Splat control

[Dannyalcatraz]

For the Monk, I can't think of anything that would help, other than being replaced by the Swordsage.

Tsk, tsk.

I, for one, love monks as is, but I understand that some don't.

There are some things that could help attract other players to the class.

1) AU/AE has a feat called Hands as Weapons, which allows you to enchant your unarmed strikes as if they were weapons- not unlike the Kensai (CW PrCl) class ability.

Its not a huge step to incorporate that feat, and further expand upon that concept and have a HR feat called Body as Armor, or allow them to wear light armor without penalty.

Caveat- if you let them wear light armor, limit it to true light armor, not heavier armors made with special materials.

2) Use one of the myriad Monk substitutes out there (like the OA version which adds weapons and removes the multiclassing bar, or the Rokugan Inkyo), or possibly lift some abilities from those other classes to incorporate/substitute for extant abilities (and make no mistake, some of those other abilities are quite nice). If you're adventurous and industrious, you could make a more flexible "Ur-monk" class that includes some or all of those variants' abilities as part of a menu of options.

See this thread for more details: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221182&page=1

3) Gestalt it with a similarly "underpowered" or less common class, like Soulknife, Soulborn or Binder

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Fortunately I don't play with munchkins...

Okay, I have a somewhat obtuse question: If your players aren't munchkins, why are you going to all this trouble to restrict splat books? I'm all for the DM's right to ban or modify character options if they're broken, if they don't fit with the campaign, if he/she hasn't looked over the option or if he/she simply doesn't like the option but why do you want to limit player creativity like this? It seems to me that if your players aren't munchkins, this mathematical method of restricting their choices is just a needless punishment.

TS

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Okay, I have a somewhat obtuse question: If your players aren't munchkins, why are you going to all this trouble to restrict splat books? I'm all for the DM's right to ban or modify character options if they're broken, if they don't fit with the campaign, if he/she hasn't looked over the option or if he/she simply doesn't like the option but why do you want to limit player creativity like this? It seems to me that if your players aren't munchkins, this mathematical method of restricting their choices is just a needless punishment.

TS

It really wasn't all that much trouble to come up with this system...I didn't even break a sweat!

And I don't see how it limits creativity (since "do whatever you want" isn't an option) or how it could be considered punishment. In fact, I see it as just the opposite: ability score boosts help mitigate MAD (e.g., monks), extra feats help out classes that could really use a few extra feats (e.g., sorcerers), non-core feats help out classes that don't have many good core options (e.g., bards), etc. Giving out a finite number of points just gives everyone the same advantage, hopefully....

Again, I'm not worried about abuse, I want to price benefits so that they are each (roughly) equally good buys.

 

[Set]

I don't do Gestalt, but the idea of Gestalting a Monk and a Soulknife sounds hot!

1) AU/AE has a feat called Hands as Weapons, which allows you to enchant your unarmed strikes as if they were weapons- not unlike the Kensai (CW PrCl) class ability.

Its not a huge step to incorporate that feat, and further expand upon that concept and have a HR feat called Body as Armor, or allow them to wear light armor without penalty.

Caveat- if you let them wear light armor, limit it to true light armor, not heavier armors made with special materials.

This line from the SRD suggests that one could do so already,

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Instead of allowing them to wear light armor, you could take the SRD rule one step further and count the monk's body as 'armor' for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance physical armor, including enhancement bonuses. The base armor value may start at zero, but there is already precedent for Natural Armor-enhancing spells working on characters with a base Natural Armor of zero.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

And I don't see how it limits creativity (since "do whatever you want" isn't an option) or how it could be considered punishment. In fact, I see it as just the opposite: ability score boosts help mitigate MAD (e.g., monks), extra feats help out classes that could really use a few extra feats (e.g., sorcerers), non-core feats help out classes that don't have many good core options (e.g., bards), etc. Giving out a finite number of points just gives everyone the same advantage, hopefully....

This is where I'm not following you. This system of yours forces players to choose between improving their characters' power (feats, ability boosts, etc) or make their character a little different mechanically (which in most cases is not a power improvement). That's why I said you're punishing your players for wanting to use non-core options. So unless you're assuming that non-core stuff is inherently better than core stuff, I'm not following your train of thought.

TS

 

[Asurya]

quote Flatus Maximus: Asurya: Good idea with the spell cost. It makes sense that higher level spells should be worth more than lower level spells.
Glad you like it

quote Flatus Maximus: And I've also been thinking that the cost for a non-core feat should be lowered, though 0 or 1 sounds too low....
it only depends on how you want gimp the fighter guy really... it's your call.
Obviously, all caster-realted feat should have a steep price attached to them (Reserve feats I'm looking at you... albeit I find it goes in the good way (all day useful, toned down abilities, ala Warlock), it only increase the shine of the caster guy, without taking anything from him)

quote Flatus Maximus: Regarding the skill points, let me try to rephrase: For 5 points at 1st level, a PC's skill points are calculated as if +1 to Int modifier, for that and each subsequent level. For example, a wizard would have (3+Int)*4 skill points at 1st level, and 3+Int skill points at each subsequent level.
Ok, I see now! your option is indeed stronger than Open minded... in the long run. I think it will depends on how long the campaign is supposed to go on (level wise)

quote Nifft: For the Monk, I can't think of anything that would help, other than being replaced by the Swordsage.
I absolutely agree with that (there is a reason ToB has been renamed Tome of Replacement in some circles )

quote Set: I don't do Gestalt, but the idea of Gestalting a Monk and a Soulknife sounds hot!
I once followed a project to mesh these to in a class (no gestalt) on the official forum, nice idea but the project stopped.
combining 2 weak classes can have a balanced result.

quote Tequila Sunrise: This system of yours forces players to choose between improving their characters' power (feats, ability boosts, etc) or make their character a little different mechanically (which in most cases is not a power improvement).
I must say that I agree with this statement (as I pointed out in the 0-cost feats)
It's a common fallacy to view new as more powerful: new *seems* more powerful because so few people really understand how it works, and how to counter it. This is true for a scope far larger than DnD, and it has consequences if the DM is not in the few.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

This is where I'm not following you. This system of yours forces players to choose between improving their characters' power (feats, ability boosts, etc) or make their character a little different mechanically (which in most cases is not a power improvement). That's why I said you're punishing your players for wanting to use non-core options. So unless you're assuming that non-core stuff is inherently better than core stuff, I'm not following your train of thought.

TS

I guess I'm assuming that one can significantly improve any PC by having access to non-core options...so it makes sense to me that there should be some cost associated with taking non-core options, assuming there is a cost to improve PCs by ability score bumps, extra feats, etc. So I decided to give the players "points" that they can use to go beyond the usual character creation process described in the PHB. I now agree that having access to non-core options probably shouldn't be as expensive as I initially thought, but I still don't agree with free.

That some non-core options are more powerfull than related core options is not really a matter of debate, is it? A core-only cleric is powerful, but can't we build an even more powerful cleric if we have access to non-core options as well?

Since it would be a lot of work to price each non-core option, I'll settle for a ballpark figure. I'm thinking of it like this: You're going to a party and you want to bring some booze. The liquor store accepts cash, nothing is free. Some options are better than others, some give you more bang for the buck. Rather than price each individual item, I'm pricing beer=x, wine=y, spirits=z, etc.

 

[Nifft]

A core-only cleric is powerful, but can't we build an even more powerful cleric if we have access to non-core options as well?

Sure, but only a very small few.

Since it would be a lot of work to price each non-core option, I'll settle for a ballpark figure.

The trouble is, many non-Core options are weaker than Core options, and some few are much, much stronger. The variance is too wide -- you can't pick a fair average value.

Finally, you're shafting the Fighter. You don't have to care -- he was already pretty shafted when the game came out -- but the idea that a Barbarian could nab two bonus Feats at 1st level really puts a boot to the first-level Fighter's face.

Anyway: what's your goal? If it's just to limit non-Core stuff, why not just set a fixed number of things, and let players bring in that number of things? Every few levels, let them bring in one or two more. If the players are fine without such things, that's fine too. They don't need compensation.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Piratecat]

(Hey Asurya! To quote someone easily, use the tags {quote=Person's name} Blah blah blah {/quote}, but replace the {} with []. So the above would read...

Blah blah blah

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Anyway: what's your goal? If it's just to limit non-Core stuff, why not just set a fixed number of things, and let players bring in that number of things? Every few levels, let them bring in one or two more. If the players are fine without such things, that's fine too. They don't need compensation.

Cheers, -- N

By bring in things, do you mean non-core, extra, or both?

The goal is to add another layer of choices, in a controlled way, so that players feel "safe" trying out something that is perhaps otherwise mechnically weak but sounds fun/interesting/whatever. If it was just core vs. non-core, then my thinking has changed -- no big deal, 0-1 points. However, the extras need to have a price....