, rising to greatness(his apotheosis), without relying magic doodads or artifacts(like a Starstone).That is a very desirable concept that a lot of people would like to be capable of playing with on a smaller scale.
"A lot" is seriously overestimating the number of people remotely interested in such a method of play. Forum goers are a small subset of players. People who go to forums who play Monks are an even smaller subset. And smaller still are those Monk players who want to be superawesome outside the way the game is designed to be played.
No, we're telling you that the system you proposed is neither as easy nor as quick as you make it seem to be. And if it is why haven't you done it yet? Obviously you know something we don'tI have done it as a houserule. Took me about four hours. I want it as an official alternative rule.
Then you must have it written down somewhere. The Suggestions/House Rules/whatever the other thing is boards are right over there. Please grace Paizo and the rest of us forum goers with your great revelation in COMPLETELY changing the way the system works with PERFECT BALANCE by way of a few simple adjustments.
Being gearless isn't suppossed to be crippling, it's suppopssed to just be an altrnative character concept.
Which is an absurd assertion in a game that is balanced around characters with powers granted by gear in the upper end.
Of course, I imagine the vast majority of the "We want to play bare-knuckled brawler the RPG" also want to play "E6" despite their haughty referrals to characters from back story being able to achieve godhood solely with a walking stick and a mantra.