Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Dang, I saw NotMousse being mostly ignored and thought everyone had seen through his blatant trolling.
YOU'VE SHATTERED MY DREAMS, NELSON
Obvious troll is, in fact, obvious, but I'm blessed with saintly patience and simply like to shine the light of day should some actual question arise. Behold my beatific halo of virtuous virtuosity! BEHOLD IT!!! :)
Obvious troll is, in fact, obvious, but I'm blessed with saintly patience and simply like to shine the light of day should some actual question arise. Behold my beatific halo of virtuous virtuosity! BEHOLD IT!!! :)Dang, I saw NotMousse being mostly ignored and thought everyone had seen through his blatant trolling.
YOU'VE SHATTERED MY DREAMS, NELSON
*Beholds it*
*Nails a "Don't feed the trolls" sign to thread*
Dang it. Now I really want to ask you a reasonably significant question, but I don't really have any...I mean, I've got money set aside from UC, am staying away from the spoilers as much as possible, and questions on other topics are really better placed in other threads than one that has "Ultimate Combat" in the title.
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.You thought correctly. I think that's why your complaints seem so baffling.
Ultimate Combat *IS* a book that is not "all about giving casters more toys." I'm puzzled why you would think otherwise, unless you haven't seen it nor availed yourself of the 600+ post spoiler thread about it that gives out quite a bit of information about its contents.
Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.?
A statement such as this suggests you are trolling rather than voicing a concern based on actual evidence. What specifically is disappointing to you about Ultimate Combat, other than the fact that it includes spellcasters as characters that engage in combat?
BTW, I should also point out that "Combat" includes large sections on issues around combat that transcend any kind of caster/martial divide. Things like siege weapons and fortifications or vehicular combat or wounds and vigor or armor as DR or piecemeal armor or reworking armor and weapons lists based on campaign setting (giving examples of primitive weapons, gladiator weapons, and yes, the dreaded "eastern" weapon list as well).
I wonder: Are sections like that disappointing for a fan of martial characters, because they don't seem like something your character would use?
I wonder how that would compare to the sections in Ultimate Magic on constructs, spell creation, words of power, sample spellbooks, and other items that a given player's magical character might likewise not feel are something they would ever use.
Some of the contents of a rulebook will be direct-application adventurer material. Other stuff, though, is going to be organic-world-level material that adventurers may not use all that much, but is there to round out how to play the game in those kinds of peripheral zones....
Ahem, as much as I don't like his posting style, I must point out that you're not addressing his point at all, here.
His problem is not that there are some sections in the book he won't use, his point is that he expected to be able to find something for his western-styled, regular sword-wielding fighter ( a class that's pretty much all about fighting ) in a book called "ultimate combat"( a somewhat reasonable expectation, I'd say ) and he found nothing.
(Archetypes don't cut it for existing characters, since you probably have one already and the fighter archetypes are quite restrictive in nature, so he's left with feats and PrCs.
There aren't any PrCs in the book, so he's left with feats, that seem to be aimed mostly at monks, and stuff like siege vehicles, armor as DR and Vitality/Wounds that are variant rules rather than new options ).
While the statement you quoted is quite hyperbolic in nature, he probably feels that, had you guys devoted less space to casters ( who got "their" book two months ago )and more space to noncasters, who got close to nothing in UM, he might have found something to use with his fighter rather than his friend's magus/bard/monk whatever ( all classes whose main focus in not just "beat people up with a pointy stick").
How would you feel had you cracked Ultimate Magic open and found that there's not a single thing (be it a feat, class or spell) your Wizard/Cleric/whatever could/would take?
Some stuff
Hunh??
NotMousse never mentions a thing about western-style or sword wielding or any of that...Where are you getting this? From the brief mention of "Fighter has only X pages!!@!@!@QRFA$E!!"
??
I don't see it..
So far I am liking most of this book, I am however saddened to not see the inclusion of Chinese hook swords (Shuang Gou), probably one of the most versatile weapons I have ever seen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere between dozens of feats (remember, feats are Fighter class features, right?) such as: Hammer the Gap, Death or Glory or Felling Smash, between Performance Combat (ever wanted to be that show-off swashbuckler or gladiator AND benefit from it mechanically?), and Called Shots/Wounds+Vigor systems, this book has more material for a vanilla Fighter than APG and Core combined.
Seriously, Fighters were already top of the food chain when it comes to damage. What they needed is versatility and cool options, and Ultimate Combat gives exactly that.
(ever wanted to be that show-off swashbuckler or gladiator AND benefit from it mechanically?)
Some stuffHunh??
NotMousse never mentions a thing about western-style or sword wielding or any of that...Where are you getting this? From the brief mention of "Fighter has only X pages!!@!@!@QRFA$E!!"
??I don't see it..
Yeah, got him mixed up with HeHateMe ( and you did as well, it seems :P)
Sorry.
So far I am liking most of this book, I am however saddened to not see the inclusion of Chinese hook swords (Shuang Gou), probably one of the most versatile weapons I have ever seen.Shang Gou is in the book, page 131.
Oh hey, awesome! I missed that. Unfortuntally they cannot be hooked together to make a reach weapon, but that level of versatility is one of the things that made Spiked Chains so busted in 3e.
Some stuffHunh??
NotMousse never mentions a thing about western-style or sword wielding or any of that...Where are you getting this? From the brief mention of "Fighter has only X pages!!@!@!@QRFA$E!!"
??I don't see it..
Yeah, got him mixed up with HeHateMe ( and you did as well, it seems :P)
Sorry.
Baaaahahahaha!!
So I did!
We're cool XP
2d6 bleed at level 3? Ouchies :DBoar Style (Combat, Style)
Your sharp teeth and nails rip your foes open.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Intimidate
3 ranks.
Benefit: You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack.
I had the original turnover for the Boar Style feats (which is a MUCH better name than the one I originally concocted BTW). I think -- but don't quote me -- that the 2d6 bleed part might be fixed in an upcoming FAQ. Again, don't quote the first-time freelancer here, but I think it's supposed to read "2d6 additional damage". My original turnover didn't mention bleed damage until the 3rd feat in the tree.