
Squirrel_Dude |

Squirrel_Dude wrote:It's probably because Batman went from being world's greatest detective to being the "G@% D$%NED BATMAN!,"Batman did that decades before you were born. Silver age Justice League stories had the same contrast with silver age Batman stories. It's not like it's some sort of recent development.
Sure, but was it ingrained in the public consciousness, during the silver age of comics, that Batman would always beat Superman in a one on one fight because? While I'm sure that contrast was always there, I think authors like Frank Miller, and others who have an obsession with the guy, have taken the obsession up to that next level.
I feel like there is some analogy here to 1e/2e and 3e D&D game, but I'm not sure I can make it properly without being completely wrong about comic book history.

Anzyr |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Pathfinder can do all those Genres, Erick Wilson. But the people who want to play Tolkien and Conan need to play at level 1-6. And for some reason they are unhappy about this. Then those of us who want to play at high level can play martials at high level who can actually do the stuff that some people consider to "wuxia/anime".
Also why do people want unamed mooks to be higher then level 3. Are all soldiers in your worlds level 15? Level 20 Town Guards?

Nathanael Love |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Pathfinder can do all those Genres, Erick Wilson. But the people who want to play Tolkien and Conan need to play at level 1-6. And for some reason they are unhappy about this. Then those of us who want to play at high level can play martials at high level who can actually do the stuff that some people consider to "wuxia/anime".
Also why do people want unamed mooks to be higher then level 3. Are all soldiers in your worlds level 15? Level 20 Town Guards?
If there were classes for modern day soldiers would you put the Seals of Team 6 at the same level as the 11B who just graduated OSUT?
I argue no, which is why you can assume than in an army of a hundred orcs, there are a sizable number who aren't level 1s. For every squad of level ones there's probably a level 3 sgt equivalent; for every platoon of 40 there is probably a level 5, in every hundred there is probably a level 10 at the minimum.

A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Sure, but was it ingrained in the public consciousness, during the silver age of comics, that Batman would always beat Superman in a one on one fight because? While I'm sure that contrast was always there, I think authors like Frank Miller, and others who have an obsession with the guy, have taken the obsession up to that next level.
Yes. It's easy to forget that DKR came out almost 30 years ago, and even then it was revisiting ideas from the author's childhood. The idea that Superman and Batman are peers is not at all a new idea. World's Finest (Superman and Batman team up: the anthology comic) started its run in 1941.
Fictional characters don't always slot neatly and nicely into power level boxes, even in the genres where power levels are an actual thing.

Cerberus Seven |

Pathfinder can do all those Genres, Erick Wilson. But the people who want to play Tolkien and Conan need to play at level 1-6. And for some reason they are unhappy about this. Then those of us who want to play at high level can play martials at high level who can actually do the stuff that some people consider to "wuxia/anime".
For LotR, 6-8 is perfectly acceptable. For the Silmarillion, it needs to be higher. You had people wading into armies of Balrogs and clashing with dragons at the gates of Angband. You had Melian putting a nigh-impenetrable ward over thousands of square miles of forest. You had Huan taking on Sauron in his heyday, one of the most fearsome and deadliest beings the world has ever known.
Sorry, just a minor quibble when people label Sauron as being level 9 only. His power is screwed to hell in LotR, but that's mostly because of a lot of plot-related status effects and negative levels from losing the ring.
Cerberus Seven |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If there were classes for modern day soldiers would you put the Seals of Team 6 at the same level as the 11B who just graduated OSUT?
I argue no, which is why you can assume than in an army of a hundred orcs, there are a sizable number who aren't level 1s. For every squad of level ones there's probably a level 3 sgt equivalent; for every platoon of 40 there is probably a level 5, in every hundred there is probably a level 10 at the minimum.
You don't have to assume that. Look in the Bestiary at goblins, it outright states that in each tribe there are several level 3s, a couple level 4-5s, and one leader level 6-8. Goblins don't train continuously like human soldiers do, it's why the default human guardsman in the GMG is a level 3 warrior. An officer (say a Sergeant) has fighter levels and is 4 HD instead of 3. The watch captain is a level 7 fighter. With the amount of training and education that goes into making a modern soldier, you can assume they all have fighter levels and range between 1-2 levels higher than this. These aren't the elite units either, like the SEALs or Rangers. They should receive a similar increment to level once they've been in a year or so.

Anzyr |

Oh he's a powerful outsider with his Ring sure. And sure some people in the Silmarillion are higher level (or again high HD outsiders). But Lord of the Rings... I'd say level 8 characters is the absolute maximum level it could accommodate before being silly (because Teleport at 9th level).
And sure Nathanael Love in a horde of orcs.. some Level 10s are possible. They are usually the leaders. Most of it though is going to be level 1-2, with gradually decreasing numbers as you go up. If the horde is a 1,000 strong the number of level 2's may be only 250, the level 3s only 75, the level 4's only 25, etc.

Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

solitary, gang (2–4), squad (11–20 plus 2 sergeants of 3rd level and 1 leader of 3rd–6th level), or band (30–100 plus 150% noncombatants plus 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 10 adults, 1 lieutenant of 5th level per 20 adults, and 1 leader of 7th level per 30 adults)
By Pathfinder rules there isn't a single level 10 in 100 orcs.

Erick Wilson |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

Pathfinder can do all those Genres, Erick Wilson. But the people who want to play Tolkien and Conan need to play at level 1-6. And for some reason they are unhappy about this. Then those of us who want to play at high level can play martials at high level who can actually do the stuff that some people consider to "wuxia/anime".
You've actually come to exactly my point. Yes, the system can do all those genres, but not at the same time. The only way for some (in fact many) people to get the experience they want from the game is to exclude certain elements.
You are suggesting excluding certain levels (and I would take it a step further and suggest that most sub-genres of fantasy do not support the very idea of levelling)- the high levels for sword and sorcery and the low levels for wuxia. That's certainly an approach (though I actually disagree with your specific evaluation there). One might also suggest excluding certain feats, rules or classes in order to simulate the genre desired. The point is that you cannot achieve any of these ends without exclusion.
This is problematic because it leads to "mother may I?" syndrome in home game character creation, where the players are constantly trying to read the GM's mind (since most are very bad about communicating their game's genre in a specific way) about what game elements will or won't be allowed. This leads to tension and fighting.
In organized play, conversely, there can be no such exclusion at all. Because of this, people are always getting annoyed at elements in the game that rub up against their conception of the world their character lives in. This works in many ways, from the would be low-fantasy fighter player who gets annoyed at the presence of Wizards, to the Wizard player who gets annoyed at the presence of Gunslingers and so on. This, too, leads to tension, misunderstandings and fights.
It is for these reasons that we require some kind of organized guidance from above about which elements to exclude or include depending on which playstyle (regarding both rules and genre) we wish to achieve. Having no such guidance and no such options leads to a "tyranny of the majority" wherein the needs and wishes of the caster-players, optimizers and the Tolkein lovers dominate everyone's game. As long as this continues, Pathfinder is not really the "big tent" that it apparently desires to be, and in fact they do a disservice to and promote tension among their players by claiming (even implicitly) to be so.
The last time I suggested this (specifically in regards to PFS that time) a Pathfinder staffer b!%@&ed me out, locked the thread, and prevented my account from posting or sending messages for several days. Here's hoping nothing like that happens again, since I'm honestly trying to help...
EDIT: This thinking is very important to rules/"flow of play" issues as well as to genre issues. For instance, in just the last few days I've seen threads by people who hate "rocket tag," people who hate "golf bag syndrome," people who hate "save or dies"...and that's not to mention the seven zillion threads in response to the Crane Wing errata. In every case, the other side has arisen to (in many cases furiously) dispute what these threads are calling for. All this back and forth vitriol would be unnecessary if everybody wasn't freaking out that the game was going to shift permanently and inalterably one way or the other, thereby excluding them and their needs.
EDIT II: What I'm saying is that the game doesn't have to be this one monolithic thing. There are other ways to approach it. Modular rules or adaptable "settings" shouldn't be feared and avoided.

Matt Thomason |

You've actually come to exactly my point. Yes, the system can do all those genres, but not at the same time. The only way for some (in fact many) people to get the experience they want from the game is to exclude certain elements.
This is a very good point. A far simpler core system with "genre templates" that can then be applied on top could be a good approach here while still maintaining compatibility. Strip out pretty much all of the magic rules, classes, etc, and then allow people to build on that to make the game they want to play.

Nathanael Love |

Erick Wilson wrote:This is a very good point. A far simpler core system with "genre templates" that can then be applied on top could be a good approach here while still maintaining compatibility. Strip out pretty much all of the magic rules, classes, etc, and then allow people to build on that to make the game they want to play.
You've actually come to exactly my point. Yes, the system can do all those genres, but not at the same time. The only way for some (in fact many) people to get the experience they want from the game is to exclude certain elements.
Modular rules sets is starting to sound pretty 5th edition. . . supposed to be one of the big features of that game on release.

Erick Wilson |

Lets please not turn discussions of what PF can become into arguments over where D&D has gone... again.
Whatever actions Hasbro&D may take, whether they succeed or fail, doesn't mandate that a similar course of action has to even remotely resemble Hasbro&D's version of it.
Very true and very good point.

Malwing |

I have a question; How would you implement more stunts into martial classes? Feats? New skill rules?
I see the benefit of Bo9S types of maneuver systems but one thing that turns me off from them is less about what the maneuvers can do but there aren't many organic ways to implement them into existing martial classes without taking away what they already do. As a result they are used almost exclusively for new classes when the existing martials are the ones that need help.
Feats seem natural but there are existing feat trees that are staples and feat intensive, leaving little room for extra-curricular feats that do new and neat things.

![]() |

kyrt-ryder wrote:Very true and very good point.Lets please not turn discussions of what PF can become into arguments over where D&D has gone... again.
Whatever actions Hasbro&D may take, whether they succeed or fail, doesn't mandate that a similar course of action has to even remotely resemble Hasbro&D's version of it.
On the contrary, a good idea is a good idea. Nobody is saying Paizo has to copy another company.

kyrt-ryder |
I have a question; How would you implement more stunts into martial classes? Feats? New skill rules?
I see the benefit of Bo9S types of maneuver systems but one thing that turns me off from them is less about what the maneuvers can do but there aren't many organic ways to implement them into existing martial classes without taking away what they already do. As a result they are used almost exclusively for new classes when the existing martials are the ones that need help.
Feats seem natural but there are existing feat trees that are staples and feat intensive, leaving little room for extra-curricular feats that do new and neat things.
One thing I once did, was give the Swordsage's Maneuvers Known and Maneuvers Readied progression to every class that didn't get spellcasting starting at level 1 (aka this included Paladins and Rangers)
Then, based on the class in question, gave them access to various disciplines.
Fighters had access to everything except Desert Sun and Shadow Hand, Paladins had access to the disciplines of a Crusader, etc etc.
Simply tacked on, with nothing taken away from the classes and no in-combat recovery mechanic.
It actually worked pretty well.

Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |

I have a question; How would you implement more stunts into martial classes? Feats? New skill rules?
I see the benefit of Bo9S types of maneuver systems but one thing that turns me off from them is less about what the maneuvers can do but there aren't many organic ways to implement them into existing martial classes without taking away what they already do. As a result they are used almost exclusively for new classes when the existing martials are the ones that need help.
Feats seem natural but there are existing feat trees that are staples and feat intensive, leaving little room for extra-curricular feats that do new and neat things.
You have to do it with a combination of feats and skill ranks. the feats should hinge off of class features, to restrict them to who you want to get the feats. (which is a big problem with fighters and rogues, there's almost no feats that require Talents or Bravery or weapon mastery or what have you). The feats should modify what is possible with X skill ranks. as this should be the primary 'power-up' for non-magical classes, non-casters should get more out of these then casters.
==Aelryinth

Erick Wilson |

Malwing wrote:I have a question; How would you implement more stunts into martial classes? Feats? New skill rules?
I see the benefit of Bo9S types of maneuver systems but one thing that turns me off from them is less about what the maneuvers can do but there aren't many organic ways to implement them into existing martial classes without taking away what they already do. As a result they are used almost exclusively for new classes when the existing martials are the ones that need help...
One thing I once did, was give the Swordsage's Maneuvers Known and Maneuvers Readied progression to every class that didn't get spellcasting starting at level 1 (aka this included Paladins and Rangers)
Then, based on the class in question, gave them access to various disciplines.
Fighters had access to everything except Desert Sun and Shadow Hand, Paladins had access to the disciplines of a Crusader, etc etc.
Simply tacked on, with nothing taken away from the classes and no in-combat recovery mechanic.
It actually worked pretty well.
In my case, I made archetypes for each class that replaced different class abilities (especially spellcasting in cases like the Ranger and Paladin) with maneuver progression, to varying degrees. In many cases this wound up making the classes a bit more powerful, but mostly it just made them more flexible. And yes, my classes also had access to various disciplines, class by class. And I errata'd a few of the maneuvers that caused problems in 3.5, like Iron Heart Surge, Thicket of Blades and White Raven Tactics.

Starbuck_II |

I have a question; How would you implement more stunts into martial classes? Feats? New skill rules?
I see the benefit of Bo9S types of maneuver systems but one thing that turns me off from them is less about what the maneuvers can do but there aren't many organic ways to implement them into existing martial classes without taking away what they already do. As a result they are used almost exclusively for new classes when the existing martials are the ones that need help.
Feats seem natural but there are existing feat trees that are staples and feat intensive, leaving little room for extra-curricular feats that do new and neat things.
The maneuvers in Bo9S can be taken with feats (Fighter Bonus Feats I'll add) so I'm not sure what you mean.

Erick Wilson |

I can't possibly see what problem you would have with Thicket of Blades. The Stance was designed very explicitly for what it does.
I don't want to digress too much down this path. Thicket is admittedly the least problematic of the maneuvers/stances I mentioned. Anyway, I'll give my reasons and you can take or leave them.
1. In general, zone control builds got totally out of hand in 3.5. Thicket was one of the reasons. Some of the others (Stand Still, etc) have been nerfed, but still it's good to nip this stuff in the bud if possible, for the same reason that pretty much everything that causes fatigue or allows you to grow (or act like you grew) should include a line about how it doesn't stack with other similar stuff.
2. It negates 5 foot steps and withdrawing. That's a major tactical change to the game for a single maneuver.
3. It's one of those things that totally shuts down certain common enemy tactics (or often does so, anyway) like, oh, archery and spellcasting. While I'm no fan of archers and spellcasters (as they currently exist) I also don't like stuff like this because...well, see Crane Wing, et al. Thicket still exists mind you, as the brawler archetype ability No Escape. But at least that's only available to one archetype of one class at 9th level, rather than being available to basically everybody at 5th. Also, the brawler ability at least specifies that the enemies it effects be adjacent, and even so I've already seen a brawler in play and it's a special kind of Wizard killer. If everybody can have this, then pretty soon every wizard is a teleportation school specialist, and we know how that turns out...
Basically, it's just best to avoid this kind of stuff. It just isn't necessary to have it around.

Erick Wilson |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Those are all reasons I found to HAVE Thicket of Blades in the game, even for Fighters who wanted to serve the tank roll and ate two feats to do it.
EDIT: and for that exact same reason I LIKE the old Crane Wing. It gives martials something to DO, not bonuses to things they are already doing.
Yeah this is one of those things. It's just a matter of preference and point of view. You don't mind when the game becomes paper-rock-scissors; I try to avoid it. You want martials to compete with casters; I think the bar set by casters is too high and everything should come down instead. I'm not knocking your style, by the way, so I hope it's not coming off like that. It's just not what I'm into.
But anyhow disagreements like this are exactly why we need modular rules :). You and I just have very different ideas about what kind of play we want, and there ought to be a way we can both use this game despite that.

Erick Wilson |

I'm confused... people have this misguided notion that Fighters are tanks (not necessarily you Erick Wilson), but then people hate them being able to zone control. Damned if you, damned if you don't I guess.
I guess in my mind tanking isn't about zone controlling, at least in the way that zone control tended to work in 3.5. Tanking should work out as "I make things attack me rather than my allies," which is cool, rather than "nothing on the battlefield can move," which quickly becomes tedious, at least to me.

kyrt-ryder |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much 'nothing on the battlefield can move' as 'nothing can move through this space I control without engaging me, allowing me to force them to attack me and therefore not attack my allies.'
Given the mechanics of 3E, it's pretty much the best option available. Very few people like the Antagonize feat, and it's language-dependant AND based on Charisma skills.... it's a pretty poor solution really.

Erick Wilson |

It's not so much 'nothing on the battlefield can move' as 'nothing can move through this space I control without engaging me, allowing me to force them to attack me and therefore not attack my allies.'
Given the mechanics of 3E, it's pretty much the best option available. Very few people like the Antagonize feat, and it's language-dependant AND based on Charisma skills.... it's a pretty poor solution really.
I agree tanking should work exactly as you describe (and I completely agree about Antagonize). But in reality you had people walking around with a 40 or 50 foot reach (that's without growth shenanigans) who made sure anything that tried to move within that area was either shut down or punished, regardless of whether it was moving toward the zone controller or his allies.
EDIT: I much preferred how Iron Guard's Glare worked, for instance. In Pathfinder, Combat Patrol seemed like it was going in the right direction, except that I can't figure out how the hell it's supposed to work, exactly.

Doomed Hero |

kyrt-ryder wrote:It's not so much 'nothing on the battlefield can move' as 'nothing can move through this space I control without engaging me, allowing me to force them to attack me and therefore not attack my allies.'
Given the mechanics of 3E, it's pretty much the best option available. Very few people like the Antagonize feat, and it's language-dependant AND based on Charisma skills.... it's a pretty poor solution really.
I agree tanking should work exactly as you describe (and I completely agree about Antagonize). But in reality you had people walking around with a 40 or 50 foot reach (that's without growth shenanigans) who made sure anything that tried to move within that area was either shut down or punished, regardless of whether it was moving toward the zone controller or his allies.
EDIT: I much preferred how Iron Guard's Glare worked, for instance. In Pathfinder, Combat Patrol seemed like it was going in the right direction, except that I can't figure out how the hell it's supposed to work, exactly.
I really don't see what the problem with this concept is. In my opinion, this is the sort of thing a high-level martial should be able to do. If you get anywhere near them, you should be in danger.
"Shut down or punish" should be the Martial character's mantra.

kyrt-ryder |
I have a better question. What CAN a 20th level fighter do without wealth by level.
Throwing money at a problem isn't fixing it, especially when we're talking about one of the most expensive classes.
EDIT: HOWEVER, throwing WAY MORE money at that problem can fix it, in games where a GM would abide by such a ruling.
Say if Fighters had a class feature which granted them, for example... 3x WBL, that might be a really quick and dirty improvement.

Erick Wilson |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I really don't see what the problem with this concept is. In my opinion, this is the sort of thing a high-level martial should be able to do. If you get anywhere near them, you should be in danger."Shut down or punish" should be the Martial character's mantra.
Shut down, I can't agree with. Shutting something down entirely is only fun, sometimes, for the person doing the shutting down. For everyone else it takes the fun away. This is ultimately, I think, the reason Crane Wing got hit with the errata hammer. It totally shut down certain types of enemies (I believe the T-Rex was an oft cited example).
Now, punish, maybe. But for what? What I'm saying a tank should punish people for is attacking allies or trying to move toward allies. In reality, zone control builds have tended to punish enemies for moving towards allies, towards the tank, away from allies, away from the tank...just moving period. That's indiscriminate and doesn't really do what the role is theoretically supposed to be accomplishing.
Anyway, if I'm going to tank I prefer things that make the enemy attack me. I've been having fun using a character with Archon Style, for instance. But hey, that's just me.

Erick Wilson |

The T-Rex isn't an enemy, it's a piece of the environment. By the time you're high enough level to fight a T-rex, you're high enough level to bypass it, or defeat it without ever engaging it in melee.
The fact that Crane Wing shuts it down is of zero consequence.
Well, see, that's a problem for me. Because what you're saying is that the T-Rex basically shouldn't exist at all. Well, they spent time and ink making its stats and putting them in a book, and I paid for that time and ink.
But anyway, you're fixating on the specific example while ignoring the point (which is what always happens on these boards when you give a specific example, which is why I hate doing it). There are plenty of enemies that focus primarily on one big attack. And maybe you're fighting the T-Rex because it's the animal companion of the druid villain. Etc, etc. Let's not talk specifics because it goes on forever and the point gets lost.
The point is that Crane Wing shuts down certain types of enemies. That is true. Some people don't see that kind of thing as a problem. Other people absolutely hate it. These two groups of people both need a game that works for them. Maybe Pathfinder can't service both those groups of people, and maybe it can. I hope it can, because otherwise it's going to be a bloody battle with lines drawn in the sand about all kinds of issues, and nobody wanting to back down. The Crane Wing controversy is only the very beginning, now that that Pandora's box is coming open.

Raith Shadar |

Raith Shadar wrote:Obviously a Pathfinder version of Guts would have to have appropriate Pathfinder magic items and the like, otherwise it would be hard to survive.And this here is the problem with estimating Gutz's level. He doesn't have magical gear*.
*for the most part
Exactly. He's not mainstream Pathfinder.
Which circles back around to the reality that Pathfinder is a rule set. If you play standard Pathfinder, things will occur a certain way. If you want to run a type of adventure that fits Guts or Arthur or Hercules, you'll have to tailor the system and the adventure.

Raith Shadar |

11b would be level 1 warriors (but screwed by Pathfinder's skill system)
The Seals would be level 1 or 2 rangers.
Who are you to decide this for anyone but your own world?
Fact is there are no Pathfinder analogue's for a S.E.A.L. Different archetype. GURPS does a much, much better job of simulating a S.E.A.L. They put work into doing so. Pathfinder is not meant to simulate modern military warfare. It does an awful job of it no matter how you try to tailor it.
Pathfinder is set up for a very specific type of heroic fantasy. If you want something else like modern military or gritty fantasy, there are other games that provide a much better rule set for doing so.
Why some want to force Pathfinder into all those boxes is beyond me. I enjoy the heroic fantasy Pathfinder is selling. I hope they stick with their formula. It works. It doesn't need modifications. There are other games that allow a person to play anime/wuxia fighters. Folks that want to play those type of characters should find systems that allow them to rather than try to force their wants on this game.

Ilja |

I'm considering something like a "focus" mechanic that is a quickly refilled pool - something between Grit and Ki in terms of function, but regained more quickly than either. Just of the top of my head, I'm thinking something like this:
Martial Focus (ex): At 2nd level, fighters and rogues get a focus pool. The pool has a maximum equal to half their level.
Mystic Focus (ex): At 2nd level, monks get a focus pool. The pool has a maximum equal to their monk level. At 4th level, they may add their wisdom modifier to the maximum amount of focus points they can have. This replaces their Ki Pool class feature.
Focus pools from different classes are added together.
In a single round, you may never spend more than half your focus pool (minimum one). This counts from the beginning of your turn to right at the beginning of your next turn.
As a move action, you can regain a number of focus points equal to half your maximum points (minimum 1). In addition, whenever you hit an enemy in combat with a CR at least equal to your level minus three, you regain one focus points. Hitting creatures that don't pose any danger at all grants no focus points (you cannot carry around a bound and gagged goblin to punch).
- As an immediate action, gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against the next attack.
- As an immediate action, ignore one of the following conditions for one round: confused, dazzled, deaf (only if temporary deafness), disabled, fascinated, fatigued, shaken, sickened, staggered.
- As an immediate action to gain a bonus to a strength, dexterity or constitution check equal to their max pool size.
- As a non-action, gain an additional swift action.
- As a non-action, automatically stabilize.
- As part of a combat maneuver, to make the combat maneuver not provoke an attack of opportunity.
If you have at least four points in your focus pool, you may spend two focus points to do one of the following:
- As a non-action, gain an extra move action.
- As a non-action, reroll a saving throw after you know if it succeeded or failed.
- As an immediate action, ignore one of the following conditions for one round: cowering, dazed, dominated, frightened, nauseated, panicked, stunned. If used directly when gaining one of these conditions, you do not suffer the effects of gaining the condition for this round (such as dropping weapons because you are stunned).
In addition, a monk gains the following uses at 4th level:
- As an immediate action, spend two points to gain a +4 bonus to AC for one round.
- As an immediate action, spend two points to gain an extra standard attack with a monk weapon or unarmed strike.
At 5th level, a monk may spend one focus point as a non-action to gain a +20 bonus to acrobatics checks made to jump.
Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level, a monk can gain fast healing 2 for a number of rounds equal to his maximum focus pool by spending two focus points as an immediate action.
Abundant step (Su): At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 4 focus points. His caster level for this effect is equal to his maximum focus pool. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.
Diamond Soul (Ex) At 13th level, a monk may spend one focus point as a non-action to gain spell resistance against the next spell. The amount of spell resistance is equal to his maximum focus pool plus 15.
Quivering Palm (Su): This works as normal except instead of being 1/day, it costs 6 focus points.
Empty Body (Su): At 19th level, a monk gains the ability to assume an ethereal state for 1 minute as though using the spell etherealness. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 10 focus points. This ability only affects the monk and cannot be used to make other creatures ethereal.
This is just a quick draft made right now, not really worked through the details. The point of it is to make martials get more interesting options in combat, and make them a bit more durable against effects that shut down characters. I deliberately tried to stay away from stuff that add damage, because I generally don't think that's what martials really need more of in combat - however, the additional move actions etc will increase the chances for rogues to move into flanking position.

Rynjin |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

Why some want to force Pathfinder into all those boxes is beyond me. I enjoy the heroic fantasy Pathfinder is selling. I hope they stick with their formula. It works. It doesn't need modifications. There are other games that allow a person to play anime/wuxia fighters. Folks that want to play those type of characters should find systems that allow them to rather than try to force their wants on this game.
Jesus man I know it's fun to be Buzzkillington but every now and then you need to give it up and actually contribute to the discussion or not post.
Not everyone agrees that the game is perfect. That's WHY THIS THREAD (and the others like it) EXISTS.
I'm considering something like a "focus" mechanic that is a quickly refilled pool - something between Grit and Ki in terms of function, but regained more quickly than either. Just of the top of my head, I'm thinking something like this:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **...
Interesting.
Minor nitpicks on the Monk bits:
I'm not quite sure I like Quivering Palm using Focus points to be used at all.
Maybe 1/day plus 6 Focus points for every subsequent use?
Wholeness of Body still isn't very good for what it's needed for: In combat healing. Out of combat healing is already really easy with wands, Channel Energy, Infernal Healing, etc. and Fast Healing 2 doesn't do much in the grand scheme.
I tweaked Wholeness of Body in one of my homebrews to heal double the monk's level in healing, flat, and as far as I can tell it's pretty well balanced with similar effects (comparing it to Lay on Hands or Channel it comes out to the same as the average amount of healing for those at any given level, give or take 2 points depending on the level).

Ilja |

The reason i wanted QP to be based on focus points is for simplicity, minimizing the amount of resources to be tracked, but its not that important. While i know out of combat healing isnt really -needed-, having unending fast healing is nice from a narrative standpoint in a way that wands arent. It makes the monk less gear dependant, which i think should be a goal with the monk. And honestly, im fine with wholeness of body going from "just utter crap" to "circumstantially nice and saves a bit of money regardless". Its also healing potential over a day far higher thanaä any other class can have at these kinds of levels. Since its based a resource thats so easily replenished i didnt want it to be very fast.
Iwhen using Ki to heal, double level is fine, but i feel as an immediate action every round it might be too fast (essebtially giving fast healing 14)

OgreBattle |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

There are other games that allow a person to play anime/wuxia fighters. Folks that want to play those type of characters should find systems that allow them to rather than try to force their wants on this game.
Raith Shadar, please tell me what an anime fighter does that a high level cleric doesn't.
Raith Shadar, please tell me how Inquisitor, Ninja, Gunslinger, Magus, Druid, Barbarian, Synthesis Summoner, Investigator, Ranger, Wizard, Oracle, Monk and Rogue all fit into the same genre but 'anime fighter' and 'wuxia' doesn't.
Please explain what 'anime' and 'wuxia' does that breaks Pathfinder's genre in a way that everything else I listed doesn't.

Matt Thomason |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Raith Shadar wrote:There are other games that allow a person to play anime/wuxia fighters. Folks that want to play those type of characters should find systems that allow them to rather than try to force their wants on this game.Raith Shadar, please tell me what an anime fighter does that a high level cleric doesn't.
Raith Shadar, please tell me how Inquisitor, Ninja, Gunslinger, Magus, Druid, Barbarian, Synthesis Summoner, Investigator, Ranger, Wizard, Oracle, Monk and Rogue all fit into the same genre but 'anime fighter' and 'wuxia' doesn't.
Please explain what 'anime' and 'wuxia' does that breaks Pathfinder's genre in a way that everything else I listed doesn't.
Exactly. To me, a good ruleset will allow players to build what they want to build. If a group wants to remove options to focus on a particular genre, they can (even better if the ruleset is modular enough to put genre-specific things outside of the core rules).
Despite the fact I don't want anime/wuxia/superpowered fighters/whatever anyone wants to call it at my table (sorry if that offends anyone, but my preferences are my preferences), I do not see why it can't be supported by the rules for those who want it (as I respect *your* preferences too).
Focusing the game tightly on a single, narrow genre definition can only mean less players, less money for Paizo, and less development on the game.

Nathanael Love |

What exactly can't a 20th level fighter do with wealth by level and magic shops everywhere?
I believe the counterargument to this is "But fighter has to buy magic armor and weapon" and "fighter shouldn't have to spend his WBL to keep up with Wizard, and as usual, builds always pit Fighter no WBL versus Wizard w/ Wbl (and ALL the spells)
@ S.E.A.L.S.-- I wouldn't put them as level 2 or 3 rangers. Those guys and other SF guys don't miss, from long range, hitting small targets, ect. I would put a CSS soldier in the Warrior or expert class, CA soldiers as fighters or rangers, and SF guys would be in the range of at least 8-10th level-- those guys are highly skilled/trained/competent. (And they even get better equipment such as higher level characters would with WBL. . .)
@Zone control-- there are enough ways to get around it I don't have a problem with that existing, but I am not sure its a very powerful option when all is said and done.

kyrt-ryder |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ S.E.A.L.S.-- I wouldn't put them as level 2 or 3 rangers. Those guys and other SF guys don't miss, from long range, hitting small targets, ect. I would put a CSS soldier in the Warrior or expert class, CA soldiers as fighters or rangers, and SF guys would be in the range of at least 8-10th level-- those guys are highly skilled/trained/competent. (And they even get better equipment such as higher level characters would with WBL. . .)
Yup. Definitely not playing a martial character in your campaign. Not if you expect a real human being limited by reality to be somehow keeping up with 5th level spells.

Taow |
Leave the wizarding to wizards? Absurd. In a world where wizards exist, it's an unacceptable concept that a 15th level fighter has absorbed some of the magic of the world around him to be able to do extraordinary things? But it totally makes sense for wiggly fingers and a couple words to break any and all of the laws of science you are binding this fighter with.
It must suck that there are only wizards, worthless martials and animals to fight in that world. Although I imagine the page flipping in the bestiary is minimal.
Anything that is explained by specialization in a skill is not "see martials CAN do that," because a wizard can do the same thing. It's not extra to that class. And anything that is explained by taking the leadership feat follows the same path.

Matt Thomason |

Leave the wizarding to wizards? Absurd. In a world where wizards exist, it's an unacceptable concept that a 15th level fighter has absorbed some of the magic of the world around him to be able to do extraordinary things? But it totally makes sense for wiggly fingers and a couple words to break any and all of the laws of science you are binding this fighter with.
My initial thinking there is - that sounds like a perfect thing to represent with a prestige class (putting aside for now any arguments about multiclassing creating less effective characters, if so just assume that gets fixed too) to allow for player choice, if it's something you want to come in at a later level. Possibly an archetype if it's ongoing from L1.

Coriat |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Modular rules sets is starting to sound pretty 5th edition. . . supposed to be one of the big features of that game on release.
And I hope they do it well. Not only would a well done 5th edition be good for gamers overall, but it would also make it possible for me to ruthlessly steal all their good mechanical ideas for my home game. ;)

Nathanael Love |

Nathanael Love wrote:@ S.E.A.L.S.-- I wouldn't put them as level 2 or 3 rangers. Those guys and other SF guys don't miss, from long range, hitting small targets, ect. I would put a CSS soldier in the Warrior or expert class, CA soldiers as fighters or rangers, and SF guys would be in the range of at least 8-10th level-- those guys are highly skilled/trained/competent. (And they even get better equipment such as higher level characters would with WBL. . .)Yup. Definitely not playing a martial character in your campaign. Not if you expect a real human being limited by reality to be somehow keeping up with 5th level spells.
If you do the math on how often they hit small targets from long distances I garauntee they aren't 2nd level rangers.
And I think you would be surprised how much a sniper rifle can compensate for spells. . .