Goblin Squad Member
|
So with the last blog entry there has been discussion on how whose of us that are not going to be playing a class represented at the beginning of EE are going to be behind those that are. The purpose of this thread is to brainstorm ways to create the characters we want to play using what is available using the four core skills.
Monk will the hardest to implement, but we can learn fighter bludgeoning and two handed abilities to become adept at using a Quarterstaff (Traditional monk weapon) even if there isn't an option to learn an unarmed strike. We can add in Rogue abilities for being stealthy or acrobatic, and we add Mage Armor and some touch attack spells to simulate being unarmored and unarmed ki damage.
Druid shares a lot in common with the cleric, so we can simply build a cleric of a nature deity. There is no animal companion or wild shape, but you can change spell selection and maybe add some wizard lightning spells and have 80% of the mechanics of the class. The rest is just role play.
Bard is a generalist class as it is, but If you begin with Rogue, and add some light clerical buffing and healing, and some wizardly enchantment and charm, and your are pretty close to the feel of the class.
That's a jumping off point, what other combinations can you think of to try to cram our square peg character concepts into while waiting for a non-round hole to be released?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably worth referencing the two dev posts from the blog thread where they talked about taking skills for a Role that hasn't been released yet.
A few points:
a) This is a question of resources. We could either get all the classes in and not really have them have much of their original flavor, not be well tested, each class has a single suit of armor appropriate to them, etc, or we could get some smaller subset in of a higher quality level and build on them. Of course we'd like to have more classes in, but time and resource wise it is not feasible.
b) My hope is that we can get Sorcerer, Barbarian, Paladin, and Bard in by the end of OE. They are relatively easy to add compared to Druid, Monk, etc, as most of their abilities are either not too difficult technologically or are combinations of other classes. Ranger, Druid, and Monk either involve a lot more tech (Animal Companion AI, wildshape), or a lot of custom animations (Monk combat) if we want to do them right. We're not going to do them unless we can do them right, as what's the point of playing a druid if you can't wildshape and don't have an animal companion?
c) The difference in terms of skills you buy between one of the four main classes and the other classes for the most part are a minority of your XP. For example, if you want to play a Ranger, day 1 of EE you make a Fighter and the XP you spend on Base Attack Bonus, Fortitude saves, Hit Points, special attacks, etc, is all going to be just as useful for a Ranger. If you want to play a ranged focused Ranger, just build an archer Fighter and you're about 80% of the way there. Once Ranger gets made available you could be up to speed on being a Ranger pretty quickly (around 20-30% of the time you spent buying Fighter). The same is very true for Paladin (you can almost build a Paladin day one of EE from mixing Cleric and Fighter abilities, all you're missing is some class features), Barbarian, and Bard. Sorcerer is a little trickier due to spell slots, but still not difficult.
On the tangent that has been taken, I think that it's reasonable to allow some abilities to qualify for devotion for more than one archetype. Greatsword skills, for example, are appropriate for fighters and paladins but not sorcerers.
It would also be nice to see racial weapon proficiencies that stepped around the devotion system; I like my half-Orc bard with a greataxe, but a strict translation of weapon skills would say that the greatax isn't a bard thing.
This is how it works. There is a large group of "General" feats, particularly for attacks, that don't count against any dedication bonus. They still may be better for a certain role. For example, most of the currently designed ones include a bonus on Opportunity, which synergizes with all the Fighter's other bonuses on Opportunity, but can be used by anyone who wants to have something cool to do against players running around in combat.
So your sorcerer or bard with a greataxe may not be getting the synergies he'd be getting with a weapon designed for the role, and he'll potentially have to buy a bunch of attack upgrades and attack feats that don't directly contribute to leveling his primary role to be any good with the weapon, but he also won't be considered to be slotted for multiple roles unless he puts some Fighter-specific attack feats on the weapon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ranger:
From the fighter tree take medium armor and/or light armor depending on exactly the build you want. If you want more of a combat Ranger take medium, a spell casting/tracker type take light. Heck, since we are custom building and have xp to spare waiting for our class abilities, TAKE EM BOTH! Take archery and/or crossbow and for melee go with two weapon fighting if it's available and two handed if it's not.
From the Rogue tree take stealth, perception and traps. There are actually Ranger builds in Pathfinder that forego the spells for traps.
From the cleric tree take some minor healing and buffs.
If you fancy it, take some wizard spells from the divination tree.
Level your fortitude and reflex saves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Barbarian:
From the fighter tree take medium armor, two handed melee and hit points. Take more medium armor, two handed melee and hit points. Do it again. Take some archery.
From the rogue tree take stealth, trap sense and some backstab as a damage buff while you wait for rage.
Take some cleric buffs if you fancy it.
Don't take wizard, it's just not right.
Level Fortitude, Fortitude and reflex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's too early to do this properly since we haven't seen a list of any of the proposed skills.
What I would suggest is flushing out core and non-combat skills if those are available. Going paladin? Take some time to level up your health, heavy armor, diplomacy, sense motive, ride etc. depending on which skills you want to use.
Going sorcerer? Focus on concentration, spell upgrades, and any skills you want.
Druid? Light armor, survival, handle animal / companions after the ranger is released. etc.
I know that even as a rogue I'm going to be hitting stealth and perception fast and hard if they work at all like I'm anticipating. No reason a ranger, monk, bard, or druid couldn't do the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon: Whoa, thanks for quoting Lee there: Missed that. This actually makes me see my preference limited choices in a more positive light:
b) My hope is that we can get Sorcerer, Barbarian, Paladin, and Bard in by the end of OE. They are relatively easy to add compared to Druid, Monk, etc, as most of their abilities are either not too difficult technologically or are combinations of other classes. Ranger, Druid, and Monk either involve a lot more tech (Animal Companion AI, wildshape), or a lot of custom animations (Monk combat) if we want to do them right. We're not going to do them unless we can do them right, as what's the point of playing a druid if you can't wildshape and don't have an animal companion?
That last part is exactly what I want to hear for Druid/Ranger (and I guess Monks will want very distinct animations). All good in the wood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's too early to do this properly since we haven't seen a list of any of the proposed skills.
Nah, it's really not dude. This is Dungeons and Dragons (under any other name) and its gonna be the same base cake it always is. We know darn well what skills a Barbarian will have and what skills a Ranger will have. The same ones they always have in every game like this for the last 30 years!
The mechanics change, the goal of the game is bit different, but the themes will be the same they always are.
It's not going to be this huge surprise when they unveil the classes. People are freaking out like they have never played this before and they are completely in the dark.
No they aren't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladin:
Seriously? It's just a glamorized Fighter/Cleric!
Sorcerer:
Play a wizard and don't bother to learn new spells.
Druid:
Next question! Just kidding. Level a cleric with nature domains, take light armor, club or short sword. Take armored casting and go deep into the divination, abjuration and evocation wizard schools. Pray your lightning bolts don't fizzle.
Monk:
Level your saving throws through the roof. Work your base attack bonus if you can. Level Quarterstaff and crossbow. You know what? F that, take two handed axe! Level stealth through the roof. Dodge feat? Take defensive mage buffs (abjuration/alteration) and dabble in necromancy (finger of death, raise some skeletons while you're at it).
Tadah! A cooler, more medieval monk than the one in the rulebook. Call him Rasputin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Grrr. No. It's not. But yes, that's probably a reasonable advancement path that will complement the actual Paladin Role once it's released.Paladin:
Seriously? It's just a glamorized Fighter/Cleric!
LOL. Paladin lover!!!
I don't think there is a single Paladin ability that isn't mirrored by a Cleric spell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nah, it's really not dude. This is Dungeons and Dragons (under any other name) and its gonna be the same base cake it always is. We know darn well what skills a Barbarian will have and what skills a Ranger will have. The same ones they always have in every game like this for the last 30 years!
The mechanics change, the goal of the game is bit different, but the themes will be the same they always are.
It's not going to be this huge surprise when they unveil the classes. People are freaking out like they have never played this before and they are completely in the dark.
No they aren't.
When you talk D&D Online, Neverwinter Nights etc. they all have something in common that they don't share with PFO.
The D20 system.
The fact Pathfinder doesn't follow it changes everything. For instance if I want to make a melee character that has a high change to hit and damage modifier, I need high strength right?
Wrong. In Pathfinder Online my strength modifier only effects the speed at which I train skills. It has no bearing on my chance to hit or the damage I do. That much is confirmed.
So what is going to determine hit chance and damage modifier now? How will I create a high strength rogue (a rogue who does super high melee damage) vs. a low strength rogue in this new system?
With intelligence no longer governing how many skills I can take, will taking extra skills lower my effectiveness in combat like stacking intelligence would? How will class skills work?
What stat will feats like extend spell, or fast casting take? Will they even exist? Will they still be non-class specific?
We don't know the answers to those questions. So we can't just dive into the Pathfinder books, create a character, and expect it will work the same way in PFO.
Grrr. No. It's not. But yes, that's probably a reasonable advancement path that will complement the actual Paladin Role once it's released.Paladin:
Seriously? It's just a glamorized Fighter/Cleric!
LOL. Paladin lover!!!
I don't think there is a single Paladin ability that isn't mirrored by a Cleric spell.
Their actual class skills are fairly unique. I don't think the cleric gets lay on hands, detect/smite evil, the buff to saves, or the special mount.
But I'm guessing those will all be class skills. Almost everything other than those can be achieved by a good aligned cleric/fighter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When you talk D&D Online, Neverwinter Nights etc. they all have something in common that they don't share with PFO.The D20 system.
The fact Pathfinder doesn't follow it changes everything. For instance if I want to make a melee character that has a high change to hit and damage modifier, I need high strength right?
Wrong. In Pathfinder Online my strength modifier only effects the speed at which I train skills. It has no bearing on my chance to hit or the damage I do. That much is confirmed.
So what is going to determine hit chance and damage modifier now? How will I create a high strength rogue vs. a low strength rogue in this new system?
With intelligence no longer governing how many skills I can take, will taking extra skills lower my effectiveness in combat like stacking intelligence would? How will class skills work?
What stat will feats like extend spell, or fast casting take? Will they even exist? Will they still be non-class specific?
We don't know the answers to those questions. So we can't just dive into the Pathfinder books, create a character, and expect it will work the same way in PFO.
Semantics and mechanical differences, which I already stated. Simple connect the dots to the TT equivalents and they will have the same names they have always had. You don't level medium armor or saving throws in Pathfinder, you do in online and that's what I'm saying you should do. They have already told us you level weapon types and you do that according to the "class' you want to play. They have already told us wizards will be learning the same 8 schools as the TT.
So we already know which class will wield what. We already know which saving throws you have to buff for X class role. We already know which armors will prevent you from casting which types of magic. We already know which classes will be able to do what no matter how they got there.
We know plenty cuz at the end of the day it's the same game we've been playing for decades.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Semantics and mechanical differences, which I already stated. Simple connect the dots to the TT equivalents and they will have the same names they have always had. You don't level medium armor or saving throws in Pathfinder, you do in online and that's what I'm saying you should do. They have already told us you level weapon types and you do that according to the "class' you want to play: we already know which class will wield what. We already know which saving throws you have to buff for X calss role. We already know which armors will prevent which types of magic. We already know which classes will be able to do what no matter how you they got there.
We know plenty cuz and the end of the day it's the same game we've been playing for decades.
It gives us a general idea but not enough of an idea to lay down a really solid leveling plan this early on.
How long is it going to take us to level these generic armor and weapon skills?
When I come into the game, will I have the option to level the armor / weapon skill I want to 100% minus class abilities. Or will there be points in progression it says "Must be a level 5 Paladin or Fighter to advance."
I really doubt we are going to get the full skill list on release but what will we get? If we take time training skills is it going to distract us from progressing in combat or will we need to level some of our class skills in order to push our class forward? If this is the case then people can easily start out by leveling class skills. If not, then leveling class skills may actually put them behind.
I don't know. We can speculate a lot at this point, but before I really plan out my character's progression I want to see a full list of the skills that will be included in EE, and a description of what they do. Something which I'm sure is a long ways out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their actual class skills are fairly unique. I don't think the cleric gets lay on hands, detect/smite evil, the buff to saves, or the special mount.
But I'm guessing those will all be class skills. Almost everything other than those can be achieved by a good aligned cleric/fighter.
Lay on hands is just a gimped version of Cleric's spontaneous casting. Clerics have detect evil as a spell (Pallys at will) and protection from evil. In PFO you level your saves separately.
Open leveling system makes a hoc Paladin almost exactly the same as the real thing. It's kinda like the Magus. Really no point to the Magus in this system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of building my character to an archetype, I'm building my character to her character. In tabletop she'd be roughly a bard. In PFO, she'll be a noble trained in swordsmanship and leadership. Once Bard is released she'll get her performance abilities, but it'll be something she picked up in the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of building my character to an archetype, I'm building my character to her character. In tabletop she'd be roughly a bard. In PFO, she'll be a noble trained in swordsmanship and leadership. Once Bard is released she'll get her performance abilities, but it'll be something she picked up in the River Kingdoms.
A man who gets it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always envisioned a monk (or a variation on the theme) as a precision damage character rather than a strength damage one. A monk's dedication to training provides great control and precise application of force. I think that taking dexterity based skills from the rouge tree to improve reflex saves and using something like weapon fineness to improve attack would fit very well. Repeated training in dodge also. Sneak attack for extra damage and some wizard skills for mage armor, shield, unseen servant (for that mystic ki manipulation), and various touch attack spells. Probably the cloth armor type. This may be a good time for that blood stained katana or staff of circles.
Hmm, if I remember correctly was there some talks about gaining "levels" in a single class till the "level" cap will grant you a special prize of some sort? If that's true, players who plan to play druid/monk may need to delay themselves a little so they won't miss the prize.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no capstone any more. There was talk of one, but the idea was scrapped. Instead there will be a "Devotion" bonus that will grant you a buff to that classes "role" if you only have skills of that class and general skills slotted. If you know Fighter and Wizard skills, you will get the bonus if you only equip the Fighter skills and General skills, or the Wizard and general skills, but not if you equip Fighter and Wizard skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont like the fact that the solution is to build a fighter, then pick up your class skills later. It is what it is though, since the respec thing is now at horse beating status i wont mention it again.
For a paladin its what makes them unique, not only that but a paladin in DnD isnt a cleric who fights alow. It isnt a fighter who fights in the name of a diety. Its a person who encompasses service, virtue, and a faith so strong that a diety blessed them with divine powers in order to fight evil. Its a person who would rather die doing the right thing than live knowing they did not.
There is a whole history to the class that when someone goes ohhh make a fighter/cleric I want to bang my head against the wall because a paladin is NOT a fight and is are NOT a cleric.
So here is what i would like GW to try to do if its possible. Come up with a rough idea for those missing archtypes. Then let us know what skills will probably be the prereqs for the paladin class skills. At least this way im wasting as little as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It may be more productive to let a little bit of the old more rigid class definitions go. Instead, look at a character as a collection of skills that he chooses to learn as he explores our little corner of the River Kingdoms.
Excellently said. Remember several people have commented that PFO feels somewhat more like "Golarion Online" than Pathfinder as they perceive it, and that'll likely become a more-common viewpoint as we proceed.
We've already abandoned randomised characteristics at chargen, classes, and experience levels. This is going to be quite a different animal from D&D, so perhaps we should not be trying to say "I want to play my favourite D&D character", and instead begin thinking, as some have begun, about "what'll be fun in Golarion Online".
It's difficult, in these early days, to do much along those lines yet, but ditching old thought processes may be enough to occupy our time for a bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun
It may be more productive to let a little bit of the old more rigid class definitions go. Instead, look at a character as a collection of skills that he chooses to learn as he explores our little corner of the River Kingdoms.
Except what if i already have a specific character in mind? What if iv already created backstory and history for this character? What if this character's RP isnt that he is some soldier or a fighting cleric, but a paladin?
Remember that in DnD a paladin isnt some guy with a sword and they arnt a cleric. A fighter can be many different things, but a paladin, a paladin is someone specific.
Thats the thing, people say ohhh just do a fighter/cleric. My character isnt a fighter/cleric. yes i probably could create a good almost paladin by dipping into what a figher and cleric does. But i dont want a fighter/cleric.
But anyway its a dead horse, ryan already said he wont be doing respecs.
Ill play something random i dont care about while my main gathers xp for when paladins and half orcs are released.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun
Fighters and clerics were around for a goodly long time before paladins. A paladin is a lot of a fighter with some holy roller cleric mixed in, no matter how you slice it. There will be specific skills for paladins and all other variants of the basic 4. A great majority of the skills you need will be available at the start and the rest can be added as they are introduced.
As for already writing your backstory and getting set on your concept, I think that is great. You are further along than I am there. The skill based system was written about in one of the earliest blogs and minimum viable product hasn't been overlooked in any sense.
There is nothing to prevent you from achieving the concept that you desire for your paladin. Nothing, unless your expectations are so rigid that they simply won't work in a skill based system.
It will be different than the TT, but the base concepts and flavor and mechanics will still be within your grasp.
@leperkhaun
It may be more productive to let a little bit of the old more rigid class definitions go. Instead, look at a character as a collection of skills that he chooses to learn as he explores our little corner of the River Kingdoms.
Remember that in DnD a paladin isnt some guy with a sword and they arnt a cleric. A fighter can be many different things, but a paladin, a paladin is someone specific.
I kind understand what you're referring to, the fluff. When I gave a read to 4e rulebook (monster manual especially), I found there were so little fluff, most texts were about game mechanics, which made me unable to feel attached to it.
Saying cleric + fighter = paladin is simply cold, hard game mechanics without the flavor... feels rather like elder scroll system, then in skyrim where the mage guild master doesn't even need to be able to cast a a single spell, there will be a magic tome by the location where magic is required, so quest line progression wouldn't be discontinued.
Then it reminds me of Hero of might and magic 4, which has a game mechanic that determines "classes" by combing skills. Taking nature & necromancy would make the character a demonologist, taking healing and fighting (or was it tactics) make a character paladin, for example. At least the game recognizes the combination skills, then grant a bonus and a title.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except what if i already have a specific character in mind? What if iv already created backstory and history for this character? What if this character's RP isnt that he is some soldier or a fighting cleric, but a paladin?
Ryan seems to've addressed your point: you can wait and activate your account after your Paladin arrives. If you want to crowdforge with us, play something throwaway...or not. It remains your choice.
On a tangent to this paladin thing. I don't really like that only LG gets this sort of a class. 'Holy Warrior' is such a useful schtick it should be more widely available IMHO. In DnD you see this desire reflected in the Blackguard and that CG prestige class in the early 3.0 divine book (that I can never remember the name of).
Imagine a CE version! Instead of immune to disease, how about immune to just the effects of disease?
What would a Hellknights 'Holy Warrior' look like? All law all the time! :) That would be a cool post launch role to add to the game.
There is the chaotic evil anti-paladin in APHB.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont like the fact that the solution is to build a fighter, then pick up your class skills later. It is what it is though, since the respec thing is now at horse beating status i wont mention it again.
For a paladin its what makes them unique, not only that but a paladin in DnD isnt a cleric who fights alow. It isnt a fighter who fights in the name of a diety. Its a person who encompasses service, virtue, and a faith so strong that a diety blessed them with divine powers in order to fight evil. Its a person who would rather die doing the right thing than live knowing they did not.
There is a whole history to the class that when someone goes ohhh make a fighter/cleric I want to bang my head against the wall because a paladin is NOT a fight and is are NOT a cleric.
So here is what i would like GW to try to do if its possible. Come up with a rough idea for those missing archtypes. Then let us know what skills will probably be the prereqs for the paladin class skills. At least this way im wasting as little as possible.
Does your paladin know how to channel positive energy? Cleric feat. Does he know how to use a longsword and heavy shield? General feat. Can he move effectively in heavy armor? Fighter feat. Can he take lots of punishment and dish it back out? General feats.
If you think of different archetypes as a salad bar, with lettuce here, tomatoes over there, and dressings over there; then think of a character as a salad. You can have a salad made mostly of lettuce, but why bother when you can add onions, tomatoes, thousand island dressing, and bacon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always envisioned a monk (or a variation on the theme) as a precision damage character rather than a strength damage one. A monk's dedication to training provides great control and precise application of force. I think that taking dexterity based skills from the rouge tree to improve reflex saves and using something like weapon fineness to improve attack would fit very well. Repeated training in dodge also. Sneak attack for extra damage and some wizard skills for mage armor, shield, unseen servant (for that mystic ki manipulation), and various touch attack spells. Probably the cloth armor type. This may be a good time for that blood stained katana or staff of circles.
I have often thought that in the absence of true classes, the community itself may have to construct our own definition of what makes a Paladin, Monk, Druid or Bard.
What you describe above is basically a "Monk" drawing from the CLASS SKILLS of Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Rogue and perhaps even an Assassin.
I've placed in bold the key concept in my mind, that we all might want to begin thinking in (including GW). In a classless system, we will all be "multi class", having picked from some if not all of the class skill trees.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a topic that both sides clearly feel strongly about, so let's remember that everyone here is trying to create both a great game and a great gaming experience (for the mselves and for others). Not everyone will approach that goal in the same way, and while advice and encouragement are helpful, the way they are presented - especially in text with no verbal or facial cues - is as important as the advice itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's have a stab at this then:
Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric =>
Barbarian: Fighter + Rogue + x
Paladin: Fighter + Cleric + x
Sorcerer: Wizard + Cleric + x
Bards: Rogue + Wizard + x
Druid: Cleric + Rogue + x
Ranger: Rogue + Fighter + x
Monk: ?
Could work along those lines somewhat with different x for each additional branches on the main tree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except what if i already have a specific character in mind? What if iv already created backstory and history for this character? What if this character's RP isnt that he is some soldier or a fighting cleric, but a paladin?
Remember that in DnD a paladin isnt some guy with a sword and they arnt a cleric. A fighter can be many different things, but a paladin, a paladin is someone specific.
Thats the thing, people say ohhh just do a fighter/cleric. My character isnt a fighter/cleric. yes i probably could create a good almost paladin by dipping into what a figher and cleric does. But i dont want a fighter/cleric.
But anyway its a dead horse, ryan already said he wont be doing respecs.
Ill play something random i dont care about while my main gathers xp for when paladins and half orcs are released.
If you can't adjust a back story to the campaign you are playing then you suck at roleplaying. And I mean that from the bottom of my black heart.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's have a stab at this then:
Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric =>
Barbarian: Fighter + Rogue + x
Paladin: Fighter + Cleric + xSorcerer: Wizard + Cleric + x
Bards: Rogue + Wizard + xDruid: Cleric + Rogue + x
Ranger: Rogue + Fighter + xMonk: ?
Could work along those lines somewhat with different x for each additional branches on the main tree.
You cannot do the Pathfinder Monk out of the other classes, it's the one class that is really different from the others. I did suggest going with a two-handed melee/wizard build with high stealth though.
A different kind of monk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You cannot do the Pathfinder Monk out of the other classes, it's the one class that is really different from the others. I did suggest going with a two-handed melee/wizard build with high stealth though.
A different kind of monk.
As you say, we can not do the Pathfinder Monk, so it will be up to the community of "Monks" to decide what does make a Monk?
In a classless game, this might be the way to go for all of the specialty "classes".
I shall begin as a Cleric of Irori, with some Rogue and Fighter skills thrown in. I'm sure with a little bit of imagination we can come up with what would be a believable representation of these specialty classes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You cannot do the Pathfinder Monk out of the other classes, it's the one class that is really different from the others. I did suggest going with a two-handed melee/wizard build with high stealth though.
A different kind of monk.
As you say, we can not do the Pathfinder Monk, so it will be up to the community of "Monks" to decide what does make a Monk?
Unfortunately the PF Monk is sort of outside the basic Middle-European fantasy setting. (Sort of?) And while I want to play a monk, I wouldn't be devastated if a PFO monk resembled Friar Tuck (or maybe his wiry brother monk) more than Kwai Chang Caine.
I do think that players that try to make paladin, monk, and ranger builds from the first four classes are going to be at a disadvantage because they won't always be able to get the dedication bonuses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best deal for monk is just include unarmed combat from the start with some skills for it.
For now, they can make it an uninspired tavern brawling sort of unarmed combat with punches and kicks. I mean really. All they need to animate is one punch, and one kick.
Once monks are ready they can make into crazy kung-fu. As long as the skills are in place it doesn't matter much.
And they kind of need those animations anyway, unless they want to have it so we can't throw a punch if we get caught without a weapon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not remember a confirmation from the devs about combat maneuvers. I think that those of us who want to be monk-like could focus of disarm (which may simply be a weapon lock for a round), bull rush, trip and throw (please spend some animation resources on figures getting thrown or prone other than falling down dead). I think a fighter with unarmed strike and combat maneuvers would be close to the flavor of the classic monk. And, lets not forget a self-made fighter/wizard as magus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bard:
Level normally as a Rogue.
Level as a wizard in the Divination, Illusion and Enchantment schools
Level minor buffs and Heals as a cleric.
Level the one handed sword and crossbow as a fighter.
Should be more than enough to keep you busy.
Hehe, reminds me so much of this.
Anyways, I really hope they add Ranger as one of the first new class concepts.
To me they're very much part of my idea I have of a standard fantasy line-up, we have the fighter, the rogue/thief, the magician, the healer/cleric and the ranger/archer. Right now it sort of feels like it might be hard to get a ranger right with the options we know of so far though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing.
Rather than focus on how it might be possible to play a set class, why not instead focus on the freedom we'll have to play a set role? It isn't as though you cannot play a religious fighter, lightly-armoured unarmed combat specialist or a travelling musician.
I've never been happy with the restriction of the class system, and I'm looking forward to seeing how close to my nature-loving witch concept the PFO rules will let me get. Closer, I suspect, than Pen'n'Paper PF does (yes, even with the Witch class).
Surely most people have a role concept in mind rather than a desperate need to play a narrowly defined class?
There is one small point that you all are overlooking "keywords".
One keyword will be slotted to a(class)slot. So your "ranger" Fighter/Rogue, Has to slot a keyword Fighter or rogue?.
One will lock out keywords for the other.