| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A. There's no reason not to permit the shields anyway
Other than "the default concept for a brawler character is , not ."
B. Captain America didn't use no buckler!
Captain America clearly has an archetype which grants him shield proficiency. Or he elected to take it as a feat, as it's doubtful that shields were part of his standard WW2 army training.
In fact, most super-heroes whose fighting style is punching things don't use a shield.
Colossus, the Thing, Power Man, Giant Man, Batman (assuming he's not an investigator), Robin, most pulp heroes, and so on.
Captain America is a brawler. Most brawler's aren't Captain America.
Captain America uses a shield. Most brawler's don't use a shield.
And if you're a brawler who wants to defend with a shield, the –1 nonproficiency penalty doesn't hurt you much, and you can soon afford spending 150 gp on a masterwork shield.
Whether you think it slows down Gameplay or not, the Brawler's Ki Strike needs to be changed so it doesn't so obviously copy the Monk ability.
As a game designer, GM, and player, I am very concerned with slowing down gameplay. That's why we don't have 1st edition weapon vs. armor bonuses, different initiative modifiers for weapons of different sizes, and so on. Things don't have to be different just for the sake of being different.
So... object all you want, but it doesn't need to be changed. It works the way it is, it's easy to understand, and it doesn't slow down gameplay.
|
If you're still monitoring this thread at the moment, Mr. Reynolds, I'd like to hear your take on the theme issue with brawler's strike. Is the Brawler being able to magically bypass DR despite not being a mystical class an issue worth mentioning, or should we just accept that it's a necessary case of gameplay and story segregation?
A. There's no reason not to permit the shields anywayOther than "the default concept for a brawler character is , not ."
The default concepts for Fighters place them as being leaders, competent combatants, soldiers, town watchmen, and police officers too. That rather famously didn't work out.
If you want Brawler to attack with his fists, make his fists competent. Not being able to Shield with a Shield is like saying they can use longswords but not to cut things. It's that off-base.
As a game designer, GM, and player, I am very concerned with slowing down gameplay. That's why we don't have 1st edition weapon vs. armor bonuses, different initiative modifiers for weapons of different sizes, and so on. Things don't have to be different just for the sake of being different.
So... object all you want, but it doesn't need to be changed. It works the way it is, it's easy to understand, and it doesn't slow down gameplay.
And now for an unprecedented event that likely presages some manner of apocalypse:
I agree with the bolded statement. It's a roleplaying game; fluff it how you need to. It having a (Su) tag doesn't preclude you saying it's because your Brawler is SO AWESOME. In fact he's SO AWESOME that his blows absorb ambient magic and transfer that energy to the other guy's face. C'mon folks, refluffing is not difficult.
|
|
A. There's no reason not to permit the shields anywayOther than "the default concept for a brawler character is , not ."The default concepts for Fighters place them as being leaders, competent combatants, soldiers, town watchmen, and police officers too. That rather famously didn't work out.
If you want Brawler to attack with his fists, make his fists competent. Not being able to Shield with a Shield is like saying they can use longswords but not to cut things. It's that off-base.
According to the rules, if you don't have Shield Proficiency you still gain the AC bonus from a shield, you just take the Shield's armor check penalty to attack rolls too. Most shields have a -1 armour check penalty.
I'm not understanding what the drama is here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently they will be proficiant with sheilds as weapons only but unable to use them as sheilds, which is possibly the silliest idea ive ever heard of.It's just an artifact of shields being on the close weapon group. It's no more "silly" than a druid from a desert culture being proficient in scythe (an agricultural harvesting tool).
i would say it is if your character supposedly uses a shield as a weapon but is completely incapable of using it to block. that sounds like nonsense to me.
i would say it is if your character supposedly uses a shield as a weapon but is completely incapable of using it to block. that sounds like nonsense to me.
While I don't think it makes much sense for a character to be proficient with shield bash but not shields, I don't think taking a -1 or -2 to attack rolls makes it "completely incapable of using it to block". Especially when a masterwork shield solves that problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
C'mon folks, refluffing is not difficult.
Yeah, but I'd rather not have to. That is the point of these playtests, after all, to give feedback on the proposed features.
Better try and get it changed now and be slightly disappointed when it doesn't than not bother at the time and be unsatisfied when it comes out, knowing there was a slim possibility of my vote being counted. =)
C'mon folks, refluffing is not difficult.Yeah, but I'd rather not have to. That is the point of these playtests, after all, to give feedback on the proposed features.
Better try and get it changed now and be slightly disappointed when it doesn't than not bother at the time and be unsatisfied when it comes out, knowing there was a slim possibility of my vote being counted. =)
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."
Yeah, but SKR tends to be the most inflexible of the design team. Maybe I can win over the others. ;)
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."
This time, I think the problem is that we don't have any suggestions of abilities that allow unarmed Brawlers deal with DR without slowing down gameplay.
IMHO, the suggested idea of a "clustered strikes"-kind of ability would be cool. The Brawlers punches with such force that the creature's hide can't fully absorb the damage.
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."
I've considered it, and decided against it.
"I think this half-monk hybrid class shouldn't have this ability which works similar to a monk ability" is not a sufficient reason to change the ability to something with a similar goal (overcome DR with unarmed strikes) but has a slower, more cumbersome game mechanic.
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."I've considered it, and decided against it.
"I think this half-monk hybrid class shouldn't have this ability which works similar to a monk ability" is not a sufficient reason to change the ability to something with a similar goal (overcome DR with unarmed strikes) but has a slower, more cumbersome game mechanic.
Admittedly just changing the tag from (Su) to (Ex) would probably solve the problem. Pathfinder still has Roguespace (patent pending), after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain America clearly has an archetype which grants him shield proficiency. Or he elected to take it as a feat, as it's doubtful that shields were part of his standard WW2 army training.
I can't tell you how much I loved this comment today. I laughed out loud. Those lines could have been spoken by Sheldon Cooper. It just conjured this image of two people having a serious and earnest conversation about how to build a superhero. (Which I'm sure many of us have had in the past). I love the juxtaposition of the serious tone and fun and crazy subject matter.
I really think the devs should do video episode of conversations like this in a sort of Big bang like style of a "Sheldon Cooper" telling people they are wrong. Honestly some of the comments that the Devs could respond to are so off base or overly dramatic that it is hilarious. Now it would all be for humour not to be offensive which I think they have the skill to pull off easily.
Really I think the Dev team is showing incredible patience and discretion. I'm sure if I was in your position I would be too tempted to make snarky responses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's try this a different way, since some people aren't paying attention.
Captain America clearly has an archetype which grants him shield proficiency. Or he elected to take it as a feat, as it's doubtful that shields were part of his standard WW2 army training.I can't tell you how much I loved this comment today. I laughed out loud. Those lines could have been spoken by Sheldon Cooper. It just conjured this image of two people having a serious and earnest conversation about how to build a superhero. (Which I'm sure many of have had in the past). I love the juxtaposition of the serious tone and fun and crazy subject matter.
I really think the devs should do video episode of conversations like this in a sort of Big bang like style of a "Sheldon Cooper" telling people they are wrong. Honestly some of the comments that the Devs could respond to are so off base or overly dramatic that it is hilarious. Now it would all be for humour not to be offensive which I think they have the skill to pull off easily.
Really I think the Dev team is showing incredible patience and discretion. I'm sure if I was in your position I would be too tempted to make snarky responses.
If I recall correctly, Big Bang Theory is not very popular amongst the Paizo crew because they don't like how it portrays nerds/gamers.
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."I've considered it, and decided against it.
"I think this half-monk hybrid class shouldn't have this ability which works similar to a monk ability" is not a sufficient reason to change the ability to something with a similar goal (overcome DR with unarmed strikes) but has a slower, more cumbersome game mechanic.
What about a 'clustered-shot' style mechanic?
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."I've considered it, and decided against it.
"I think this half-monk hybrid class shouldn't have this ability which works similar to a monk ability" is not a sufficient reason to change the ability to something with a similar goal (overcome DR with unarmed strikes) but has a slower, more cumbersome game mechanic.
Yes, but you have to admit that it seems a bit odd that the class billed as the "Non-magical Monk equivalent unarmed fighter guy" (or, to quote directly "brawlers eschew ... the monk’s mysticism") has a (Su) ability. At the very least, changing it to (Ex) WOULD negate some of that silliness.
As it is currently it's like if Weapon Training was a (Su) ability. It just doesn't make sense for the class.
|
Have to admit the shield thing seems a bit odd even for a game that has over the top metahuman things like pathfinder (Cant honestly think of why someoneis going to take a shield as a weapon and then not bother learning how to block with it since surly that would be the only real advantage of taking one over a sword or there own fists.)
The big ones are the skills related to the Martial Maneuver ability, like Extra Maneuvers, Enduring Maneuver and Extra Maneuver feat. The reason is because these almost seem like mandatory. The 1 hour duration from selecting Enduring Maneuvers twice isn't so much necessary, especially if one were to take Extra Maneuvers. By 10th level, you have 20 uses of the ability, each lasting 10 minutes, just for taking Extra Maneuvers and Enduring Maneuvers (once). If you took it a second time, that's 20 hours of bonus feats.
The 1 hour duration upgrade is optional, I don't see many brawlers that feel the need to do that, but for certain builds it can be more convenient to set-and-forget your feats - those builds may want the hour duration option. (Additionally, since by using a single swift action to activate martial maneuvers, and since the duration resets on activation, a brawler doesn't need too many levels to effectively have his martial maneuver feats active all the time.
Even the "extra maneuvers" may not be needed for many; by default you'd end up with 10 uses at level 10. That is a reasonable amount and could be enough to "go big" in three separate encounters.
Many brawlers may even want to skip "enduring maneuvers", as they find their encounters tend to be over in less than a minute.
Finally "extra maneuver feat" is great, but you could instead just take "combat training" to get a permanent combat feat. So you can decide between certainty and flexibility.
It's really about choices; and I'm the type of guy that likes hard choices: do you want to take the 3 brawler skills that make martial maneuvers really powerful? Or would you rather spend those 3 brawler skills on getting 3 permanent combat feats? Or something else?
Extra Maneuver feat: is it 2 feats as a swift, 3 as a move, and 4 as a standard?
Not quite. The "extra maneuver feat" only raises the maximum number of feats allowed. At level 10 you could spend 1 standard and 1 swift action to activate all 4. Or you could spend 4 swift actions over 4 turns. Or a move action and 2 swift actions, etc. The "revised" martial maneuvers allow you to ramp up over time without losing previously selected feats. The only restriction is that you're not allowed to exceed the maximum for your level (and "extra maneuver feat" increases that maximum).
The other big thing is I notice you removed the bonus feats. This is kind of an issue, as, without the bonus feats, the class has a hard time meeting all the feat per-requisites for Martial Maneuvers. This kind of forces the class to only select between a handful of feats that it qualifies for, instead of being able to play a martial tool-box.
The bonus feats aren't really removed, they are rolled into the brawler skills as "combat training". Your brawler could take combat training 10 times in a row, essentially having all the bonus feats of a fighter (except the level 1 bonus feat). But then you give up all the neat class options that are specifically handy for a brawler.
Mathematically, on the original build there were 7 bonus feats. My suggestion grants 10 brawler skills. That means in principle you can take "combat training" 7 times and have all the bonus feats from the original brawler, and still have 3 brawler skills left for brawler specific upgrades. If you take "brawling dodger" once and "knockout", then you've essentially built the original brawler and still have one brawler skill to spare as an extra. Neat, huh? :)
I'm not sure I like that the Brawler can get up to a +6/+7 Dodge bonus using Brawling Dodger, but that would probably, at best, let the Bralwer keep even with most full-plate fighters or sword and boarders
Going all the way to +6/+7 dodge bonus requires a substantial investment in terms of brawling skills. It may make sense for a particular brawler, but probably not all. Most may be happy with just 1 rank in this brawler skill (which is roughly as powerful as the original AC bonus in the brawler class). Personally I think this option is necessary to make an unarmored brawler viable at all. People seem to forget that some brawlers aren't just about the unarmed strike - they're about the naked unarmed strike. Armor shouldn't be a requirement to play the class.
...
The brawler suggestion only showcases the concept. If Paizo were to design along those lines, I'd really hope for them to add a number of additional options. The more options, the more classic "brawler" tropes can be explored. Drunken brawler, old man that still packs a punch, break through objects with your punch, etc.
I may not like it, but I somewhat have to agree, especially when Kenichi switched styles against Ryuto.This is how I'm currently envisioning the Brawler...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenichi:_The_Mightiest_Disciple
If you're referring to the anime, Tels, then I agree. I didn't enjoy the animated adaptation. Fortunately a friend convinced me to read the manga/comic instead - and that is vastly better than the animated version. I'd highly recommend it. The comic is still running and the story is roughly 5 times further than what the anime showed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you think it slows down Gameplay or not, the Brawler's Ki Strike needs to be changed so it doesn't so obviously copy the Monk ability.As a game designer, GM, and player, I am very concerned with slowing down gameplay. That's why we don't have 1st edition weapon vs. armor bonuses, different initiative modifiers for weapons of different sizes, and so on. Things don't have to be different just for the sake of being different.
So... object all you want, but it doesn't need to be changed. It works the way it is, it's easy to understand, and it doesn't slow down gameplay.
What if Brawler Strike worked like:
At 5th level you can avoid up to DR 5/Type or --.
At 10th level you can avoid up to DR 10/Type or --.
At 15th level you can avoid up to DR 15/Type or --.
This differentiates it from the Monk. You can call it an EX. And its simple.
You aren't avoiding part of a creature's DR. If you can avoid 5, and the creature has 10, its full DR works.
This gets around a Barbarian's DR, but won't work as magical damage to injure an incorporeal creature. So another way to make the different than a Monk, but keep it relatively balanced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also keep in mind, Paizo already had an item that avoids part of DR.
The Planar weapon ability. I have played with this on my characters quite a bit, and it doesn't really slow anything down.
So I'm not sure the argument of DR Avoidance equal to 1/2 Brawler Level + Con Modifier = slowing game down is valid.
|
|
I think all this shield business is going to lead them to reconsider giving brawlers proficiency in the entire close weapon group.What do you see as Paizo's reasoning to do this?
They don't want brawlers to use shields, but they're part of the close weapon group so brawlers are technically proficient in them. If they go with the "proficient as a weapon but not ac" rule, they'll get to look forward to spending the next decade listening to people whine about "wah can't i use muh sheeld to block!?!?!?"
Removed post. Keep it civil, folks. Thank you.
|
To the shield discussion:Its not the end of the world that they aren't proficient in shields as shields. If a shield is strapped to your arm in Pathfinder, you can still defend yourself if you aren't proficient. And really, its a -2 penalty to attack rolls, skill checks, and initiative. AND the penalty can easily be reduced via masterwork or removed via darkwood/mithral.
To the DR discussion:As others have mentioned, I think this can be solved easily by Exploit Weakness ability from Martial Artist. Maybe change the stat it uses from wisdom and/or reflavor it a bit, but it solves all DR problems with a simple d20 roll.
At the very least, changing it to (Ex) WOULD negate some of that silliness.
As I said upthread, "It's something we're discussing."
Removed post. Keep it civil, folks. Thank you.
Genuine question, should I have said "mentally challenged" instead? Because I meant that in a literal sense.
It seems to me that it takes a special kind of person to have a big hunk of wood or metal and not know it can be used to block things.
I mean, I'm all for playing the occasional Brawler as Hodor, but...
It just seems very odd.
At the very least, changing it to (Ex) WOULD negate some of that silliness.As I said upthread, "It's something we're discussing."
Ah, actually missed that post. Cool.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if:
Armor & Weapon Proficiencies = Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. (save em for an archetype).
They get an ability called:
Brawler's Scarring (EX): Due to the constant use of his hands, arms, legs, and forehead to violently pummel his enemies, the brawler gains scar tissue across its body. The scar tissue forms in such a way, that they can choose to do slashing or piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage. Additionally they gain natural armor of 2.
At 3rd level, this scar tissue becomes hardened and can be enchanted like a weapon. At 7th level the scar tissue can also be enchanted like armor. The cost is he same to enchant a weapon or armor, but the brawler must be available for 8 hours a day for the enchanter to work their magic.
At 5th level, the scar tissue becomes so tough that they can avoid magical DR. Brawler's fists, however, are not considered magical weapons unless enchanted as above. At 9th level the brawler can avoid cold iron or silver DR, alignment based DR at 12th level, and adamantine DR at 17th level.
|
|
Removed post. Keep it civil, folks. Thank you.Genuine question, should I have said "mentally challenged" instead? Because I meant that in a literal sense.
It seems to me that it takes a special kind of person to have a big hunk of wood or metal and not know it can be used to block things.
I mean, I'm all for playing the occasional Brawler as Hodor, but...
Knowing that it can be used to block things, and knowing how to use it to block things are different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't want brawlers to use shields, but they're part of the close weapon group so brawlers are technically proficient in them. If they go with the "proficient as a weapon but not ac" rule, they'll get to look forward to spending the next decade listening to people whine about "wah can't i use muh sheeld to block!?!?!?"I think all this shield business is going to lead them to reconsider giving brawlers proficiency in the entire close weapon group.What do you see as Paizo's reasoning to do this?
But that's not accurate. Nowhere does it say you can't use a shield to block if you aren't proficient.
Shield Proficiency (Combat)
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.
Benefit: When you use a shield (except a tower shield), the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength- and Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers all automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
If you aren't proficient with a shield then any round you gain an AC benefit from it you take a penalty to attacks.
A -1 Penalty for a light shield or a -2 for a heavy shield.
A brawler doesn't need Shield Proficiency because all he takes is a minor penalty to his attack rolls if he uses a shield.
Stop using Captain America for a moment, because he's a superhero not a level 1 character.
At level 1 a Brawler can wear a shield giving him +2 AC and -2 Attack.
At level 3 he can afford a Masterwork Shield (+2 AC and -1 Attack).
At either of those levels he can take Shield Proficiency as a Feat.
He could also take Throw Anything, and toss his shield as a ranged attack.
All this arguing over a problem that does not exist is distracting from the actual discussion about the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
What if:
Armor & Weapon Proficiencies = Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. (save em for an archetype).
They get an ability called:
Brawler's Scarring (EX): Due to the constant use of his hands, arms, legs, and forehead to violently pummel his enemies, the brawler gains scar tissue across its body. The scar tissue forms in such a way, that they can choose to do slashing or piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage. Additionally they gain natural armor of 2.
At 3rd level, this scar tissue becomes hardened and can be enchanted like a weapon. At 7th level the scar tissue can also be enchanted like armor. The cost is he same to enchant a weapon or armor, but the brawler must be available for 8 hours a day for the enchanter to work their magic.
At 5th level, the scar tissue becomes so tough that they can avoid magical DR. Brawler's fists, however, are not considered magical weapons unless enchanted as above. At 9th level the brawler can avoid cold iron or silver DR, alignment based DR at 12th level, and adamantine DR at 17th level.
I honestly don't feel that
1/2 Brawler Level + Constitution Modifier, rounded down, in DR Avoidance will slow the game down at all. I have a 9th level Monk I've been playing with Planar Amulet of Mighty Fists for awhile now, and that avoids up to 5 DR on Extraplanar creatures with DR. I just say, I hit for 9 damage and can avoid 5 DR. It wouldn't be that different for the Brawler, except the number changes as they level.
Alternatively, since they can enchant their scar tissue, what if instead of being able to avoid the metal DR's they can lace their scar tissue with the metal for the same cost of making a two-handed sword of that metal.
Then the only sticking point would be how to avoid alignment DR, and if they can enchant their hands, the answer then becomes get holy or axiomatic scar tissue.
It seems to me that it takes a special kind of person to have a big hunk of wood or metal and not know it can be used to block things.
Well... To be fair, they do know how to use shields to block (they still get the bonus to AC), they just don't know how to properly fight while donning a shield (thus the ACP penalty to attack rolls).
That said, I do agree that Brawlers not being proficient with shields is kinda silly. Not that it really matters, though. A masterwork shield pretty much nullifies the penalty anyway.
|
|
But that's not accurate. Nowhere does it say you can't use a shield to block if you aren't proficient.
You're missing the meat of the discussion. A mechanic like "proficient in shields as a weapon but not armor" is unwieldy. Do you have to rules patch it so a brawler is never able to use it as armor unless proficient? If a brawler take proficiency via feat or multiclassing does he keep his ac bonus? Does he get to choose each round if he gets the ac bonus at the nonproficient penalty to attacks?
There are simpler ways to build the class than introducing half proficiency.