Author Topic: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]  (Read 250312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #80 on: September 13, 2008, 01:56:44 AM »
Ok, as a skirmisher, it has no way to do decent damage, like the rogue, it's not really a skill monkey (unless you wanna be even MORE MAD), and SR is acquired so late, it might as well not be there, not to mention the fact that I have already said that how SR works in DnD is silly and should be burned.

And a Spring Attacking monk deals so little damage to ANYTHING you may as well not bother, honestly. The fact of the matter is, the monk beats stuff up. It is closer to the fighter than the rogue, by a long, LONG way.
Hmm..
I think that... what its supposed to... spring attack and stunning fist or grapple, basically a moving... immobilizer.

Now that not to imply that I"M FOR that, I think thats what its supposed to be doing. And yes SR doesnt' work... but maybe it could or we could figure something that would work and make it something  worthwhile...
or ... whatever... give it dervish dance oe something.

Quote
Or 'penetrate hymen DR' category. Remember, ANY body part
Win! :lol
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #81 on: September 13, 2008, 02:00:46 AM »
OK, so we basically have:

1) Unarmed Strike Damage
2) Good mobility and free feats

Since SR is debated, we can leave that out for the moment. Now, one way I see that might help is to get the monk some means of translating that mobility into decent amounts of damage. That, however, means our monk friend has to stay on the run all the time to enjoy those benefits - like a melee-only scout, and that would suck.

Two basic ideas I have running around in my head go like this:

1) For the AC issue: just double the Dex bonus to AC. No matter how much attributes scale, this looks like a clean and simple solution to me.

2) While the fighter is supposed to be a "Grrr, I hack stuff up", the monk could conceivably be more of a, say, melee debuffer. Finger-stab people in the eye for blindness! Kick their balls for stunning! Poke them in the gut for sickness! And so on and forth. You could base the save DCs for such effects off damage or Str, so he's no longer MAD. Alternatively, give him hit/damage bonuses based on Wis and suddenly he doesn't need Str anymore.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2008, 02:02:58 AM »
'Supposed to' are a strong set of words with no meaning, Midnight_v. Fighters are SUPPOSED TO be as good as wizards. Healers are SUPPOSED TO be worth playing. State capitalism (aka Marxism-Leninism) was SUPPOSED TO be a success.

As none of the above are true, we will be looking at what things are, not what they're 'supposed to' be. And as I see it, the only way to make the monk worthwhile is to make him able to fight in combat in any meaningful way, which means the changes I presented as a minimum. If anything, I would use the ranger as an indication of what we should work from.

@ Elennsar: I have some virginities left.....

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #83 on: September 13, 2008, 02:04:52 AM »
If you're going to turn the monk into a "debuffer," then you might as well drop the "monk" concept. It looks to me like instead of trying to realise the concept in rules, you're trying to find a combat niche that fits in D&D. I don't have a problem with that. Would be a really fun class to play, in theory. But if you go that route, you might lose exactly the thing that attracts players to the class: the chance to play a martial artist.

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2008, 02:05:45 AM »
Why should what you suggest be mutually exclusive with what we're thinking of? This is a non-issue.

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2008, 02:16:36 AM »
'Supposed to' are a strong set of words with no meaning, Midnight_v. Fighters are SUPPOSED TO be as good as wizards. Healers are SUPPOSED TO be worth playing. State capitalism (aka Marxism-Leninism) was SUPPOSED TO be a success.

As none of the above are true, we will be looking at what things are, not what they're 'supposed to' be. And as I see it, the only way to make the monk worthwhile is to make him able to fight in combat in any meaningful way, which means the changes I presented as a minimum. If anything, I would use the ranger as an indication of what we should work from.

@ Elennsar: I have some virginities left.....
I only point out what people have done with monk builds...though I conceede this one More ideas tommorow
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #86 on: September 13, 2008, 02:23:31 AM »
Anyone who plays a build that suboptimal needs to really re-evaluate how they approach the game. Like, in a fundamental way. It may involve a religious epiphany, or maybe an LSD trip, I dunno. But it would need to be drastic.

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #87 on: September 13, 2008, 04:24:34 AM »
Quote
If you're going to turn the monk into a "debuffer," then you might as well drop the "monk" concept. It looks to me like instead of trying to realise the concept in rules, you're trying to find a combat niche that fits in D&D. I don't have a problem with that. Would be a really fun class to play, in theory. But if you go that route, you might lose exactly the thing that attracts players to the class: the chance to play a martial artist.

And this is true how, exactly?

Seriously, you want something that yells "martial artist" more than disabling people with a couple of well-positioned punches?
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #88 on: September 13, 2008, 05:48:41 AM »
I think Monks should definitely not be able to easily defeat the swords-and-armor guys.  Again, what's the point of swords and armor if you can do better without.  Play up mobility, speed, and physical skill checks.  Some kind of sneak attack-like ability that only applies once per turn instead of the stupid overcompensation of 2d10 unarmed strike damage seems ideal.  Spell Resistance should come earlier and scale favorably compared to level (something like 6 or 11 + 1.2x class level).  Wholeness of Body is class level x Wisdom modifier and can be used in ways similar to the Dragon Shaman's Touch of Vitality at later levels.  Also, don't forget the Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge abilities.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #89 on: September 13, 2008, 06:19:26 AM »
Anyone who plays a build that suboptimal needs to really re-evaluate how they approach the game. Like, in a fundamental way. It may involve a religious epiphany, or maybe an LSD trip, I dunno. But it would need to be drastic.
I realise it's not what you guys are into, and I respect that, but you do realise that there are people... in the world... who play table-top RPGs for the fun of playing a certain kind of character, right? That is a major draw of the game, for those kinds of players.

Seriously, you want something that yells "martial artist" more than disabling people with a couple of well-positioned punches?
Honestly? I think that's only one of many things martial artists typically do in film (which is where most of us are getting our impressions of the class type, yes?). Disabling is on the list, sure, but so are things like lightning fast disarms, feats of balance and acrobatics, taking blows/cuts and remaining standing, punching/kicking through walls... and the list goes on. A disabler is an interesting concept, but it's not a "martial artist," at least not to my eyes. And come to think of it, I don't have the book in front of me, but hasn't that kind of character/fighter already been done in the Complete Scoundrel's sneak-attack feats that offer many and various ways to disable? Now that I think on it for a few moments, that kind of crippling/disabling is the sort of "dirty fighting" that I'd expect more from a Rogue, actually.

I think Monks should definitely not be able to easily defeat the swords-and-armor guys.  Again, what's the point of swords and armor if you can do better without.
Not easily, no. It shouldn't be a push-over, but I don't see why it's a problem to put them on equal footing. This argument that there would be no point to use weapons if the monk can fight without them really doesn't make any sense. Taking the monk class means learning to fight in a particular way, a way that involves specifically forsaking things like armour and your heavier weapons. For the trade of not using those tools of combat, you get compensated. It seems like a pretty simple trade-off, to me.

Quote
Play up mobility, speed, and physical skill checks. 
I agree on that, yeah. Add in a healthy dose of acrobatics and ridiculous leaping ability.

Quote
Some kind of sneak attack-like ability
That would be part of a ninja build (which you could easily whip up with a rogue/monk, if you ask me), but not a straight monk or other kind of wuxia fighter. They're more "honourable" about their combat, especially the monks. Steeped in ritual and formality.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #90 on: September 13, 2008, 06:22:11 AM »
Oh, separate thought entirely: this has been about 4 1/2 pages of discussion of just the monk. I suspect that we're going to need a separate thread for all the classes. Unless someone has a brand spanking new monk build hidden up their sleeve that addresses a good number of concerns raised in the thread... then this is going to take a while and take up a lot of space.

Just sayin'.

Shadowhowler

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #91 on: September 13, 2008, 10:33:23 AM »

Not easily, no. It shouldn't be a push-over, but I don't see why it's a problem to put them on equal footing. This argument that there would be no point to use weapons if the monk can fight without them really doesn't make any sense. Taking the monk class means learning to fight in a particular way, a way that involves specifically forsaking things like armour and your heavier weapons. For the trade of not using those tools of combat, you get compensated. It seems like a pretty simple trade-off, to me.


That would be part of a ninja build (which you could easily whip up with a rogue/monk, if you ask me), but not a straight monk or other kind of wuxia fighter. They're more "honourable" about their combat, especially the monks. Steeped in ritual and formality.

 
 
As to the Monk vs weapons and armour, I belive the point is that... if you make Monk style unarmed fighting the equal of armed and armoured combat... there would be no real reason to HAVE armed and armoured combat in that same world. In a world where one could be just as effective in battle with ones hands and feat... why waste time and money on weapons and armour... which could be lost, broken, or ware down with time? Basicly, in such a world, EVERYONE would be a Monk.
 
Also, he is not suggesting Sneak Attack per say, as it is with Rogues. Rather, he is suggesting a percission bassed damage add on... like Sneak Attack, Skirmish, or Suddon Strike... that does it's damage mechanicly similar but in fluff would be described as uncanner accuracy or skill with placing blows. There would be nothing 'dishonarable' about it.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #92 on: September 13, 2008, 11:21:15 AM »
So can we get back to basics a bit?
1.  We want all characters to be viable at all levels.  This is the core tenet of balancing the game.
1a.  Corollary: The difference between classes shouldn't be power level, it should be when, where and how they can use that power.
2.  We should support as many archetypes as viable so that people who want them have the tools necessary to portray an archetype.

So let's scope out the archetypes we want and the subarchetypes they contain:  (Note I'm specifically using non-D&D class names.)
  • Warrior -- Power through strength
  • Mage  -- Power through magic
  • Priest -- Power through the divine
  • Skulk -- Power through stealth

Warrior subarchetypes
  • Knight in Shining Armor -- Highly armed and armoured
  • Dextrous Duelist -- Focuses on lighter armaments allowing for greater mobility
  • Mystical Martialist -- Uses magical energy to empower himself without relying on weapons

We've gone over Kisa and Dede in detail and have a rough but fairly complete sketch of them.  Now we're on Myma.  (Please suggest a better name if you have one.  Myma doesn't sound as cool as Kisa and Dede.)

So what should the Monk lose by not going Dede or Kisa?  Well, he doesn't get to use armor or most weapons.  This means he would have to resort to magic for reach, higher defenses or being able to overcome damage reduction.

What should the Monk gain by not going Dede or Kisa?  He should be able to deal better unarmed damage than non-Warriors.  He should be able to focus on forcing an opponent to fight on his terms.  I know Elennsar's going to hate this but I think that the rock-paper-scissors for Kisa/Dede/Myma should be Kisa > Dede > Myma > Kisa.

And here's the fluff to back it up:
The Kisa is able to defend himself against the Dede because the Dede relies on striking often for moderate damage.  However, the Kisa's armor reduces both of those conditions.
The Kisa is able to overcome the Dede because though he hits infrequently when he does it freaking hurts.

The Dede is able to defend himself against the Myma because the Myma's hits are, in general, even weaker than the Dede so even the Dede's minor armor can disperse them well.  The Dede's quickness, however, prevents the Myma from overcoming the Dede's advantage of a weapon.
The Dede is able to overcome the Myma because the Dede strikes often and when he hits it hurts the unarmored Myma.  So though the Myma may be fair at dodging the Dede there's too much coming at him to keep entirely out of trouble.

The Myma is able to defend himself against the Kisa because the Kisa relies on a stand-up, toe-to-toe battle where he can control his space but the Myma, because he's quicker than the Kisa, can get within the Kisa's range.  The Myma's quickness also keeps him from getting hit better than the Dede and the difference in armors isn't so meaningful with the Kisa's massive damage output.
The Myma is able to overcome the Kisa because he can force himself into the Kisa's range and then relieve him of his advantages, reach and possibly his weapon.  So by controlling the Kisa directly he can take him down.

So how would the crunch work?  ( > is greater than, >> is much greater than)
AC (chance of getting hit): Myma > Dede >> Kisa (Fluff: quickness - armors retain a max dex bonus to AC but don't give AC)
DR (amount it hurts to get hit): Kisa >> Dede > Myma (Fluff: resilience - armors prevent damage not hits)
Damage ouput:  Kisa > Dede > Myma (Fluff: weapon's raw damage - penis size)
Grappling: Myma >> Dede >> Kisa (Fluff: dexterity in CQB -  armor gets in the way, heavy armor doubly so)
Disarming in stand-up battle: Kisa = Dede > Myma (Fluff: Kisas and Dedes both can remove weapons well)
Resisting a disarm in the same: Kisa > Dede > Myma (Fluff: Kisas tend to have a more powerful grip than finessed weapons)
Tripping: Dede = Myma > Kisa (Fluff: mobility - gets the enemy in an unfavorable position and forces down)
Resisting a trip: Myma > Dede > Kisa (Fluff: nimbleness - again, armor gets in the way and makes it harder to keep on yoru feat)
In grapple use grappling chart.

I would claim that > should yield a 60-40 distribution and >> should yield an 75-25 distribution.  So the damage output of a Kisa should be about 1.5x that of a Dede which should be about 1.5x that of a Myma.  The DR of a Kisa should be 3x that of a Dede which should be 1.5 times that of a Myma.

Then, after all this is said and done, encode and enshrine the use of circumstance bonuses in combat.  Terrain, formations, environment, etc.  Kisas will have problems in enclosed, uneven, loose or harsh terrain -- reduced space contains their movements, heavy armor is a hindrance in uneven or loose footing.  Oppressive humidity or poor visibility is magnified by a metal shell.  Mymas, however, will have problems when large groups face off because their mobility is reduced.  Dedes are probably generally middle of the road for circumstance bonuses of this form.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 12:27:12 PM by ZeroSum »

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #93 on: September 13, 2008, 12:10:45 PM »
Quote from: Orion
I realise it's not what you guys are into, and I respect that, but you do realise that there are people... in the world... who play table-top RPGs for the fun of playing a certain kind of character, right? That is a major draw of the game, for those kinds of players.

This is designed to HELP such players, as then flavour concepts don't turn to suck, like 3.5 often forces them to. You're missing the point.

Quote from: ZeroSum
Stuff

All my virginities are belong to ZeroSum. The ones I have left, anyway.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 12:16:07 PM by Mister_Sinister »

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #94 on: September 13, 2008, 01:08:18 PM »
Hm. One thing I can think of.

Dedes survive by being nimble and quick witted.
Kisas survive by being tough and well armored.
Mymas survive by...hm.

You're damn right I'm going to hate Mymas > Kisas. I don't mind mystical martial artists. I really don't. But I do mind them make the Standard Fighting Form (which, while by no means mandated for PCs, is what is simplest to produce...in humans and races built similarly to how we are. Dwarves, yes. Elves, not necessarily.) weak.

As such, while I do think that mymas are going to excel at tripping and grappling and all sorts of other things, I think its more that they do these things better than Kisas that Kisas are vulnerable. One of the tradeoffs you make as a Kisa is that while you're not likely to specularly succeed by some wild and badass stun, you're not likely to be crippled by really bad stuff happening.

So here's a question. If we had a party of warriors. Let's assume they got healed by Dem (D-M. Get it? I'm so not witty.) every so often so that healing isn't an issue.

The kisas would be the frontliners, able to stand toe to toe with stuff.
There'd probably be some "archer" form, though I can't think of a sexy nickname.
There would be Dedes for taking advantage of rough terrain and otherwise being good at exploiting things weighted down by encumbranced.

What would the myma do? Ignoring game balance for a moment. Just...what does it contribute that is unique and special?

In my opinion, a Myma is a variant of a Dede with less "I am a master of war" and more "I am a master of me." abilities. That balances more comfortably in my mind than having them be a third type...it means that some Dedes are the lightly armored elven swordmasters and some Dedes are the warrior mystics.

Thoughts? A note: I'm all for "unarmed specialist" to be entirely divorced from class. If you want to hit like a mule, get a high Strength and the right feats. Conan and Solomon Kane are a Kisa (Sort of) and a Dede (as closely as I can translate him, ignoring the fact all of Howard's characters would make overpowered PCs) respectively who do that, and neither of them has a whit of exotic training.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #95 on: September 13, 2008, 01:29:36 PM »
In thinking of the Monk as another form of Fighter I'm pushing towards a different path:
Kisas survive by being tough and well armored.
Dedes survive by being quick and taking advantage of the environment.
Mymas survive by hampering the enemy.

I'm trying to approach this primarily from a balance perspective, secondarily from a mechanics perspective and then finally from a fluff perspective.  The core of any good game has at least one of the two (I think there's actually three ideas and that good games need two of them but I forget the third right now):  rock-paper-scissors or resource management.  When trying to balance things that are in equal quantities, such as when each player gets one character, you need to do it from a rock-paper-scissors perspective.  When we get to it I'd suggest a larger cycle for the four major archetypes, of course.

So as a result I feel that there should be a rock-paper-scissors cycle within each archetype.  That's the basis of me wanting a mechanical system where there's three minor archetypes.

So, using your example of a group of a Kisa, a Dede and a Myma where would they each be useful?  Kisa would be most useful where he can use a chokepoint or against a single enemy whose power relies on strength.  Dede would be most useful against mooks where he has enough defense to stand up to them but also enough mobility to prevent being trapped and enough attacks to kill them quickly.  (I strongly feel that Dedes should be more capable of making more attacks than Kisas -- probably a feat that allows flurry with a finessed weapon or somesuch.)  Myma would be most useful where the single enemy's power relies on special abilities because he can grapple them to remove them from combat, preventing special ability use or against small groups where he can keep each of them occupied with trips and throws.  (I think Great Throw et. al. will become important feats.)

I'm trying to think top-down here, create roles, balance the roles against each other using feats on the basis that a fighter chooses his path through his feats.

To continue the idea of where each would shine:
Let's say you have the three Warriors and they come upon an enemy that they have to kill but only one of them may fight it.
Ogre - Best to put forward:  Kisa, he's strong and tough.  Medium: Dede, he can take him slowly.  Worst:  Myma, he can't overpower it.
Kobold spearmen - Best to put forward: Dede, he can lure them to where he can take them out on his terms or slip within their reach and take out multiples at a time.  Medium: Myma, he can put a few of them on the ground at once and strike as openings occur.  Worst: Kisa, he can only take out one at a time and they can easily outflank him.
Gish Wizard - Best: Myma, he can keep him on the ground in a grapple and prevent him from using his spells while choking him out.  Medium: Kisa, he can take more hits and only has to hit him once to decisively end it.  Worst: Dede, he can't survive the hits and his raw damage output can't end the fight quickly.

Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 01:37:25 PM by ZeroSum »

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #96 on: September 13, 2008, 01:37:43 PM »
Agreed on Dedes and attacks. Not as strong by any means, but when "attack six times in one round" stunts are posisble at all, its a Dede thing. Kisa getting cleave makes sense. Whirlwind attack, no.

As to grappling and throws...yeah. Being a Kisa doesn't exactly put you at a huge disadvantage, or shouldn't...(heavy armor should not equal being a turtle), but Mymas do have the skills to throw and grapple more than anyone else.

I still lean towards Mymas as a variant of Dede, but if we can make grappling/throwing/wrestling useful, then their specialization in such things might be a good ability.

One other edge of mymas. Wizards and the like are going to be hampered by having to fact the "mystic" part. This is not a bad ability, even if their (Myma's) raw combat aptitude is not quite as impressive.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #97 on: September 13, 2008, 01:49:26 PM »
I like that.  Maybe [Fighter] feats that scale with fighter level or BAB that are Magic-resistive.

My general idea is that you'd have Fighter-20 be just like the current fighter but with a feat every level and have wider and stronger [Fighter] feats with some obvious trees you can take.

So you can easily make a Mystic in Shining Armor or Dextrous Knight as a result but that there are obvious Kisa, Dede and Myma paths.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #98 on: September 13, 2008, 01:57:14 PM »
That should work nicely. As noted, a Myma is kind of a variant on a Dede...light if any armor, relatively poor damage, good mobility, but with mystic stuff.

Making it so that you can have "mystic feats" and the like is better, in my opinion, than trying to make "Mystic class"...since that kind of balancing is much more of a headache.

I think we're on the same page, or close enough. Excellent.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #99 on: September 13, 2008, 02:12:34 PM »
Quote
As to the Monk vs weapons and armour, I belive the point is that... if you make Monk style unarmed fighting the equal of armed and armoured combat... there would be no real reason to HAVE armed and armoured combat in that same world. In a world where one could be just as effective in battle with ones hands and feat... why waste time and money on weapons and armour... which could be lost, broken, or ware down with time? Basicly, in such a world, EVERYONE would be a Monk.

This one's simple. As much as I hate to think of it in this way, of course.

Reinforce the alignment restriction. Mastery of martial arts isn't as simple as "I punch a rock, whoohoo, I'm DA MAN", it takes years of discipline and control. In the world you propose, not everyone would be a monk because, simply put, it takes MUCH LESS TIME to teach someone to stab people in the gut than it takes to teach them to punch effectively - martial arts is NOT for everyone. In a world where the monk is on par with sword and armor guys, everyone is ENCOURAGED to be a monk... at least until they realize how strict the life of a monk really is.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!