|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are free. You're paying 40 bucks to have them in a nice book with cool drawings. Now, if you don't like the artwork, I can relate...This is a fair point, but I don't think it negates criticism. If only because, like SKR said, criticism is being taken on board to make better rules. If Paizo didn't want people criticizing their books, they could easily ban it from their boards.
To clarify: there's customer entitlement and there are professional standards. Every publisher should strive to those, it's just that one feat and one archetype in a 250 page book doesn't exactly register as "gross lack of professionalism" in my books.
I purchase academic handbooks for stupid big amounts of money, and if I ever was to start raging over one poor article in a collected publication of 20 articles ... I'd be on an anger management therapy already. And here I have free stuff that strives to the same standard, if they stumble along I'm more than happy to cut some slack.
Also notice, that I am usually much more critical of fluff books, because those aren't free content. I've blasted Memory of Darnkess and City of Seven Spears because both were poor and I actually had my 14 USD sunk in each of them. Now that ticks me off. Rules books - not so much.
Skipping all the feedback:
my feelings on VoP. I've had a few gamers use it. We'll talk about them individually for a sec.
A monk who was simply called This One (as he didn't feel like he'd earned a name yet): great use of VoP. Made a point of giving all his money to bakers and then giving the bread to the poor he ran into (and since it was a FR game set in Waterdeep, he was pretty active). Didn't seem like the VoP was hurting him in any way.
A Barbarian took it (name I can't remember): Played it well enough. Used basically found weapons. He would pick up weapons that were "liberated" from their foes, use them, then drop them at the end of the fight and never thought about them again (which was kind of funny when he lost a few work of art weapons that way). May have been a little off on the rules, but really didn't seem that bad, and losing the weapons after every fight was good for a laugh.
Also had a warforged monk (mithril body) take VoP, and the only complaint will be addressed below.
In PF, I have a druid in my current Rise of the Runelords game who has it; it may be effective but he's more of a Fae inspired trickster/joker, so while he may have a lot of good points going for him, he's a bit of a pain for the party. Mainly due to his insistance that sometimes you just have to sleep off a wound or two, or that the weather isn't effecting him, so why should he be casting Endure Elements on you guys. To quote Petal (the druid) "I may need this first level spell for one of these healing spells you keep bugging me for". However, since he's been able to wild shape, the VoP doesn't seem to really help him that much any more. And let's be honest, there seems to be a dearth of good Exalted feats to take with VoP's bonus feats.
My main cause for concern for VoP is the lack of good feats to take with all the bonus feats. Sure touch of golden ice is nice, but that always requires the player to remember he has it, and half the time my players just don't seem to remember, or they assume that because the DC for the fort save is so low that it won't really matter. Power-wise all of these characters seemed to be able to hold their own, but they felt less than exciting sometimes simply due to the lack of interesting options for their exalted feats.
My two coppers. Your milage may vary.
Hm, anyone know if Mikaze got the pdf I put up here for her?
Thank you!
Hm, anyone know if Mikaze got the pdf I put up here for her?
I wish I knew. I couldn't open the file either.
This one? I downloaded it but haven't taken the time to really check it out...
I got it!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got it!
And it's great. :) That take just feels right on monks. The flavor, not just what's directly written but also what results from the mechanics being used in-setting, lends itself perfectly to those characters that are supposed to be drawing strength from enlightenment.
And the chakra flavor works perfectly with the Vudrani monk traditions. I really hope I get to use these rules as a player someday, especially since the monk I most want to play is Vudrani. Whether I get the chance or not, I'm definitely making these available to my players from the GMs side of the screen. It's just a lot more encouraging to selfless heroic characters in general than the usual loot-centric formula. It feels right.
It also leaves the monk able to get some supernatural martial arts flavor going while having it feel more "honest". Those characters are able to dish out holy palmstrikes, knees, elbows, and flying kicks because they're ascetics, not because of doodads that grant them that power. So when such a character talks about ideals to encourage or inspire NPCs it doesn't ring hollow. They're able to walk the walk, and that makes them much more appealing personally.
The other notes on Appreciative Gifts and benefactors(be they good, evil, or neither) are good ideas for GMs to take note of, especially if they're looking to support idealistic, heroic characters.
Thanks, big time! Filing this in the houserules and Wayfinder/forum-made material folders now.
Just as a note Ashiel, for the OGL license to be complete you need to update the Section 15 with the information for the new publication. Eg. Ascetic Characters. Copyright 2012, Alvena Publishing. Author: Ashiel (or whatever author name you want to use).
Thanks Caedwyr. I'll update in soon. ^-^
Got it!
And it's great. :) That take just feels right on monks. The flavor, not just what's directly written but also what results from the mechanics being used in-setting, lends itself perfectly to those characters that are supposed to be drawing strength from enlightenment.
And the chakra flavor works perfectly with the Vudrani monk traditions. I really hope I get to use these rules as a player someday, especially since the monk I most want to play is Vudrani. Whether I get the chance or not, I'm definitely making these available to my players from the GMs side of the screen. It's just a lot more encouraging to selfless heroic characters in general than the usual loot-centric formula. It feels right.
It also leaves the monk able to get some supernatural martial arts flavor going while having it feel more "honest". Those characters are able to dish out holy palmstrikes, knees, elbows, and flying kicks because they're ascetics, not because of doodads that grant them that power. So when such a character talks about ideals to encourage or inspire NPCs it doesn't ring hollow. They're able to walk the walk, and that makes them much more appealing personally.
The other notes on Appreciative Gifts and benefactors(be they good, evil, or neither) are good ideas for GMs to take note of, especially if they're looking to support idealistic, heroic characters.
Thanks, big time! Filing this in the houserules and Wayfinder/forum-made material folders now.
You're very welcome Mikaze. I'm glad you like it. Also, in case you're curious, the reason you're not required to sacrifice the full 100% of your wealth is there is a 15% allotment for some basic provisions and for consumable items. It always bugged the hell out of me that the 3.5 Vow of Poverty meant you couldn't carry a potion of cure light wounds to try and save a downed ally with, making you a burden on your party. This assumes that you will have 15% of our wealth to put towards things you see fit (such as purchasing provisions, consumables, paying tolls and/or rent, etc).
Sorry that it took so long Mikazi. I had to get up and do some other stuff instead of writing. Anyway, I wanted to write this for you since you love monks and I genuinely enjoy reading your posts (particularly on undead stuff).
Ascetic Characters in Pathfinder.Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
I really want to see this. I'm having trouble loading it up now, but I really want to read this. Going to continue trying to download it through the day!
And thanks, big time! :)
Fergie, reading over your version as well!
Well I could e-mail it to you if you'd like.
=====================================
I arrived in the conversation late, and mostly responded to Mikaze and a comment Sean made directly. I haven't really seen much attacking going on on either side (beyond stuff like people calling optimizers crybabies, but haters gonna hate and all). But nobody should attack the developers, because they are people to. I say open fire on attacking the bad mechanics though. They need to die by fire.
After readin your rules I am wondering wether you are not simply making it a 'superior' option to actually owning and using magical items.
Sundering, theft, possible deduction of 'abilities', weight, availability, dispelling, disarming or otherwise targeting items (heat metal), these tend to be significant hindrances over the course of a campaign.
Is there a balancing factor I have missed, or did you feel it is sufficient to lay down ground rules and have people houserule their implementation ?
A different take on Vow of Poverty:
You gain the use of a spell-like ability of your choice for every HD you possess. You can choose any spell-like ability whose spell version doesn't require a material component worth more than 100 gp. The chosen spell-like ability can be of a maximum spell level equal to 1/2 of the HD number to which it is associated (rounded down, max 9th level), and can be used 1/day. You may take the same spell-like ability more than once, each time increasing by one the number of times it can be used per day. Alternatively, you can choose a spell-like ability to use 3/day (or 3 additional times per day, if you already took it 1/day), but its maximum level is half (rounded down) of the maximum spell level you would have access to for a given HD. Or again, you may choose a spell-like ability with a range of "personal" or "touch" to be constant, but its maximum level is 1/3 of the maximum spell level you would have access to for a given HD.
Any time you gain a new HD, you can also replace one of the previously chosen spell-like abilities with a different one (either a 1/day, a 3/day or a constant one). Alternatively, you may choose a new 1/day spell-like ability that requires a costly material component by losing a total of spell levels worth equal to 1 + 1 for every 2000 gp of the required material components (minimum 2 levels). Spell-like abilities of a lower level than the maximum available for a given HD, count as if they were of the 1/day maximum level for that HD. For example, a creature that chose a 3/day Magic Missile for its 19th HD, and then gains its 20th HD, counts that 3/day Magic Missile as a 9th level worth of spell levels.
The CL for all these spell-like abilities is equal to your HD (max 20th), and save DCs are based on either Wisdom or Charisma (creature choice, but once made it can't be changed).
A constant spell-like ability whose effects are dispelled, dismissed, discharged or anyway ended (such as an attack that ends Invisibility) but not just temporarily suppressed, can be resumed one minute later as a standard action.
You can see, at high levels it could mean constant Fly, Greater Magic Weapon/Fang, Mage Armor and Displacement, 3/day Greater Invisibility, and so on. Pretty much what you could get from magic items.
Other vows would function similarly, but with HD intervals (such as one spell-like ability for every 4 HD, for example) depending on how heavy the restrictions of the vow are, and maybe with a limitation on the type of spell-like ability that can be chosen (for example, Vow of Peace wouldn't allow to choose harmful spell-like abilities or those with the Evil descriptor; Vow of Truth wouldn't allow those of the Illusion school, and so on).
Ashiel you thought about publishing that article?
|
Sorry that it took so long Mikazi. I had to get up and do some other stuff instead of writing. Anyway, I wanted to write this for you since you love monks and I genuinely enjoy reading your posts (particularly on undead stuff).
Ascetic Characters in Pathfinder.Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
I really want to see this. I'm having trouble loading it up now, but I really want to read this. Going to continue trying to download it through the day!
And thanks, big time! :)
Fergie, reading over your version as well!
Well I could e-mail it to you if you'd like.
=====================================
I arrived in the conversation late, and mostly responded to Mikaze and a comment Sean made directly. I haven't really seen much attacking going on on either side (beyond stuff like people calling optimizers crybabies, but haters gonna hate and all). But nobody should attack the developers, because they are people to. I say open fire on attacking the bad mechanics though. They need to die by fire.After readin your rules I am wondering wether you are not simply making it a 'superior' option to actually owning and using magical items.
Sundering, theft, possible deduction of 'abilities', weight, availability, dispelling, disarming or otherwise targeting items (heat metal), these tend to be significant hindrances over the course of a campaign.
Is there a balancing factor I have missed, or did you feel it is sufficient to lay down ground rules and have people houserule their implementation ?
Part of why in my area it was always seen as the Vow of Power.
Ashiel you thought about publishing that article?
Publishing it?
After readin your rules I am wondering wether you are not simply making it a 'superior' option to actually owning and using magical items.
Sundering, theft, possible deduction of 'abilities', weight, availability, dispelling, disarming or otherwise targeting items (heat metal), these tend to be significant hindrances over the course of a campaign.
Is there a balancing factor I have missed, or did you feel it is sufficient to lay down ground rules and have people houserule their implementation ?
First off, you are expending a feat to basically have magic items, which is something that the game expects that you will acquire naturally as part of the game; even going so far as to say that most treasure will be sold and new magic items purchased (see core rulebook). So firstly you are spending a feat to have what you already get, so I think it's fair to enjoy some perks (for most magic items weight is not a concern, availability is little concern unless you're playing a high level game where you want greater than +4 stuff, and heat metal doesn't work on monks very well anyway, since most magic items aren't made out of metal or can be made out of other materials).
The second part is that if you had bothered to spend a feat for magic items, then you probably could have just gotten a craft feat and made your own magic items at 1/2 cost, effectively doubling your WBL unless your campaign suffers from chronic ADHD where the PCs are eating, breathing, and drinking conflict every day (the majority of campaigns I have seen or read about involve downtime, with a few exceptions). With this, you are basically taking what you get. If you get 2,000 gp worth of treasure then you get up to 2,000 gp worth of stuff if you sacrifice it. 8/11 classes in the core rulebook can craft magic items by virtue of class, and at least one core race allows by virtue of race.
There's also the fact that experienced players will tell you the ability to swap between magic items easily and on the fly is a major advantage. For example, carrying multiple pairs of boots of speed can keep you hasted all day long (they weigh like 2 lb., so you can carry a few more). Sustaining your ascetic means being unable to conveniently switch between magical goodies quickly and easily. The only exception to this is sword/shield enhancements, which you still have to purchase individually and cannot use at the same time.
In some situations, yes, it would be pretty sweet (if you have any odd house rules concerning item availability, make treasure plenty common but magic items plenty uncommon, or routinely get your tools removed), but only in certain situations. Which that's kind of the point. You spent a feat to get something you normally get anyway, so you enjoy certain things about it. Ascetic is also a bit misleading. While it screams monks, other classes like Fighters might get a good bit out of it, but they still need to keep some different weapons around (you'll want silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc), and you'll probably still want to upgrade your armor (though I should likely expand the ascetic stuff to include an armor chakra as well, possibly making the Root chakra for armor OR ki).
========================================================================
I could clean up the pdf a bit more. I noticed once spelling error, and could expand the chakras a little more, and could make it that you can targeted-dispel a chakra (shutting down the item effect tied to said chakra) for those concerned with that, but I was a bit in a hurry (I had asked for 1 hour, but got called to do something, so I was already "late" IMO, so I rushed it a bit).
|
|
The hit to versatility on the fly was the big (and perfectly fair) tradeoff that stood out to me.
You'll likely also need to unbind your chakras to use plot-necessary items or artifacts whould they come up, like if you need to wear a magical hazmat suit* or the spacesuits from Distant Worlds.**
*This is actually a thing.
**Ryu might not need magical loots to make him an awesome supernatural martial artist, but even he'd concede to the requirements of the vacuum of space. He's not Batman after all.
The hit to versatility on the fly was the big (and perfectly fair) tradeoff that stood out to me.
You'll likely also need to unbind your chakras to use plot-necessary items or artifacts whould they come up, like if you need to wear a magical hazmat suit* or the spacesuits from Distant Worlds.**
*This is actually a thing.
**Ryu might not need magical loots to make him an awesome supernatural martial artist, but even he'd concede to the requirements of the vacuum of space. He's not Batman after all.
Heh, definitely. :P
I mean, who is going to have the cash (and thus the sacrificed cash for points) to slap every amulet effect you'll ever want on your charkras? You suffer a 50% cost penalty just as if you were dealing with magic items, except you can't split them up. The requiring many hours to change the effects of your chakras was the largest drawback, and I felt it was enough.
First off, you are expending a feat to basically have magic items, which is something that the game expects that you will acquire naturally as part of the game; even going so far as to say that most treasure will be sold and new magic items purchased (see core rulebook). So firstly you are spending a feat to have what you already get, so I think it's fair to enjoy some perks (for most magic items weight is not a concern, availability is little concern unless you're playing a high level game where you want greater than +4 stuff, and heat metal doesn't work on monks very well anyway, since most magic items aren't made out of metal or can be made out of other materials).
The second part is that if you had bothered to spend a feat for magic items, then you probably could have just gotten a craft feat and made your own magic items at 1/2 cost, effectively doubling your WBL unless your campaign suffers from chronic ADHD where the PCs are eating, breathing, and drinking conflict every day (the majority of campaigns I have seen or read about involve downtime, with a few exceptions). With this, you are basically taking what you get. If you get 2,000 gp worth of treasure then you get up to 2,000 gp worth of stuff if you sacrifice it. 8/11 classes in the core rulebook can craft magic items by virtue of class, and at least one core race allows by virtue of race.
There's also the fact that experienced players will tell you the ability to swap between magic items easily and on the fly is a major advantage. For example, carrying multiple pairs of boots of speed can keep you hasted all day long (they weigh like 2 lb., so you can carry a few more). Sustaining your ascetic means being unable to conveniently switch between magical goodies quickly and easily. The only exception to this is sword/shield enhancements, which you still have to purchase individually and cannot use at the same time.
In some situations, yes, it would be pretty sweet (if you have any odd house rules concerning item availability, make treasure plenty common but magic items plenty uncommon, or routinely get your tools removed), but only in certain situations. Which that's kind of the point. You spent a feat to get something you normally get anyway, so you enjoy certain things about it. Ascetic is also a bit misleading. While it screams monks, other classes like Fighters might get a good bit out of it, but they still need to keep some different weapons around (you'll want silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc), and you'll probably still want to upgrade your armor (though I should likely expand the ascetic stuff to include an armor chakra as well, possibly making the Root chakra for armor OR ki).
========================================================================
I could clean up the pdf a bit more. I noticed once spelling error, and could expand the chakras a little more, and could make it that you can targeted-dispel a chakra (shutting down the item effect tied to said chakra) for those concerned with that, but I was a bit in a hurry (I had asked for 1 hour, but got called to do something, so I was already "late" IMO, so I rushed it a bit).
Ok, lets see if I can summarize this fairly.
* You spend a feat, weight is a minor issue in most cases.
Fair points.
* Monks wear little metal.
True but heat metal was just an example of targeting items and you do not have to be a monk to take the feat.
* Availability is a minor issue.
I did not have that experience exactly, at lower levels there is a limited amount of items you can get in every town, at higher levels towns can not supply you more powerful items as easily, but still a relatively minor issue.
* swapping magical items.
Fair point again, not something I experienced much in actual gameplay though, and I am sure it is not meant to prevent custom 'items' like having boots of speed with 20 rounds of uses which you can do instead of buying two pairs, much more easily.
* You can double your WBL with item creation feats instead.
Well you can't in most campaigns of course, time restrictions, needing a wizard to take the feats and feels like supplying the party and the fact you need multiple item creation feats. Furthermore this argument feels a bit like : "You can break the system with this feat already so this feat should be fine", it is meant to be balanced against the standard.
Good work, nicely done on short notice I'd still like to see an additional cost included though.
1. What do you think of a 10% additional cost over normal price ?
2. From a thematic perspective do you think slotless items should be included like ioun stones ? This would affect the 'price' of the items of course.
That is all I can think of right now, perhaps I will think of a few more questions later though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Monks wear little metal.
True but heat metal was just an example of targeting items and you do not have to be a monk to take the feat.
Which is true, but the feat does not grant you armor. A fighter who takes this route still needs to use armor. Even if you have the option to gain the benefits of magic items, you'd still need your basics. For example, there is no difference in enhancement bonuses between a rogue's +2 studded leather armor and a fighter's +2 full plate. Only the armor itself creates the difference.
So again, there's nothing stopping anyone from destroying, targeting, or otherwise messing with actual gear that you find the need to wield or wear. Even if you can get a +1 flaming effect on your weapons, you're still going to need a weapon to use it with (either your unarmed strike or a manufactured weapon to channel it through). Thus, a fighter who pursues this route would still need at least a few mundane weapons and armors at the very least.
Does that make sense?
* Availability is a minor issue.
I did not have that experience exactly, at lower levels there is a limited amount of items you can get in every town, at higher levels towns can not supply you more powerful items as easily, but still a relatively minor issue.
Well I was basing it on the assumptions in the core rules. Most settings I've seen include cities that are of metropolis size, and in Pathfinder the smaller settlements have quite a respectable availability of magic items based on community size. In your standard campaign, you can find magic items up to 16,000 gp in value relatively easily in a metropolis (while no population numbers exist in the core rulebook, the 3.x rules defined a metropolis as any community with 25,000 people or greater). For the record, that means everyone should be able to access +2 weapons, +3 armors, +4 ability boosters, +4 resistance bonuses to saves, and +2 natural, +2 deflection, and most other items that are considered essential for success (such as boots of speed, consumables, wands, all scrolls, etc).
In my experiences, this is pretty good, since throughout the most common levels characters should have access to plenty of magic items without falling behind (a +2 weapon is suitable all the way through mid levels, same with most everything else), and by higher levels, most PCs should probably have acquired some plot-related methods of acquiring more equipment (such as favors from artisans, custom orders, and so forth), or someone should be producing their own magic items (8/11 core classes and at least 1 core race can craft magic items easily, so virtually all parties will have access to the option to make their own gear).
I would also pose that a pro in this sense is that an ascetic character's death will not result in a sudden influx of treasure for other party members. PCs acquire quite a lot of wealth, and when another PC dies, their bodies are often buried or dealt with as appropriate for the group, and any usable or valuable items are taken up by the group to be used on further adventures. An ascetic character will not disrupt your wealth advancement when they meet an unfortunate end.
* swapping magical items.
Fair point again, not something I experienced much in actual gameplay though, and I am sure it is not meant to prevent custom 'items' like having boots of speed with 20 rounds of uses which you can do instead of buying two pairs, much more easily.
You are correct. If you wanted, you could produce a pair of boots that had more rounds, but if you do you are going to pay a lot more for them, because either the caster level of the effect is going up a lot, or you are going to be using 4/day charges instead of 2/day charges. Again, it represents a greater investment in overall resources than it would otherwise.
Perhaps it is an advanced technique (the swapping of magic items as needed), but it is one that I have long since become accustomed to. It is quite practical to acquire items that do certain things, and then don them during exploration situations as needed, or swap them out for other items once their daily charges are consumed. For example, a ring of spell turning has 3 charges per day. After using it for the day, you can simply swap it out for another or a ring of freedom of movement instead. The same is true for less expensive items as well. Ascetics have a difficult time doing this (and would probably be better off eating the 50% penalty and just get extra effects).
* You can double your WBL with item creation feats instead.
Well you can't in most campaigns of course, time restrictions, needing a wizard to take the feats and feels like supplying the party and the fact you need multiple item creation feats. Furthermore this argument feels a bit like : "You can break the system with this feat already so this feat should be fine", it is meant to be balanced against the standard.
Well it depends on the campaign I suppose. An adventure path such as the Red Hand of Doom might not offer much love, but most of the campaigns I've seen have (fortunately I suppose) accepted that PCs have the choice to simply take some time off. End of the world type scenarios get old quickly if overused, and unless there is constantly some sort of dire problem then there is nothing stopping the players from simply declaring that they are taking a week or so off and doing non-adventuring things. Such things can be glossed over (you don't have to roleplay every hour of every day). "Three weeks later" is a phrase that expresses this idea easily enough. Likewise, when I GM, I often advance time a fair amount between set adventures, and ask players what they would like to be doing during that time.
For example, "It has been one month since you drove the ogres out of the lowlands, and things have been going smoothly, and yet you have received a letter explaining that the Duke of Elwain requests your presence but does not say why. What have you been doing during this month, and what do you plan to do now?"
I'd also like to think that item creation does not break the system. In truth, I feel it fits wonderfully, and I myself have had little to no problems with item creation overpowering or breaking the game at all (with the caveat that I remind players that the % reductions for certain types of items are not applicable to all, as it was not part of the 3.x RAW, but was a behind the scenes explanation as to how certain specific items were priced -- like the holy avenger). It's my belief that being very much over WBL is less impacting on the game than being drastically under it, unless the "over" involves exceptionally powerful singular items (which would be odd in and of itself).
Err, sorry. I was just rambling I suppose.
Good work, nicely done on short notice I'd still like to see an additional cost included though.
1. What do you think of a 10% additional cost over normal price ?
I don't think it is necessary, but you are probably more aware of your own unique situations in your games. I can only give the reasons and understandings by which I wrote it, but please feel free to modify it as needed. As I noted, a fair addendum might be to allow you to use targeted dispels on chakras as though they were items.
If you plan to give it a try, I would consider "trying before buying". Give it a test run. If it feels alright with the standard cost, then you'll know it was fine. If your gut still eats at you, try it with a 10% penalty and see if that feels better. I feel like under standard conditions it won't be a problem, but again, it is your game and you're naturally more knowledgeable as to how your games run.
2. From a thematic perspective do you think slotless items should be included like ioun stones ? This would affect the 'price' of the items of course.
I think you should get what you pay for. Slotless items cost x2 as much as slotted items. I would consider assuming that any "slotless" items don't exist within a chakra, but instead are literally being sustained by your auric energy flowing from all your chakra. In essence, it is a magic effect that is stored in your aura and thus more nebulous, but requiring more ascetic point investiture to maintain. At least, that's how I think I would spin it.
That is all I can think of right now, perhaps I will think of a few more questions later though.
Feel free. (^_^)
Thanks for the feedback Ashiel, I did not consider that a fighter would still wear the mundane gear for some reason, and a dead party member will be much less bothersome.
It might be hard to compare since we / I do not play with the magic shop style that is prevalent on these forums and PFS, with the GM having far more input on which items are available. Craft feats are free but get them 4 levels late and produce items at 'cost' (though components can affect a discount) and have much GM/player interaction on the particulars.
I will consider a trial run without added cost.
If, rather than an option, you make this the way to go in a campaign what do you think should change ?
* monsters should be buffed ?
* Is there still a place for treasure, like a magic sword will increase the enhancement bonus by +1 on top of your chakra infusion ?
* Ascetic points should be rewarded based on creatures defeated/level rather than wealth sacrificed ? If so, should it be NPC wealth enhanced by rare magical treasure ?
Any thoughts on a wider scale of implementation would be appreciated.
If, rather than an option, you make this the way to go in a campaign what do you think should change?
I take you mean where all PCs have the benefits of the feat, and thus making it an item-lite game (as seems to be a popular desire for some people on these boards). If I understand this correctly then...
* monsters should be buffed ?
I don't think monsters will need buffing at all. The PCs are already expected to have X gp worth of magic items by level. This option does not change the gp worth of the characters, and thus it should be no different than them just having magic items.
* Is there still a place for treasure, like a magic sword will increase the enhancement bonus by +1 on top of your chakra infusion ?
As written, no, the enhancements of magic weapons and your chakras aren't going to stack (this was intentional, since that could get out of hand easily), but if you are making it a natural effect of the game (instead of an optional feat) you can totally include magic items. What I would advise is giving magic items a bit more unique. Instead of +X items, consider items with daily charges, or things with situational modifiers that you wouldn't typically apply with chakras (such as bane enhancements).
Is there anything in particular you're looking to work with?
* Ascetic points should be rewarded based on creatures defeated/level rather than wealth sacrificed ? If so, should it be NPC wealth enhanced by rare magical treasure ?
Yes, you can reward a party wholly in ascetic points. Simply replace the gp value of a creature's treasure with ascetic points instead. You can either assume all creatures of the same CR grant standard ascetic points, or can keep it the same as it is currently (with creatures like tigers awarding x0 ascetic points, and creatures like dragons awarding x3 ascetic points). Naturally you'd divide points evenly between participants.
If you make these changes to the game, expect it to become a bit more like RPGs like Star Wars or other games where items are not important. It will be characters who are where 100% of the power is coming from, and items become more of a plot narrative than a method of gaining power. In such a game, I would seriously consider placing less emphasis on raw gold piece count, and instead consider gold and the like more of a narrative factor allowing the PCs to bribe, build, and flow in the world. Then consider more intangible rewards such as lands, titles, and NPCs (such as followers, favors, etc).
Any thoughts on a wider scale of implementation would be appreciated.
I promise I'm trying to answer as best I can, but I'm not 100% clear on some of your questions (for example, I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for when you mention non-optional ascetics + magic items). If there's anything you'd like to elaborate on, I will try to do the same. (^_^)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I nearly gave myself a heart attack checking things on Ultimate Equipment.
Don't do that again. Your health is more important than some jerks at the messageboards.
Remember, most of us love Paizo, even if some of us - including myself I'm sad to say, has posted some jerk remarks.I'm convinced most of your fans don't post. Some just buy your stuff and enjoy playing the game, some buy your stuff and read the Messageboards, but aren'tr active posters. In our gaming group we are five. Only two of us are active posters, the rest just love the game without posting :-)
|
We've learned our lesson; if the option is to present something that we know is a weaker choice, just don't include it at all. People will complain if you include a poor choice, and other people will complain if you don't include it as an option at all, but at least with the latter group you won't have people second-guessing you on the design decisions. ;)
And this is why I keep saying some people are part of the reason we can't have nice things...
The "If we can't have exactly what want how we want it" group needs to learn how house rules work and stop reducing options for the rest of us...
The rules are free. You're paying 40 bucks to have them in a nice book with cool drawings. Now, if you don't like the artwork, I can relate...
Paizo books have the best artwork I've seen from RPG rulebooks. Don't know what you're talking about ;o
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why I keep saying some people are part of the reason we can't have nice things...The "If we can't have exactly what want how we want it" group needs to learn how house rules work and stop reducing options for the rest of us...
The problem is that quite a few people won't house rule it. I know a number of DMs who, once their is an official rule, will not rewrite it. A group is only as flexible as its DM. personally I don't really care one way or another about this particular rule (well, I don't like it, but it's more or less a moot point as I never used either version of VoP), but I do understand where people are coming from when they would rather not have an official rule on something if it's going to be lame.
|
I really don't like the artwork that much. This isn't trolling, I really don't. I'd much rather have less art over all, as it kills on loading time for pages, and in the hardcovers I kind of ignor it anyway. I like the lite versions a billion times better, as it cuts out some art and the stationary isn't as present, and honestly wish I could get a hardcover Lite book.
Plus, personal opinion, VtM had/has better art. :)
|
|
The problem is that quite a few people won't house rule it. I know a number of DMs who, once their is an official rule, will not rewrite it. A group is only as flexible as its DM. personally I don't really care one way or another about this particular rule (well, I don't like it, but it's more or less a moot point as I never used either version of VoP), but I do understand where people are coming from when they would rather not have an official rule on something if it's going to be lame.
And this is why I keep saying some people are part of the reason we can't have nice things...The "If we can't have exactly what want how we want it" group needs to learn how house rules work and stop reducing options for the rest of us...
If your group doesn't have enough faith in you to let you try a house rule (or just DM yourself) that should tell you something about your sense of balance relative to the desires of the rest of the people at the table.
|
|
If your group doesn't have enough faith in you to let you try a house rule (or just DM yourself) that should tell you something about your sense of balance relative to the desires of the rest of the people at the table.
Nice strawman you have there. So, did you actually plan on responding to the voiced concern or are you just going to stick with the one that wasn't?
1) it has nothing to do with how the group feels about one particular player, or even how the DM feels about a particular player. It's about the fact that some DMs will not house rule something that's already codified. Period.
2) "Just DM yourself" is a weak response for two reasons. The first is that upsetting a whole campaign over a single house rule is silly, especially of you're in a situation where that would be your only option (using my situation as an example, the group essentially only has time to meet once a week, adding a second campaign isn't an option, and alternating campaigns every week would be both confusing and would grind the games to a halt). The second is that, shock of all shocks, some people don't like DMing. I will DM if no one else is available (or is the only other choice would be abysmal), but I'd always much rather be playing.
3) this isn't about me, just because I understand the concerns of a segment of gamers doesn't mean I'm butthurt about VoP or any other house rule. Heck, aside from custom items (which rules are laid out for), the last house rule I can remember suggesting was allowing high strength to give you a modifier to intimidate checks (which I believe there is a feat for now).
If a DM has balance issues, that's a different argument. I'm talking about DMs who will say "there's already a rule for that" without even considering balance. And yes, there are quite a few people like that our there.
|
|
If your group doesn't have enough faith in you to let you try a house rule (or just DM yourself) that should tell you something about your sense of balance relative to the desires of the rest of the people at the table.Nice strawman you have there. So, did you actually plan on responding to the voiced concern or are you just going to stick with the one that wasn't?
1) it has nothing to do with how the group feels about one particular player, or even how the DM feels about a particular player. It's about the fact that some DMs will not house rule something that's already codified. Period.
It really does actually. If you have a player everyone trusts not to try and game the system, most groups will let them try cool ideas.
YMMV
|
|
And if you are stuck only playing PFS, or the DM doesn't want to allow (more) house rules, or the game is open table, or you are new to the group, or. . . etc, etc, . . .? There are plenty of reasons beyond lack of trust/crappy DM or players, and in this case is much more "we can't have nice things because Paizo seems to have a real issue making/balancing rules with what they want flavor to be sometimes".