What? you're putting Role-Playing in my RPG? :)
There are Gamers that believe that role-playing options are not needed as crunch material in a games product, they're only interest is in new rules in how to "win" i.e. take down the opposition. Frequently they believe that non-optimizers are people that refuse to play the game properly and will dismiss their concerns, (and if possible dismiss them from their tables.)
So, wait, then that means - Charlie Sheen is an optimizer!?!? :O
The non-optimizer/optimizer rift is making a lot more sense now...
:)
|
I think the bardic masterpieces are great. What's the cost of giving up a spell-known? Human bards, at least, can favored-class to make-up for the cost. So to me the cost of a bardic masterpiece comes down to "do I want to use one of my level-up favored class bonuses to get a masterpiece?" The answer is an emphatic yes.
Using the most OP racial variant ever (19 free feats worth) to allow you to grab a substandard ability for flavor, just is not balance. Make no doubt that the idea and flavor behind masterpieces is great, the execution is simply not well done.
There are a lot of things that UM does well, for example the magus, dirge bards, sound striker bards, etc. Criticizing a particular aspect of an idea or execution thereof does not mean you dislike the entire idea.
|
|
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.
So much this.
It's flavor people.
Because your game has turned into min/max munchkin where people all want to "win" the world you are making up, doesn't mean that is the only way to play.
And even if it were, when you consider all the new monk options are ki based, and the vow increases your ki more than any other vow...
It is a really cool concept, that might (gasp) be a challenge to play.
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling.
But it already is. If a PC, even a martial combat PC, is reasonably close to the wealth by level benchmarks, what proportion of his combat ability is determined by gear? His magic sword's bonus is probably lower than his BAB. His magic boost to strength is probably lower than his own inherent strength. The game is still more about the character's abilities than his magic gear.
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling.But it already is. If a PC, even a martial combat PC, is reasonably close to the wealth by level benchmarks, what proportion of his combat ability is determined by gear? His magic sword's bonus is probably lower than his BAB. His magic boost to strength is probably lower than his own inherent strength. The game is still more about the character's abilities than his magic gear.
Hmm, that is an interesting thought. Well lets look. Lets take
falchion Fred from the dpr olympics.Without his magic gear, his AC drops from 25 to 22, and his attack routine with his falchion goes from
+3 falchion +20/+15, 2d4+25 dmg (15-20/x2) and 59.25 damage per round to
Attack +15/+10 2d4+19 15-20/x2 and 29.64 damage per round.
That is a massive drop off in combat power dont you think? The items dont make up the bulk of the bonuses, but they make a big difference in how successful or not you are at your point of focus as a character.
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.So much this.
It's flavor people.
Because your game has turned into min/max munchkin where people all want to "win" the world you are making up, doesn't mean that is the only way to play.
And even if it were, when you consider all the new monk options are ki based, and the vow increases your ki more than any other vow...
It is a really cool concept, that might (gasp) be a challenge to play.
Its not Flavor when it is like this.
The VoP is about the same as taking Martial weapon Prof: War razor, or Exotic weapon prof: Butterfly knife.
Idiots try to make the argument that those feats are flavorful. The weapon they allow you to use are the same thing as a dagger. Guess what? When Being flavorful, I could have just say my dagger is a butterfly knife or a flip razor. Now in order to have that flavor of using a butterfly knife or flip razor, I've got to take useless mechanics just for flavor.
Flavor is non-mechanical. Mechanics are needed a bit to support the flavor sure, but VoP does NOT have the mechanics necessary to support a character with a VoP. Using pure flavor, we never needed a feat or class function in the first place to run a character with VoP in this form.
This is the equivalent of making a feat of "Flaming Red hair" that does nothing but give you flaming red hair. Sure there is flavor there, but guess what?
I could have said my character has flaming red hair before the feat even existed. THAT is what flavor is. Not making a bunch of mechanical functions that really do nothing but give "flavor."
Lets take something else for example. Vow of Chains. +1 ki per 3 levels. This is just a little bit behind VoP in terms of its benefits, but has a huge difference in its drawback. You take a -1ac/ab and -10 foot speed. Compare that to losing everything from VoP except one magic item slot. VoC is flavorful without being a kick to the crotch.
Another one is the Witch's hex "Smell Children". Very flavorful, but not totally stupid to take. You have sent, but it only works on children. Totally best for an evil campaign or villian, but a smart player could use it to his advantage to smell out a den or village nearby.
Why are we doing this again?
In what way was the OP not a cheap end run around a well-justified thread closure?
How confident are we that this thread won't end the exact same way? Really? That confident? Huh.
1) You're right that I was taking a cheap shot at a closed thread with the OP. I tried to kill this one. Over 100 posts later, it didn't work.
2) This thread, at least, doesn't seem to be filled with the ridiculous amount of insults and removed-posts that the other had. I'm confident that, so long as we keep the arguments arguments and not flame wars, this thread will survive for at least a while longer.
-The Beast
Its not Flavor when it is like this.The VoP is about the same as taking Martial weapon Prof: War razor, or Exotic weapon prof: Butterfly knife.
Idiots try to make the argument that those feats are flavorful. The weapon they allow you to use are the same thing as a dagger. Guess what? When Being flavorful, I could have just say my dagger is a butterfly knife or a flip razor. Now in order to have that flavor of using a butterfly knife or flip razor, I've got to take useless mechanics just for flavor.
Flavor is non-mechanical. Mechanics are needed a bit to support the flavor sure, but VoP does NOT have the mechanics necessary to support a character with a VoP. Using pure flavor, we never needed a feat or class function in the first place to run a character with VoP in this form.
This is the equivalent of making a feat of "Flaming Red hair" that does nothing but give you flaming red hair. Sure there is flavor there, but guess what?
I could have said my character has flaming red hair before the feat even existed. THAT is what flavor is. Not making a bunch of mechanical functions that really do nothing but give "flavor."
Lets take something else for example. Vow of Chains. +1 ki per 3 levels. This is just a little bit behind VoP in terms of its benefits, but has a huge difference in its drawback. You take a -1ac/ab and -10 foot speed. Compare that to losing everything from VoP except one magic item slot....
I... think that.. I love you.
I don't need rules to roleplay.
That means I also don't need rules to add in fluff.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
so darksun never existed? have my years spent running arround in athas wearing bone plates been a lie?
There are EXTENSIVE rules and options for fragile/primitive weapons and armor in Ultimate Combat.
I don't think that and the "no equipment" character are really the same thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it into this discussion, but in any event Ultimate Combat has lots of great stuff that will really bolster this style of play.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Why are we doing this again?
In what way was the OP not a cheap end run around a well-justified thread closure?
How confident are we that this thread won't end the exact same way? Really? That confident? Huh.
I can slam shut the thread at any time, and will do so when it gets too abusive and meta.
In the meantime, I think there is the spine of a very important rules philosophy discussion running through this, so it's staying, so long as people behave themselves and aren't dicks to one another.
... so long as people behave themselves and aren't dicks to one another.
Quoted for truth and what should be Rule 0.1 :)
|
|
Its not Flavor when it is like this.
The VoP is about the same as taking Martial weapon Prof: War razor, or Exotic weapon prof: Butterfly knife.
Idiots try to make the argument that those feats are flavorful. The weapon they allow you to use are the same thing as a dagger. Guess what? When Being flavorful, I could have just say my dagger is a butterfly knife or a flip razor. Now in order to have that flavor of using a butterfly knife or flip razor, I've got to take useless mechanics just for flavor.
Flavor is non-mechanical. Mechanics are needed a bit to support the flavor sure, but VoP does NOT have the mechanics necessary to support a character with a VoP. Using pure flavor, we never needed a feat or class function in the first place to run a character with VoP in this form.
This is the equivalent of making a feat of "Flaming Red hair" that does nothing but give you flaming red hair. Sure there is flavor there, but guess what?
I could have said my character has flaming red hair before the feat even existed. THAT is what flavor is. Not making a bunch of mechanical functions that really do nothing but give "flavor."
In a low magic campaign it's great.
If you GM isn't a Christmas tree GM, it's great.
At lower levels, it's great.
I am a 4th level Qingdong monk. WBL I would have 6000 gp if I didn't take VOP, but I did. However I can still have one item, which is probably one less than everyone else my class.
But I have two extra ki points, which could be a scorching ray once a day.
So I traded one magic item for a daily use of scorching ray.
Or, perhaps, I just poured all my WBL into one 6000 gp item...which isn't excluded by rule...in which case I'm even with everyone and get a scorching ray. Or two barkskin.
Ki points have value. This adds a Ki point every other level. That is valuable.
Not to mention, you are a value to the party if the party now gets more resources because you don't consume them...
The Gm doesn't have to be some ridiculous "Christmas tree GM". He could easily be running through exactly what a module gives you.
You can still end up having to consume resources. It doesn't prevent you from drinking potions, taking the clerics healing, or a number of other things.
And sure, a daily use of scorching ray is great.. and excuse me for this, but you did say christmas tree GM... If you DM is a 5 minute workday GM.
In otherwords, you go out, have one battle and reteat somewhere safe.
My summoner.. Well, we just got 2 late night ambushes, after a huge battle the day before. Since I'm level 3 and have no magic items.. yeah. Even our monk is drained of all his ki. The session ended between the first ambush and the second. So we don't know whats going to happen for the second ambush.
Or, perhaps, I just poured all my WBL into one 6000 gp item...which isn't excluded by rule...
Depends what your definition of "one item of some value" is. And doesn't it say it has to be like an heirloom item? (I may remember wrong) so wouldn't that be subject to if your DM bends over backwords to make sure in later game your great uncle had a 100,000k amulet of mighty fists?
|
|
The Gm doesn't have to be some ridiculous "Christmas tree GM". He could easily be running through exactly what a module gives you.
You can still end up having to consume resources. It doesn't prevent you from drinking potions, taking the clerics healing, or a number of other things.
And sure, a daily use of scorching ray is great.. and excuse me for this, but you did say christmas tree GM... If you DM is a 5 minute workday GM.
In otherwords, you go out, have one battle and reteat somewhere safe.
My summoner.. Well, we just got 2 late night ambushes, after a huge battle the day before. Since I'm level 3 and have no magic items.. yeah. Even our monk is drained of all his ki. The session ended between the first ambush and the second. So we don't know whats going to happen for the second ambush.
How did your summoner do during the late night ambushes considering the eidelon is off when you sleep?
On topic you didn't address my points.
At 4th level I trade 1 magic item for a daily use of something like scorching ray, giving up only slow fall. Or I can use those 2 ki points in other ways.
I still have one magic item in a 6000 gp capped game.
I would love to have me in my party in an AP or module, because now the loot is divided one less way, making all my team mates have that much more gold/items.
And in a low magic campaign, I'm doing great.
So how is this option not a useful utilization of .06 of a single book?
I would love to have me in my party in an AP or module, because now the loot is divided one less way, making all my team mates have that much more gold/items.
Not true, WBL is supposed to be followed regardless of whether you take your share or not, DM's are supposed to give less treasure in the next encounter if party members are going over.
WBL is NOT the amount of wealth your character has and is able to do what he wants with. It is the approximate value a character should be buffed with at their level, if one character refuses their buffs that doesn't increase the WBL chart for the other PC's.
|
|
I would love to have me in my party in an AP or module, because now the loot is divided one less way, making all my team mates have that much more gold/items.Not true, WBL is supposed to be followed regardless of whether you take your share or not, DM's are supposed to give less treasure in the next encounter if party members are going over.
WBL is NOT the amount of wealth your character has and is able to do what he wants with. It is the approximate value a character should be buffed with at their level, if one character refuses their buffs that doesn't increase the WBL chart for the other PC's.
You are moving the goalposts.
First you are saying a module has all of this stuff I can't take advantage of, now you are saying that the DM will remove stuff that would normally be available to punish others...
The fact is that this is a build that some people would enjoy playing, and that if it was in your party on an AP, more loot for everyone else is something that would make them more than welcome.
He is perfectly viable at low to medium levels, where most people play.
I say hurray for adding flavor without power creep.
|
The Gm doesn't have to be some ridiculous "Christmas tree GM". He could easily be running through exactly what a module gives you.
These are exactly the sort of situations where Vow of Poverty has problems.
We just finished the first book of an AP. The vast majority of treasure in the adventure was in a few really nice magic items. We split these up among the party based on who needs which items, and hopefully everyone winds up with a few items and a small amount of gold. In this last instance my character got a bit shorted because most of the items were more suitable for other party members.
If you have a character who has no use for items then that character gets shorted every time and everyone else winds up with more stuff. The gold is split evenly and the monk donates his share of the gold to charity. Without doing anything cheesy or power gamey the party winds up with something like 15-25% more treasure than normal.
The more assumptions or requirements you build into Vow of Poverty to work around this the more it affects the way the game as a whole is run. That's just outside the scope of what a single class feature or feat should be doing.
|
|
I would love to have me in my party in an AP or module, because now the loot is divided one less way, making all my team mates have that much more gold/items.Not true, WBL is supposed to be followed regardless of whether you take your share or not, DM's are supposed to give less treasure in the next encounter if party members are going over.
WBL is NOT the amount of wealth your character has and is able to do what he wants with. It is the approximate value a character should be buffed with at their level, if one character refuses their buffs that doesn't increase the WBL chart for the other PC's.
You are assuming GMs run their games based on the WBL tables or even know specifically how much wealth each particular character has.
Most of the groups I've been in the GM distribute whatever treasure the AP/ module has listed, or if they are running their own stuff they use the "Treasure Values per Encounter" table to assign treasure to an encounter.
i think the Vop monk is fine, the only thing is he'll be a little more reliatnt on inter party Bufing. Fully Buffed he'll be stronger because of the Extra chi So if those Extra party resources boosted their ability to give him bull strength or owls wisdom then it evens out nicely.
|
In that case you were left with nothing or the new UM feature which is still better than nothing, if not perfect, no?Errrm... what exactly prevents you from using the old VoP in your game? With UM you've received another option, but thats about it.Well in my games.. the Dm doesn't want anything 3.5 anymore
Not when it blocks the most likely entry point a proper, more balanced iteration of the original VoP concept had for Pathfinder.
Though Erik's words about Paizo watching this line of discussion does give some hope. :)
I'd wager this is exactly why people hunger for alternate rules that allow for a character that doesn't have magical items - they want a character that's defined by the character, not the items they carry.Now I am agreeing with Cirno for the second time in a week... this is setting a bad precedent. :-/
But he is completely right. Pathfinder should be a game of heroic characters... not heroic bling. And that is why people hunger for an alternative system, which still allows you to take on the monsters as written in the Bestiarys.
Personally, I think a median system would be an interesting idea. You would still need a Sword of Awesomeness and the Armor of Hefty Plating to shine as a hero... but by the design you wouldn't be needing the other four "Big Six" items ( Amulets of Natural Armor, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance and Stat Boosters ). That means that those bonuses should be given player characters simply by leveling up, i.e. getting tougher and more experienced. Convert Natural Armor bonuses to AC into "Competence Bonuses" and Deflection Bonuses into "Heroic Bonuses". Adjust the WBL to about 40% of what players get normally and you got a system where it looks like that the PC's experience is the source of their power. And it would be a hell of a lot easier to balance a VoP, even in the current form, with a system such as that.
Just an idea for a future book.
Hell, that alone would go a long way towards shifting the focus from gear to characters for all classes, and could certainly help monks, the guys who thematically often are their weapons, work more like they're typically envisioned.
Not to mention half-naked barbarians.
In that case you were left with nothing or the new UM feature which is still better than nothing, if not perfect, no?Errrm... what exactly prevents you from using the old VoP in your game? With UM you've received another option, but thats about it.Well in my games.. the Dm doesn't want anything 3.5 anymoreNot when it blocks the most likely entry point a proper, more balanced iteration of the original VoP concept had for Pathfinder.
Though Erik's words about Paizo watching this line of discussion does give some hope. :)
It doesn't block anything really. The option might not be named Wow of poverty, but it can appear anywhere. Personally I would prefer universal rule to deal with the lack of magic items through different means and apliable for all characters, not just monks.
I must agree with the poverty sucks argument, as all benefits it granted from any fiction I've encountered so far were along the line "I live a nice and colourful life because I can focus on living while you spoiled rich people are stuck in a golden cage!" and if ever it gave some poor monk the strength of will to overcome some difficulties, which often stemmed from his poverty in the first place. Current vow actually lends some additional inner strength, but that's about it. Poverty has never granted anything close to "I strangle a dragon/beat an army" power. That thing was usually a matter of rigorous training the character underwent while he was somewhere retreating from wordly affairs while the BBEG was burning his family estate or something, which in this game is represented by gaining levels. Occasionally such ascethe was actually questing for a legendary weapon to defeat his enemies, which could be THE one item BTW, but that would be about it for me.
I see VoP as an option for certain stories, but it's not really a solution for item-less game and honestly I don't think it should be.
If nothing else, Vow of Poverty did lead to this discussion, and the idea for a book which might just include rules for running magic-item-light games.
I suggest the name "Book of Heroes". And it should include rules for running magic-item-light games, as well as other scaling systems, such as a general magic-scaling system and technology-scaling systems. Concepts for high-fantasy and low-fantasy, gritty realism and anime-style high-flying adventure. Even Running pirate games on water, or airships in the sky. Maybe even planar adventures.
And, of course, rules for building heroes in these situations.
-The Beast
Yeah... I'm not really caring for the Ultimate Magic book at the moment. I was really excited for this books since I loved the APG- but, honestly there just isn't much here for me. A few points.
-I am playing an Arcane Duelist in Kingmaker, and honestly, I haven't really found anything that I'd like to take feat, trait, or option wise over any Core or APG stuff.
-I really don't play druids, but I got really excited when I heard that there was going to be a dragon shaman archetype. And then I saw it. In the words of my friend, "Where are the Dragons?" Seriously, this was one of the things I was most exited about in the book. What a disappointment.
-The Ranger Trapper seemed really cool in theory, but lets be honest, its garbage. I give up spell casting and the ability to use all kind of scrolls and wands in order to use some horrendous traps a few times a day? Why? Let's say I take a Fire Trap at 5th level, and decide to put up a few to defend the camp at night. I need to make them mechanical, and not magical, otherwise they will be useless by midnight. Since they are mechanical, I need to supply them each with an alchemist fire- 20g a pop. If I have a Wisdom of 14, I can make 4 of these traps. They each have a Perception, Disable Device, and Reflex DC of.... 12. And does a whopping 1d6 + 2 damage. For those of you keeping score at home this is considered a CR -2 trap. That's negative 2. And it's only that high because the average damage of 5.5 barely rounds up to 10, instead of 0. On the other hand, a straight Ranger, can cast a couple spells per day, heal his party members with wands of CLW, and for the low, low cost of 2g a pop, purchase as many bear traps as he wants (which are simply better than the starting fire trap in every single way). And this isn't to mention things like it needing 28 Alarm traps (which you will probably never have) to give you the same perimeter as a single casting of the Alarm spell.
-The Summoner Archetypes were another gripe with me. The Synthesist seems abuseable to me. And the Master Summoner didn't live up to my expectations. I was looking for an archetype that completely gave up the eidolon, and gave me cool options for the normal summons. Things like versatile augmentations (eg let me give my summon a +4 to dex instead of str), or extended durations (eg let me expend multiple summon SLAs to summon a single, lower level creature for 10min/level). Things like this is what I was expecting. Instead I get a weaker eidolon, and a few more summons per day. Lame.
-It's been beaten to death, but the VoP Monk is another disappointment.
-There also seems to be more errors than in previous books (from phantom spells to broken feats)
-That said, it's impossible to hate everything in the book. And some of it I am pleasantly surprised about. Most of the things I was looking forward to in this book were a let down, but Qinggong archetype actually has me looking at monks seriously, the Oracle Time Mystery is intriguing, the Witch options are solid, and the Cleric finally has some new toys.
You are moving the goalposts.
First you are saying a module has all of this stuff I can't take advantage of, now you are saying that the DM will remove stuff that would normally be available to punish others...
The fact is that this is a build that some people would enjoy playing, and that if it was in your party on an AP, more loot for everyone else is something that would make them more than welcome.
He is perfectly viable at low to medium levels, where most people play.
I say hurray for adding flavor without power creep.
Just to note I never mentioned AP's I was simply stating the way WBL was intended to work, using it the way you (and apparently others) want to use it means your greatest strength can be copied by a commoner. If a PC wants to give his treasure he can, taking VOP doesn't make the monk better at getting rid of his stuff then any other class.
And flavor is done by the players, not put in rule books.
Hell, that alone would go a long way towards shifting the focus from gear to characters for all classes, and could certainly help monks, the guys who thematically often are their weapons, work more like they're typically envisioned.Not to mention half-naked barbarians.
As was pointed out yesterday to me by my players, the idea still hits one snag, namely that now that PC's won't need four of the big six anymore, they'd invest all their money into arms and armor and still will leave the interesting magic items by the wayside. I asked them if giving them more money than 40% WBL would solve that, but they pointed out that this would just result in them buying those arms and armor a bit sooner.
Although that is another problem with how the magic item system works... the general idea that the power of the characters should mostly come out of themselves would still be addressed by the idea I proposed.
The Gm doesn't have to be some ridiculous "Christmas tree GM". He could easily be running through exactly what a module gives you.
You can still end up having to consume resources. It doesn't prevent you from drinking potions, taking the clerics healing, or a number of other things.
And sure, a daily use of scorching ray is great.. and excuse me for this, but you did say christmas tree GM... If you DM is a 5 minute workday GM.
In otherwords, you go out, have one battle and reteat somewhere safe.
My summoner.. Well, we just got 2 late night ambushes, after a huge battle the day before. Since I'm level 3 and have no magic items.. yeah. Even our monk is drained of all his ki. The session ended between the first ambush and the second. So we don't know whats going to happen for the second ambush.
How did your summoner do during the late night ambushes considering the eidelon is off when you sleep?
On topic you didn't address my points.
At 4th level I trade 1 magic item for a daily use of something like scorching ray, giving up only slow fall. Or I can use those 2 ki points in other ways.
I still have one magic item in a 6000 gp capped game.
I would love to have me in my party in an AP or module, because now the loot is divided one less way, making all my team mates have that much more gold/items.
And in a low magic campaign, I'm doing great.
So how is this option not a useful utilization of .06 of a single book?
My summoner flailed his arms around and then asked our fighter to beat up the monster. We still have one more ambush to run. And then we have to make sleep again.
Your 2 ki points would have been most likely used up by this point.
Currently you are basing the assumption that its great due to your initial starting game, which couldn't possibly be much more than a few days old.
This is like the truenamer from 3.5. Starts off really powerful looking and about levels 4-6 it takes a dive off the deep end.
I've actually ran through games, with characters who had basic junk for equipment. Such as my Nezumi necromancer(3.5 game), I'm armed with nothing more than a walking stick and robes and running in fairly low magic game (There is lots of magic, but its used on stupid stuff. Like flask of everbeer) at level 8. Even getting 2 uses of scorching ray.. totally not going to get him anywhere.
Like I said, we are not just looking at the first 3-4 levels and then saying "Hey it works here, totally good use" but the whole game as a whole.
And really, Like an MMO, there comes a time when greys won't cut it. Even in a low magic campaign. Course it will take a bit of time for it to hit you as a you are a high magic character in a low magic campaign. Archanists and Divinists have all the power in those types of campaigns.
|
|
Looking through the rest of the thread and others, I'm giving up on trying to explain that not everyone disappointed in the VoP is an optimizer/powergamer/"only looking to win the game". There's not going to be any progress there. They're going to believe what they want.
As long as Paizo generally realizes that isn't the case, I'm happy.
I must agree with the poverty sucks argument, as all benefits it granted from any fiction I've encountered so far were along the line "I live a nice and colourful life because I can focus on living while you spoiled rich people are stuck in a golden cage!" and if ever it gave some poor monk the strength of will to overcome some difficulties, which often stemmed from his poverty in the first place. Current vow actually lends some additional inner strength, but that's about it. Poverty has never granted anything close to "I strangle a dragon/beat an army" power. That thing was usually a matter of rigorous training the character underwent while he was somewhere retreating from wordly affairs while the BBEG was burning his family estate or something, which in this game is represented by gaining levels. Occasionally such ascethe was actually questing for a legendary weapon to defeat his enemies, which could be THE one item BTW, but that would be about it for me.
I see VoP as an option for certain stories, but it's not really a solution for item-less game and honestly I don't think it should be.
It's part of the whole ascetic package/image taken together. The guy forsakes the material and focuses on the spiritual, training and asceeticism and all. And I'm not asking to be able to strangle dragons and beat armies singlehandedly. I'm asking to be able to keep up with the party. And not feel like a burden or a comedically hapless sidekick.
And the thing is, the original VoP did serve a solution for that problem for some folks. It had problems, but the idea could have been refined, not abandoned.
As was pointed out yesterday to me by my players, the idea still hits one snag, namely that now that PC's won't need four of the big six anymore, they'd invest all their money into arms and armor and still will leave the interesting magic items by the wayside. I asked them if giving them more money than 40% WBL would solve that, but they pointed out that this would just result in them buying those arms and armor a bit sooner.
Although that is another problem with how the magic item system works... the general idea that the power of the characters should mostly come out of themselves would still be addressed by the idea I proposed.
Maybe some sort of magical equipment bonus cap proportional to the innate character bonuses/levels? Then again, that would require rebalancing damn near everything.
Did anybody consider that if you do have a suitable party (let's say it includes a wizard and cleric) then the buff-magic they can cast on the monk can take care of his item needs. Traditionally I don't wear bracers of armor on my monk anyway until about level 10 - rather use potions of mage armor. As long as you get a couple of bull strength, owl's wisdoms, (greater) magic weapon, and maybe some other things cast on you, then the VoP is without trouble. In exchange the loot due to the monk largely goes to his party members. I think they'll be happy with spending a couple of spell slots and consumables for a 25 to 30% increase in wealth.
The WBL would not be disrupted, if you consider the WBP (wealth by party) instead, which would be the same as before.
|
|
Did anybody consider that if you do have a suitable party (let's say it includes a wizard and cleric) then the buff-magic they can cast on the monk can take care of his item needs. Traditionally I don't wear bracers of armor on my monk anyway until about level 10 - rather use potions of mage armor. As long as you get a couple of bull strength, owl's wisdoms, (greater) magic weapon, and maybe some other things cast on you, then the VoP is without trouble. In exchange the loot due to the monk largely goes to his party members. I think they'll be happy with spending a couple of spell slots and consumables for a 25 to 30% increase in wealth.
The WBL would not be disrupted, if you consider the WBP (wealth by party) instead, which would be the same as before.
You can't replicate AC boosters and Cloak of Resistance. No magic weapons = any decent DR makes you cry at night. And your saves will be so crap that your party will lose any WBP/WBL/WTF gains due to having to bring you back from dead every other fight.
|
Wow ... I'd suggest some peeps put their UM in a dark box and never look at it again :)
I'm 100% with SKR on the Traps vs Spells thingy ...
Yes, a Wizard can buy / add 50 spells to add to their spell book, but it doesn't allow them to cast them all, they're still limited to their number of spells / day.
... and finger wigglers, especially the squishes lose out on Melee, defence due to armour / dodge feats, etc as they normally take Meta magic type feats to increase damage / range / duration, etc
Rangers (as the class in question in this case) get dodge, can wear armour, have unlimited ranged attacks (well, as long as they have ammo), can mix it up in melee and have on average twice as many HP as a squishy finger wiggler.
The feat to allow them to place a trap as a standard action is pretty awesome, but they must have spent a lot of time learning how to do this (hence a FEAT spent on it).
Or perhaps now, a Fighter when he buys an armour feat, should get every type of armour ??
The game as it is, is very well balanced, making a Ranger pay to learn a standard action trap setting won't throw it out of balance.
If you want to be a death bringing finger wiggling squishy who can buy more spells cheaply, then this is well and good -- just hope you don't find a rogue / assassin / ninja behind you with all your CMD negligible because you're casting ...
As a fairly experienced player and GM (if you can count only 32 years of playing DnD and most other RPG's as fairly experienced), I find that most players will pick what they WANT to play -- and if one of them as a ranger would like the Trap feat, they'll take it -- they won't spend hours arguing with the GM about "but wizards get x & x & x and I don't".
If they're envious of a wizard, they'll play one.
Honestly, as a GM, I like my players to have
1) FUN
2) Freedom to create a [1]character[/i] they will enjoy playing, with all the flaws and bonuses that come from the game system, and
3) The ability to take whatever feats / skills / traits within the rules which THEY would like to take
Instead of whinging like my 6 year old daughter about 2 or 3 rule changes / additions / deletions from the playtest, how about adding to the community by thinking how you could integrate even the things you DON'T necessarily agree with into your own game.
I'm looking forward to recieving my UM (I'm an Australian living in the UK, so my hard copy will arrive in between 7 and 34 more days - booo - but I'll grab the .pdf when it becomes available today).
Oh, and as a GM, you can add electric shock caltrops, pyschic ninja sharks or whatever else you think fits your game ...
If you are stressing this much about a few rules in a game, is it time to give up playing that game ??
Have Fun,
Noobie
Any decent DR already makes the monk cry. Fortunately he still has maneuvers that act on his full BAB and are beefed up with a nice greater magic weapon. That's 5 trip attempts at level 8 if necessary - even if the creature has impossible CMD, a 20 auto-succeeds so he's got a 40% chance to land a trip over two rounds. This increases to a 55% success rate in one round if he can trip on a 17 on his strong attacks.
There are other magical tricks that allow bypassing DR anyway, like versatile weapon which can be cast on the monks hands.
Saves are generally the least of the monks concerns, and protection from [alignment] grants +2 at least. Resistance a mere +1, but it still counts. Only at level 10 will the monk start being "behind" by a single +1; which given his phenomenal saves in general is pretty good.
By level 13 it would be +2 - but then the monk can also have his SR up all the time (other than buffing time) - which adds a whole layer of resistance that is pretty potent in its own right.
Saves vs poison and disease are mute anyway, since the monk is immune.
The monk has his very own barkskin now, that will max out to +5 at level 12 - which is Pretty Damn Great(tm).
Protection from [alignment] sorts out an additional +2 deflection bonus to AC, which is pretty fine.
If a wordcaster is in the group, a selected force armor will keep the monk ahead in the armor AC race.
Finally, he is allowed one "proper" item, so whatever he feels he really needs, he can have.
Yes, of course the monk will not be optimal, that is what Vow of Poverty means. But he'll be playable and can compete. Some of his AC or saves may be marginally behind what they could potentially be.
I stand by my statement: if the party is willing and able to provide buffs for the monk, then there is little problem.
Instead of whinging like my 6 year old daughter about 2 or 3 rule changes / additions / deletions from the playtest, how about adding to the community by thinking how you could integrate even the things you DON'T necessarily agree with into your own game.
Because I pay good money so other people do it for me, If I want to write an unbalanced book ill do it but I pay money instead because I want a semblance of balance, nothing crazy strong and nothing not worth taking because I paid money for both of those things and that's not what I intended to pay for.
Instead of whinging like my 6 year old daughter about 2 or 3 rule changes / additions / deletions from the playtest, how about adding to the community by thinking how you could integrate even the things you DON'T necessarily agree with into your own game.Because I pay good money so other people do it for me, If I want to write an unbalanced book ill do it but I pay money instead because I want a semblance of balance, nothing crazy strong and nothing not worth taking because I paid money for both of those things and that's not what I intended to pay for.
What percentage of the book should be dedicated to the balance that you pay for? I am sure you agree that having 100% of the book cater to balance is asking too much.
|
|
Any decent DR already makes the monk cry. Fortunately he still has maneuvers that act on his full BAB and are beefed up with a nice greater magic weapon. That's 5 trip attempts at level 8 if necessary - even if the creature has impossible CMD, a 20 auto-succeeds so he's got a 40% chance to land a trip over two rounds. This increases to a 55% success rate in one round if he can trip on a 17 on his strong attacks.
There are other magical tricks that allow bypassing DR anyway, like versatile weapon which can be cast on the monks hands.
Saves are generally the least of the monks concerns, and protection from [alignment] grants +2 at least. Resistance a mere +1, but it still counts. Only at level 10 will the monk start being "behind" by a single +1; which given his phenomenal saves in general is pretty good.
By level 13 it would be +2 - but then the monk can also have his SR up all the time (other than buffing time) - which adds a whole layer of resistance that is pretty potent in its own right.
Saves vs poison and disease are mute anyway, since the monk is immune.
The monk has his very own barkskin now, that will max out to +5 at level 12 - which is Pretty Damn Great(tm).
Protection from [alignment] sorts out an additional +2 deflection bonus to AC, which is pretty fine.
If a wordcaster is in the group, a selected force armor will keep the monk ahead in the armor AC race.
Finally, he is allowed one "proper" item, so whatever he feels he really needs, he can have.
Yes, of course the monk will not be optimal, that is what Vow of Poverty means. But he'll be playable and can compete. Some of his AC or saves may be marginally behind what they could potentially be.
I stand by my statement: if the party is willing and able to provide buffs for the monk, then there is little problem.
Regular Monk can handle DR thanks to brass knuckles. VoP ones cannot. You're hosed. Your damage is based on multiple low-dmg attacks, and DR stops just that. GMW doesn't grant you the "+3 defeats DR" ability, and DR ignoring feats are Fighter only.
In order to even start tripping somebody, you need to get right next to him/it. Monks aren't good at eating full attacks due to lower HP and whooops, that's a VoP monk, craptastic AC.
All the spells you mention can be cast on party members who aren't crippled by VoP, so the whole "buff me to be relevant" argument is nonsense on sticks. Also, it pretty much requires the party to have a full arcane caster and a full divine caster. So this is how it's going to be:
Tom: "Hi guys, I want to play a VoP monk. You know they suck donkey balls, so I need James to play a Cleric and Kate to play a Wizard in order to be relevant in any combat."
James: "But I want to play a Ranger this time..."
Kate: "I've rolled my Inquisitor and not gonna change that."
Tom: "But please... I really want to... DM, can you please try to convince James and Kate?"
DM: HEADDESK
I'm the DM. I don't want that at my table. I've had enough having to explain just how awfully crap Swashbuckler and Truenamer are back in 3.5ed times to go through having to explain the basics of D&D metagame to all my LoreKeepers AGAIN. And yes, I do have quite a few "flavour beats crunch any time, we're all in this together so if I suck and you rock it's gonna be all right!" players.
What percentage of the book should be dedicated to the balance that you pay for? I am sure you agree that having 100% of the book cater to balance is asking too much.
Because I pay good money so other people do it for me, If I want to write an unbalanced book ill do it but I pay money instead because I want a semblance of balance, nothing crazy strong and nothing not worth taking because I paid money for both of those things and that's not what I intended to pay for.
Core and APG did it, so yeah 100%
I'm cool with 20% balance if I get an 80% discount for the stuff I could have screwed up myself.
|
|
What percentage of the book should be dedicated to the balance that you pay for? I am sure you agree that having 100% of the book cater to balance is asking too much.
Because I pay good money so other people do it for me, If I want to write an unbalanced book ill do it but I pay money instead because I want a semblance of balance, nothing crazy strong and nothing not worth taking because I paid money for both of those things and that's not what I intended to pay for.
Core and APG did it, so yeah 100%
I'm cool with 20% balance if I get an 80% discount for the stuff I could have screwed up myself.
APG is a fantastic book as far as balance is concerned. The only whoopsie there was the Selective Spell, and it was errated rather promptly.
UM has two whoopsies: Antagonize (idea is good, numbers need work) and Vows (idea blows monkeys from behind). The first one, despite the nerdrage, is rather easy to fix. Vows are worse, because somebody on design team greenlighted them.
Funnily enough 4th ed was able to do away completely with the need for magical items. It wasn't a core system, but it was released 1 year into 4th ed's short life and it worked quite well. Unfortunately I doubt the logic could be transported into Pathfinder. They're simply too different.
|
|
Regular Monk can handle DR thanks to brass knuckles. VoP ones cannot. You're hosed. Your damage is based on multiple low-dmg attacks, and DR stops just that. GMW doesn't grant you the "+3 defeats DR" ability, and DR ignoring feats are Fighter only.
In order to even start tripping somebody, you need to get right next to him/it. Monks aren't good at eating full attacks due to lower HP and whooops, that's a VoP monk, craptastic AC.
All the spells you mention can be cast on party members who aren't crippled by VoP, so the whole "buff me to be relevant" argument is nonsense on sticks. Also, it pretty much requires the party to have a full arcane caster and a full divine caster. So this is how it's going to be:
Tom: "Hi guys, I want to play a VoP monk. You know they suck donkey balls, so I need James to play a Cleric and Kate to play a Wizard in order to be relevant in any combat."
James: "But I want to play a Ranger this time..."
Kate: "I've rolled my Inquisitor and not gonna change that."
Tom: "But please... I really want to... DM, can you please try to convince James and Kate?"
DM: HEADDESKI'm the DM. I don't want that at my table. I've had enough having to explain just how awfully crap Swashbuckler and Truenamer are back in 3.5ed times to go through having to explain the basics of D&D metagame to all my LoreKeepers AGAIN. And yes, I do have quite a few "flavour beats crunch any time, we're all in this together so if I suck and you rock it's gonna be all right!" players.
Or you tell James and Kate that whatever they play will now get significantly more loot, and you can realize that if you actually follow WBL, the trade off doesn't become any kind of issue until you get to relatively high levels. In fact, at lower level there really is no difference, and it may actually be a significant advantage.
And you can say to James and Kate that if it isn't working, there is a mechanic in the vow that allows the monk to break the vow and become like any other monk in the game.
Then you can explain to everyone that it is a game, and that some people play it differently than others, and that just people one feature in a book doesn't appeal to them doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to others.
|
|
Regular Monk can handle DR thanks to brass knuckles. VoP ones cannot. You're hosed. Your damage is based on multiple low-dmg attacks, and DR stops just that. GMW doesn't grant you the "+3 defeats DR" ability, and DR ignoring feats are Fighter only.
In order to even start tripping somebody, you need to get right next to him/it. Monks aren't good at eating full attacks due to lower HP and whooops, that's a VoP monk, craptastic AC.
All the spells you mention can be cast on party members who aren't crippled by VoP, so the whole "buff me to be relevant" argument is nonsense on sticks. Also, it pretty much requires the party to have a full arcane caster and a full divine caster. So this is how it's going to be:
Tom: "Hi guys, I want to play a VoP monk. You know they suck donkey balls, so I need James to play a Cleric and Kate to play a Wizard in order to be relevant in any combat."
James: "But I want to play a Ranger this time..."
Kate: "I've rolled my Inquisitor and not gonna change that."
Tom: "But please... I really want to... DM, can you please try to convince James and Kate?"
DM: HEADDESKI'm the DM. I don't want that at my table. I've had enough having to explain just how awfully crap Swashbuckler and Truenamer are back in 3.5ed times to go through having to explain the basics of D&D metagame to all my LoreKeepers AGAIN. And yes, I do have quite a few "flavour beats crunch any time, we're all in this together so if I suck and you rock it's gonna be all right!" players.
Or you tell James and Kate that whatever they play will now get significantly more loot, and you can realize that if you actually follow WBL, the trade off doesn't become any kind of issue until you get to relatively high levels. In fact, at lower level there really is no difference, and it may actually be a significant advantage.
And you can say to James and Kate that if it isn't working, there is a mechanic in the vow that allows the monk to break the vow and become like any other monk in the game. ...
You missed my point.
I don't want to have this discussion. I don't care what arguments you propose, I just don't want it. And sorry, "everybody has a right to suck" isn't a strong argument.