|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
This sums it up, 100%.
This sums it up, 100%.Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
While I understand this desire I can't help but think of all the other classes. Fighter, Wizard and so on who are "gear dependent". You want a class that equals a Wizard + accumulated magic goodies (or Fighter etc.). That character would have to be vastly superior to the Wizard, Fighter etc. if they were deprived of thier goodies. Not a good idea for a number of reasons.
While I understand this desire I can't help but think of all the other classes. Fighter, Wizard and so on who are "gear dependent". You want a class that equals a Wizard + accumulated magic goodies (or Fighter etc.). That character would have to be vastly superior to the Wizard, Fighter etc. if they were deprived of thier goodies. Not a good idea for a number of reasons.This sums it up, 100%.Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
Actually, I think what we're asking for is something roughly equivalent to a Monk + accumulated goodies. Making it as good as a wizard or fighter would require an almost-total re-write of the class.
You make the point that the wizard and fighter (and you allude to other classes) are gear-dependent. So is the monk. The whole system is gear-dependent. All-in-all, I would much prefer a patch to the system that allowed ALL classes to play without the "Big Six" items. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
|
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
I wouldn't agree with that 100% in every case, but as far as we are talking about Monks, TOZ hits a bullseye.
...if need be by taking a level in sorcerer or some other class that can carry some of the load of the gearless monk.Quite true. The best gearless monks in the game aren't monks.
If you want to play a gearless "monk" character, you have to play a cleric, druid, or oracle.
Or, better yet, a synthesist summoner.Which makes me feel kind of sad for the monk class.
I think that's the root of the confusion over a lot of the vows. You shouldn't have to play a cleric to be a better monk, just as in 3.5 you shouldn't of had to play a cleric to be a better fighter.
This game is designed around PC's having a certain amount of equipment at a specific level using a 20 point buy to build the character. When you step off that path the DM needs to either cater the adventure towards your handi-cap (or strengths) or let the unique PC get eaten by the game catering to specific guidelines.
VOP is an ability intentionally designed to be sub par for monks which limits the characters survivability with very little compensation for the risk being taken. Now granted people may want to play in a game that caters to the gritier, more realistic environment but that's something that could be left to house rules.
A different way to implement Vow of Poverty could have been granting an inherent bonus to the big 6 which scaled with level, kind of like armor training and weapon training but expanded for monks. This could have kept the monks survivability up and would make sense in my opinion.
Another proof of concept monk, this one is a level 17 character with vow of poverty (12 of the levels are monk levels), item: headband of mental superiority +6; no other gains (such as from tomes); stats assume no aid from allies
This character relies on a few multi-class levels to help compensate for the lack of general character wealth. Consider that the character is essentially a "blank slate" without any aid from allies: once you add a bit of teamplay the character quickly becomes very potent. Without help his contributions to the party include:
- can raise dead once a day without needing material components
- can make knowledge checks with a +42 bonus 6 times a day
- can disable devices +25
- is party face, diplomacy +26
- very good saves: Fort 19; Ref 21; Will 24
- can buff ally attack, damage and AC
- self-buffed normal attacks: +22/+22/+17/+17/+12 (2d6+7 20/x2)
- against team evil: +28/+28/(+28)/+23/+23/+18 (2d6+11 20/x2) bypassing DR; smite usable 2/day
- AC against team evil: 37 (can still add +4 dodge with ki, +1 moral AC, and optionally +3 dodge if fighting defensively)
- has limited flight and climb-speed (as per the feats)
Stats use 20 point buy:
str 20
dex 7
con 14
int 16
wis 20
cha 22
Male human monk 12 paladin warrior of the holy light 4 oracle 1
LG medium humanoid
Init +8 ; Senses Perception +25
-=DEFENSE=-
AC 31, touch 26, flat 24
HP 156
Fort 19; Ref 21; Will 24
Defensive abilities immunity to disease, poison and fear; purity of faith
-=OFFENSE=-
Speed 70ft
Melee unarmed flurry +20/+20/+15/+15/+10 (2d6+5 20/x2) Type: Bludgeoning; Size: Medium; Wgt: -
Special smite evil 2/day ; purity of faith ; magic weapon
-=OTHER=-
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 10
BAB +13; CMB +21; CMD +46
Feats toughness, weapon focus (unarmed), improved unarmed strike, stunning fist, extra revelation, dodge, power attack, deflect arrows, extra lay on hands, spider step, blind-fight, greater mercy, cloud step, medusa's wrath, ultimate mercy
Traits reactionary , wisdom in the flesh (disable device)
Favored class monk
Favored class bonus +12 hitpoints
Skills
Trained acrobatics +18(17); climb +14(6); diplomacy +26(17); disable device +25(17); perception +25(17); sense motive +18(10); swim +9(1)
Headband knowledge (any 3) +22
-=SPECIAL=-
Vow of poverty
Ki points 17/day
Power of faith +1 moral bonus to attack, AC, damage and saves vs fear for all allies in 30ft for 1 minute
Lay on Hands 11/day
Ultimate mercy raise dead 1/day
Oracle mystery lore
Oracle curse haunted
Spells 5 first level spells per day (oracle spell list)
Focused trance +20 on knowledge checks 6/day
Fight defensively -4 to attacks, +3 to AC
Ki dodge +4 dodge AC for 1 ki point
-=Breakdown=-
toughness
1 weapon focus (unarmed)
2
3 extra revelation (focused trance), dodge [monk bonus]
4
5 power attack;
6 deflect arrows [monk bonus]
7 extra lay on hands
8
9 spider step;
10
11 blind-fight; improved trip [monk bonus];
12
13 greater mercy
14
15 cloud step; medusa's wrath [monk bonus]
16
17 ultimate mercy
I think Saint Evenhand does pretty well for himself considering that we're talking about a level 17 character with only one item of note on him.
|
|
Another proof of concept monk, this one is a level 17 character with vow of poverty (12 of the levels are monk levels), item: headband of mental superiority +6; no other gains (such as from tomes); stats assume no aid from allies
** spoiler omitted **...
Thank you, but I'd rather have the possibility to play a valid straight elegant non-LG none-paladin code restrained character than to run something that looks like what Mick Jagger vomited up after a particularly rough party.
Also, DR screws your example over so badly that it hurts.
How does he have 2d8 for his unarmed strikes? just interested
How does he have 2d8 for his unarmed strikes? just interested
Sorry, in my head I kept thinking level 16 monk, that should be 2d6.
...
@Gorbacz: I've already previously in this thread shown a pure-monk that stays relevant for the entirety of a campaign. This is a concept study for other ways of achieving the desired results. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its not a valid solution to the problem.
DR is not a problem twice a day, provided the enemy is evil. Naturally that should be used primarily against the BBEG (and should be quite effective then). Against the majority of enemies (judging against the encounters Paizo uses in Adventure Paths) the character is perfectly strong enough.
Other than that - keep in mind that the character is entirely unbuffed at this point. If you happen to have a bard in the party then haste, good hope and inspire courage grant the monk (without waste, since its for everybody) an additional +7 attack +6 damage. And a single greater magic weapon should be enough for the day to give the monk an additional +4 attack and damage.
That would be
+33/+33/+33/+28/+18/+23 (2d6+17 20/x2)
without self-buffs - and is plenty sufficient for being relevant in combat.
And with a full-house and smiting
+40/+40/+40/+35/+35/+30 (2d6+21 20/x2) bypassing DR.
|
|
Other than that - keep in mind that the character is entirely unbuffed at this point. .
It's irrelevant. Even a CW Samurai or Swashbuckler can contribute to an encounter if you throw a hundred of buffs at them.
It doesn't change the fact that they are horribly designed classes that should never see print.
Just like the UM VoP Monk :)
Other than that - keep in mind that the character is entirely unbuffed at this point. .
It's irrelevant. Even a CW Samurai or Swashbuckler can contribute to an encounter if you throw a hundred of buffs at them.
It doesn't change the fact that they are horribly designed classes that should never see print.
Just like the UM VoP Monk :)
That is the beauty of the system actually. A CW Samurai can be within 10% of the average. And a VoP monk can be within 20% of the average. That is good enough to make them playable.
Look, if you want to play a gearless super monk, just ask your GM to allow you to equip invisible gear to your character equal to half the normal wealth-by-level monies. Any "gear equipped" cannot be unequipped (though it can be upgraded) and it is always on your character. If the GM deems it necessary you must meditate for a number of days that the crafting would have taken. And done. Simple house rule, works fine. Add flavor text about mystical tattoos and you're sorted RP-wise.
If you want to play a monk that follows the vow of poverty, then you get what UM gives you.
Honestly, I'm happy with both options and would GM for you with either one.
|
|
Other than that - keep in mind that the character is entirely unbuffed at this point. .
It's irrelevant. Even a CW Samurai or Swashbuckler can contribute to an encounter if you throw a hundred of buffs at them.
It doesn't change the fact that they are horribly designed classes that should never see print.
Just like the UM VoP Monk :)
That is the beauty of the system actually. A CW Samurai can be within 10% of the average. And a VoP monk can be within 20% of the average. That is good enough to make them playable.
Look, if you want to play a gearless super monk, just ask your GM to allow you to equip invisible gear to your character equal to half the normal wealth-by-level monies. Any "gear equipped" cannot be unequipped (though it can be upgraded) and it is always on your character. If the GM deems it necessary you must meditate for a number of days that the crafting would have taken. And done. Simple house rule, works fine. Add flavor text about mystical tattoos and you're sorted RP-wise.
If you want to play a monk that follows the vow of poverty, then you get what UM gives you.
Honestly, I'm happy with both options and would GM for you with either one.
Now let's take a walk outside of your own gaming/GMing style for a moment. It's always refreshing and brings about a new perspective.
A player of mine comes up after reading UM and says that he'd like to play a VoP monk.
Now, there are two options. Either his level of system mastery is so high that can roll with that and not cause the rest of the party to suffer horribly from having a cripple around. Chances for that - low. Also, if his system mastery is high he will likely not even bother with Vows.
Option two, the player has system mastery skills of a mildly trained meerkat. He saw the option and went "oooh shiny". At this point, the poor time-stretched GM (hint: that's me!) has to take off his precious time and explain the player, that VoP is a craptastic trap option best left avoided by mildly trained meerkats.
Now this can have a good ending and a bad ending.
Good ending: player says "Oh, I see. I'll think of something else", I go back to prepping the game and curse at the amount of time lost "thanks" to somebody at Paizo.
Bad Ending: The player goes anal over playing a VoP Monk and insists for me to "fix" it. Now I don't have the time nor the energy to sit down and rewrite stuff, so that's not gonna end well.
Bottom line: when I use a splatbook, I want to be able to approve blindly anything in it and to sleep safe and secure that the options presented there are balanced enough not to cause problems when used without prior work. VoP doesn't meet this criteria.
While I understand this desire I can't help but think of all the other classes. Fighter, Wizard and so on who are "gear dependent". You want a class that equals a Wizard + accumulated magic goodies (or Fighter etc.). That character would have to be vastly superior to the Wizard, Fighter etc. if they were deprived of thier goodies. Not a good idea for a number of reasons.This sums it up, 100%.Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
First, because the whole idea of the damn monk is that he isn't decked out in magical whatsits. He's supposed to be the guy without a weapon and without armor, the entire core of the class is based around not having gear...
...And yet the monk is probably the most gear reliant class in the game! It's bait and switch to the extreme. The monk excels in this bait and switch though. Want to move fast and jump around enemies and dodge about? Guess what, Flurry of Blows only works if you stand still!
Secondly, who the hell cares if the monk is vastly superior to the wizard, fighter, etc, if they were deprived of their goodies. How often does that happen in your games? Once? Twice? Three times? And when it happens, how broken is it for one character to be really good in that situation? You already have druids and clerics and sorcerers who can get all their spells even when buck naked, is it so horrible that the monk can be good at something? Anything?
Bottom line: when I use a splatbook, I want to be able to approve blindly anything in it and to sleep safe and secure that the options presented there are balanced enough not to cause problems when used without prior work. VoP doesn't meet this criteria.
There's your problem. Unless you write your own splatbook it's going to take some oversight / knowledge of the material. Not every game has the same style / goals. DMs and players vary. What works for one group may not for another. And so on...
This sums it up, 100%.
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.
Go look at Iron Heroes. That is the premise of the game.
Now let's take a walk outside of your own gaming/GMing style for a moment. It's always refreshing and brings about a new perspective.
A player of mine comes up after reading UM and says that he'd like to play a VoP monk.
Now, there are two options. Either his level of system mastery is so high that can roll with that and not cause the rest of the party to suffer horribly from having a cripple around. Chances for that - low. Also, if his system mastery is high he will likely not even bother with Vows.
Option two, the player has system mastery skills of a mildly trained meerkat. He saw the option and went "oooh shiny". At this point, the poor time-stretched GM (hint: that's me!) has to take off his precious time and explain the player, that VoP is a craptastic trap option best left avoided by mildly trained meerkats.
Now this can have a good ending and a bad ending.
Good ending: player says "Oh, I see. I'll think of something else", I go back to prepping the game and curse at the amount of time lost "thanks" to somebody at Paizo.
Bad Ending: The player goes anal over playing a VoP Monk and insists for me to "fix" it. Now I don't have the time nor the energy to sit down and rewrite stuff, so that's not gonna end well.
Bottom line: when I use a splatbook, I want to be able to approve blindly anything in it and to sleep safe and secure that the options presented there are balanced enough not to cause problems when used without prior work. VoP doesn't meet this criteria.
Why not just let him play it - unchanged - and the player might learn something valuable in the process. If you're lucky he will never bother you about VoP again. Of course, if I'm lucky, you'll find that the player has a very enjoyable time and has one or two moments to shine in the limelight.
Even if the VoP monk cannot contribute as hard as the others, he still represents action economy and a resource that enemies can target (thus giving everybody else breathing room). Up to about level 8 or 10 there is very little discernible difference between a fully equipped monk and a VoP monk; so you might as well let your player have at it. Then around level 9 he may realize that "oops, now things are getting rough and I have no shinies", then he can choose to forgo the vow at that point in time (without losses other than the Still Mind class ability) and start gearing up. Now he's had a great time being poor and is moving on to greater (and more gear-dependent) things. Applause all around, let the adventure continue.
Also, the power gamers in your group might like a VoP monk in the party - as that means they get more gold for themselves and that will tend to outweigh the burden of carrying the monk.
First, because the whole idea of the damn monk is that he isn't decked out in magical whatsits. He's supposed to be the guy without a weapon and without armor, the entire core of the class is based around not having gear...
To an extent. Don't tell that to those people whose Monks are into weapons.
...And yet the monk is probably the most gear reliant class in the game! It's bait and switch to the extreme. The monk excels in this bait and switch though. Want to move fast and jump around enemies and dodge about? Guess what, Flurry of Blows only works if you stand still!
And Flurry of Blows is all they have?
Secondly, who the hell cares if the monk is vastly superior to the wizard, fighter, etc, if they were deprived of their goodies. How often does that happen in your games? Once? Twice? Three times? And when it happens, how broken is it for one character to be really good in that situation? You already have druids and clerics and sorcerers who can get all their spells even when buck naked, is it so horrible that the monk can be good at something? Anything?
Not every campaign has the same amount of magic / gear in it. Not everyone runs APs. Gear is an advantage and a point of vulnerability for characters.
Finally, not every option has to be used. Don't like the VoP Monk? Fine. Don't use it. It may not be your cup of tea, others may love it. Given the tiny portion of the book devoted to the option it's not like their isn't plenty to use.
I don't get how bent out of shape people are getting over 4 sentences in a 256 page book. I understand people's desires for a gearless monk, but it really too far from the baseline of Pathfinder to be a core option. If you want something like this, work with your GM. I suggest checking out Iron Heroes for some good ideas on how to make a no magic item class that shines.It's a symbol of something that worries people. WotC started it's downhill slide by slacking a little on quality control. People are afraid at the clues that Paizo is in that same position.
That is rather subjective then. The VoP, as is, constitutes "quality" for me. It embodies the level of reality and submersion I expect from the options that Paizo provides. A fantastical VoP a la BoED is a turn-off for me.
|
|
There's your problem. Unless you write your own splatbook it's going to take some oversight / knowledge of the material. Not every game has the same style / goals. DMs and players vary. What works for one group may not for another. And so on...
Bottom line: when I use a splatbook, I want to be able to approve blindly anything in it and to sleep safe and secure that the options presented there are balanced enough not to cause problems when used without prior work. VoP doesn't meet this criteria.
No, a well written splatbook requires no oversight. APG is a great example. There's nothing in that book that will make me go "oh snap" when a player takes an option from it.
And no, I don't care about other gaming groups apart from mine. Sorry.
|
|
Why not just let him play it - unchanged - and the player might learn something valuable in the process. If you're lucky he will never bother you about VoP again. Of course, if I'm lucky, you'll find that the player has a very enjoyable time and has one or two moments to shine in the limelight.
Even if the VoP monk cannot contribute as hard as the others, he still represents action economy and a resource that enemies can target (thus giving everybody else breathing room). Up to about level 8 or 10...
Also, the power gamers in your group might like a VoP monk in the party - as that means they get more gold for themselves and that will tend to outweigh the burden of carrying the monk.
1. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, not a "learn by sucking donkey balls" experience. We all have enough of that in real life.
And no, sucking donkey balls is not an enjoyable experience. Having played in a 3.5 party made up of a Mystic Theurge, 3.5 Paladin and Swashbuckler, I can tell you that playing PCs that suck is not fun. No, it's not an entertaining roleplaying challenge. If I wanted that, I'd play Ars Magica, take the relevant Flaws, get relevant Virtues to balance it and be happy about it. But this is D&D, a game about killing things efficiently.
2. Wow, action economy target, maybe somebody should be playing a Commoner then? At least these can have magic items without losing anything of their abilities....
3. So... a player abandons the Vow at some level 8 and says "guys, can you drop 8 levels worth on WBL because I tee heee realized how much this Vow sucks and now want to be remotely useful?". If somebody came up with that to me, I'd tell the DM what I think about allowing situations like this to happen.
To an extent. Don't tell that to those people whose Monks are into weapons.
I'll take your lack of argument as an agreement.
And Flurry of Blows is all they have?
It was one example. I don't care to list others if you aren't going to intellectually respond to the first I give.
Not every campaign has the same amount of magic / gear in it. Not everyone runs APs. Gear is an advantage and a point of vulnerability for characters.
Meaningless drivel. Make an argument.
Finally, not every option has to be used. Don't like the VoP Monk? Fine. Don't use it. It may not be your cup of tea, others may love it. Given the tiny portion of the book devoted to the option it's not like their isn't plenty to use.
You're right we should never criticize anything and should never expect any positive changes ever.
Wait you're playing Pathfinder, which was in of itself born from criticism of 3e, guess that does it for your argument
1. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, not a "learn by sucking donkey balls" experience. We all have enough of that in real life.
And no, sucking donkey balls is not an enjoyable experience. Having played in a 3.5 party made up of a Mystic Theurge, 3.5 Paladin and Swashbuckler, I can tell you that playing PCs that suck is not fun. No, it's not an entertaining roleplaying challenge. If I wanted that, I'd play Ars Magica, take the relevant Flaws, get relevant Virtues to balance it and be happy about it. But this is D&D, a game about killing things efficiently.
2. Wow, action economy target, maybe somebody should be playing a Commoner then? At least these can have magic items without losing anything of their abilities....
3. So... a player abandons the Vow at some level 8 and says "guys, can you drop 8 levels worth on WBL because I tee heee realized how much this Vow sucks and now want to be remotely useful?". If somebody came up with that to me, I'd tell the DM what I think about allowing situations like this to happen.
Does not happen we agree so much recently but.. Gorbacz..
Well said.
You're right we should never criticize anything and should never expect any positive changes ever.Wait you're playing Pathfinder, which was in of itself born from criticism of 3e, guess that does it for your argument
Exactly. If I have to be stuck with meaningless options and traps, I keep my 3.5 books, houserule them, and say a big goodbye to paizo. And Perhaps it's what I will do after UC.
I buy books for interesting options, not to say "cool idea, a shame is badly designed".
No, a well written splatbook requires no oversight. APG is a great example. There's nothing in that book that will make me go "oh snap" when a player takes an option from it.And no, I don't care about other gaming groups apart from mine. Sorry.
If you think a well written book of optional material doesn't require the DM to know the material and, in effect, exercise soem oversight on his game... you live in some alternate universe. Maybe a better one.
Sorry to say, but Paizo has to worry about other groups than yours. Worrying only about just your group is the your / the DMs job. Not Paizo's.
|
|
No, a well written splatbook requires no oversight. APG is a great example. There's nothing in that book that will make me go "oh snap" when a player takes an option from it.And no, I don't care about other gaming groups apart from mine. Sorry.
If you think a well written book of optional material doesn't require the DM to know the material and, in effect, exercise soem oversight on his game... you live in some alternate universe. Maybe a better one.
Sorry to say, but Paizo has to worry about other groups than yours. Worrying only about just your group is the your / the DMs job. Not Paizo's.
Of course it requires to know the material. But every DM has a brain with finite capability for storing data. So considering that I am unable to memorize UM by heart, I'd like to be sure that if a player comes up with "I want to take X" I can say "yes sure" first and read it later, and not the other way round. Because if you say "yes" to a player first and THEN you discover that an option is a problem, well, that's poor design. And the problem of "give and take", something everybody loathes. ("Well Jim, I know I told you can take that Planar Shepherd but now I've read it up and there are some problems and I'd like to change how the class works...")
Been there done that with Pact Magic books in 3.5 - one of the reasons I avoid 3PP crunch like a plague, monsters excepted.
vow of poverty should be renamed vow of sucking.Yeah, funny thing about poverty, it sucks.
+1
I'll take your lack of argument as an agreement.
Don't. There are Monk characters that center on weapons (APG Weapon Adept, Zen Archer for example).
It was one example. I don't care to list others if you aren't going to intellectually respond to the first I give.
I did respond intelligently by pointing out that they have other options. If I had posted unintelligently I would have cited one thing and used it as a condemnation of the whole class.
Meaningless drivel. Make an argument.
Really? Pointing out that other campaigns might differ? Meaningless is writing off an argument without thinking. I expected better.
You're right we should never criticize anything and should never expect any positive changes ever.Wait you're playing Pathfinder, which was in of itself born from criticism of 3e, guess that does it for your argument
I never said that PC. You don't need to put words into someone elses mouth. What I said, is that it may not suit every campaign. If it doesn't suit yours, don't use it. The Paizo police are not going to swing by your game and force you to use it. Simple.
Criticism is fine. Saying you don't like something is OK. It can be done with some hint of manners.
Of course it requires to know the material. But every DM has a brain with finite capability for storing data. So considering that I am unable to memorize UM by heart, I'd like to be sure that if a player comes up with "I want to take X" I can say "yes sure" first and read it later, and not the other way round. Because if you say "yes" to a player first and THEN you discover that an option is a problem, well, that's poor design. And the problem of "give and take", something everybody loathes. ("Well Jim, I know I told you can take that Planar Shepherd but now I've read it up and there are some problems and I'd like to change how the class works...")Been there done that with Pact Magic books in 3.5 - one of the reasons I avoid 3PP crunch like a plague, monsters excepted.
Good point about time. My solution is simple -- nothing gets in until I have a chance to look it over. I know it slows down the adoption of new material but it lets me check stuff over. Saves the retrofitting of classes / etc. that don't work. I avoided a lot of WotC and 3PP material. Saved me a lot of in game issues. I'm looking through UM with this in mind now btw. Paizo is good, but I don't assume anything is perfect.
Don't. There are Monk characters that center on weapons (APG Weapon Adept, Zen Archer for example).
Yes there are specific separate modifications you can make to the base class to make it use weapons!
Modifications that change the monk.
I did respond intelligently by pointing out that they have other options. If I had posted unintelligently I would have cited one thing and used it as a condemnation of the whole class.
Still haven't responded to my point. I'll write this one off as a "will not get back to you"
Really? Pointing out that other campaigns might differ? Meaningless is writing off an argument without thinking. I expected better.
Again, meaningless. Make an argument.
I never said that PC. You don't need to put words into someone elses mouth. What I said, is that it may not suit every campaign. If it doesn't suit yours, don't use it. The Paizo police are not going to swing by your game and force you to use it. Simple.
Criticism is fine. Saying you don't like something is OK. It can be done with some hint of manners.
Meaningless again.
Your entire point as been "STOP COMPLAINING ;_;"
No.
STOP COMPLAINING ;_;
Seriously you don't need to type all those words when this is all you're getting at.
|
Cirno, can you 'splain something to me? Now remember, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't play monks, don't care about monks, etc. etc.
Why is it that a character that refuses equipment, thus unbalancing WBL and causing more work for the GM to run published adventures - why should that guy be just as good as the other characters?
Assume for the sake of this question that "Because that's my awesome concept that I want to play" and "Because that's how it is in (some of/all of/all of the good/most of) the movies" aren't what I'm getting at.
I'm talking from a purely game/rules design standpoint. Gorby is talking a few posts up about what a hassle it is to take the time to explain to new players why VoP is bad - I'm curious as to what separates that from the time that it would take to rebalance treasure for a whole AP (for example) to accommodate the the player that doesn't want to accept gear?
Honestly asking.
Jeremiziah, I'm obviously not Cirno, but if you simply add a clause of "a VoP monk must donate his share of the loot to charity," then there isn't any problem whatsoever. There is no WBL unbalancing or recalculating of loot to be done.
Edit: And let's not forget something. Poverty sucks, I agree. But these monks aren't taking sacred vows just for the sake of being poor. They are taking these vows in order to accomplish something. In my mind, they are abstaining from material items in order to strengthen their own body, mind, and soul. I don't really think the current VoP monk achieves this goal.
Yes there are specific separate modifications you can make to the base class to make it use weapons!Modifications that change the monk.
You mean like the VoP? Yeah, you're right. They all "change the Monk". That's the point of it.
I did respond intelligently by pointing out that they have other options. If I had posted unintelligently I would have cited one thing and used it as a condemnation of the whole class.Still haven't responded to my point. I'll write this one off as a "will not get back to you"
Pointing out that they have other attack options besides stand there and flurry is not responding?
Really? Pointing out that other campaigns might differ? Meaningless is writing off an argument without thinking. I expected better.Again, meaningless. Make an argument.
I did. You're ignoring it doesn't make it less valid.
I never said that PC. You don't need to put words into someone elses mouth. What I said, is that it may not suit every campaign. If it doesn't suit yours, don't use it. The Paizo police are not going to swing by your game and force you to use it. Simple.
Criticism is fine. Saying you don't like something is OK. It can be done with some hint of manners.
Meaningless again.
Your entire point as been "STOP COMPLAINING ;_;"
No.
That's not my point. No matter how many times you say it is. I've stated my point. You've ignored it. Oh well. You still haven't found your manners either. Do that, normally I find your posts interesting even when I don't agree. You argue your points. You address the other posters points. Always with passion, generally without the negativity and with more humor. What's up?
Jeremiziah, I'm obviously not Cirno, but if you simply add a clause of "a VoP monk must donate his share of the loot to charity," then there isn't any problem whatsoever. There is no WBL unbalancing or recalculating of loot to be done.
I think this was actually a part of the original VoP as well.
Actually, I think the problem behind VoP and the problem behind magical items and, well, quite a few problems in general, is the entire existance of WBL. It in of itself is not a bad thing, but I think a separate set of guidelines - not rules but guidelines - that ballparked ability by level would be immensely useful. I know MIC tried to do something similar by giving a vague outlook on what kind of gear a character at each level could have.
So rather then just "$x by level y" you'd have "$x by level y, character could roughly have +2 enhancement to one stat, +1 weapon, +1 armor" or something similar to that. It could also help module and adventure writers ballpark when characters are capable of flying or can nullify magic walls or that sort of thing.
The biggest flaw in the old VoP is that it tried to simulate those guidelines without actually having them. It gave the armor and enhancement bonus but didn't have the flying or magic nullification or etc, etc.
Treasure doesn't always divide evenly. The monks share may consist, in part, of a sword that the paladin wants to actually use.
This happens in every game, regardless of whether a VoP monk is involved or not, doesn't it? What do you do in those situations? There are plenty of different ways for parties to handle and divide up loot- the monk simply takes his share as normal. And the VoP monk is a lot less picky than everyone else in the party. He doesn't have to take a share out of every single piece of treasure found. Sometimes the party comes across an awesome sword that they give to the paladin, and sometimes they come across an exotic weapon that no one has a use for, and instead of the party selling it and splitting the gold, the monk donates the entire thing to charity.
You just need to make sure that the monk player is fighting for his share, just like everyone else. If he isn't, give him some reminders in the form of visions, dreams, feelings, or even other monks telling him about starving children needing his help.
|
|
You just need to make sure that the monk player is fighting for his share, just like everyone else.
OK, but what I'm saying is, you say that, and I hear "bookkeeping". That's adding a whole new element to GMing that I don't care for.
Anyway, interesting having had this discussion. Like I said earlier, I really don't care about monks at all, so none of this holds anything but academic interest for me personally.
Carry on! :-)
Go look at Iron Heroes. That is the premise of the game.This sums it up, 100%.
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.
Thanks, but I really do not need a "Go away and play something else" message.
Thanks, but I really do not need a "Go away and play something else" message.Go look at Iron Heroes. That is the premise of the game.This sums it up, 100%.
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.
I'm not saying "Go away and play something else". I'm saying: Pathfinder is designed with a WBL magic item curve in mind. If you really want a game where the characters maintain the same power level per character level without magic items, it takes a fair departure from the baseline rules.
Iron Heroes is a d20 based system that could easily be adapted into Pathfinder. More easily than words of power actually. Since Iron Heroes mostly adds Feat Mastery and more Action Point mechanics.
I will admit, looking through there isn't really an unarmed fighter archetype in Iron Heroes. I still think it's the best place to start for ideas on how to make one though, as the premise is the same. I don't really think of Iron Heroes as a separate game, it can be used as a d20 supplement to enhance your game just as easily as Ultimate Magic can.
But I guess I'm more of a merge the best of anything I like sort of GM. YMMV.
PS: I just checked, a fair amount is OGL. So if an enterprising 3PP wanted to adapt some of it for use with Pathfinder, that might not be a bad idea.
1. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, not a "learn by sucking donkey balls" experience. We all have enough of that in real life.
2. Wow, action economy target, maybe somebody should be playing a Commoner then? At least these can have magic items without losing anything of their abilities....
3. So... a player abandons the Vow at some level 8 and says "guys, can you drop 8 levels worth on WBL because I tee heee realized how much this Vow sucks and now want to be remotely useful?". If somebody came up with that to me, I'd tell the DM what I think about allowing situations like this to happen.
1. Fun is different for different people, so okay.
2. A level 10 monk without items kicks the ass of a commoner with items.
Why bother playing a barbarian or a ranger? Everybody knows that a fighter is better. Why bother playing melee for that matter, ranged is so much better. But then again, why bother playing mundane when the king of the roost is the wizard and cleric. The four wizarderics - fun!
3. Why would you bother giving special WBL drops for the guy? The party WBL is already correct. The monk himself already has 1 item worth a significant amount (possibly something expensive, say a +2 amulet of mighty fists); if he's short a little bit of his WBL, "so what?"
But, even if he had no wealth whatsoever, not even the single allotted item-of-cool, then at level 8 he's behind a mere 33000. Every level he gains a very significant amount of additional wealth, the 33000 is barely a 33% setback in a couple of levels. By the time high-levels start it doesn't even make a meaningful impact any more.
|
|
Why is the concept deserving of mockery?Like Irori.I knew Irori, I worked with Irori, and you, sir, Mr. 20-Point Point Buy, are no Irori....I'm not mocking you, I'm pointing back at an old joke.
My point is: if it were easy for a gearless monk to become a god, we'd have more than one god in the Paizo campaign world who managed to do it.
Irori wasn't a standard array character.
He wasn't a 15-point-buy character.
He wasn't a 20-point-buy character.
He's the extremely lucky character who rolls really, really well, perhaps 3 or more 18s, with no "dump stats." He is the one-in-a-billion exception.
So the concept of monks that aren't forced to lean on caster-made items is locked out to almost all monk players in a setting where there is a literal god representing such an approach.
That is incredibly frustrating.
He is not the standard that all gearless monks should expect to play like.
And again, I'm not asking for a gearless monk to be able to become a god. I'm asking for one to be able to be an active participant in an AP using a standard point buy. I'm not asking to be god material, I'm asking to be able to keep up. AND stay true to the VoP theme.
Well, when I originally brought up Iori, it wasn't because I believed all VoP monks should become gods. Instead, it was to show that there is precedent of a mortal gaining power, not from magical items, but from devotion and dedication to the perfection of his mind, body, and soul. I really don't think an extra point of ki here and there reflects this sort of dedication.
My original point:
1- There are more than a few mortals in the world who have gone on to become gods. The most famous example of these are those who attained godhood via the aid of the Starstone artifact. However, other mortals, such as Iori, have obtained godhood without the aid of such artifacts. I don't view Iori as being a weaker god than the likes of Cayden or Iomedae.2- There are more than a few mortals in the world who have gone on to become heroes. The most famous example of these are those who attained strength via the aid of powerful magical objects. However, other mortals, such as VoP monks, have attained hero-dom without the aid of such magical objects. I don't view VoP monks as being a weaker hero than those with a dozen magic objects.
Number 1 is true in Golarion. Number 2 is not. I would like to think that if the first fits into the world of Golarion, so should the second.
Edit: When I say weaker, I mean "noticeably less powerful." Everyone agrees that the VoP monk is "weaker" than a normal hero.
This. #2 is what I desperately wish we had support for. Real meaningful support. But given the opinions towards the concept shown by the developers so far I'm worried we're never going to get it.
Ultimate Combat could have been a great place for it, but from the sound of things that isn't in the cards.
Thanks, but I really do not need a "Go away and play something else" message.Go look at Iron Heroes. That is the premise of the game.This sums it up, 100%.
Because I want my characters power to come from himself, not his magic items.
I'm not saying "Go away and play something else". I'm saying: Pathfinder is designed with a WBL magic item curve in mind. If you really want a game where the characters maintain the same power level per character level without magic items, it takes a fair departure from the baseline rules.
Iron Heroes is a d20 based system that could easily be adapted into Pathfinder. More easily than words of power actually. Since Iron Heroes mostly adds Feat Mastery and more Action Point mechanics.
I will admit, looking through there isn't really an unarmed fighter archetype in Iron Heroes. I still think it's the best place to start for ideas on how to make one though, as the premise is the same. I don't really think of Iron Heroes as a separate game, it can be used as a d20 supplement to enhance your game just as easily as Ultimate Magic can.
But I guess I'm more of a merge the best of anything I like sort of GM. YMMV.
PS: I just checked, a fair amount is OGL. So if an enterprising 3PP wanted to adapt some of it for use with Pathfinder, that might not be a bad idea.
What I want is for Paizo to present such a system as an optional rule, so that I can in good conscience allow one of my players to take that option. Maybe play one such character one day, too, whenever I get to be a player again.
|
|
What I want is for Paizo to present such a system as an optional rule, so that I can in good conscience allow one of my players to take that option. Maybe play one such character one day, too, whenever I get to be a player again.
This. For all those saying "just houserule it", well that's a fine solution for GMs. Some of us are working on that, in fact.
Not so hot for when we want to play though.
Why do people want to play a gearless monk? Because it is cool? Because in their head is the image of an ascetic warrior who shuns the material layers of the world and still kicks ass more royally then any other?
Because I want to play the monk I've always envisioned. I want to play a monk that lives up to the image evoked by the class. I want one that can keep pace with the party, not one that is god-mode-ing his way through challenges. And I want to play one that actually stays true to the theme, not pouring money he shouldn't even be using into a single magic item that he's still using as a crutch.
I'm asking to be able to keep up
I contend that you *do* keep up as written. How much do you need before you consider yourself 'keeping up'? Do you want it to be an option that effectively replaces the gear with balance-equivalent bonuses such that there is little distinction between the geared and gearless hero? Or do you want to be able to reach 50% of the DPR of a geared monk? Or some other measure?
|
|
I'm asking to be able to keep upI contend that you *do* keep up as written. How much do you need before you consider yourself 'keeping up'? Do you want it to be an option that effectively replaces the gear with balance-equivalent bonuses such that there is little distinction between the geared and gearless hero? Or do you want to be able to reach 50% of the DPR of a geared monk? Or some other measure?
I'd personally shoot for "different but just-under-equal" to a standard monk, as low a benchmark as that is.
And I'd want it to work without breaking theme by forcing multiclassing, ridiculous dumpstatting, or "you get one magic item to prop you up anyway" cheats to make it work.
What's frustrating is that it seems the very notion of such a ascetic character being made possible in a fantasy RPG strikes so many as unrealistic. So we're stuck depending on casters to prop everyone else up, and the theme is broken to pieces.
What's frustrating is that it seems the very notion of such a ascetic character being made possible in a fantasy RPG strikes so many as unrealistic. So we're stuck depending on casters to prop everyone else up, and the theme is broken to pieces.
I, too, am somewhat stunned that for some people it appears to be inconceivable that there could be a fantasy character who isn't festooned in magic items and still be competent enough at his chosen profession to keep up with his friends.
What happened to the "it's not the magic, it's the hero" paradigm?