Jesse Brake wrote: Fing Mandragoran wrote: Your lvl 15 VoP monk proves others statements. 19 AC, only mediocre saves for high lvl, and 100hp? You'll get destroyed....Your damage output has potential however it also has issues. Your primary issue though is the survivability. I don't know if you noticed, but the "one item" I gave this monk was simply a variant hat of disguise that gave a +5 to Stealth. The permanent spells on him, save greater magic fang +3 and the wish increases, are utility. I only used half of his character level's wealth for both his permanent spells and his one item. I also kept him with an 8 CHA instead of lowering it to a 7 (which will make a difference in just a moment).
Would I attempt to optimize and minimax his item, I don't think he would have such a survivability issue.
Example: Level 15 I have 240,000gp. Let's go ahead and use all of that gold for one item to combat those problems you mentioned (AC, saves, HP)
** spoiler omitted **
Now, let's look at the Level 15 VoP monk with this item. I will change some of the utility abilities to ones more optimized.... The problem is that the monk can never have enough gold for those things. There is nothing saying a party member can't buy them for him though. The monk is basically intended to give up his wealth which is my issue with the option. Even if the party wizard cast wish, and the money comes from the party to pay for the wish spell it may still break the spirit of the idea. It is like me buying beer for a teenager.
You do bring up interesting options which I would probably allow in an actual game though. The issue of the monk's permanent spells being dispelled is also an issue.
Now if the intent was to be able to use gold, but you never actually have it in your possession such as the wizard taking your share of the loot to pay for wishes and what not then it is not so bad. Most people won't see it that way though.
I am guessing Sean will check in later to give him opinion on this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I have a thing or two to say.
Sean is and always will be, in my opinion, one of the most over-opinionated developers out there. His way or the highway, which is fine. He has the job at the big gaming company, not us so talking down on him is pointless as the rest of us are ants. Also, he doesn't listen to what the players want, he gives them what HE wants, and then tells complaints to shut up.
Now this isn't a personal attack, this is quite simply what he demonstrates.
There is a severe problem with "flavor" vs. power. And that is playability. I want to play Eli from Book of eli. But I couldn't do that. I have a severe physical disability, I'm dead session one. I've always wanted to play a blind character. I've wanted benefits (as flaws should always give benefits to create balance) but not things that replace sight. Maybe I want to have a keen sense of smell and hearing and be able to feel magic in the air. I can't do that. If I play a blind character, I'm dead.
So moving on from that, that's just what you have to accept. Quite simply, if you're playing Pathfinder, you're playing in someone else's sandbox. This isn't your game, this is theirs. IF you don't like it, don't complain, houserule. If you're not the GM, talk it over with your GM. Most GMs will give you a second to state your case and if it doesn't impede balance, will house rule it in. Because quite simply, if you play everything by the book, you're playing the game as SKR wants it played, not as you want it played. If you want more flexibility, I recommend Mutants and Masterminds, Neccessary Evil (Savage worlds) and other rpgs that actually listen to their players. Otherwise, just play Pathfinder.
*Note, I play Pathfinder every week and love the system. But we do feel the need to houserule some things because lack of creativity, or at least play testing. Now this isn't an attack, though it will be responded to as such, but more like a plea for the pathfinder developers to LISTEN TO THEIR PLAYER BASE INSTEAD OF BEING ARROGANT. Neil Spicer says something, people listen because he's not arrogant about it. People like SKR however are, and let their jobs go to their heads. Which is fine, that's their choice.
Jesse Brake wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Counterpoint: Shackled City opens with the party asked to find kidnapped orphans. Side note: I admit, you definitely couldn't replace the glabrezu encounter in Shackled City with 64 gnolls. ;^) More to do with the murder closet it happens in, however. :)
Vistarius wrote: I have a thing or two to say.
Sean is and always will be, in my opinion, one of the most over-opinionated developers out there. His way or the highway, which is fine. He has the job at the big gaming company, not us so talking down on him is pointless as the rest of us are ants. Also, he doesn't listen to what the players want, he gives them what HE wants, and then tells complaints to shut up.
Now this isn't a personal attack, this is quite simply what he demonstrates.
There is a severe problem with "flavor" vs. power. And that is playability. I want to play Eli from Book of eli. But I couldn't do that. I have a severe physical disability, I'm dead session one. I've always wanted to play a blind character. I've wanted benefits (as flaws should always give benefits to create balance) but not things that replace sight. Maybe I want to have a keen sense of smell and hearing and be able to feel magic in the air. I can't do that. If I play a blind character, I'm dead.
So moving on from that, that's just what you have to accept. Quite simply, if you're playing Pathfinder, you're playing in someone else's sandbox. This isn't your game, this is theirs. IF you don't like it, don't complain, houserule. If you're not the GM, talk it over with your GM. Most GMs will give you a second to state your case and if it doesn't impede balance, will house rule it in. Because quite simply, if you play everything by the book, you're playing the game as SKR wants it played, not as you want it played. If you want more flexibility, I recommend Mutants and Masterminds, Neccessary Evil (Savage worlds) and other rpgs that actually listen to their players. Otherwise, just play Pathfinder.
*Note, I play Pathfinder every week and love the system. But we do feel the need to houserule some things because lack of creativity, or at least play testing. Now this isn't an attack, though it will be responded to as such, but more like a plea for the pathfinder developers to LISTEN TO THEIR PLAYER BASE INSTEAD OF BEING ARROGANT. Neil...
I like Sean because he does not give us cooperate speak. I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I prefer someone who is real than the PC(politically correct) nonsense I get from many businesses.
Actually M&M does not work well enough for me(and manyothers) for a this type of game, but I do love it for what it does as a superhero game.
As for lack of creativity I might need a reference on that one.
I don't see how they don't listen to us. They can't do what all of us want due to the variance in play styles so they try to give a common ground, and let the GM handle it from there. As an example check the various archetypes vs PrC threads.
wraithstrike wrote: The problem is that the monk can never have enough gold for those things. There is nothing saying a party member can't buy them for him though. The monk is basically intended to give up his wealth which is my issue with the option... I don't entirely disagree with this when it comes to the optimized, minimaxed option. I would not allow that monk into my game personally.
But for the other one (the far squishier AC 19 version), I look at it this way. In the course of the adventure you amass 240,000gp and give it all to the church (or whatever organization you work for) over the course of 15 levels, the church probably won't have a problem spending half of what you gave them on permanent spells for the VoP PC and other assorted items the party needs. The fighter gets cursed? Need a commune spell? Want a wand of cure serious wounds? Maybe the church could burn some incense of meditation before a know-it's-going-to-be-awful fight. The church has your back because even after paying for all that, they still made a king's ransom off of said VoP PC.
Obviously, GMs have to watch for abuse. That's why when I wrote up my normal VoP monk, I said "all 240,000gp goes to the church. The church spends half on the VoP monk and pockets 120,000gp." That's not a bad deal at all. Why would the church give the monk things like permanent see invisibility, darkvision, and arcane sight? Simple: takes money to make money and they are investing in their cash cow.
I see it going down like this.
Behind closed doors: "Let's give our brother monk the ability to see invisible enemies and in the dark so he isn't killed by craven tactics. Also, let's give him the ability to see the magical auras of anything his group finds so if he has a craven rogue amongst them, the rogue can't say something is worthless when it is clearly magical. This way, we can make sure our brother monk gets his cut and we stay in the black."
Public Face: "Thank you for you donations our most devout of followers, receive this blessing to aid you in your future endeavors." [cast whatever permanent spell here].
TriOmegaZero wrote: Jesse Brake wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Counterpoint: Shackled City opens with the party asked to find kidnapped orphans. Side note: I admit, you definitely couldn't replace the glabrezu encounter in Shackled City with 64 gnolls. ;^) More to do with the murder closet it happens in, however. :) Truth. Actually, considering the level you are at during that encounter, 64 gnolls might be fun. *too lazy to get up and grab SC to double check*
Jesse Brake wrote: good stuff I really like the idea, but some hardcore players/GM's would have to see a lot of deaths before they came around to loosening the stance on not accepting the "gifts".
Vistarius wrote: There is a severe problem with "flavor" vs. power. And that is playability. I want to play Eli from Book of eli. But I couldn't do that. I have a severe physical disability, I'm dead session one. I've always wanted to play a blind character. I've wanted benefits (as flaws should always give benefits to create balance) but not things that replace sight. Maybe I want to have a keen sense of smell and hearing and be able to feel magic in the air. I can't do that. If I play a blind character, I'm dead... It's funny you mention this exact scenario because an earlier poster had the same idea of a blind character and we came up with a small, but decent idea of a variant favored class bonus to help make it possible. You could do it with gunslinger for sure, plus the Blind-Fight tree in the APG definitely make it a possible character.
Blind Swordsman: Add +1 to the fighter’s miss chance percentile roll to one type of weapon [melee or missile] (maximum +20).
Edit: On a second look now, this may not be too overpowered in this form.
Blind Swordsman: Add +2 to the fighter’s miss chance percentile roll to one type of weapon [melee or missile] (maximum +20).
Second Edit: Maybe even...
Blind Swordsman: Add +3 to the fighter’s miss chance percentile roll to one type of weapon [melee or missile] (maximum +30).
Vistarius wrote: This isn't your game, this is theirs. IF you don't like it, don't complain, houserule. If you're not the GM, talk it over with your GM. Most GMs will give you a second to state your case and if it doesn't impede balance, will house rule it in... I concur 100%.
wraithstrike wrote: I really like the idea, but some hardcore players/GM's would have to see a lot of deaths before they came around to loosening the stance on not accepting the "gifts". I would have the clerics argue the following:
"Refusing the blessings of you church? Your true poverty is now apparent: you are bankrupt of humility. Do not let your personal quest become one of vanity. Your church and your god invest this magic into your soul, the only part of you that is not an earthly allowance. Long after your clothes are moth eaten, your staff rotted and your flesh consumed by the carrion, your soul will remain. Let all others see that it bears the mark of your faith rewarded."
Jesse Brake wrote: wraithstrike wrote: I really like the idea, but some hardcore players/GM's would have to see a lot of deaths before they came around to loosening the stance on not accepting the "gifts". I would have the clerics argue the following:
"Refusing the blessings of you church? Your true poverty is now apparent: you are bankrupt of humility. Do not let your personal quest become one of vanity. Your church and your god invest this magic into your soul, the only part of you that is not an earthly allowance. Long after your clothes are moth eaten, your staff rotted and your flesh consumed by the carrion, your soul will remain. Let all others see that it bears the mark of your faith rewarded." That works for an in game character argument, but for real life players or GMs I am sure it will be harder.
I think you have just made the list of people on these boards I would like to game with one day though.
wraithstrike wrote: That works for an in game character argument, but for real life players or GMs I am sure it will be harder... I found when dealing with such players, in-game arguments work pretty well since they project themselves in the game so heavily.
Unless they are rules lawyers. Can't do much with them.
wraithstrike wrote: I think you have just made the list of people on these boards I would like to game with one day though. As long as it isn't play-by-play; can't do it. :^)
Jesse Brake wrote: Side note: I admit, you definitely couldn't replace the glabrezu encounter in Shackled City with 64 gnolls. ;^) Hah! They'd probably live longer!
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I like Sean because he does not give us cooperate speak. I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I prefer someone who is real than the PC(politically correct) nonsense I get from many businesses.
Nor do the other devs and contributors here give us corporate speech. But in their case I get the feeling that they paying attention when we are writing our responses and little worries.
magnuskn wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
I like Sean because he does not give us cooperate speak. I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I prefer someone who is real than the PC(politically correct) nonsense I get from many businesses.
Nor do the other devs and contributors here give us corporate speech. But in their case I get the feeling that they paying attention when we are writing our responses and little worries. I figure if he did not care he would not respond. I know I would not respond to a post I did not care about, but that is just speculation on my part as to what determines why he post when he does.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
