Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Jun 17, 2009 12:26:42 GMT -5
No, I like the sorcerer with a spear idea. A lot in fact. My issue is that I always think towards practicality in one of our gaming groups. And in the groups in which we typically play, a sorc like that would (in my estimation) not be very survivable, or effective. I can see it working in the right game, with LA +0 only races and PHB only material, but in a real world (hah - funny way to put) setting it seems less attractive.
Interestingly enough, this is one of the benefits of the older editions, I think. Thinking back to our 2nd edition game the other day, we had fewer options at build time. BUT... we were all a little more equal footing. If that had been a real campaign, we would have had to roleplay differences between the fighters, rather than relying on fighter feats and alternative class features from 50 splat books to make them different. In fact, most of the splat books in the older editions seem to have been aimed at the DM, rather than the players. I like it, myself - granted the rolling could be annoying, and some of the rules were just plain weird. But overall, it was kinda cool having your character background make that much of a difference.
So anyway, please don't feel like I am beating up on your idea. I was thinking more along the lines of "how could I make sure this wouldn't turn into Francis Xavier". Francis was a cool character, with a neat concept, but he could never keep up with the rest of the party. Part of it is the monk class, but part was the power level of the game and some of his feat choices and skill choices being more for RP purposes than power.
And thank you, Tomas, for the laughter. That was the intention, along with the point that I was gunning for.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Jun 17, 2009 21:36:07 GMT -5
Good old lint, he was a core rulebook concept too. Trapmaking gets overlooked more in my opinion than the rest of the craft skills, including basketweaving. I don't in anyway think you're beating beating Mr. Spells 'n' Spear. It's more like scrutinizing, which is helpful, and part of the point of discussion. To clarify, any of my "defensive" posts, as I can see they appear (this one my as well, but do not look at it in that light), are really revisions of thought based upon points made by other responses. Francis Xavier suffered the failings of most monks, while combat focussed, they do not make very advanced combatants because of how their attack bonusses suffer, and AC suffer. Monks are rather well as treasure dependant as any of the other classes tend to be. That said, they work remarkably well with ranged rogues. The rogue can take a stunned opponent with sneak attack damage, the monk needs only to succeed at the stunning. Here is a question about use of feats. The Ability Focus feat allows a monster to increase the DC of one of its natural abilities. I have seen this used for monks with stunning fist. I have also noticed that the DMs guide has an epic level feat with very steep requirements called Improved Stunning Fist, that has the same effect. My question is; Should monks be allowed to use the monster manual feat when the core rule books have already set a precedent making advancement of the stunning fist ability an epic feature? Opinions?
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Jun 18, 2009 7:14:30 GMT -5
Considering the likely hood of a game going to epic levels and the fact that the DC for stunning fist is quite low, I don't think Francis ever stunned anything, I feel that a player should be able to take the monster Ability feat.
Tom
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Jun 18, 2009 8:06:28 GMT -5
Well, the rule is not very specific: it simply calls for the creature taking "Ability Focus" to have a "special attack". So a good question becomes "is stunning fist a special attack"?
Stunning fist only occurs once in the Monster Manual, in a half-elf vampire monk 9/shadowdancer 2. It is listed in the feats, but not listed in the special attacks. It is, in fact, never listed anywhere other than the feats... I think they might have messed up here. It has no listing anywhere in combat options. So the vampire doesn't seem to answer this question for us. After searching the MM for the phrase "ability focus" (God bless PDF files) it came back with a few hits - mostly poison attacks, frightful prescence, etc. Interestingly enough, the closest thing to stunning fist I found was the Marut, with its "Fist of Thunder and Lightening" ability. It took ability focus for this, raising its save DC by 2.
I think, if I may bring in "non core" stuff for a second, I believe it is Complete Arcane that sets up the Ability Focus (eldritch blast) for Warlocks. So Ability Focus is a feat that a PC can take - in fact, if you look at it in the MM, it is given as a "General" feat. This doesn't mean it applies to a stunning attack, but it clearly then can apply to PCs.
I think the issue may be that many of the things that were intended originally to be epic only have since been brought down into standard levels. INT to damage; originally epic, now level 3 of the Swashbuckler base class. Spell Knowledge is very similar to feats from Complete Arcane and Complete Mage. I think there is a feat in Complete Adventurer that mimicks the Improved Favored Enemy feat. It is important to note that Ability Focus does not stack with itself, while Improved Stunning Fist does - so there is a point to it, when you get to epic.
So, my interpretation, would be that "Yes" a PC can take Ability Focus, whether for eldritch blast or for stunning fist or for a dragon shaman's or dragonfire adept's breath weapon, or maybe even a bard's musical attacks. It's like a Warlock taking Quicken or Maximize or Empower Spell-Like Ability for his eldritch blast, or an archmage doing the same if he has the SLA high arcana. Ability Focus would not stack with itself, as per the feat.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Jun 18, 2009 8:51:14 GMT -5
Actually, to go into non-core for a moment, I discovered that my brain has a system of tunnels in it. There is a worm living in those tunnels that moves my thoughts and memories to the wrong places. The epic feat that applies intelligence to weapon damage is in complete warrior, the same place where it is a low level base class ability. Also, the epic feat substitutes intelligence for strength, making it quite a weak feat for epic level. Still, intel to damage should be at least prestige, not base class. Non-core rant concluded.
I would be inclined to agree with Tom's reasoning, but then I would also point out that the monk class does get progressively better and more powerful class features after level 12, while the fighter does not. This only means that in my mind, the monk class shouldn't necessarily need to advance one of it's 1st level ability in the interests of balance, at least not by a feat. There is a magic item that will increase the stunning DC, the periapt of wisdom. I think we all need to keep in mind that having an ability with a DC of 18 anywhere before level 5 is a little out of place (level 5 being when a spell focused wizard, cleric, or druid with an 18 in their casting stat would normally have a DC 18 save for one of their spells) and that non casters (even some casters) aren't dependant on enemies failing saves. Since we are talking about all aspects of characters here, consider this for a peice of treasure for the monk, a +1 wounding kama, or any other monk weapon for that matter. Any hit with a wounding weapon does 1 point of con damage, lowering the enemies total hit points and fortitude save. Repeated strikes from the monk with this kama, followed by a stunning attack increases the chances of stunning the enemy, eventually, they will be stunned, hopefully in the 1st attack, giving all of the monk's remaining attacks a better chance to hit. If this monk has power attack, since power attack works on unarmed strikes and natural weapons, and the monk has no off hand weapon, all of the monk's attacks benefit. Since we wouldn't be using a power attack penalty unless we already put the enemy at a disadvantage for AC, this hopefully means that a little penalty like -2 will get a decent bonus damage yield through the whole round. Or at least it will help beat something like DR 5/good, or DR 5/silver. Just a thought
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Jun 18, 2009 10:49:18 GMT -5
The problem is ever having your attacks hit with a monk. To use a term I herd on DDO originally, monks are probably the worst of the MAD (multiple attribute dependency) classes. You gotta have CON for HP. You gotta have WIS for class features. You gotta have DEX for AC. You gotta have STR for hit/damage, and damage if you take Finesse. You don't really need CHA... and INT can get by at 10, though I think that a penalty would suck terribly with your cool skill list.
Francis got stellar rolls, and still sucked. To run with a 32 pt build for a human monk, I would set it up like so perhaps...
STR 14 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 16 CHA 10
Class Features: Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist Feat: Dodge (looking to eventually use spring attack), Mobility
You have AC 15 (+1 w/ Dodge), a +2 to attack or +0/+0, damage is 1d6+2...
Fort Save for Stunning Fist would be 13 (1/2 lvl+WIS mod+10). Even if you took ability focus for it it would only be 15, and you'd be down a feat. Not sure how you get it to 18 before level 5... it would only be 16 with an 18 in WIS.
Now if it was me, I would probably want the CHA at 8 and INT at 12 for skill points, but not biggie for the most part.
Anyway, it's another example of what a class could be vs what a class actually is.
I like the wounding weapon idea, since kamas can be used in part of a flurry.
Monks could be brutal in conjunction with a conjurer (in case its not clear, I tend to think a conjurer makes everyone rock harder). With Grease thrown down, or a fog spell with blind fight, or whatever else. Or a transmuter making the monk go large for tripping and grappling. Even summons make it easier for a monk. Biggest thing is that they MUST have something to work with, an aid of some stripe or another. It's like a rogue all by himself.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Jun 18, 2009 11:32:08 GMT -5
18 was just a round number I threw out there, but a DC 13 or DC 12 at level 1 is still OK, I mean by level 3 a 3rd level kobald sorceror could potentially be a dangerous enemy, and would have a tough time making the DC 13-14 fortitude save. I am wondering for monks, could a monk increase their attacks per round by going through the two weapon fighting tree? Flurry is a full attack action, so is twf. Do they make it clear that both are mutually exlusive? Since there is no off-hand for a monk, the monk would keep his full damage bonus with any monk weapon he's using, or with his hands. I would imagine that the flurry of blows and two weapon fighting are not usable in conjunction though. Still with TWF comes TWD, another chance to save the monk's abismal AC
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Jun 18, 2009 11:44:35 GMT -5
I don't remember where I read about it, or whatever, but I THINK that WotC actually addressed this somewhere that because unarmed strike is not just a fist, but any body part (this creates humorous opportunities), you get no "off hand" hands. Basically, flurry is TWFing for the monk.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Jun 18, 2009 12:56:49 GMT -5
I would have thought that was the case.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 7, 2009 10:26:23 GMT -5
A little thread necromancy here... I have been reading the psionics rules a little lately, and thinking about his fella.
Now before I get to deep, I do consider the Expanded Psionics Handbook as a core book - it is the main psionics book, and it is part of the OGL that the SRD works off of. That said, I know that a lot of DMs don't like it, and disallow it, but that doesn't mean its not core. I wouldnt let a PC take Leadership in my game, but that doesnt make it not core - its out of the DMG, after all.
So, I present for your delectation, the psionic warrior (not the base class, my own build). I'll give the 20 level build, but focus on the early to mid levels as I take him apart.
Human Ranger1/Fighter1/Psion8/Slayer10
Base Stats: STR 16 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 16 WIS 10 CHA 8
Progression: Ranger 1/Psion 1/Fighter 1/Psion 2-4/Slayer 10/Psion 6
Concept: Assuming you are allowing psionics in your game, it is not unreasonable to have a PC who suffered a loss at the hands of psionic creatures, like mind-flayers or something. The character trains to kill them, and uses their own powers against them. That is what this character does - he uses his combat training as a ranger and a fighter to slay the beasts, and his psionic abilities to help himself in combat to maximize his ability to do this.
Abilities: Track (nice to have for flavor reasons, as well as the prereq for Slayer) Reasonable saves (because his various classes emphasize different saves) Decent skill points (ranger and slayer give OK skill points, and human+high INT helps) Extra feats (Track is free, as is the human bonus and fighter bonus, as well as proficiency) High BAB and high manifester level (at the end he has a +16 BAB and a +17 ML) Favored Enemy (at least +8, has to be psionic, but that's the point, after all) Immunity to mind affecting (late, yes, but nice bonuses early) Non-location effects (kind of nice) High power points (decent INT, high ML, and class features)
Role: This guy is a front line fighter - he wears heavy armor (from fighter) and either goes 2 hander for damage (taking Power Attack) or goes sword and board for meatshield (maybe with Combat Expertise). Lots of the low level powers, especially in psychometabolism, are combat buffs like Precognition, Vigor, etc. Often they can be augmented into swift actions for about 6 PP extra. Or this psychic warrior can use temporal acceleration to get a round or two to buff (like a weak time stop at a lower level). Schism also works well (gives you a second mind that can manifest, albiet at a MASSIVELY lower manifester level (ML minus 6 IIRC). This guy can also do the sticks and spells thing that Grond was getting at earlier - take the Expanded Knowledge feat and select expansion (basically psionic enlarge person) as your power known.
Options: You could swap the fighter level for another psion level to get a higher ML, but you lose heavy armor proficiency until you hit slayer, and you lose a bonus feat. Alternatively, a second level in ranger (instead of the fighter level) gets you a weapon style class feature, though I really wouldn't want to use this guy for TWFing, at least I don't think I would. You could also drop the last levels of psion and continue your martial class, though this will keep you at 7th level powers and lower PP and ML, but get you a much higher BAB. I think that this character could go ranged, but then I would recommend taking the fighter level for the bonus feat. You will run low on feats in any build here, since you aren't getting a lot of bonus feats like the psychic warrior base class does - but you are getting above level 6 powers and a higher ending BAB. Finally you would want to look at psionic feats to beef up your damage (there are a few) and feats to allow you to use your psicrystal as a repository for a psionic focus (which you expend when you use a psionic feat, typically).
Postscript: Having read the psionic ruleset, I have to say I kind of like it. I know a lot of people go on about it being overpowered, but I think that much of this comes from an incomplete understanding of the mechanics. In the end, a psion who focuses on doing HP damage with their powers will often be able to do more direct damage than something like an evoker. But the psion will have few if any other real options, and in a game that is setup by the DMG "4 encounters per day" model, the psion will have to conserve power points lest he end up plinking away with a crossbow for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th combat. Just my 2 cents - I just definitely think that magic is more powerful, but requires a little more daily work to set up prepared spells, etc.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 7, 2009 17:28:32 GMT -5
That is basically the downfall we have seen in games with evokers, especially at lower levels. 2 or 3 spells may kill a formidable enemy, but it leaves the evoker without effective damaging spells for later challenging encounters in the same day.
I was thinking about the monk and the challenge of balancing his stats. It seems that lower strength (I still like 13 for power attack, but that's my personal psychosis) and weapon finesse are the way to go (WF at level 3). The damage die of the monk is around as good as many fighters' weapons by level 6 (d8 I think) and much better when it gets up to 2d8 sometime after level 12. They don't really need a damage modifier. When they can start affording treasure, a periapt of wisdom and a +1 wounding weapon are all it will take. If the monk is concerned about hitting, during the levels in which flurry still leaves a penalty, don't flurry. Just attack. Weapon focus (unarmed strike) is also a good feat to consider. My opinion is that a point buy monk is easier to get up and working than a rolled one, where you can't always count enough rolls being good enough.
As to the psionics book being core, Psionics is a different gaming mechanic. As is Incarnum, and Book of Nine Swords material. Those 2 books are the core books for their own mechanics. This doesn't make them core books. Also, I believe psionics referenced in the DMG and Monster Manual are only called psionics, but work as spells or spell-like abilities. Just my take. I think psionics have a lot of fairly excellent material to offer, and are far more balanced and reasonable than much of the rest of the splat-tastic world of D&D supplements, so don't take my rant as rejection, just interjection.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 7, 2009 17:37:40 GMT -5
I can agree with most of that - I just do still point to the SRD as the basis of core mechanics, so I tend to make psionics more core perhaps than Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum material. I happen to like a lot of what I have read, and think that it is pretty balanced. Incarnum is out of my realm of experience, and ToB: BoNS stuff is a major power boost for combat classes, though that is not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 7, 2009 17:50:47 GMT -5
I always go back to the balance point that a fighter is only as strong as his hit point total, while a wizard is only as strong as the spells he hasn't cast yet. A wizard has to spend his abilities to function, A fighter can do the same thing in 10th battle that he did in the first. He doesn't have limited number of whirlwinds, cleaves or improved criticals per day. Fighters just need a good outlook, a good party and a good player. They should also have a good level 16 fighter only feat, like something to increase critical multiplier (from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4 and so on) They also need for the wizards to let them do what they're good at.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 8, 2009 8:40:31 GMT -5
That (the fighter feat at upper levels) sounds like the Pathfinder RPG fix. It basically uses the 3.5 system, while tweaking the classes a hair, like a 3.75 kind of thing. From the Beta Open Playtest Rules, they actually did this with: Armor Training - stacking +1 bonuses to AC and -1 armor check penalties, + 1 to max DEX to AC allowed (every few levels) Weapon Training - increasing weapon attack roll and damage roll every few levels by weapon group (axes, light blades, etc) Armor Mastery - gives DR 5/- at 19th level while wearing armor or using a shield Weapon Mastery - gives a few bonuses with one weapon (longsword, shortspear, etc) at level 20 I kind of like it - fighters also get an increasing bonus to saves vs fear, and their normal bonus feats. And best of all, it gives people a reason to stay in the fighter class. And nicely enough, they made some much needed tweaks to a few easily breakable spells, as well as helping out the ranger and fusing the pally and marshal classes, made a monk more realistic, and all of this without really doing much to power up the caster classes! Kind of neat, but I will shut up now since its really not core - I'll just go on about it in my original thread! Ha Ha!!
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 9, 2009 12:25:39 GMT -5
There still is a reason to stay in the fighter class, nobody else can manage 2 or more combat feat trees. Imagine being able to use great cleave as part of a spring attack, or with a spirited charge using a lance.
|
|