| Welcome to Pokemon Tabletop. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Putting together combat-based trainers; I want discussion on combat trainers | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 18 2015, 02:26 AM (2,972 Views) | |
| Raksi | May 18 2015, 02:26 AM Post #1 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whilst running and playing PTU (and GMing PTA) I have discussed (argued) at length with another friend of mine (several friends, but mostly the one guy) multiple times on combat trainers in PTU. We usually use PTU at this point, for various reasons. Most of these fights boil down to my not always wanting to play Pokemon; I'm not in it to play Pokemon X: The Tabletop. Simulated league battles aren't what I'm interested in. I don't want my GM to organize a massive grindfest to catch 'em all, hit lv.100, defeat the Elite Four and then the Champion. I rarely want to play an ace trainer. I don't like their style. I prefer combat trainers who do things. I hope they have an interesting, engaging plot, and failing that, I want to at least be cloaked in elemental awesome. Several things, however, continuously bother me, and I question the ideas behind them. Trainers aren't allowed to have a type coverage, which wouldn't help them even if they could, they're fundamentally weaker than ace trainer Pokemon, of which any competent individual trainer will have several, combat trainers are statistically weaker than any Pokemon they're expected to fight to begin with, and most of the combat classes have no synergy at all. Elemental coverage not being helpful: Spoiler: click to toggle Trainers getting better bonuses: Spoiler: click to toggle Pokemon being stronger than combat trainers without their Ace Trainers Spoiler: click to toggle Combat classes not synergizing well: Spoiler: click to toggle That said, I really like PTU. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't care. A lot of effort has been put into this, for not a lot of reward that I've seen. Every once in a while, though, something jumps out at me and looks like someone didn't put much thought into it. To be fair, weapons as they are now are massively improved from what they most recently were. I'm looking for some discussion on these, though - I've noticed there are a lot of differing opinions on here from others and other people have different experiences. |
![]() |
|
| BatiroAtrain | May 18 2015, 03:12 AM Post #2 |
|
Pyramid King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Before I share my views, let me just say that your gripes are from wanting to play D&D instead of PTU. The central tenant of PTU combat is tactical decisions revolving around you, your Pokemon, and the synergy you provide with moves and feats. If you try to play as the one guy who foregoes Pokemon to punch everything, yes, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, and will likely not enjoy PTU as much as the Ace Trainers and Tricksters. It seems unfair, but I'm pretty sure it's part of the design philosophy - why play a Pokemon tabletop if you don't want to use Pokemon? I know you didn't say that you've taken to playing without Pokemon, but your first paragraph kind of implies that, so I did want to address that. On elemental coverage not being helpful: I don't remember the math off the top of my head, but I think the difference between speccing for Defenses versus HP was negligible in the last thread that talked about it. Sure, you might be able to survive another 3 points of damage, but that doesn't change 80% of battles in the long run. But regardless, I felt in previous iterations of PTU that SE damage did need a debuff, and I'm glad they got around to that; too many of my encounters in my games had ended much sooner than I would have liked due to SE damage, so I think reducing the multiplier was a good decision. That said, I'm a little confused at the problem you're stating. Yes, a combat trainer working in synergy with a Pokemon would be more troubling than a lone combat trainer, but that's the whole point of the system when each character can bring up to 6 potential partners into every combat. I also think you're overestimating the advantage of an Ace Trainer over a combat trainer; at most, the Ace Trainer's Pokemon might be a little higher level and have a custom move from Signature Technique, and some extra lasting power from features like Perseverance and the Ace Trainer's base feat. But conversely, a Combat Trainer would theoretically have more lasting power than the Ace himself, if they're taking on the same kind of combat. I feel, though, that staying alive in a fight has less to do with statistical advantages, and more to do with tactics and maneuvering. On Trainers getting better bonuses: That seems like a very specific nitpick, and I don't feel it's fair to use that one example to say Ace Trainers get all better bonuses than Combat Trainers. They're different slants to the same concept, sure, but I don't think there's a big power gap between them because AG's takes a Swift to use. On Pokemon being stronger than Trainers on average: Yes, Pokemon will pretty much always be superior to Trainers, especially at higher levels. What's the problem there? If humans were equal to Pokemon in power, there would be no point to using them. In a system based upon tactical combat with Pokemon, Pokemon being better is not a flaw, it's a design premise. If you're fighting a Trainer, use your fists, but if you're fighting a Pokemon, use a Pokemon. On Combat classes not synergizing well: Marksman has been talked about before, I don't really remember what the conclusions were about it since I'm kinda tired. I think Marksman and Arcanist are meant to be standalone classes that emphasize a very specialized playstyle; for Marksman it's kiting and pew-ing from range, for Arcanist it's Special Attacks with magic weapons and eclectic effects. It makes sense those playstyles wouldn't mesh well with more traditional classes. But overall I think skill deference between Eles and regular Combat classes is to encourage you to have a broader set of skills on your character, and maybe to avoid dipping. |
![]() |
|
| Giant2005 | May 18 2015, 03:26 AM Post #3 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think that the Fighting classes easily outperform Pokemon. By taking feats that improve stats and the stat bonus at levels 6,10,20,30 and 30; your Trainer is getting 2 stats per level whereas your Pokemon is only getting 1. Gear also plays a massive part of the equation considering Heavy Armor is basically the equivalent to 20 more stat points (!0 in both of the defenses) and exclusive to humans. If you are playing a Sci-Fi game, you could get Ablative Armor which is even more effective than Heavy Armor. I also think that the features available through Fighter classes beef up those Fighters in a far more noticeable way than the Trainer classes do to their Pokemon. A Berserker/Fortress with Heavy Armor and Heavy Shield would be running around with an absurd 38 Damage Reduction. Offensively they are better too. Add some Steelheart to the mix, take Signature Move and Type Expertise and suddenly you are spamming a DB 12 move that increases your attack combat stage on a 15+, each round. You also get all of the goodies like inflicting an extra tick of HP each hit from Steelheart and all of that extra gambler damage you get from being injured and a Berserker. If you really were hardcore on the gambling, you could be spamming Flail pretty comfortably as a DB 17 or 18 move - with all of that damage resistance, you don't really have to be too concerned about injuries. |
![]() |
|
| Immortal Dust | May 18 2015, 06:21 AM Post #4 |
|
Free Action Specialist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fighting classes have the potential to be very good. Example: I just designed a mook for a campaign - level 15, grabbing Athlete & Adrenaline Surge, Arcanist & Metamagic, Druid & Nature's Embrace I (for Mega Drain), and some Berserker Features. Slap a weapon on him that lets him use Mega Drain through it (honestly could have been done without Druid), swing with augments from Athlete (CS boost), Power Overdrive, Lessons in Rage & Pain, and a Special Attack type booster. He's getting +80 to damage on a DB4 (DB5 with weapon) and has a ton of HP, using an attack that recovers half HP. No defense (just armor), so he'll take injuries like crazy, but that's what Berserker is for. Giant2005 gave a good example going in the opposite direction. Trainers can tank like crazy with the right set up. I had a player in a campaign go Fortress/Skirmisher/Hunter/Steelheart. He only used Aegislash. He had Protect, King's Shield (Signature Move'd) and each Aegislash had Protect, King's Shield, and Wide Guard - usually Wideguard was boosted with a PP-Up. He'd tear things to pieces while tanking damage or outright ignoring it because he'd dedicate his pokemon's moves to protection. Weaponize is good. It's true that pokemon are going to outshine trainers in combat unless you optimize the trainer really heavily for combat. I don't think that's unreasonable, though. It's not like pokemon are splitting their effort to learn how to perform medical care or craft stuff. |
![]() |
|
| Sypher667 | May 18 2015, 10:16 AM Post #5 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My combat trainer was in 1.04, but mostly it was the class changes that hurt the build, not the nerf to SE damage. I forget the exact set of classes, but I had Hypnosis, Confuse Ray, the Powders, and Poison Touch. I didnt put on the hurt, I just disabled. My DM eventually created a special item to fight me (Essence of Lum Berry, Consume to remove all statuses and gain +3 to resist them for the rest of the encounter). With the new classes this would likely be a bit trickier, but playing a disabling trainer should still be more than viable. |
![]() |
|
| IronJelly | May 18 2015, 10:43 AM Post #6 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm reminded of my days in World of Warcraft. I met a particular fellow running a Hunter class. For those unfamiliar, a Hunter in World of Warcraft is a class that includes a pet mechanic. Back in the day, you would find hunters out looking for rare beasts of the world, taming them for combat use. This one person though, we had to boot from several group instances for the simple reason of not having a pet. Now, you might ask why that matters. And you're right to. The thing is, even though he was sure he knew his build, and thought he had reasons for not using one (and the hunter absolutely can build several ways that don't focus on the pet), it's still a significant part of his damage output. Even if all he does is tell it to sic the same target as him, the damage it did was almost like having another character in the group. He could not keep up with the rest of us without it. The same is true, I think, in Pokemon. Even in the manga and anime you rarely see people without a pokemon of their own. The combat classes are still built around synergy, with you getting into the fight WITH your pokemon at your side. Sure, maybe you're not a full-on trainer. You could even just have your one signature pokemon that fights with you, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment thinking you'd fight without one. As for doing other damage types, in my campaign, I have a Hex Maniac that is a tough contender in combat even when pokemon aren't involved, and a non-violent (protests pokemon battles) kid with some wicked social skills for more verbal combats. The options are there for some interesting roles if you are open to them. But, the beauty of a tabletop RPG is when you have a GM that doesn't see the rules as stone-cold laws to be enforced, but something mutable to the group's idea of fun. Perhaps ask your DM what you two can compromise on to make your character better. A session training fighting Hitmonlee at a fighting type gym might give your character some insight he didn't have before. A small pokemon partner on your person could help your fighting. Imagine a little buddy Magnemite that you affix to your shirt. It happens to love you, loves being up high, and seeing what you see. It also can now zap things as your fight, should it think you're threatened, defibrilate you if you die, make noise when it sees something important, and just act as an extra presence. |
![]() |
|
| Raksi | May 18 2015, 11:22 AM Post #7 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi, hello. I'll try again with a little context. I suppose this partly is that I want to play something more direct, but I enjoy PTU more than I ever liked D&D and Pathfinder, for basically everything. PTU has rules for a D&D-esque game, without the problem that one player will eventually exponentially outscale the rest of the party combined. I also do use Pokemon as a part of my trainers, mostly for thematic reasons and not combat ones. I legitimately always have a Ralts, and I kind of wish there was a reason to leave it as a Ralts sometimes. I usually GM a harsher Pokemon game. People run darker and edgier games in my group. Important trainers, over the course of about two and a half years, have just evolved to be really good ace trainers or really good combat trainers, with one Snagger and one antagonist being the exceptions (and because of how the latter nearly ended the game with a word, not because of her build.) I had a player in my game be a Steelheart and Battle Riding in 1.04 and he essentially hands down beat everyone else in a straight up fight because of it. He played a Steelheart straight with a Metang. He was a combat trainer that used Pokemon. Game of Throhs is my go-to book, but that's mostly because it has the greatest volume of combat classes, and I don't like Fighting as a type. I suppose if I were to refine my complaint, it would be that trainers have a lot of options compared to a soldier. A "soldier" picks up the obvious few choices (Fortress, Berserker, Skirmisher) and that's... basically all you can do with it. If it isn't Steelheart, Apparition, or Herald of Pride, it's not liable to work very well with those classes. An "ace" gets any four ace trainer type classes together and works, assuming you can get the stars to align on your skills - oh, most of them use command anyway. Even then, I just dislike how ace classes synergize easily between one another, and how most of the combat things really, really don't, or do so in counterintuitive ways. It's not that I think aces are fundamentally more powerful, balance wise, than soldiers Taskmaster is a good class. It stands on its own fairly well; you could take on some stuff way outside your weight class, if you're aware of the pitfalls that come with having half your health bar and being one injury away from fatality. Taskmaster gets better with actual Ace Trainer, for prolonged longevity and better access to stuff, and Enduring Soul, which further prolongs your Pokemon's life. Literally nothing is wasted in Enduring Soul and Ace Trainer for a character that is primarily a Taskmaster. You could get legitimately any stat ace, type ace, or auxiliary class to make it better, and you don't hurt your upper potential in doing so. You could even forsake Enduring Soul or Ace Trainer, and pick up Duelist. This is build freedom, to me. Four Aces, doesn't matter which, up to your playstyle. Berserker is a cool class. By itself, it's not quite as good as Taskmaster, but that's possibly because a Berserker on par with a Taskmaster 'mon would be able to fight a team of Pokemon if they were seriously injured, and there's nothing like loyalty to stop a player from running around with a half dead trainer at all times. It stacks up well with Fortress and Skirmisher, because they all share a skill (combat) and they all facilitate roughly the same thing; melee combat. You can't really do anything else. No freedom. While I will freely admit that Arcanist is pretty spectacular as a combined class, it's the only one, and features are wasted in it. We went over Marksman, but a lot of the elementalist classes don't go well with anything (other than the brilliantly designed Arcanist) because they can't combine their strengths with the other combat classes. Martial Artist revolves around making good use of Rock Smash (ROCK SMASH? Rock Smash.) and the few that do are wasting cool things about the class. It's cute that Steelheart and Herald of Pride trade combat for Athletics/Focus and Command/Intimidate but the only classes that accentuate their ability to hit things scale off of combat, so it's a moot point. The moves "Night Slash" and "Stone Edge" cannot be used with swords. You can't use a sword to use Night Slash. I dunno why the book that introduced Arcanists didn't have Thunder, Blizzard, or Fire Blast as an arcane move, but it seems like the logical next step, for me. Referring to Immortal Dust, Druid's Mega Drain should be castable through your weapon, and you should get your Arcanist bonus off of it. Adding it as a move means it doesn't get the DB increase, although it doesn't explicitly get the effect range either, I imagine not.
You spent $16500 on something that doesn't even do anything against what your character is weak against; Chip Away and vortexes. The balance of the game is smooth, though. Never let it be said I thought aces were out and out overpowered, or even stronger than the best combat trainer. |
![]() |
|
| castfromhp | May 18 2015, 11:57 AM Post #8 |
|
Mawile Ace
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All of our experiences with the system have actually led us to the conclusion that on the whole, combat Trainers are more powerful than Pokémon support Trainers. I'll lay out a few reasons for this and give a glimpse into how we see things and approach system design before getting to your points. And as a quick note, I noticed this thread went onto The gap between a PokéSupport Trainer's Pokémon and a Combat Trainer's Pokémon is going to be far smaller than the gap between the PokéSupport Trainer and the Combat Trainer themselves when it comes to fighting capability. A Martial Artist will have Pokémon that are worse than an Ace Trainer's, but they will still have a chance to win in a straight up fight, for example, while pitting those two Trainers alone against each other would result in a horribly one-sided beatdown. This discrepancy is by design, though it limits what we can do to balance the game, unfortunately. To explain, we want to make everyone capable of having fun using their Pokémon in a game that's about Pokémon without feeling like their Pokémon are completely sidelined or useless due to their Class and Feature choices. Adding to this, there is a mode of gameplay (League matches) where certain Classes (Trainer Combat Classes) cannot use their abilities. Of course, there are League rule variations which allow for full contact fights, but regardless the League experience is something a lot of PTU players want. This means that a Pokémon used by a Combat Trainer needs to remain competitive with one used by a PokéSupport Trainer, and that influences how powerful we can make effects such as Orders. To give a good example, Orders are USUALLY not as powerful on their own as a single Move, with exceptions being either very limited in frequency (Strike Again! is literally worth the value of an At-Will attack at priority speed but is Scene frequency only) or put behind very high prerequisites with no ability to use them in a "normal" League match (Focused Command). But let's talk about full contact fights because that's the main topic here and all Pokémon games WILL feature them (due to wild Pokémon at the very least, criminal teams, etc) whereas many PTU games don't feature a League at all. The upshot of all this is that as a unit, a Combat Trainer + their Pokémon is typically more powerful than a PokéSupport Trainer + their Pokémon. A Combat Trainer using Moves each turn typically outputs more value (damage or set up for potential damage) per Standard Action than a PokéSupport Trainer does with their Standard Actions using Orders. There are, of course, items like restoratives, pester balls, etc. which are usable in combat but are equally accessible to both Combat Trainers and PokéSupport Trainers and don't really factor into this discussion. Either way, a Martial Artist + their Pokémon beats up an Ace Trainer + their Pokémon any day of the week, easily. There are certain avenues that PokéSupport Trainers can take to try to better compete with Combat Trainers, but they are rather specific. In particular, Orders that affect multiple allies (such as Cheerleader's GFW, using Commander Features on your Orders, or just using Focused Command) increase the value of a PokéSupport Trainer's Standard Actions, but a large proportion of PokéSupport builds do not have access to these options. And they still do not necessarily compete well if you start looking to how you can spec Combat Trainers to hit multiple targets with Pass and AOE Moves. This isn't just theory crafting either. We've seen this bear out in many campaigns that we've been a part of or observed in our community since PTU's creation. It's something we intend to fix, of course, but I wanted to explain all of this to make it clear Combat Trainers really do NOT have a problem with being too weak or not worth taking. Now, to your specific points... 1. A 50% damage boost IS threatening. What it is not, however, is an instant death sentence, which is what we often observed in high level encounters where it was easy for both sides to exploit type advantage. Pokémon, even those built to be very tanky, went down far too easily with weakness multipliers the way they were before. Mathematically, 50% extra damage is still a huge boost and very much worth exploiting. We've played with the change enough to still be confident that type advantage is king in this system. Your point about taking out a Combat Trainer being more useful than taking out a PokéSupport Trainer unintentionally highlights another of my points. Action for action, a Combat Trainer is doing more in a fight than a PokéSupport Trainer. The fact that taking them out is more valuable is a demonstration of the balance issue I described. Just like PokéSupport Trainers though, a Combat Trainer can continue to "command" their Pokémon while they are down. "The only time a combat trainer would be a problem is if they were fighting in tandem with their own Pokemon against a single ace trainer with an emphasis on focusing the ace trainer down, which is essentially the same as two trainers ganging up on one guy." A better example to use here is what I described above. Even if the Ace had their own Pokémon, they would still lose to the Combat Trainer + their Pokémon. 2. You're stripping away a lot of the context behind why a Feature was written there. First of all, if you're a Fire Ace, your overall slate of offense is going to be rather limited compared to a less specialized Trainer. That's why the Classes are designed to mitigate that inherent disadvantage they have, as well as to cover weaknesses of those Types. Many Fire Types are forced into mixed BSR and need something like Incandescence to be competitive. It's a strong Feature, but what it mainly does is make harder to use Fire-Type Pokémon more viable. Using an action to set up Incandescence again every time your Pokémon is knocked out or you need to switch is also not negligible. Whereas for Aura Guardian...I'm baffled by your statement because you've listed some pretty great Moves and dismissed them as "[not] terribly threatening". Aura Sphere is the strongest no-miss Move in the game. Drain Punch is a hit point draining Move. A Priority Move is almost always useful to have. Etc. The strength of the Feature is also in choosing which Defensive Stat to hit and ignoring DR (which is VERY significant right now because of how overpowered stacking DR is), neither of which Incandescence can do. If you do want to keep both a Physical and a Special Fire Move on a Pokémon's list to take advantage of being able to hit both Stats equally, then you take a pretty big hit to your Pokémon's versatility in the process. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you can't do SE damage intentionally. Super-effective damage is almost always intentional. You can usually control who you hit in a fight and choose to use your Moves to hit those which have a weakness to your Moves. I say "usually" only because if I say "always" then someone will chime in about intercepts (not very action-efficient unless used by someone with Defender), Rage Powder and Follow Me, Attract, etc. Regardless, most of the time, you will be hitting who you want to hit. That's why resistance is okay being more powerful, because you can rarely choose to be hit by a NVE attack rather than an SE attack. Ally Switch can do it, sure, but you're very rarely going to be intentionally taking NVE hits. 3. High level Trainers have performed better than high level Pokémon in just about every case we've seen. The fact is that Trainers get a multitude of Features that synergize with their Ability and Move choices (and are tailor-designed to do so), are less likely to have filler/throwaway Abilities like many Pokémon do (again, because Classes are tailor-designed to be good while many Pokémon have frankly useless Moves or Abilities - Serene Grace Sawsbuck comes to mind), and can use more equipment than Pokémon can. They also cannot take SE damage, which more than offsets their inability to resist damage because, again, SE damage is done intentionally and NVE occurs only when intercepts or Ally Switch happens, or when someone just doesn't have a better attack to use at the time. In other words, it's rather rare in comparison. There are also a few factual errors with what you've said here: "I don't know how, since apparently the weapon classes are supposed to rely purely on normal typed struggle attacks" Weapons now have their own slate of Moves, which begin on page 288. It's actually a problem right now that a starting Level 1 Combat Trainer can go ahead and pick up a means to use the Adept Weapon Moves and be much better than a Pokémon they'd have at that level for quite a while. Anyway, Moves like Slice and Riposte can go as high as DB 12 or 14 when you add in the bonus to DB from weapons. "Additionally, trainers get less health than Pokemon per level" This is the Pokémon HP formula: Pokémon Level + (HP x3) + 10 This is the Trainer HP formula: Trainer’s Level x 2 + (HP x 3) +10 As you can see, there's a pretty crucial difference there - Trainers get double the Hit Points per level compared to Pokémon. The reason is that for most of the campaign (past the beginning portion, and before the end game), Pokémon will roughly be twice the level of Trainers, making them have about equal Hit Points here. That said, in practice that ratio is not maintained and it later becomes something more like 1.5 Pokémon levels per Trainer level, skewing the calculations towards Trainers. Something else to keep in mind here is, like others have said, Combat Trainers aren't meant to replace Pokémon. They will use Pokémon as well and be able to use them to cover their own weaknesses. 4. PokéSupport Classes suffer from a lack of synergy as well if you care to look for examples. You can't combine Taskmaster, Duelist, or Rider due to requirements of using certain Training Features on your Pokémon to activate the Base Feature (without also dipping into Ace for Elite Trainer). Multiple Type Aces in a build is a bad idea usually and will result in your Features only affecting a portion of your team. Juggler/Duelist should never be combined. Etc. Yes, certain Combat Classes like Marksman have a lack of synergy. We're aware of this. However, then you have examples such as how Technician Martial Artist is a fantastic dip for almost any Combat Trainer, Dancer is designed to be complementary to combat builds, Hunter supplements any melee fighter incredibly well, Tumbler also makes getting in and out of melee much safer, etc. On the whole, Combat Classes are a lot easier to make synergize with each other than PokéSupport Classes because the latter often have a specific gimmick or subsystem (like Taskmaster's Hardened, or Duelist's Momentum) that needs to work on its own and is hard to make Features in other Classes interact with, whereas Combat Classes have certain things they will be definitely doing that are easy to play with for synergies (attacking, benefitting from combat stages, needing to move around the battlefield, etc). That all said, I'm happy you're enjoying PTU, and I hope this gives you some insight into both how we've been viewing balance in the system and how we approach game design in PTU. Edited by castfromhp, May 18 2015, 12:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affinity of Denial | May 18 2015, 12:06 PM Post #9 |
|
The last Chef
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why do you make it sound as though you want to have a combat character that focuses on melee combat to be better than a trainer with a team full of pokemon? I can understand wanting to dip into combat yourself to assist your pokemon in a fight. But soloing pokemon as a human can and should be the death of you if you go around swinging nothing but a sword all the time. Ace trainers and their classes are designed around being ale to mesh well with each other, while the combat classes might not get enough "Freedom" like you say, you also listed off quite a few classes that can work to what you want. Besides, a trainer only combat character is a niche idea and will have it's limits anyway. Lastly, Of course damage Reduction does not work against Chip Away or vortex. Damage over time such as Leech life, Burn, Poison, or votex obviously skirt around it, and Chip Away was created with the purpose of helping you get around a wall. Why bring those up? Damage reduction is not a be all end all thing, it has it's limits. |
![]() |
|
| NachtSieger | May 18 2015, 12:22 PM Post #10 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Page 202, Core:
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pokemon: Tabletop United · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
1:21 AM Jul 11
|
Pokéball created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




1:21 AM Jul 11