Curious about stance on some more 3.5e additions

[Telkar]

Hi. Been a long time. I'm not playing these days, but love to check out all the new ambituous systems and additions. Cool stuff!

Just curious about what's stopping from going even further towards the 3.5e on the classes. Notably in my mind are these that sound like (but don't really know) they would be easy to implement:

- Monk: Tongue of the Sun and Moon feat (simply give them all languages)
- Monk: Complete attack bonus
- RDD: Blindsense (sense similar to puddings, tremorsense)
- RDD: Extra spell slots
- Rogue: I guess Uncanny Dodge II was made to be similar to defensive awareness already?

[ASymphony]

Not quite following in regards to what you mean with "Monk: Complete attack Bonus". If you are referring to their BAB progression, that did not get changed between 3 and 3.5 and in 3.5, monks still follow 3/4 prog.

[Arawn]

Planning to implement TSM for monks, but not sure on an optimal implementation yet.

[StellarNope]

3.5 monks didn't get full attack progression. It wasn't even the basic Pathfinder monk that got it. It was the later "Monk Unchained" variant, part of their overhauls of rogue, barbarian, monk, and summoner that got full attack progression. Though maybe there was some 3.5 variant in another book I'm not familiar with.

[Pav]

Planning to implement TSM for monks, but not sure on an optimal implementation yet.

Hoo boy.

[Telkar]

Planning to implement TSM for monks, but not sure on an optimal implementation yet.

Coolsies.

[Telkar]

Sorry, by complete I mean progressing up to 15/15/15/12/9 attack bonus as in 3.5e. In regular nwn it's just 15/12/9/6/3. I was always bummed out about that about monks.

[ASymphony]

I - think - you might be mixing something up there a little! The line you posted there seems to originate from the flurry table, which takes the greater flurry feat into account, which, indeed, is not in NWN or POTM, but the base attack progression is the same still. So prolly the suggestion would be to implement that feat. (Which I dunno how feasible or wantedthat is, but well, thats for the devs to answer I s'psoe!)

[Telkar]

Just looked in the player's handbook. Apparently it was 15/15/15/10/5, yes in the flurry table. I never made a distinction between that and the normal attack mode since flurry of blows will have no negatives to it on level 9 and above. So that kind of becomes the default, at least in NWN (as opposed to PnP). Wouldn't see a reason not to use it always. I don't see a mention of greater flurry, just that an extra attack is added on lvl 11, maybe that's what you mean.

Summarized AB for a 20th lvl monk:
3.5e Monk in flurry: 15/15/15/10/5
3.5e Monk normal: 15/10/5
NWN Monk in flurry: 13/13/10/7/4/1
NWN Monk normal: 15/12/9/6/3

So 3.5e Monk is really superior.

[ASymphony]

Uh... I have no clue where you are taking that from. In vanilla NWN, Flurry of Blows always has its penalty.

As for where I got that from: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#greaterFlurry which contains the official 3.5 base rules. So no, not what I mean, I am afraid.

[Telkar]

Yea, I put that -2 flurry of blows penalty in there (lowering from +15 to +13 etc.). The penalty disappears at lvl 9 in 3.5e.

I took my info from my Player's Handbook 3.5e physical copy. Guess d20srd.org took the liberty of just calling the 11th level progression something.

[ASymphony]

This is from the 3.5 PHB:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/a77v3vyb79fik0g/monkbab.PNG?dl=0 Dunno at the top of my head if there was an errata at some point, but given that this is in the pdf-version and in SRD, I am pretty sure thats the correct version.

[Iridni Ren]

It looks to me like you both are right and sort of talking past one another.

In both those sources, the penalty to flurry of blows appears in 3.5 to disappear:

When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears.

A second (third) full AB attack is added at 11th level, and this is, yes, called Greater Flurry.

[ViktorYouFool]

Now that haks will be loaded at character creation, would the devs be willing to entertain discussion on additional base classes?

[MAB77]

Now that haks will be loaded at character creation, would the devs be willing to entertain discussion on additional base classes?

The notion is definitively being entertained already. New base classes and prestige classes both. Do not take this as a confirmation new classes will be added though. We need to take time to fully assess what the new tools allow us to do and how well a particular class can be adapted for the game. On a personal level I think the Warlock and the Voodan Shaman classes would be particularly fitting.

[Arawn]

On a personal level I think the Warlock and the Voodan Shaman classes would be particularly fitting.

And also close to impossible to implement to our satisfaction unless EE frees up some hardcoded stuff and allows custom spellbooks.

[MAB77]

I know, hence the "We need to take time to fully assess what the new tools allow us to do and how well a particular class can be adapted for the game", but the question was if we were open to the idea of adding new classes and we are.

[BraveSirRobin]

I know, hence the "We need to take time to fully assess what the new tools allow us to do and how well a particular class can be adapted for the game", but the question was if we were open to the idea of adding new classes and we are.

On a personal level I think the Warlock and the Voodan Shaman classes would be particularly fitting.

And also close to impossible to implement to our satisfaction unless EE frees up some hardcoded stuff and allows custom spellbooks.

I might say- What about Spellsword? God, Spellsword is my jam. Arelith did a pretty hot Spellsword, and they're still working it through.

[Telkar]

I might say- What about Spellsword? God, Spellsword is my jam. Arelith did a pretty hot Spellsword, and they're still working it through.

Is that similar to the Eldrich Knight prestige class? Should be a piece of cake to implement given what's been implemented already. Could adapt it to the setting with a new fancy name maybe.

[Arawn]

It’s very early days yet—we’re still evaluating what is feasible and isn’t with EE (doesn’t help that it keeps changing), which is why we did not intend to bring it up publicly yet. Once we have a better idea, we will absolutely solicit the community’s input.

[Silas Rotleaf]

Arcane trickster please!

[Arawn]

Arcane trickster please!

Per my earlier post, it’s too early for suggestions. Please wait until we can even be sure it’s feasible.

[Silas Rotleaf]

Sorry I think I let my excitement get the better of me. 😅