Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bardolph" data-source="post: 1203350" data-attributes="member: 2304">I suppose.  Initiative gives an advantage of exactly one turn.  I just don't see that as a flaw.But realize that, without feats, you're facing a -4/-8 or -6/-10 penalty when fighting with two weapons.  I would call that prohibitively expensive.Monks get a very generous array of abilities as it is.  It looks like your whole complaint revolves around a single Feat -- Spring Attack.  However, while Monks have to wait until 6th level before being able to select that Feat (while Fighters can nab it at 4), please keep in mind the plethora of other Monk abilities (at 4th level):  Tumble as a class skill, Evasion, Great Saves, Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist, Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows, Still Mind, Ki Strike, Slow Fall, and don't forget the Fast Movement.I honestly don't think that a monk who gets all that, and has to wait two more levels before getting that precious Spring Attack, is really that far behind the "mobile Fighter."  Besides, I don't see why the Fighter class should be expected to be inferior at all.If Spring Attack was "iconically fundamental" to the concept of a Monk, perhaps it should have been included in the Bonus Feats for Monks.  But I don't think that particular Feat is.I suppose it could have been workable, but IMHO 3rd edition handles this FAR more elegantly, through Attacks of Opportunity and Readied Actions.This is actually one area where the "freeze-frame" initiative system really shines.The only weakness in the 3e "freeze-frame" initiative, in my experience, is the "Okay, now the whole party stumbles into a pit trap" scenario.I'd call that a small sacrifice.Okay.  I don't see it as flawed.  Rather, I see it as far less flawed than other systems, and far more playable, since it relies on much less DM "fudge-factor."Well, I see Feats as a way of taking something that is ordinarily a pain in the ass, and making it much easier.  However, there's nothing preventing you from creating some extraordinary explanation for an otherwise "ordinary" feat.  For example, my character received a "raven's eye blessing" from his god at birth,  turning his eyes yellow and granting a +3 bonus to Spot rolls (in other words, he has Skill Focus: Spot)Truly extraordinary abilities are handled by Classes.  This is as it should be, IMHO.  If you really want "special" feats, take a single level of Psion or Psychic Warrior.  I think that both of these classes perfectly represent the "supernaturally gifted" thing it seem you're going for.But even if they could defend, they couldn't hit.  I mean, honestly, why would an AD&D cleric ever burn a spell on inflict light wounds, when its effects are virtually identical to a normal, non-magical mace?I don't think touch attacks are a kludge at all.  It works perfectly with the AC system, and is both consistent and logical.AC represents exactly two things: ability to deflect, and ability to dodge.  Now, granted, it might have been more realistic to separate these two concepts.  In fact, many other RPG's do exactly this.  However, I have found that these other RPG's almost without fail require either more dice rolls, more charts, or more modifiers in order to accomodate this.I think that the "sacred cow" of AC was preserved mainly because it works, and because it's simple.D&D3E handles all of this very nicely.  Really, it does.</blockquote>

Verification