Questions regarding The Tome Series

[Kaelik]

Right, but see, here's the thing.

If I said, "Libertard thinks X."

And then you ask why I would think that you think X. There is no reason for me to inform you of the content of one of your posts.

I would actually consider, "because you said Y," to be a potentially valid answer -- you're trying to explain why you believe someone believes something, and you probably think that because of something they said (or didn't say, but...).

Maybe arguably as step one with a further explanation, but you can see how Libertard actually answered K's question by informing K about events in which he took part in as if this were some kind of new information for him.

It's really just part of an ongoing Pet peeve, where people join the gaming den, and they are here for a month, and then the start trying to explain to regulars what the nature of the gaming den is, and it drives me crazy, so when someone tries to explain to K about the events of the Pathfinder Playtest, like K doesn't know better than him, it's really annoying.

[Libertad]

It's really just part of an ongoing Pet peeve, where people join the gaming den, and they are here for a month, and then the start trying to explain to regulars what the nature of the gaming den is, and it drives me crazy, so when someone tries to explain to K about the events of the Pathfinder Playtest, like K doesn't know better than him, it's really annoying.

My primary sources are what other people say, not first-hand experience. I'm sorry if I offended you or patronized K. I didn't intend to do so.

On the other hand, more questions!

1. Are monsters intended to take Tome feats, or are they to be used straight out of the Monster Manual?

2. Which method requires less work on my part for existing Necromancy? The Crawling Darkness or Playing with Fire?

3. Which of the alignment options would you recommend for Law/Chaos?

4. Is a 9th-level Fighter's Foil Action extended out to 60 feet with the Sniper Combat feat?

[CatharzGodfoot]

1. Are monsters intended to take Tome feats, or are they to be used straight out of the Monster Manual?

Monsters should only take Tome feats if they have class levels or are player characters. Straight out of the MM, they should be used straight out of the MM. Otherwise, what is to be gained by using 3e as a base?

2. Which method requires less work on my part for existing Necromancy? The Crawling Darkness or Playing with Fire?

Probably equivalent.

4. Is a 9th-level Fighter's Foil Action extended out to 60 feet with the Sniper Combat feat?

Yes(!). Archers always win in the Tomes.

[Libertad]

Catharz, you mentioned that "Archers always win" in the Tomes.

The melee guys get some cool stuff, like Two-Weapon Fighting and free Power Attack. Iameki's Paladin and the Barbarian get bonus damage dice in melee, and the Samurai's a death machine.

Is the archer/melee gap closer, or the same as in standard 3.5? I'd say it seems closer, but you guys have more experience with the game.

[Kaelik]

1) I disagree with most people on monsters. I consider the inherent Power Creep in Tome so sufficient that Monsters basically have to take Tome feats to remain CR appropriate. They are still competing with the new base classes class features.

2) Most of the best builds can be done as well or better as Archers in Tome. For example, technically, nothing stops ranged power attacking other than my hatred. And of course, Samurai Archers, Monk Archers, and Knight Archers might be subbing slightly less damage for being able to hit from far away, so totally worth it. Archers can also use assorted abuse to attack as often as a TWFer as well.

[Libertad]

So do melee guys still feel small in the pants in Tome? Other than restricting Power Attack to melee, are there any good ways to make melee viable?

Also, wouldn't giving Tome feats to monsters cause an unexpected increase in power in creatures with large HD, like Dragons? That +16 BAB Blitz can be pretty sweet...

[Kaelik]

So do melee guys still feel small in the pants in Tome? Other than restricting Power Attack to melee, are there any good ways to make melee viable?

Also, wouldn't giving Tome feats to monsters cause an unexpected increase in power in creatures with large HD, like Dragons? That +16 BAB Blitz can be pretty sweet...

1) No, Melee guys are still more powerful than casters, so who gives a shit.

2) No, it would cause an expected increase in power of large HD full BAB monsters like Dragons. Large HD full BAB creatures are supposed to be badass. In fact, since it only makes them better at combat, mostly, that's not even a problem, since Dragons frankly, aren't that good at physical combat in 3e without Tome anyway.

Their superiority for their CR comes from their absurd saves/HP, casting, and breath weapon kiting.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, Pathfinder isn't backwards compatible with D&D, so you'd have to re-write pretty much everything. Other than that, it would probably work OK.

Print off the PDF make a 'new' page that has has something such as "The Tomes of the Pathfinders"; and then hand out that as your rulebook; saying how you found some people who did the "Pathfinding" of doing a slightly better D&D kuldge than Paizo did.

You're all just afraid I'm going to combine a ruleset you love with one that you hate.

Actually, I really am not scared of what you do in your games. Mostly because I don't really hold 3e to be the ideal standard; just a mainstream method, of gaming.

The reason I say to replace the PHB with the Tomes PDF is that most of Tomes can be used as a stand alone book instead of the regular PHB. So you could save yourself the effort of having to bring the PF book as well; and just keep a DMG and some MMs around.

After a while, my group only used PHBs for the spell lists.

To be honest though, I'm sort of sick and tired of anything related to D&D's systems, but not its stories or settings.

Overall the system is too crunchy; and doesn't actually give lots of options without forcing the user to learn additional sets of data and mini-game rules.

I'm still eager to tell stories about Heavy Metal in primitive agrarian cultures; even in bronze age ones. So far, using AWoD/After Sundown as a system has worked fine, and is in line with the sort of class-free sort of storytelling that makes sense to me.

2) Most of the best builds can be done as well or better as Archers in Tome. For example, technically, nothing stops ranged power attacking other than my hatred. And of course, Samurai Archers, Monk Archers, and Knight Archers might be subbing slightly less damage for being able to hit from far away, so totally worth it. Archers can also use assorted abuse to attack as often as a TWFer as well.

What and how can archers get attacks approaching a TWFer?

I've usually picked up TWF on most melee builds b/c double attacks and shitty sheild rules mean I have little/no incentive to get tiny, meaningless, defenses; when my offenses could by doubled.

[edit: text keeps not going through]

Usually the fact that there's TWF means that I can dual wield and throw magical darts, acid flasks or a semi-obscure elemental bomb magic item that comes in a 20' blast radius and a variety of flavours of enchanted balls (freezing balls, shocking balls, fiery balls, acid balls and I believe sonic the hedehog balls).

The damage may suck, but some things are too big to get close to. The elemental orbs are straight up rickokulous, in a post-wish economy a rogue or other chucker could plausibly throw 8 orbs that deal 10d6 (ref 15 for 1/2 I think) energy damage.

If you want to be silly have ranks in Perform (juggle) and juggle your energy orbs in the air; stack some ER that you care about (20+), and/or get Lighting reflexes. You can be a silly clown, juggling shimmering orbs; that you can allow to all fall at the same time and/or throw at enemies. While 10d6x8 isn't all that super, it can give non-casters some ranged AoEs that matter; and allow actual spellcasters to focus on spells that warp the battlefield or limit enemy options (the fact that injury only matters at 0 hp means you're best off alpha-striking single targets, or applying de-buffs on things you can't instantly/quickly remove from action; some de-buffs are alpha strikes, Colour Spray all the way up to Charm Monster).
[/edit]

As for "melees" being super cheese, yes, they utterly can. However the person who does this is also going to be the person who suggests that all of the casters in a group become blood mages that sacrifice chickens to cast more powerful magics (aka. Deathknell to boost CL then cast long term buffs). Either way, you're going to get cheese.

The stone cold facts are that most people can't bring the cheese. Even in the instances were I've myself made pretty cheesy high skill point RoW 'fighter' builds (really, more like a very martial rogue/bard/monk), I've known that they have bit weak points (lowish hp; a grapple score of "bab + str mod (of maybe +4? usually a +0); AoEs that require to be near/at targets; even a reach of 30' always puts you in counter-charge distance of almost everything).

When compared to actual archers, flat out melee characters are left looking a bit weak. Strategically and tactically, missile is the foil of armour (while assault foils missile, but not always), and personally, I'm the sort of wargamer that gets hordes of archers and/or other ranged attacks; because killing an enemy when they are over there is better than when they are in your face.

The reason they don't seem that way is that most encounters involve creatures that have to charge the PCs and attack them at very close range; or encounters occur in confined environments (I once had to figure out if a character of mine could move to one side of a room, then to the other; then back to the middle; in order to use the +16 Whirlwind ability

You can let players be a fighter, samurai, or just about any of the martial classes, and they can have a whole pile of feats that they picked out, but if they don't use them, or use them improperly it's like watching a wizard cast sleep on a zombie, or control undead on a flesh/bone golem, a good idea, but a wasted action and resources.

Just my observations so far.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Tome archer with attacks approaching a TWFer:

Tiefling Flighter 6, feats: PBS, Sniper, Blitz, Rapid Shot, TWFing, Extra Arms.

[Kaelik]

Tome archer with attacks approaching a TWFer:

Tiefling Flighter 6, feats: PBS, Sniper, Blitz, Rapid Shot, TWFing, Extra Arms.

3) Or just polymorph instead of Extra Arms, but yes. Or take into account AoO in actual numbers instead of possible, and that alone.

But yes.

2) JE, stop talking.

As a very brief example from your 90% wrong post, Taking Tome combat feats on a fighter, and nothing else, is not the same thing as Greater Consumptive Fielding to CL infinity. One of those just requires picking a class, and then picking a bunch of feats from right next to the class that are specifically recommended as being for that class. The other requires taking a spell, and then gathering infinite tiny woodland critters, and then making your numbers equal to infinity.

If there were a combat feat that gave a +3 to all stats, unless you named your character Phil the Fuckface, in which case it gave +infinity to all your stats, that would be the same thing, and I would object to people naming their characters Phil the Fuckface just like I do to people using Greater Consumptive Field shenanigans. But it's not the players fault for choosing combat feats with their bonus feats that have to be combat feats. That's the fault of the design.

[Judging__Eagle]

Sorry, stopping anything is hard, I'm more a decapitated chicken than a person most of my life. My mind has left, and only rarely returns.

Use of Rapid Shot makes perfect sense. I've sort of stopped using or allowing it in Tome games I run since I read Frank saying something about how it's a feat that should be banned b/c it straight up buffs archers and they don't need it, and don't use it myself, or suggest it in my own games.

Allowing it isn't going to break or end anything, except enemies.

[K]

It's really just part of an ongoing Pet peeve, where people join the gaming den, and they are here for a month, and then the start trying to explain to regulars what the nature of the gaming den is, and it drives me crazy, so when someone tries to explain to K about the events of the Pathfinder Playtest, like K doesn't know better than him, it's really annoying.

My primary sources are what other people say, not first-hand experience. I'm sorry if I offended you or patronized K. I didn't intend to do so.

On the other hand, more questions!

1. Are monsters intended to take Tome feats, or are they to be used straight out of the Monster Manual?

2. Which method requires less work on my part for existing Necromancy? The Crawling Darkness or Playing with Fire?

3. Which of the alignment options would you recommend for Law/Chaos?

4. Is a 9th-level Fighter's Foil Action extended out to 60 feet with the Sniper Combat feat?

1. I wouldn't, but only because the DM should be toggling the difficulty of monsters to his players AND keeping his design times down so he can focus on story.

The ease of just picking higher CR monsters out of the book to challenge powerful PCs cannot be underestimated.

2. I prefer Crawling Darkness because it makes undead really simple from a storytelling perspective, but Playing with Fire is also a valid option with a little more work.

The important bit is that you choose one. Not choosing is the path to madness.

3. Option 4: My Word Is My Bond. Again, I like it because it's simple and clear even if it diverges from the clusterfuck of DnD morality by a bit.

4. Why not?

As for the general feeling about Pathfinder, I think the Paizo-ites have confused contempt for some provably unskilled designers and distaste for corporate lies to be some kind of evaluation of the game itself.

It really isn't. Pathfinder gets all the love a moderately-worse clone of 3.5 deserves.

Mostly, that means that it gets held up as a sample of bad design where it has bad design. For example, I still don't know what the fuck they were thinking when they made the gunslinger.

[cthulhu]

Having tried it in action replacing monster feats with pathfinder tome ones is ass. The biggest issue with the tomes is making monsters with class levels is very, very tedious and slow. So don't do it if you can avoid it.

edit: Whoops.

[Kaelik]

Having tried it in action replacing monster feats with pathfinder ones is ass. The biggest issue with the tomes is making monsters with class levels is very, very tedious and slow. So don't do it if you can avoid it.

?????

How is replacing 3e feats with shittier versions of the same feat the same thing as replacing 3e feats with much much better feats with new features and way more of them?

That makes no sense.

[Libertad]

Just tried out some of the Tome options in a game. Me and my group are loving it. We really like the fact that Power Attack is universal and, along with Combat feats, can make Sword & Board builds work. Scaling feats and magic items from Book of Gears are really cool as well, cool enough that the group doesn't mind the Eight Item Limit or the 15,000 gp cap.

In the meantime, more questions!

If a Druid takes Combat School and selects "Wildshaped Natural Weapons," would this be too broad? How about if a Fighter took the same feat and chose "slashing sword-like weapons?"

Also, since forcing Efreet and Noble Djinn to grant you Wishes doesn't seem very moral (akin to extortion/slavery), combined with the human soul trade, doesn't this mean that Team Evil wins hard in Tome games in terms of extraplanar economic domination? What do the forces of Good have to counter this, if anything? Do angels corner the market on Hope, the Slaadi Raw Chaos?

Also, how would the Expanded Psionics Handbook mix with a Tome game? Anybody tried it?

[CatharzGodfoot]

IMO combat school is supposed to be a bit more coherent than that. A passable combat school would be 'chevalier', which includes one-handed spears, couched lances, one-handed slashing swords, and shields. Generally, you're good if you can find a similarly outfitted historical example.

Another might be 'talons like daggers', which includes light blades (daggers, short swords, kukris, etc.) and claws. 'Tiger kung-fu' could include claws, bites, and unarmed strikes. 'Warrior of the deep' might allow spears, tridents, and tentacles.

That's just my take on the matter, though. It's pretty open to interpretation how broad or narrow it has to be. Others have even weighed in that Combat School should apply only to, e.g., disarm attempts (presumably ignoring the fact that most benefits of the feat can't apply to disarming).

[Libertad]

Sample Combat Schools:

How do these look?

Sword-phile: You love swords. Applies to Short Swords, Longswords, Bastard Swords, and Greatswords.

Monastery Temple Guard: Your specialization in long, hafted weapons gives you the edge in protecting your sanctuary. Applies to the quarterstaff, longspear, lance, and guisarme.

Back-alley Fighter: Your favorite kind of weapon is one which can be used close-quarters and in a grapple. Applies to dagger, unarmed strike, sap, and handaxe.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Sample Combat Schools:

How do these look?

Sword-phile: You love swords. Applies to Short Swords, Longswords, Bastard Swords, and Greatswords.

Monastery Temple Guard: Your specialization in long, hafted weapons gives you the edge in protecting your sanctuary. Applies to the quarterstaff, longspear, lance, and guisarme.

Back-alley Fighter: Your favorite kind of weapon is one which can be used close-quarters and in a grapple. Applies to dagger, unarmed strike, sap, and handaxe.

If anything, they seem a bit narrow. "Sword-phile" could apply to every sword with no problems. "Monastery Temple Guard" could include quite a few more polearms. 'Back-alley fighter' could probably include all light blades rather than just daggers, plus clubs.

From a balance or flavor standpoint, there's no reason to restrict PCs from weapons that look and work in a similar fashion.

[Kaelik]

As a counter point, Combat School is supposed to be a single thing you can do, so for example:

Bash Axer: Shield Bashes to bind weapon, then attacks with his Axe.

Or Spear Stabbinator: He fights with a single spear, and that's the only thing that fucking counts.

If you are going to allow something like "All types of spears, including Javelins, also Lances, also swords" then it's a joke, and you might as well just say:

Combat School: You are really good at the fighting, you get these benefits on every attack you ever make for any reason:

Which of course, is not what it says, unlike every other Tome Combat feat, which applies at all times. So if you think it should be limited to not all the time, you need to show me that a specific character with the feat will not get it's benefits all the time, or will at least give up something pretty significant to get it all the time, IE never using ranged weapons.

[CatharzGodfoot]

So if you think it should be limited to not all the time, you need to show me that a specific character with the feat will not get it's benefits all the time, or will at least give up something pretty significant to get it all the time, IE never using ranged weapons.

All types of spears are basically equivalent, and Combat School only works with melee weapons.

If you think that being able to use combat school with any of a dagger, sickle, handaxe, kukri, short sword, battle axe, longsword, scimitar, falchion, greataxe, greatsword, kama, bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, two-bladed sword, punching dagger, spiked gauntlet, shortspear, spear, light pick, short sword, heavy pick, rapier, trident, halberd, scythe, and siangham is more powerful than being able to use it with a shield and an axe, you're fucking nuts.

[Kaelik]

So if you think it should be limited to not all the time, you need to show me that a specific character with the feat will not get it's benefits all the time, or will at least give up something pretty significant to get it all the time, IE never using ranged weapons.

All types of spears are basically equivalent, and Combat School only works with melee weapons.

If you think that being able to use combat school with any of a dagger, sickle, handaxe, kukri, short sword, battle axe, longsword, scimitar, falchion, greataxe, greatsword, kama, bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, two-bladed sword, punching dagger, spiked gauntlet, shortspear, spear, light pick, short sword, heavy pick, rapier, trident, halberd, scythe, and siangham is more powerful than being able to use it with a shield and an axe, you're fucking nuts.

Actually, that Combat School I set out is less powerful than all of those, because it requires using Shield Bash first, then Axe, on the same target. So that means you have to be able to attack with both, you have to be attacking the same target, and you have to attack in an order. It's not a lot, but it's a few limitations.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Actually, that Combat School I set out is less powerful than all of those, because it requires using Shield Bash first, then Axe, on the same target. So that means you have to be able to attack with both, you have to be attacking the same target, and you have to attack in an order. It's not a lot, but it's a few limitations.

That is a lot more limited. Getting the benefits of the feat on a maximum of half your attacks is a pretty heavy nerf. Especially since the loss of attack bonus on the first attack makes the second attack less likely to benefit. It still helps characters with tactics like 'I hit it with a greatsword', which is probably the intent of the feat anyway.