It feels like two-fist fighting paladin should make a good showing too.
And barbarian, of course.
Is it intentional or unintentional that there is no Extra Ki Power feat? If it's unintentional or planned for later release, I was going to implement one while working on some other updates. If it's unintentional, why? I have a few asking this question and am interested, myself.
Thank you.
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also a certain person there does not like Monks in the first place...
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.
Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not so much doubting you as curious about the context.
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not doubting you, just am curious about the context.
Thank you.
I dont have the links but I know it had to do with the Vigilante playtest. People asked if there was going to be am extra talent feat since the class is talent starved.they mentioned it is unlikely since they believe the prior feats were mistakes that should not have happened.
This also explains why the kineticist feat had so many restrictions vs other feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because how dare you have entertain the possibility of feats that actually give you something nice instead of a random +1 or an ultra situational +2? You're not supposed to have fun and play effective characters!
I'd bet money that it was Jason who came up with the notion that "extra X" feats are a mistake...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a big deal because Warlocks and Zealots only got 2 talents by level 12 that were not "gain ypur next spell level and spells per day"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because how dare you have entertain the possibility of feats that actually give you something nice instead of a random +1 or an ultra situational +2? You're not supposed to have fun and play effective characters!
I'd bet money that it was Jason who came up with the notion that "extra X" feats are a mistake...
What bet? Jason is the guy in charge of everything. There is literally nobody else who could make this decision but him.
well it could have been a different guy who brought it up, and then after all discussion and voting it was decided that it was the route they wanted to go now.
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not doubting you, just am curious about the context.
Thank you.
I dont have the links but I know it had to do with the Vigilante playtest. People asked if there was going to be am extra talent feat since the class is talent starved.they mentioned it is unlikely since they believe the prior feats were mistakes that should not have happened.
This also explains why the kineticist feat had so many restrictions vs other feats.
I was able to find this thread but no staff replies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What bet? Jason is the guy in charge of everything. There is literally nobody else who could make this decision but him.Because how dare you have entertain the possibility of feats that actually give you something nice instead of a random +1 or an ultra situational +2? You're not supposed to have fun and play effective characters!
I'd bet money that it was Jason who came up with the notion that "extra X" feats are a mistake...
Oh, he certainly agrees with it, but I'm betting he's the one who came up with it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not doubting you, just am curious about the context.
Thank you.
I dont have the links but I know it had to do with the Vigilante playtest. People asked if there was going to be am extra talent feat since the class is talent starved.they mentioned it is unlikely since they believe the prior feats were mistakes that should not have happened.
This also explains why the kineticist feat had so many restrictions vs other feats.
If true, that is so disappointing on so many levels. Feat does not mean "you do something a little better than someone else". It's an achievement, doing something noteworthy that requires great power, skill, and/or cunning. The labors of Herakles are feats. Sauron's forging of the Ring would be a feat. Harry Dresden learning to channel Soulfire is a feat. "I hit something for 2 extra damage with a sword at all times" should not be the standard for a feat. It's been a bit disappointing to see that that's the direction the game has primarily gone for non magic-related feats for a while, but I figured it was just that they were concerned about putting out too many "add new ability" options in that part of the game and relied on numbers-driven stuff to fill page space. But if the designers are ACTIVELY OPPOSED to feats in Pathfinder meeting the very definition of the word...yikes.
Ehh, <Extra stuff> is hard to balance. <+2 to stuff you can already do> is much easier. The first one gets you things like natural spell. The other gives you weapon focus.
As rules bloat gets bigger, they'll want to step away from the first one to avoid things like Dragonfire Inspiration + Song of the Heart + Words of Creation + various items, spells and class features that give bonuses to inspire courage.
That lead to bards giving something like +10d6 elemental damage to all attacks in the party around level 10, back in 3.5e. Wasn't pretty, but rather cool.
Also, there aren't going to be more things that double damage.
You guys already build high-level martials around getting regular criticals - imagine if every hit a barbarian made when pouncing was multiplied by 3-5.
here is a designer saying that some previous extra X feats shouldn't have been made and their not going to continue the mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then they should call them something else. Perks, advantages, knacks, etc. Pick a word that doesn't imply a hefty amount of acclaim resulting from your ability to do it, something people don't write stories about.
And I don't really see the problem with it being harder to balance. Just don't publish 100 feats per book. Save the page-space for something else. If you have less feats in the game, you have less potential combinations to monitor and you can spend the same amount of time getting things right on the smaller number in the game.
And if the players find a really clever exploit, who cares? Roll with it, so long as it's not game-breaking...in which case, you do it back to them. Limited wish to do Geas without a saving throw as a standard action hasn't been patched yet. Same thing with snow-cone wish machines and freaking blood money. Balance issues are everywhere, people just don't typically exploit them like crazy. What's the harm in allowing interesting combinations that effectively give a PC one minor super-power in a high fantasy game anyways?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
here is a designer saying that some previous extra X feats shouldn't have been made and their not going to continue the mistake.
Yeah, it was stupid when he said it and hasn't gotten any smarter with time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also a certain person there does not like Monks in the first place...
It's worth noting that one of the other designers let slip that Jason's original plans for the Unchained Monk were substantially weaker than the final product.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also a certain person there does not like Monks in the first place...It's worth noting that one of the other designers let slip that Jason's original plans for the Unchained Monk were substantially weaker than the final product.
Ye gods. This thing very nearly almost good.
Why is he in charge of the monk again?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which boggles the mind. The final product is at best a sidegrade to the original Monk (at least one with archetypes), ad it was meant to be a buff...how do you even go about the process of making a class weaker than the Core Monk?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which boggles the mind. The final product is at best a sidegrade to the original Monk (at least one with archetypes), ad it was meant to be a buff...how do you even go about the process of making a class weaker than the Core Monk?
Hmm. Not quite sure I agree with you there, it's not weaker than the core monk.
Certainly weaker than Zen Archer though.
And the move-and-full-attack that they get is pretty good. Combine it with the fact that they don't lose the 1½*str when using a two-handed weapon (seven-branched sword or the tri-section staff (has a wierd name, but that's what it is)), don't lose accuracy from flurry, and get an additional high-bab bonus attack from flurry at 11th level, I think it is very nearly good.
I wouldn't bring it to a high-op game, but I wouldn't neglect it our of hand in a casual-op game like I would the core archetype-less monk.
The fact that they can't get bonus weapon attacks with ki is plain ugly, though. I don't really get why they implemented new, clunky limitations to replace the old, clunky limitations that were dropped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which boggles the mind. The final product is at best a sidegrade to the original Monk (at least one with archetypes), ad it was meant to be a buff...how do you even go about the process of making a class weaker than the Core Monk?
Hmm. Not quite sure I agree with you there, it's not weaker than the core monk.
Certainly weaker than Zen Archer though.
And the move-and-full-attack that they get is pretty good. Combine it with the fact that they don't lose the 1½*str when using a two-handed weapon (seven-branched sword or the tri-section staff (has a wierd name, but that's what it is)), don't lose accuracy from flurry, and get an additional high-bab bonus attack from flurry at 11th level, I think it is very nearly good.
I wouldn't bring it to a high-op game, but I wouldn't neglect it our of hand in a casual-op game like I would the core archetype-less monk.
The fact that they can't get bonus weapon attacks with ki is plain ugly, though. I don't really get why they implemented new, clunky limitations to replace the old, clunky limitations that were dropped.
Well... It's much better than the core Monk at beating stuff up, much worse at defending himself and about on par when it comes to doing anything else.
It's a decent beat-stick, though... It can move and full attack... That's nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm thinking he wa replying to the comments that the original unchained monk was worse than now, and if now he is just ok, then the weaker version would be equal to a core rogue, not the current one.Which boggles the mind. The final product is at best a sidegrade to the original Monk (at least one with archetypes), ad it was meant to be a buff...how do you even go about the process of making a class weaker than the Core Monk?Hmm. Not quite sure I agree with you there, it's not weaker than the core monk.
Certainly weaker than Zen Archer though.
And the move-and-full-attack that they get is pretty good. Combine it with the fact that they don't lose the 1½*str when using a two-handed weapon (seven-branched sword or the tri-section staff (has a wierd name, but that's what it is)), don't lose accuracy from flurry, and get an additional high-bab bonus attack from flurry at 11th level, I think it is very nearly good.
I wouldn't bring it to a high-op game, but I wouldn't neglect it our of hand in a casual-op game like I would the core archetype-less monk.
The fact that they can't get bonus weapon attacks with ki is plain ugly, though. I don't really get why they implemented new, clunky limitations to replace the old, clunky limitations that were dropped.
Pretty much. I was referring to how the final product is roughly equal in power to the regular Monk (better beatstick, less variety in build and no archetypes), but the first draft before Mark and the others helped salvage it was even weaker, according to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well the unchained monk now has 1 archetype from the dirty tactics toolbox. trades out lv2 and beyond bonus feats for sneak attack during a flurry. and then it gains something later for qi powers or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well the unchained monk now has 1 archetype from the dirty tactics toolbox. trades out lv2 and beyond bonus feats for sneak attack during a flurry. and then it gains something later for qi powers or something.
I really like the Archetype (Monk of the Mantis by name). Has anybody else looked into it? My feeling is that while the bonuses you get aren't super awesome what your are trading out in return wasn't all that great either (Bonus feats and a few Ki-Powers).
While the sneak attack Progression is slow (1d6 at 2nd +1 every 4 levels) you can pick up the accomplished Sneak Attacker to up that by 1d6 and Sneak Attacking unchained Flurry must be a world of pain for your foe, especially as with less Ki-Powers you have more Ki-Points for extra attacks.
My feeling is that when building for the Archetype focusing on Stunning Fist is prolly worth while. As Stunning Fist triggers Sneak Attack and you get scaling benefits to stunning fists like the entangled condition in the round after the stun.
Also it makes Shuriken way better as you can only apply Sneak Attack damage on Flurry attacks so flurrying Shuriken in the first combat round seems like a decent plan.
Spin Kick also looks like it should be good but here but it only makes your foe flat footed to one attack so not sure if it's actually better than Flying Kick.
This was mentioned earlier. Jason has confirmed its supposed to be 18.No minimum level or prerequisites?
Empty Body (Su): A monk with this ki power gains the
ability to assume an ethereal state for 1 minute as though
using the spell etherealness, using his monk level as his caster
level. Using this ability is a move action that consumes
3 points from the monk’s ki pool. This ability affects only the
monk and cannot be used to make other creatures ethereal.
Thought I would post this here, since some people were jumping onto the lack of minimums and were excited about taking Empty Body early. No, you have to wait until 18th level.
MA
Does anyone have the source for this statement?