Ultimate Combat

GlassEye · Dec 15, 2011

Since it was suggested in the General Discussion thread that we might want to take a look at Ultimate Combat in respect to what we don't want to include in LPF this is my take on it.

Gunslinger & related feats/archetypes/firearms
-Gunslinger & firearm-using archetypes
--Musketeer (Cavalier archetype)
--Holy Gun (Paladin archetype)
-Black Powder Inquisition (Inquisitor domain)
-Rogue Talents
--Firearm Training
--Grit
-Grit feats
-Firearms (Equipment)
-Black Powder-based Siege Engines
-Firearm/Black Powder-based Spells

Alchemical Engines (Vehicles)

Variant Rules
-Armor as Damage Reduction
-Called Shots
-Piecemeal Armor
-Wounds and Vigor

My list of NO

Maidhc O Casain · Dec 15, 2011

It looks like you've covered everything on my list as well, GE, though I haven't gone through the book with a fine toothed comb so there may be a few other things.

While there are some fantasy games in which I think firearms fit, I really don't want them in LPF; I have no logical argument for this, just my personal preference.

The other rules you mentioned, while interesting for some variation, would over complicate things, IMO.

I vote NO to GlassEye's list above.

jkason · Dec 15, 2011

I'm not a judge, and I haven't really scoured Ultimate Combat, but I think GlassEye's list works for me. The gunpowder stuff would seem to me a big shift fluff-wise that I'm not keen on. And the alternate mechanics stuff seems like a cruch shift that would be a bit of a nightmare to manage.

Also, just because I'm beginning to consider a ninja if I opt for a third character: what do folks think of that class? It's officially a rogue alt class, but it feels kind of like a hybrid rogue / monk, which is, I think, what I like about it. Of course, my assessment skills are a bit lacking, so it'd be nice to see if others more savvy than me think it's a good class or just a bunch of flash with no real efficacy.

Qik · Dec 15, 2011

I too agree with GE's list. I will say that I've tempered my initial vehement reaction against firearms, but I still agree that including them would entail a relatively drastic shift in the setting, which is definitely a potential problem. Perhaps at some point the subject can/will get readdressed (if the appropriate fluff emerges), but for the time being, I agree with not including them.

As for the ninja - I haven't spent too much time pondering it, but I do like what I've seen. Really the only problem I see with it is the degree to which it overlaps with the rogue - not an actual problem, really, just that the ninja seems to marginalize the rogue in my opinion.

I especially like that the ninja gets a ki pool.

Personally, I'm really psyched about the increased options for the monk: the new archetypes are some of the most interesting that any class has gotten, in my opinion, and the style feats are huge.

IronWolf · Dec 15, 2011

I think GE has done a good job of putting together the chop list. I am pretty much in agreement of not including that list in LPF at the moment as well. So I vote NO on including the list of items GE has posted.

I'm going to include a few other comments in a separate post in this thread. Didn't want to clutter my vote post though!

IronWolf · Dec 15, 2011

Mowgli said:
While there are some fantasy games in which I think firearms fit, I really don't want them in LPF; I have no logical argument for this, just my personal preference.

jkason said:
The gunpowder stuff would seem to me a big shift fluff-wise that I'm not keen on.

Qik said:
I will say that I've tempered my initial vehement reaction against firearms, but I still agree that including them would entail a relatively drastic shift in the setting, which is definitely a potential problem. Perhaps at some point the subject can/will get readdressed (if the appropriate fluff emerges), but for the time being, I agree with not including them.

I am definitely of the no firearms for now category. Sort of like Qik I have gone from an outright no way do I want firearms in my setting to well, maybe if it is done well or isolated, etc. So in the future I would entertain allowing firearms in some form, but it would have to be pretty convincing to sway my vote from a no, which would be my default response.

jkason said:
And the alternate mechanics stuff seems like a cruch shift that would be a bit of a nightmare to manage.

Yep, that is the biggest thing for me. I think some of it is sort of cool. But the management overhead in the organized play setting we have seems to burdensome to bite off the variant rules for the LPF.

jkason said:
Also, just because I'm beginning to consider a ninja if I opt for a third character: what do folks think of that class? It's officially a rogue alt class, but it feels kind of like a hybrid rogue / monk, which is, I think, what I like about it.

Qik said:
As for the ninja - I haven't spent too much time pondering it, but I do like what I've seen. Really the only problem I see with it is the degree to which it overlaps with the rogue - not an actual problem, really, just that the ninja seems to marginalize the rogue in my opinion.

I am not a huge fan of the ninja, but I think my objection is pretty subjective and simply based on it breaking my own immersion. Given LPF is about more than just my play tendencies I likely wouldn't vote against it in a proposal vote because if someone thinks it would be fun to play I don't have a good reason to say no. For what it is worth, I'm not a huge fan of monks either!

Satin Knights · Dec 16, 2011

I will add a fourth vote for the NO list. That is enough to exclude them, so I will add them to the wiki page over the next few minutes.

InVinoVeritas · Dec 16, 2011

I'll add my NO to the above list.

I'm also thinking about adding performance combat to the list of NO. I would still say YES to gladiator weapons, but the performance combat rules just add needless complexity, I feel.

sunshadow21 · Dec 16, 2011

Perhaps with the firearms allow a limited yes for DMs only so that an isolated NPC here or there could toy around with them if it fits the adventure. That way, we can get a better idea of if we eventually want to include them on a wider scale later. It also sets up an in-game to do so if we decide to include them later.

Walking Dad · Dec 16, 2011

NO to the OP list.

I'm also thinking about adding performance combat to the list of NO. I would still say YES to gladiator weapons, but the performance combat rules just add needless complexity, I feel.

YES to performance combat. It adds complications, but only if a DM wants to use it. I don't see the reason to disallow them as basis if such things come up in an adventure.

Perhaps with the firearms allow a limited yes for DMs only so that an isolated NPC here or there could toy around with them if it fits the adventure. That way, we can get a better idea of if we eventually want to include them on a wider scale later. It also sets up an in-game to do so if we decide to include them later.

I don't want and in-game set-up that suggests the possibility of broken rules with touch AC weapons... I have already decided for me that I don't want them.