I could say that my greatsword is finessseable. But certain choices you make are going to influence mechanics. A rapier that fits inside a wooden sheath that's small enough to pass as a sword cane is going to be extremely different from a standard rapier, just from the sheer blade size. And it's going to be a relatively "crappy" weapon BECAUSE of the physical compromises that need to be made in order to fit inside that cane sheath. Including that small detail of the hilt that has to look like the top of a cane, not a sword hilt.There's a major reason that while sword canes existed, they never evolved beyond novelty status, or were mainly carried by people who seldom if ever actually went into combat.
I never had an issue with the weaker stats, that was fine for what the weapon was. But when things like light picks, gladius', and rapiers are all finessable, then sword cane should be too.
and the fact I know how to use a rapier, but need a feat to use a sword cane blew my mind.
I can actually find uses for VoP in various character concepts... it's not GREAT, Heck... it's not even GOOD. But I can see where they were going.
Sword cane is unusable as it is, and we had to house rule the heck out of that.
I can look at the DM and say, My guy uses a rapier, but it's got a wooden sheath and let's call it a sword cane. That's flavor. When the DM responds with, 'actually they HAVE a sword cane. It's weaker as a weapon, non-finessable, and you have to take a feat to use it... but some people MAY not notice it's a weapon....'I could say that my greatsword is finessseable. But certain choices you make are going to influence mechanics. A rapier that fits inside a wooden sheath that's small enough to pass as a sword cane is going to be extremely different from a standard rapier, just from the sheer blade size. And it's going to be a relatively "crappy" weapon BECAUSE of the physical compromises that need to be made in order to fit inside that cane sheath. Including that small detail of the hilt that has to look like the top of a cane, not a sword hilt.
There's a major reason that while sword canes existed, they never evolved beyond novelty status, or were mainly carried by people who seldom if ever actually went into combat.
YES LET'S TALK ABOUT REALISTIC WEAPONS IN THE GAME WITH DIRE FLAILS.
Realism never, ever comes up when something is good. It's never "nerf dragosn they're unrealistic." It's never "Excuse me mister wizard I cannot help notice that you are flying did you do the mathematical equations for velocity and wind drag I didn't think so."
It's always "Hey this option is awful, let's try to justify it!"
YES LET'S TALK ABOUT REALISTIC WEAPONS IN THE GAME WITH DIRE FLAILS.
Realism never, ever comes up when something is good. It's never "nerf dragosn they're unrealistic." It's never "Excuse me mister wizard I cannot help notice that you are flying did you do the mathematical equations for velocity and wind drag I didn't think so."
It's always "Hey this option is awful, let's try to justify it!"
I dont know that I agree with that. Simulationists argue against good options all the time. The people who argue against things like oversized two weapon fighting or monkey grip from 3.5 for example, often take a stance that the weapons would be too unweildy to be effective. One of the common arguments against tome of battle was it was too much like anime, and didnt fit a more down to earth ascetic that they prefered. They were/are mechanically good options, but often times they were argued against from the point of realism.
Edit:
Another more recent example i can think of was the argument against a druid finding a dinosaur animal companion anywhere but an exotic jungle because a temperate environment couldn't support a group of t-rexes. That one was fun.
I dont know that I agree with that. Simulationists argue against good options all the time. The people who argue against things like oversized two weapon fighting or monkey grip from 3.5 for example, often take a stance that the weapons would be too unweildy to be effective. One of the common arguments against tome of battle was it was too much like anime, and didnt fit a more down to earth ascetic that they prefered. They were/are mechanically good options, but often times they were argued against from the point of realism.YES LET'S TALK ABOUT REALISTIC WEAPONS IN THE GAME WITH DIRE FLAILS.
Realism never, ever comes up when something is good. It's never "nerf dragosn they're unrealistic." It's never "Excuse me mister wizard I cannot help notice that you are flying did you do the mathematical equations for velocity and wind drag I didn't think so."
It's always "Hey this option is awful, let's try to justify it!"
D&D isn't based around being a simulation. What I found with Tome of Battle is that people found anime to be the most effective excuse to use against fighters gaining increased narrative power.
If you want a down to earth ascetic, you play E6 or GURPS.
I dont know that I agree with that. Simulationists argue against good options all the time. The people who argue against things like oversized two weapon fighting or monkey grip from 3.5 for example, often take a stance that the weapons would be too unweildy to be effective. One of the common arguments against tome of battle was it was too much like anime, and didnt fit a more down to earth ascetic that they prefered. They were/are mechanically good options, but often times they were argued against from the point of realism.YES LET'S TALK ABOUT REALISTIC WEAPONS IN THE GAME WITH DIRE FLAILS.
Realism never, ever comes up when something is good. It's never "nerf dragosn they're unrealistic." It's never "Excuse me mister wizard I cannot help notice that you are flying did you do the mathematical equations for velocity and wind drag I didn't think so."
It's always "Hey this option is awful, let's try to justify it!"
D&D isn't based around being a simulation. What I found with Tome of Battle is that people found anime to be the most effective excuse to use against fighters gaining increased narrative power.
If you want a down to earth ascetic, you play E6 or GURPS.
Oh I agree with you. And I could care less how realistic a game is so long as the mechanics connect well to the flavor of the game. If you are flying around in a wushu film, thats cool, just make the rules behave that way.
I just meant to point out that I have seen simulationist arguments against mechanically strong options.
D&D isn't based around being a simulation. What I found with Tome of Battle is that people found anime to be the most effective excuse to use against fighters gaining increased narrative power.If you want a down to earth ascetic, you play E6 or GURPS.
The good thing is Pathfinder is reintroducing ToB slowly with Monk Style feats (Snake Style, etc are ToB maneuvers). Eventually, they might expand this to other feats/abilities.
The good thing is Pathfinder is reintroducing ToB slowly with Monk Style feats (Snake Style, etc are ToB maneuvers). Eventually, they might expand this to other feats/abilities.
D&D isn't based around being a simulation. What I found with Tome of Battle is that people found anime to be the most effective excuse to use against fighters gaining increased narrative power.If you want a down to earth ascetic, you play E6 or GURPS.
Maybe, but I still thing feats arent the way to go. They are too limited a resource, the thing that made ToB great was that martial characters got abilities that were of a similar scale and opportunity cost as spells.
Maybe, but I still thing feats arent the way to go. They are too limited a resource, the thing that made ToB great was that martial characters got abilities that were of a similar scale and opportunity cost as spells.
Agreed.
the thing that made ToB great was that martial characters got abilities that were of a similar scale and opportunity cost as spells.I disagree.
If I wanted everybody to have the same scale and opportunity cost for their powers, I'd play 4e.
I like the fact that a player who likes a steady, reliable impact on the game can have that whereas a player who likes to hold off on their power until the right moment and then swing the game around can have that too.
I can understand that, but that is something that is very likely to result in a lack of balance. How do you weight +1 to hit all day long agaisnt 1/per day black tentacles?
You describe one of your melee attacks like: "I swing at the evil cleric -real- hard, raising my axe above my head, shifting my grip, muscles bulging, and using it's downward momentum to crush the heretic's skull ."
Your GM warns you that you cannot do that, because you didn't take Power Attack as a feat.Is that a reasonable statement?
Your GM tells you that you cannot describe your actions in that manner. Unreasonable.
Your GM tells you that you cannot gain any mechanical advantage (say by sacrificing your bonus to attack to gain a greater bonus to damage) because you don't possess the feat. Very Reasonable.
If not, then we should all only ever play pure spellcasters. All of the physical mechanics of the game become a mere narrative exercise. For that matter, so would skill use.
The Sword Cane and the Vow of Poverty are terrible. What about Dazzling Display? Go Unnoticed? Deceptive Exchange? These are feats that I have used effectively (recently, in fact), but fall far short of what I would call "Optimal". Yes, I could just say, "I slip into the shadows at the edge of the cavern, as the distraction of my larger companions pulls the attention of the evil cleric." To which my GM may or may not respond, "No, he's seen you. He's aware of you despite being flat-footed." The Go Unnoticed feat sets or alters the game mechanics, just as Power Attack does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aesthetics are qualities, usually talking about art and beauty. You might say that you prefer art deco aesthetics over gothic, or that for your game you prefer a Wushu aesthetic over a gritty Dark Ages simulationist one.
An ascetic is a person who eschews material comforts and possessions because it provides greater spiritual clarity. They build a simple aesthetic for themselves. A VoP monk is the quintessential ascetic.
So: If you want to play a down to earth ascetic, then play a well grounded VoP monk. If you want to play a down to earth aesthetic, then you should play E6 or GURPS.
[/rant]
You describe one of your melee attacks like: "I swing at the evil cleric -real- hard, raising my axe above my head, shifting my grip, muscles bulging, and using it's downward momentum to crush the heretic's skull ."
Your GM warns you that you cannot do that, because you didn't take Power Attack as a feat.Is that a reasonable statement?
Your GM tells you that you cannot describe your actions in that manner. Unreasonable.
Your GM tells you that you cannot gain any mechanical advantage (say by sacrificing your bonus to attack to gain a greater bonus to damage) because you don't possess the feat. Very Reasonable.
Then we agree.
The narrative description of an action has no impact whatsoever on the mechanics. It -should- not have an impact on the mechanics or, at least, shouldn't have one identical to a feat, because feats are a scarce resource.Not only that: concerning normal physical actions that can be performed without special training (my description above), it's moronic to veto that description because it's identical to how a mechanical ability works, one that the character doesn't have.
These are feats that I have used effectively (recently, in fact), but fall far short of what I would call "Optimal". Yes, I could just say, "I slip into the shadows at the edge of the cavern, as the distraction of my larger companions pulls the attention of the evil cleric." To which my GM may or may not respond, "No, he's seen you. He's aware of you despite being flat-footed." The Go Unnoticed feat sets or alters the game mechanics, just as Power Attack does.
And I agree again: one takes feats such as that -because- they alter the game mechanics. Not because they make for good RP, "allowing" you to describe your Stealth check in that way; you can already do that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Though it bears noting that one could have the aesthetics of an ascetic in a high-fantasy game and be viable, if only there were mechanical support.
Playing an ascetic for the aesthetics while not having a realistic chance of surviving and contributing in a standard AP was already an option before UM Vow of Poverty came along. What still needs help is the option to play an ascetic that can hold up their end in a standard party and stays true to the aesthetics.
