3.5E martial artist
Hong Ooi
away. ;)
Some rejigging of the class-exclusive feats for 3.5E.
Enhanced Unarmed Strike
You do not need weapons, for your body itself is a lethal weapon.
Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+.
Benefit: You gain the benefits of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat from the
PHB. Your unarmed strikes do 1d6 points of damage (for Medium-sized
characters; smaller or larger characters adjust damage dice as per the
rules in the DMG and MM). You can also choose to deal your damage as either
normal or subdual without penalty. This feat can be used to meet the
requirements for feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
Special: For every 6 points of base attack bonus, you can take this feat
one additional time: thus you can take it twice if your base attack bonus
is at least +6, three times if it is +12, etc. Each time you take this
feat, your unarmed damage dice increase by one step, as per the rules in
the DMG and MM.
[changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to allow the class to take over
the monk's fist-fighting niche]
Instinctive Shot
You are one with your bow, enabling you to make difficult shots as if they
were routine.
Prerequisites: Martial artist level 4th+, Point-Blank Shot, Weapon Focus
with chosen bow.
Benefit: Choose a type of bow (not a crossbow). When using a bow of that
type, you can apply double your Wisdom bonus (if any) to negate attack
penalties due to range, and reroll miss chances due to concealment. You can
only reroll the miss chance once per attack roll. You do not gain an actual
bonus to hit; if the doubled Wisdom modifier is greater than the range
penalty, the excess is discarded.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
each time you take this feat, it applies to a different type of bow.
[changes: ranged blindfight thing added, level prereq reduced to 4th, feat
is probably still relatively weak]
Instinctive Strike
To the astute, brawn is unnecessary. You exemplify this.
Prerequisites: Martial artist level 6th+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon,
Wis 15+.
Benefit: When using a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you may add
your Wisdom modifier to your damage rolls in place of your Strength
modifier. Unlike your Strength modifier, this bonus to damage is not
adjusted for two-handed or off-hand weapons. You do not gain this benefit
if the weapon you use does not allow a Strength bonus to damage.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. You can
choose mighty bows or "unarmed strike" as your weapon for the purposes of
this feat. A mighty bow’s Strength limit doesn’t apply to your Wisdom
bonus.
[changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to prevent clerics abusing it]
Martial Finesse
You wield weapons with extraordinary grace and fluency.
Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose a melee weapon of your size or smaller, with which you have
Weapon Focus. When using the selected weapon, you can use your Dexterity
modifier in place of your Strength modifier on attack rolls, and you can
reroll miss chances due to concealment. You can only reroll the miss chance
once per attack roll. You need your second hand for balance, so if you use
a shield, apply the shield's armour check penalty to your attack rolls.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. If you
choose a weapon which is two-handed for you, this feat has an additional
prerequisite of Str 13+.
Normal: A character without this feat uses her Strength modifier on melee
attack rolls. She can take the Weapon Finesse feat to use her Dexterity
modifier in place of her Strength modifier, but only when using a light
weapon.
[changes: level prereq reduced to 1st to allow competitiveness from the
start, weapon choice reworded to take into account 3.5E sizing rules,
blindfight added]
Strike Without Thought
Uniting body and mind with a single purpose, you know where to strike.
Prerequisites: Martial artist level 12th+, Instinctive Strike, Iron Will,
Martial Finesse, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Str 13+, Wis 15+.
Benefit: Pick a melee weapon with which you have Instinctive Strike and
Martial Finesse. When using this weapon, your Strength modifier (adjusted
for off-hand and two-handed weapons) to damage stacks with your Wisdom
modifier.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack.
Each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. You can
choose "unarmed strike" as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
[changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, since it depends on Instinctive
Strike as a prereq]
--
Hong Ooi | "They are BLUDGEONING WANGERS"
ho...@zipworld.com.au | -- BB (paraphrased)
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Jasin Zujovic
> Enhanced Unarmed Strike
>
> You do not need weapons, for your body itself is a lethal weapon.
>
> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+.
>
> Benefit: You gain the benefits of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat from the
> PHB. Your unarmed strikes do 1d6 points of damage (for Medium-sized
> characters; smaller or larger characters adjust damage dice as per the
> rules in the DMG and MM). You can also choose to deal your damage as either
> normal or subdual without penalty. This feat can be used to meet the
> requirements for feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
>
> Special: For every 6 points of base attack bonus, you can take this feat
> one additional time: thus you can take it twice if your base attack bonus
> is at least +6, three times if it is +12, etc. Each time you take this
> feat, your unarmed damage dice increase by one step, as per the rules in
> the DMG and MM.
>
> [changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to allow the class to take over
> the monk's fist-fighting niche]
It's not really all that exclusive: a MA1/Ftr17 could be doing 2d8 with
his fists. Maybe limit in by MA levels instead of BAB, if you want to
restrict unarmed fighting to MA's? But it's not necessary, IMO. MA1/Bbn19
is a nice enough concept to be allowed.
> Instinctive Strike
>
> To the astute, brawn is unnecessary. You exemplify this.
>
> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 6th+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon,
> Wis 15+.
>
> Benefit: When using a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you may add
> your Wisdom modifier to your damage rolls in place of your Strength
> modifier. Unlike your Strength modifier, this bonus to damage is not
> adjusted for two-handed or off-hand weapons. You do not gain this benefit
> if the weapon you use does not allow a Strength bonus to damage.
How come it's not adjusted for two-/off-handed? It does make sense, in
a way, but it makes it so that the TWF'ers benefit more than others.
> Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
> each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. You can
> choose mighty bows or "unarmed strike" as your weapon for the purposes of
> this feat. A mighty bow’s Strength limit doesn’t apply to your Wisdom
> bonus.
>
> [changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to prevent clerics abusing it]
Good.
> Martial Finesse
>
> You wield weapons with extraordinary grace and fluency.
>
> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
>
> Benefit: Choose a melee weapon of your size or smaller, with which you have
> Weapon Focus. When using the selected weapon, you can use your Dexterity
> modifier in place of your Strength modifier on attack rolls, and you can
> reroll miss chances due to concealment. You can only reroll the miss chance
> once per attack roll. You need your second hand for balance, so if you use
> a shield, apply the shield's armour check penalty to your attack rolls.
>
> Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
> each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. If you
> choose a weapon which is two-handed for you, this feat has an additional
> prerequisite of Str 13+.
So you can use a bastard sword two-handed with Martial Finesse, only you
need Str 13+? I'd suggest cleaning up the language a bit, the "second
hand for balance" bit implies you need a free off hand. You don't, relly,
you only add shield ACP to attack rolls, right?
> Normal: A character without this feat uses her Strength modifier on melee
> attack rolls. She can take the Weapon Finesse feat to use her Dexterity
> modifier in place of her Strength modifier, but only when using a light
> weapon.
>
> [changes: level prereq reduced to 1st to allow competitiveness from the
> start,
I like that, but wouldn't that make it too tempting to make MA1/Ftr19
types? Then again, even if it did, would that be a problem? Not really, I
guess. A MA1/Ftr19 with stats that make it worthwhile to take Martial
Finesse would probably be better off as MA20 anyway.
What about other multiclasses? A longsword wielding MA1/Rog19? Seems
fine. A weak choice, even: you get the longsword in exchange for delaying
every level of sneak attack by one level. A MA1/Wiz5/Raumathari
battlemage (or eldritch knight)? Someone who's primarily a wizard might
well have a Dex significantly higher than Str, so this might be a very
tempting option. But again, I doubt it's really a problem. I think this
is a good change, overall.
> weapon choice reworded to take into account 3.5E sizing rules,
> blindfight added]
What's up with that? It fits the instinctive swordsman shtick well
enough, but doesn't it make it a bit too good? It's (3.0) Weapon Finesse
with less limits + half of Blind-Fight, all in one feat.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Bradd W. Szonye
> For those who think my MA class is irrelevant, or completely munchkin,
> go away. ;)
>
>
> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+.
> with chosen bow.
> Wis 15+.
Bad Hong! Is there any possibility you could generalize that class-level
prerequisite? Otherwise, you've created a class that cannot ever be
combined with a similar basic or prestige class.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Hong Ooi
wrote:
? It's no different to Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus or
Greater WS. Or Spell Mastery, come to think of it.
Hong Ooi
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>> Enhanced Unarmed Strike
>>
>> You do not need weapons, for your body itself is a lethal weapon.
>>
>> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+.
>>
>> Benefit: You gain the benefits of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat from the
>> PHB. Your unarmed strikes do 1d6 points of damage (for Medium-sized
>> characters; smaller or larger characters adjust damage dice as per the
>> rules in the DMG and MM). You can also choose to deal your damage as either
>> normal or subdual without penalty. This feat can be used to meet the
>> requirements for feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
>>
>> Special: For every 6 points of base attack bonus, you can take this feat
>> one additional time: thus you can take it twice if your base attack bonus
>> is at least +6, three times if it is +12, etc. Each time you take this
>> feat, your unarmed damage dice increase by one step, as per the rules in
>> the DMG and MM.
>>
>> [changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to allow the class to take over
>> the monk's fist-fighting niche]
>
>It's not really all that exclusive: a MA1/Ftr17 could be doing 2d8 with
>his fists.
Good point.
>Maybe limit in by MA levels instead of BAB, if you want to
>restrict unarmed fighting to MA's? But it's not necessary, IMO. MA1/Bbn19
>is a nice enough concept to be allowed.
It could be argued, of course, that even that MA level (or monk level)
shouldn't be necessary to portray someone who rips things apart with his
bare hands. Heck, you shouldn't even need a feat to do 1d6 points of
damage, as opposed to 1d3. But that leads to long and tedious arguments
about niche protection and verisimilitude and whatnot....
>
>> Instinctive Strike
>>
>> To the astute, brawn is unnecessary. You exemplify this.
>>
>> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 6th+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon,
>> Wis 15+.
>>
>> Benefit: When using a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you may add
>> your Wisdom modifier to your damage rolls in place of your Strength
>> modifier. Unlike your Strength modifier, this bonus to damage is not
>> adjusted for two-handed or off-hand weapons. You do not gain this benefit
>> if the weapon you use does not allow a Strength bonus to damage.
>
>How come it's not adjusted for two-/off-handed? It does make sense, in
>a way, but it makes it so that the TWF'ers benefit more than others.
Because I'm finding it hard to handwave how you're more wise when using a
weapon two-handed than one-handed, basically. Str bonus, yes; you can hit
harder when fighting two-handed. Wis bonus, errr.
>
>> Martial Finesse
>>
>> You wield weapons with extraordinary grace and fluency.
>>
>> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
>>
>> Benefit: Choose a melee weapon of your size or smaller, with which you have
>> Weapon Focus. When using the selected weapon, you can use your Dexterity
>> modifier in place of your Strength modifier on attack rolls, and you can
>> reroll miss chances due to concealment. You can only reroll the miss chance
>> once per attack roll. You need your second hand for balance, so if you use
>> a shield, apply the shield's armour check penalty to your attack rolls.
>>
>> Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
>> each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. If you
>> choose a weapon which is two-handed for you, this feat has an additional
>> prerequisite of Str 13+.
>
>So you can use a bastard sword two-handed with Martial Finesse, only you
>need Str 13+?
Yeah, or a greatsword, or even a greataxe. I'm not too happy about that,
actually; it might be too good. I'll probably change it once I actually see
the 3.5E weapon size rules.
>I'd suggest cleaning up the language a bit, the "second
>hand for balance" bit implies you need a free off hand. You don't, relly,
>you only add shield ACP to attack rolls, right?
The language is copied straight from Weapon Finesse. If 3.5E changes WF in
this respect, I'll change MF too; otherwise, I'd rather keep things
consistent.
>
>> Normal: A character without this feat uses her Strength modifier on melee
>> attack rolls. She can take the Weapon Finesse feat to use her Dexterity
>> modifier in place of her Strength modifier, but only when using a light
>> weapon.
>>
>> [changes: level prereq reduced to 1st to allow competitiveness from the
>> start,
>
>I like that, but wouldn't that make it too tempting to make MA1/Ftr19
>types? Then again, even if it did, would that be a problem? Not really, I
>guess. A MA1/Ftr19 with stats that make it worthwhile to take Martial
>Finesse would probably be better off as MA20 anyway.
Heh. Fair point. I might bump it up to MA2, so you don't get the
blind-fight thing (see below) before you get uncanny dodge.
>
>What about other multiclasses? A longsword wielding MA1/Rog19? Seems
>fine. A weak choice, even: you get the longsword in exchange for delaying
>every level of sneak attack by one level. A MA1/Wiz5/Raumathari
>battlemage (or eldritch knight)? Someone who's primarily a wizard might
>well have a Dex significantly higher than Str, so this might be a very
>tempting option. But again, I doubt it's really a problem. I think this
>is a good change, overall.
>
>> weapon choice reworded to take into account 3.5E sizing rules,
>> blindfight added]
>
>What's up with that? It fits the instinctive swordsman shtick well
>enough, but doesn't it make it a bit too good? It's (3.0) Weapon Finesse
>with less limits + half of Blind-Fight, all in one feat.
Just something I was fiddling with. I was trying to beef up Instinctive
Shot, and adding ranged blindfight seemed like a good idea. So to be
consistent, I added melee blindfight to MF as well. Note that the MA is
already getting the other half of Blind-Fight via uncanny dodge, so
actually taking the feat means they get less out of it than regular
fighters.
Nikolas Landauer
> > [changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to allow the class to take over
> > the monk's fist-fighting niche]
>
> It's not really all that exclusive: a MA1/Ftr17 could be doing 2d8 with
> his fists. Maybe limit in by MA levels instead of BAB, if you want to
> restrict unarmed fighting to MA's? But it's not necessary, IMO. MA1/Bbn19
> is a nice enough concept to be allowed.
One thing I did, when using Hong's MA in my campaigns: I didn't require
anything like an Oriental focus for the MA, and my players are
contemplating using it more as a swashbuckler-type character anyway...
I called the MA a "Fighter variant", meaning it couldn't multi with
Ftr. Any other class, sure, but not with Ftr, just like someone can't
multi two separate Clr classes, or two of any class, Burke's >ugh<
Master of Small Magics notwithstanding. :D
> > Instinctive Strike
>
> How come it's not adjusted for two-/off-handed? It does make sense, in
> a way, but it makes it so that the TWF'ers benefit more than others.
C'mon, they need all the help they can get, barring rogue sneak attack.
:D It still doesn't make 'em all that hot, since this will only kick
in for them if they're using the same weapon in both hands, since
InstStrike is weapon-specific.
> > [changes: made into a class-exclusive feat, to prevent clerics abusing it]
>
> Good.
Heh. This is actually a change I'd already made, when adapting the MA
for my campaign.
> > Martial Finesse
> > [changes: level prereq reduced to 1st to allow competitiveness from the
> > start,
>
> I like that, but wouldn't that make it too tempting to make MA1/Ftr19
> types?
See above for a possible solution. I don't think other MCs are gonna
have that much problem with it, either...
--
Nik
Jasin Zujovic
many exclusive feats: you could make the genuinely MA stuff selectable
special abilities, selectable, like the rogue's.
Say you gave out specials at the same rate as the samurai bonus feats:
2nd, 4th, every three levels thereafter.
2nd level specials: Martial Finesse, Evasion...
4th level specials: Uncanny Dodge, Instinctive Shot...
7th level specials: Great Leap, Fast Movement, Rapid Strike (flurry,
Instinctive Strike, Improved Uncanny Dodge...
10th level specials: Improved Evasion, One Body, One Soul...
13th level specials: Improved Rapid Strike (flurry as standard), Strike
Without Thought...
16th level specials: ...
19th level specials: ...
Of course, you could always take an ability from a lower-level list:
Evasion at 4th level, for instance. Also, some of the abilities would
have requirements beyond MA level: Improved Evasion requires Evasion &c.
Some of the abilities would probably need other requirements beyond other
MA specials: stuff like BAB, feats and so on. Instinctive Shot would
require Point Blank Shot, for instance. It should also be possible to
take feats instead of the specials. Or you could give out some bonus
feats, some special abilities. A bit like d20 Modern.
I'm not really sure if it'd be worth the bother, though. I haven't really
thought this through, just something that crossed my mind.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Jasin Zujovic
> >> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+.
> >> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 4th+, Point-Blank Shot, Weapon Focus
> >> with chosen bow.
> >> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 6th+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon,
> >> Wis 15+.
> >> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
> >
> >Bad Hong! Is there any possibility you could generalize that class-level
> >prerequisite? Otherwise, you've created a class that cannot ever be
> >combined with a similar basic or prestige class.
>
> ? It's no different to Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus or
> Greater WS. Or Spell Mastery, come to think of it.
Another way to look at: they're not feats, they're class abilities, but
you can take feats instead. Cf. high-level rogue specials. (Not quite,
because you can take these with your regular feat slots once you have
enough MA levels, but it's similar.)
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Jasin Zujovic
> >Maybe limit in by MA levels instead of BAB, if you want to
> >restrict unarmed fighting to MA's? But it's not necessary, IMO. MA1/Bbn19
> >is a nice enough concept to be allowed.
>
> It could be argued, of course, that even that MA level (or monk level)
> shouldn't be necessary to portray someone who rips things apart with his
> bare hands. Heck, you shouldn't even need a feat to do 1d6 points of
> damage, as opposed to 1d3. But that leads to long and tedious arguments
> about niche protection and verisimilitude and whatnot....
I'd say that one MA level is an okay compromise.
Also, if you want to demand some dedication, but still allow fist-
fighting barbarians, you could make the requirements something like MA
level 2nd+, BAB +6 for the second time, MA level 3rd+, BAB +12 for the
third...
> >> Martial Finesse
> >>
> >> You wield weapons with extraordinary grace and fluency.
> >>
> >> Prerequisites: Martial artist level 1st+, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
> >>
> >> Benefit: Choose a melee weapon of your size or smaller, with which you have
> >> Weapon Focus. When using the selected weapon, you can use your Dexterity
> >> modifier in place of your Strength modifier on attack rolls, and you can
> >> reroll miss chances due to concealment. You can only reroll the miss chance
> >> once per attack roll. You need your second hand for balance, so if you use
> >> a shield, apply the shield's armour check penalty to your attack rolls.
> >>
> >> Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack;
> >> each time you take this feat, it applies to a different weapon. If you
> >> choose a weapon which is two-handed for you, this feat has an additional
> >> prerequisite of Str 13+.
> >
> >So you can use a bastard sword two-handed with Martial Finesse, only you
> >need Str 13+?
>
> Yeah, or a greatsword, or even a greataxe. I'm not too happy about that,
> actually; it might be too good. I'll probably change it once I actually see
> the 3.5E weapon size rules.
Ah. "A melee weapon of your size or smaller". In 3.5, a normal greatsword
is a Medium greatsword, a two-handed weapon? Instead of Large greatsword,
Large, therefore two-handed for Medium characters?
Hm. I'm not sure I like allowing Martial Finesse with greatswords and
greataxes, and not only on account of balance reasons. Then again, I like
it applying to with quarterstaves, double bladed swords, longspears and
naginatas, which are (3.0) Large, and don't really like it applying to
battleaxes, which are (3.0) Medium. So it's more of a thematics thing
than a size thing. Now that I think about it, there seem to be more Large
weapons that I'd like it to work with that not, so maybe it's OK the way
it is above. But it is a bit strong then and, more importantly, it leaves
little reason to use smaller weapons. Why use any other sword but a
greatsword? Maybe if you allow Large finessed weapons, and that flurry
feat, let flurry apply only to Medium and smaller?
> >I'd suggest cleaning up the language a bit, the "second
> >hand for balance" bit implies you need a free off hand. You don't, relly,
> >you only add shield ACP to attack rolls, right?
>
> The language is copied straight from Weapon Finesse. If 3.5E changes WF in
> this respect, I'll change MF too; otherwise, I'd rather keep things
> consistent.
<shrug> Okay. FWIW, I think WF language should be cleaned up, too. You
supposedly need the second hand for balance, yet finesse and TWF is
common practice. But it does make sense to keep it consistent with
exisiting rules, yes.
> >> Normal: A character without this feat uses her Strength modifier on melee
> >> attack rolls. She can take the Weapon Finesse feat to use her Dexterity
> >> modifier in place of her Strength modifier, but only when using a light
> >> weapon.
> >>
> >> [changes: level prereq reduced to 1st to allow competitiveness from the
> >> start,
> >
> >I like that, but wouldn't that make it too tempting to make MA1/Ftr19
> >types? Then again, even if it did, would that be a problem? Not really, I
> >guess. A MA1/Ftr19 with stats that make it worthwhile to take Martial
> >Finesse would probably be better off as MA20 anyway.
>
> Heh. Fair point. I might bump it up to MA2, so you don't get the
> blind-fight thing (see below) before you get uncanny dodge.
I'm in favour of dropping the blind-fight thing altogether, so I'd leave
the requirement at 1st. But maybe that's just the MA1/Wiz5/battlemage in
me talking.
Also, when will the MA get UD? Isn't UD pushed back in level for the
rogue, all the way to 4th, even?
> >> weapon choice reworded to take into account 3.5E sizing rules,
> >> blindfight added]
> >
> >What's up with that? It fits the instinctive swordsman shtick well
> >enough, but doesn't it make it a bit too good? It's (3.0) Weapon Finesse
> >with less limits + half of Blind-Fight, all in one feat.
>
> Just something I was fiddling with. I was trying to beef up Instinctive
> Shot, and adding ranged blindfight seemed like a good idea.
And I liked that one. After all, it's *Instinctive* Shot, Zen archery and
all that stuff. Negating range penalties, shooting through concealement,
it's all part of the same high-Wis, no-thought, one-with-the-bow shtick.
Not quite so for Martial Finesse, IMO. MF seems much less
monkish/Zen/supernatural/Wis-based. I think it'd be just fine without the
blind-fight part. And you can make Blind-Fight the feat more attractive
for MA's, by having it as a prerequisite for a MA-exclusive blindsight
feat.
> So to be
> consistent, I added melee blindfight to MF as well.
As I've said, I don't really see Martial Finesse as a melee counterpart
to Instinctive Shot. Thinking about it, if I had to pick a melee feat as
a counterpart, it would probably be Blind-Fight.
> Note that the MA is
> already getting the other half of Blind-Fight via uncanny dodge, so
> actually taking the feat means they get less out of it than regular
> fighters.
Right. Rogues, too. I never noticed that, you know.
Still, I think you'd be better off without the blind-fight thingy, as
explained above. You are beefing up the feat already by lowering the
requirements (and I think that's a good thing), and even more if you're
allowing Large weapons.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Bad Hong! Is there any possibility you could generalize that
>>> class-level prerequisite? Otherwise, you've created a class that
>>> cannot ever be combined with a similar basic or prestige class.
Hong wrote:
>> ? It's no different to Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus or
>> Greater WS. Or Spell Mastery, come to think of it.
Spell Mastery needn't be class-specific. "Prepares spells from a book"
is a perfectly good substitute for listing it in the wizard class.
Weapon Specialization is a little trickier; I'll admit that you have a
precedent there.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> Another way to look at: they're not feats, they're class abilities,
> but you can take feats instead. Cf. high-level rogue specials. (Not
> quite, because you can take these with your regular feat slots once
> you have enough MA levels, but it's similar.)
Yeah, that's true. Can't say I really like the exclusive feat approach,
though, especially when there's a lot of them that could easily apply to
similar basic and prestige classes.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Bradd wrote:
I'd say that WS is fighter-only so that the class has something it can
really call its own. All the other combat feats can be taken by other
classes, except WS. It's the fighter's signature ability, the equivalent of
barbarian rage, sneak attack, etc.
Similarly, the fact that they _could_ have made Spell Mastery more generic,
but didn't, suggests they want it to be a wizard signature ability. It's a
way of differentiating them from, say, wu jen, who are mechanically almost
identical.
Hong Ooi
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, or a greatsword, or even a greataxe. I'm not too happy about that,
>> actually; it might be too good. I'll probably change it once I actually see
>> the 3.5E weapon size rules.
>
>Ah. "A melee weapon of your size or smaller". In 3.5, a normal greatsword
>is a Medium greatsword, a two-handed weapon? Instead of Large greatsword,
>Large, therefore two-handed for Medium characters?
Something like that. There have been a number of posts on the subject, but
it's still kinda confusing. As far as I can tell, a Medium character uses a
Medium dagger, a Medium longsword, and a Medium greatsword. The dagger is a
light weapon, the longsword is one-handed and the greatsword is two-handed.
A Large greatsword is what a Large creature uses, and a Small greatsword is
what a Small creature uses. There may be more to it than that, though.
>
>Hm. I'm not sure I like allowing Martial Finesse with greatswords and
>greataxes, and not only on account of balance reasons. Then again, I like
>it applying to with quarterstaves, double bladed swords, longspears and
>naginatas, which are (3.0) Large, and don't really like it applying to
>battleaxes, which are (3.0) Medium. So it's more of a thematics thing
>than a size thing. Now that I think about it, there seem to be more Large
>weapons that I'd like it to work with that not, so maybe it's OK the way
>it is above. But it is a bit strong then and, more importantly, it leaves
>little reason to use smaller weapons. Why use any other sword but a
>greatsword? Maybe if you allow Large finessed weapons, and that flurry
>feat, let flurry apply only to Medium and smaller?
I think I'll just wait until the books come out....
>> >
>> >I like that, but wouldn't that make it too tempting to make MA1/Ftr19
>> >types? Then again, even if it did, would that be a problem? Not really, I
>> >guess. A MA1/Ftr19 with stats that make it worthwhile to take Martial
>> >Finesse would probably be better off as MA20 anyway.
>>
>> Heh. Fair point. I might bump it up to MA2, so you don't get the
>> blind-fight thing (see below) before you get uncanny dodge.
>
>I'm in favour of dropping the blind-fight thing altogether, so I'd leave
>the requirement at 1st. But maybe that's just the MA1/Wiz5/battlemage in
>me talking.
>
>Also, when will the MA get UD? Isn't UD pushed back in level for the
>rogue, all the way to 4th, even?
MA UD progression is based on the barb, which hasn't changed. It all works
out in a nice, elegant manner. ;)
>
>> >> weapon choice reworded to take into account 3.5E sizing rules,
>> >> blindfight added]
>> >
>> >What's up with that? It fits the instinctive swordsman shtick well
>> >enough, but doesn't it make it a bit too good? It's (3.0) Weapon Finesse
>> >with less limits + half of Blind-Fight, all in one feat.
>>
>> Just something I was fiddling with. I was trying to beef up Instinctive
>> Shot, and adding ranged blindfight seemed like a good idea.
>
>And I liked that one. After all, it's *Instinctive* Shot, Zen archery and
>all that stuff. Negating range penalties, shooting through concealement,
>it's all part of the same high-Wis, no-thought, one-with-the-bow shtick.
>Not quite so for Martial Finesse, IMO. MF seems much less
>monkish/Zen/supernatural/Wis-based. I think it'd be just fine without the
>blind-fight part. And you can make Blind-Fight the feat more attractive
>for MA's, by having it as a prerequisite for a MA-exclusive blindsight
>feat.
You're probably right.
Indigar
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:17:44 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
>
>>Hong Ooi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, or a greatsword, or even a greataxe. I'm not too happy about that,
>>> actually; it might be too good. I'll probably change it once I actually
>>> see the 3.5E weapon size rules.
>>
>>Ah. "A melee weapon of your size or smaller". In 3.5, a normal greatsword
>>is a Medium greatsword, a two-handed weapon? Instead of Large greatsword,
>>Large, therefore two-handed for Medium characters?
>
> Something like that. There have been a number of posts on the subject, but
> it's still kinda confusing. As far as I can tell, a Medium character uses
> a Medium dagger, a Medium longsword, and a Medium greatsword. The dagger
> is a light weapon, the longsword is one-handed and the greatsword is
> two-handed. A Large greatsword is what a Large creature uses, and a Small
> greatsword is what a Small creature uses. There may be more to it than
> that, though.
That's about it. Though, for example, if a Small character uses a Medium
one-handed weapon, it's a two-handed weapon for him, and he suffers a -2
penalty to attacks for using a weapon of a size category 1 different from
his own (-2 per category, so a Large dagger would give him a -4).
If a weapon becomes larger than two-handed or smaller than light because of
size differences, you can't use it at all.
--
Indigar
ind...@hotpop.com
Imad Hussain
> That's about it. Though, for example, if a Small character uses a Medium
> one-handed weapon, it's a two-handed weapon for him, and he suffers a -2
> penalty to attacks for using a weapon of a size category 1 different from
> his own (-2 per category, so a Large dagger would give him a -4).
> If a weapon becomes larger than two-handed or smaller than light because of
> size differences, you can't use it at all.
Which of course screws the small PC races. The Halfling dual-dagger
wielder gets nerfed, in particular.
--
Best,
Imad Hussain
mag...@purdue.edu
Indigar
Eh... Why?
He just uses two Small short swords instead (game mechanically identical),
and off he goes.
--
Indigar
ind...@hotpop.com
Indigar
> Imad Hussain wrote:
>
>> Which of course screws the small PC races. The Halfling dual-dagger
>> wielder gets nerfed, in particular.
>
> Eh... Why?
> He just uses two Small short swords instead (game mechanically identical),
> and off he goes.
Ignore this, I lied. A short sword is martial and can't be thrown. Still,
not a huge difference.
--
Indigar
ind...@hotpop.com
Jasin Zujovic
> [...]
>
> I think I'll just wait until the books come out....
When *are* the books coming out, BTW? Actually, I want to know when is
the SRD being updated. We've ordered the books, but I'd want to see the
new rules as soon as possible.
> >Also, when will the MA get UD? Isn't UD pushed back in level for the
> >rogue, all the way to 4th, even?
>
> MA UD progression is based on the barb, which hasn't changed. It all works
> out in a nice, elegant manner. ;)
It hasn't? I thought the barbarian lost UD and only got the trap thingy.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Glupinickname
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1973c5bf5...@news.iskon.hr...
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > I think I'll just wait until the books come out....
>
> When *are* the books coming out, BTW? Actually, I want to know when is
> the SRD being updated. We've ordered the books, but I'd want to see the
> new rules as soon as possible.
Somebody mentioned July the 18th.
Just in time for the session!
--
Danijel ©triga
glupin...@net.hr
Loren Davis
"Hong Ooi" wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> >Spell Mastery needn't be class-specific. "Prepares spells from a book"
> >is a perfectly good substitute for listing it in the wizard class.
> >Weapon Specialization is a little trickier; I'll admit that you have a
> >precedent there.
> I'd say that WS is fighter-only so that the class has something it can
> really call its own. All the other combat feats can be taken by other
> classes, except WS. It's the fighter's signature ability, the equivalent
of
> barbarian rage, sneak attack, etc.
They handed it out to the psychic warrior, though.
> Similarly, the fact that they _could_ have made Spell Mastery more
generic,
> but didn't, suggests they want it to be a wizard signature ability. It's
a
> way of differentiating them from, say, wu jen, who are mechanically
almost
> identical.
In the core rules, all this does is keep the ability out of the hands of
assassins. I'm not sure why; it makes sense for them. Few wizards ever take
the feat, so it isn't much of a signature ability. The one exception I've
seen thought it gave him more spells per day.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>
>"Hong Ooi" wrote:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
>> >Spell Mastery needn't be class-specific. "Prepares spells from a book"
>> >is a perfectly good substitute for listing it in the wizard class.
>> >Weapon Specialization is a little trickier; I'll admit that you have a
>> >precedent there.
>
>> I'd say that WS is fighter-only so that the class has something it can
>> really call its own. All the other combat feats can be taken by other
>> classes, except WS. It's the fighter's signature ability, the equivalent
>of
>> barbarian rage, sneak attack, etc.
>
>They handed it out to the psychic warrior, though.
Yeah, well, the psywar is in that no-mans-land between "core" and
"optional".
>
>> Similarly, the fact that they _could_ have made Spell Mastery more
>generic,
>> but didn't, suggests they want it to be a wizard signature ability. It's
>a
>> way of differentiating them from, say, wu jen, who are mechanically
>almost
>> identical.
>
>In the core rules, all this does is keep the ability out of the hands of
>assassins. I'm not sure why; it makes sense for them.
It may make sense for you, but it sure as heck doesn't make sense for me.
:) In any case, 3.5E will change assassins to spontaneous casting a la
sorcs, so it becomes moot.
Hong Ooi
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I think I'll just wait until the books come out....
>
>When *are* the books coming out, BTW? Actually, I want to know when is
>the SRD being updated. We've ordered the books, but I'd want to see the
>new rules as soon as possible.
Just go to EN World, where a bunch of Dutch people are answering questions
left, right and center....