If you need food to be defined for you, you must lead a very tough life.
If you need to keep dodging so simple a question you obviously don't have an answer.
I displayed earlier in this thread using a common definition for food that it should function. No doubt the nutritional value would be greatly reduced and morale penalties/nausea checks would be suffered but no reason it should not work.
Situation : An apple falls into the sewer. You retrieve the apple from the sewage, you cast 'Purify Food and Water' on it. Does it remove the sewage? If yes, then sewage is not food, and it purifies the apple to remove the sewage. If no, then sewage is food, and you get an apple with sewage on it at the end.
Now, I don't think anyone wants to argue that removing sewage from bread, apple, cheese, etc is not what the spell does (the wording indicates it can remove adulterations, which sewage would be), ergo, the sewage is not a valid target of the spell to purify into food, not being food.
*shrug* I'd say it removes all the unhealthy aspects of sewage but your bread is still soggy with purified sewage water and any edible/non disease causing solids that got caught on it in the sewage.
A build that is weak a few levels in, is not necessarily weak after a few more levels. Some people demand your character be strong and capable now now now! Well, it might take some time.
It reminds me of the old cleric/monk in neverwinter nights, that was rubbish at level 2, but very strong at high levels. Consider it character development, do what you wish and tell them you have taken their comments on-board, but that you are sticking with it.
People sure do like to complain about other people's characters. This is unfortunate, but it is their fault, not yours.
While I agree with you 3.5 that a late bloomer type character is fine to play I disagree with your assessment that the OP's character is going to bloom later. His plan indicates him taking 3 levels of monk at that point he's pretty much killed any potential of becoming a competent on par spell caster for his level and his combat ability isn't stellar either.
And honestly I disagree that you're going to have fun if you constantly try to play against the group of people you're with. In my experience the more you push against them the less they're going to enjoy having you playing and the more passive aggressive stuff is going to leak into the game.
IMHO, he's probably best of going with all Monk from now on out.
He can already freely access divine wands (up to 3rd level) and for scrolls he could pick up some Caster Level boosts to help if he wanted (those help his own slots as well).
Otherwise, Monk is better for skills to leverage the Knowledge stuff (or anything else) and not delaying progression in Monk abilities seems a good idea given up to 3rd level spells can be accessed by wand/scroll. The only other revelation I really think he might like would be "Think On It" (re-roll with +10, 1/day), but he can take that via Feat if he wants. Otherwise, he's just trying to do a Monk build, with CHA substituting for DEX (except for Ranged and AoOs and CMD) but otherwise similar stat build to the norm (not min-maxed out, but definitely the norm IMHO). Is there a Monk Guide, because I don't see any more special advice needed. I already wrote that Weapon Focus is a better idea than Power Attack, esp. at lowest levels.
This is an option but monks already have to be pretty well built to stay competitive and using up a level and a feat on non combat relevant stuff isn't going to help. Had he picked a different oracle mystery I might say go pure oracle because you're only down one level of spellcasting which hurts but doesn't kill you, but I don't really remember seeing anything in lore that felt like I needed to have it either. But yeah pretty much the best way to turn this into a functional character would be by making one of the classes a small dip and going full on in the other one.
I do, in fact, love to think that, thank you. Although with threads like this, it's not hard to feel like the only person with common sense ;).
And it's all about what the spell is intended to do. Create water is intended to make water out of thin air. You can't use it to, say, create orange juice out of thin air, even if orange juice has water in it. Or, say, seltzer water. No, the intention is to create water. So for Purify Food and Drink, the intention is to take food that has been poisoned (ala Snow White), diseased (like fire blight), spoiled, rotten, or contaminated. Fecal matter is neither of those things. It's processed organic material that nowhere near resembles what it originally looked like in either looks or make-up. It isn't spoiled by expiration or by disease (bacteria =/ disease), and it's not contaminated. It's been completely transformed into something not food. In fact, I'd say that by definition, poop itself IS the contaminant. So I feel that turning fecal matter and compost into food is not the intention for this spell. In fact, I'd hazard to say that if food was rotten to the point of just being topsoil and fertilizer, you couldn't do it. It is beyond the intention of this spell, much like making orange juice from Create Water is beyond the intention of this spell. If...
Except you're quite wrong.
Yes bacteria =/= disease however many bacteria are disease causing, by your logic the spell wouldn't remove disease causing bacteria just the disease itself.
Fecal matter itself isn't harmful to the human. Considering it a contaminant is just incorrect. There are however things within fecal matter which are harmful, one could say it is contaminated by those things. Furthermore feces is not completely devoid of nutritional value after all the human body is not a perfect system.
As for poop not looking like food, pray tell does that fake soymeat look anything like soy beans? No of course not. And yet I think had we been talking about rotting ground soymeat in a very late state of decay you would be perfectly fine with it. Appearance does not define food this is a simple fact.
Lastly according to Google's definition search Food is: Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
Now do animals eat poop for nutritional reasons? Yes. Do humans? Generally not. Does human poop have nutritional value and is absorbed by plants, yes. What is the primary reason humans do not eat their own poop, because it has a high potential of having harmful elements like bacteria or viruses inside of it. Would Purify Food/Water remove such harmful elements in anything that you believe is food? Yes.
I think you're just getting caught up on poop=/=food because you assume that that is true but I think on a logical level there is absolutely no reason this shouldn't work.
Really? Are we really going there? Is eating s+#@ to twist a 0 level spell beyond its scope so important that we have to get into the semantics of what food is? Given these forums, I can't say I'm surprised. I'm just disappointed and honestly glad my players aren't like this.
I thought the "you can't sneak attack while using Stealth" people were nuts. But good to see that once you hit rock bottom, the forums show you something even lower.
Uhhhhh I know you love thinking your logic makes all the senses but given that a 0th level spell can create water out of thin air I'm inclined to believe it can turn poop into food.
I'd say yes, mostly because if you use it on a apple in a late stage of decomposition it doesn't give you back only part of an apple. Poop is just contaminated/rotted foodstuff.
But I'd also say it tastes awful so you need to take Fort. Saves of 10 or be nauseated for each day you stomach the stuff where it goes up by 1 per day you eat only it and -2 per day you have not eaten. That's just because I think it would be fun though.
And?
It is not a campaign, there is no story continuity pushing him in keeping the same character.
He used several different inquisitors. Then he used a different second level character. Tomorrow, if he wishes, he can start a new first level character and level it up to replace the monk/oracle.
From what I see people have several different tiers character and characters with a different set of abilities, so there is nothing forcing him to use this character if it under-perform at level 7 or at level 10.
At the current level it work. In future? Well, it is PFS, so he can use a different character every time he sit to play and no one has the right to complain as long as he has the appropriate level.
Just because there's nothing forcing him to play the character doesn't mean he won't play it even if it is underperforming not everyone likes to chuck characters in and out of a bin on a whim, they get attached to them.
Furthermore while you do have the right to bring anything to the table, the fact remains that everyone has the right to complain about anything of their choosing. That's how the freedom of speech works. If they want to complain about your character you have two choices either you acknowledge their complaints and prove how their fears aren't the case and that you will be helpful throughout all levels of the game, or you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the problem. Well there's also technically choice three which is cease playing with these people. Out of all of those choices the only one which actually stops them from complaining and lets you continue to play with them is the first whether you like it or not that's just how it is.
And I would say that if the OP's generalist actually contributed to the negative performance of other player's specialists, then they might have a viable gripe.
But, based on the report (and, given that's all we have to go on, coupled with the assumption of good faith on the part of OP), the other player's griping about his generalist? They're just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context, their hatred of a generalist is completely irrational.
His play experience is actually proof that allegations that generalists are useless are hogwash, and that any general hatred that exists towards them is equally irrational.
I stand by my statement that the OP has not in fact made a generalist. He has however made a messy mishmash. At level 2 it works but maybe the other players aren't looking at his performance this session they're considering "What if I'm stuck with this guy going forwards at level 5 or 8 or 10 is he still going to be helpful or is he going to suck?"
And frankly the OP's character cannot function as a generalist. At level 4 he has the spell casting of a level 1 oracle(or say a level 4 paladin) the melee ability of a 3rd level monk(because the oracle doesn't help at all with this), no ranged capacity, and a decent ability at skills. What he made was a monk/skill monkey with a dip into oracle and frankly that doesn't fill me with confidence because oracles are often a not great dip.
Had he come to the table and said I'm playing an Arcane Duelist switch hitting dervish dancer/archer Bard I'd be confused and afraid he was maybe biting off more than he could chew but he'd definitely be a generalist and he'd still be helping the party a bunch by virtue of dropping group wide bard buffs while doing everything else he does. What is this character doing to help his friends maybe throwing out a bless spell 2 times per day if he picked bless at a cl of 1.
Have to agree with the previous posters that your party badly needed more frontline presence and if you don't think an inquisitor can be a front liner all I have to say is whaaaaa?
Medium armor, decent hit die, more than enough skills to dump fav class bonuses into hp, decent weapons(w/ the right deity), built in combat buffs via judgement and bane, along with decent spell casting options all smack of front line potential. Are they the best at fisticuffs ever? No but you don't need the best to be a good front liner it's about having extra bodies up there that can do the job well.
But more importantly what possessed you to mix and match 1 level of 2 3/4 BAB classes? That means at level 2 you have BAB 0 still and get -2 to hit for flurrying so you swing twice at +1/+1 to hit for 1d6+3 damage even against low AC creatures your damage will be middling to poor much less against anything with a half decent AC.
You're going to have negligible spell casting ability and your to hit bonus is always going to 1 point behind even a 3/4 BAB class. Your AC is going to be maybe on par with the group if you're lucky but you can't wear armor and get the monk bonus and yet the monk bonus is going to go up much less quickly since you're multiclassing and you're going to have a small ki pool to since you don't really have a focus in Wis. Frankly I don't see the point.
Monk - Master of Many Styles 2 levels. Cheating for feats is worth it.
Rogue - 1 level if I need trapfinding and hate the Ranger for whatever reason.
Fighter - I just find them boring usually, the dip is for extra feats and access to dueling gloves no more than 3-5 levels to get armor and weapon training.(3 if Weapon Master) Also of use to get Armor/Weapon proficiencies and what not if going for Eldritch Knight or the like.
or for that matter firing a bow that many times(draw an arrow pull back the bow, release, repeat)
Drawing arrows is defined as a non-action. It is simply part of the attack.
As a GM, I would not permit that many free actions.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
From the PRD.
Really???
PRD wrote:
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
Drawing =/= nocking. Nocking an arrow is the equivalent to loading a crossbow it assumes you have the ammunition in hand.
Edit: So the real question is would you allow someone with a crossbow to fire 3 or more times in a round with the right feats? 1 free to draw 1, free to load and then fire per shot.
It sounds to me like the issue is in regards to Spell Storing weapons being potentially abused more than anything else. Personally, I see no problem w/ a character w/ Quick Draw using multiple daggers (typically to be thrown, not dropped after stabbing), but the fact that four castings of Inflict Serious could be used a round is somewhat disturbing (from a game balance perspective).
Can the PC do this more than once a day (or even once every four days)? What spells is he putting in the daggers? Can he actually hit consistently enough to make use of this tactic? These are questions I would want answered before making a ruling as a GM, but at the very least I would have a conversation w/ the player about the meaning of game balance, etc.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the other players and the GM love to amp up the damage/munchkining, so perhaps this is an attempt to keep up w/ the rest of the table.
Generally I'd agree about the balance, but it still costs the character 4 +2 weapons and 4 level appropriate spells. Sure it give him a nova option but a DM who sees this as a problem probably thinks that any class that can deal huge damage once or twice per day is OP.
Uh RAW I'd say yes you can CDG for non lethal damage however since CDG doesn't specify that when you take the fort save it's only lethal damage that applies you'd have to take the fort save vs the damage dealt with the non lethal anyways so chances of not killing your target are still low.
EDIT: Although a case could be made for nonlethal damage not being true damage for the purposes of the save thus reducing it to only a DC10 fort save for each hit although that could still result in death.
Casters who can fight consist of the Bard, the Inquisitor, the Oracle, the Cleric, the aforementioned Magus, the Alchemist, and the Druid.
Eh spontaneous casting is great if you want to be smart about your spell choice one time then coast on those options for the rest of the game, prepared spell casting is superior if your DM is terrible and telegraphs every single encounter or if you have shorter work days where having 1 of every spell you need will be able to carry you through encounters.
I've always found the familiar as a result of eldritch heritage to be a waste unless it's there for a theme.
As an aside I can't imagine anyone who actually reads through the Bard entry with an inkling of knowledge of the rules being able to think they are anything short of great. Enough skills to push the Rogue out of his tiny niche, a great built in buff in the form of inspire, a spell list that has better buffs per capita/level than any other and a solid set of debuffs, the only place where bards are lacking is in the offensive spells/utility spells area and even then they have some options. And since the bard has so many group wide buffs he's perfectly good as a secondary frontliner or archer if he uses his feats wisely.
I'm sure my GM would but this was a question for a friend and I don't know his GM
I would personally see it as no different than allowing gunslingers full attacks with firearms...since dropping and drawing a dagger takes a lot less RL time to do than fully reload and shoot
Agreed not to mention I'd say it's no worse than letting your player throw that many daggers, or for that matter firing a bow that many times(draw an arrow pull back the bow, release, repeat)
Several rules were off putting few of them seemed to actually address the martial/caster disparity although the monk/rogue full bab thing certainly doesn't hurt and the rod thing is mildly purposeful(although this does certainly raise the question of what do you expect casters to be spending their money on?) And the full price sale of goods thing didn't really make sense to me.
Personally I'd say the keys are to give all martials 2 good saves because frankly they need them more.
Then give everyone access to some form of pounce like ability I don't know how I'd do it without making pounce itself irrelevant but maybe something like this:
Whenever you get an additional iterative attack as a result of your BAB you gain the ability to make a single move and attack as though using a full attack(of only BAB/iterative attacks excluding any additional attacks as those gained from twf, haste or any similar effects) with all of your attacks at a -2 to hit penalty, as a full round action.
Frankly I've always felt that metamagics in general kind of suck.
I've definitely had the odd occurrence where I was like well wouldn't it be nifty if I could cast 2 spells per round or didn't have to talk while casting etc but rarely have I thought oh man adding magic missile this round is totally worth burning up a 5th level spell slot in addition to the feat I wasted to get access to this.
It's small wonder that the metamagic rods are so popular when the feats are so bad in comparison.
Some of them kind of suck, I've never been a huge fan of Bouncing or Widen for example. Some of them, like Persistent, Intensify, or Selective are just awesome. Doubly so if you take into account some classes / feats that allow a metamagic to be applied for less than it's normal spell-slot level modification.
Eh I can vaguely see the use for Intensify, I still find persistent to be annoyingly misnamed but is okay but both of these are only useful for save or dies really and you may as well just be using the higher level spell slot on a better save or die/suck most of the time.
As for selective I guess it could maybe be useful but it's only barely worth a higher level spell slot.
Frankly I've always felt that metamagics in general kind of suck.
I've definitely had the odd occurrence where I was like well wouldn't it be nifty if I could cast 2 spells per round or didn't have to talk while casting etc but rarely have I thought oh man adding magic missile this round is totally worth burning up a 5th level spell slot in addition to the feat I wasted to get access to this.
It's small wonder that the metamagic rods are so popular when the feats are so bad in comparison.
I like Prayer more but Bless is great at the level you get it. Enlarge I don't really like even though it's a mystery spell just because it's a 1 round spells Shield of Faith will usually outpace your ring bonus but I don't usually feel like it's a good investment or resources given the duration and the loss of a standard to use it.
I don't know if they're pfs legal but Gozreh's Trident is great to give you an option against people with an AC too high to get past, and Burning Disarm is a pretty good one too as a source of free damage or the enemy drops a weapon.
So, how many archetypes have been proven to be "OK"?? it would be very nice If there is a way to make a good use of 50% of them.
Well the thing is we've proven you can make an OK monk using the core setup which is good albeit we've proven OK not great but that's besides the fact.
The issue here is which archetypes give you something actually desirable instead of trading a bunch of crap features like slow fall for equally or more crap features.
To that end Qinggong is probably the best archetype, in that nobody should ever not tack it on in addition to whatever else they have to trade off some of the dross for a shiny ability to cast barkskin.
In addition to that drunken master gives us infinite ki that's not too bad to have.
Martial Artist gets some decent stuff and frees up alignment so you don't have to be lawful boring.
Maneuver Master is okay in an all humanoid game I guess, likewise with Tetori(although this one is better in general).
Zen Archer and Sohei, and maybe Weapon Adept are good but don't look like/feel like Monks for some people.
Speaking of feats, do you know of any that add bonuses to an attack at the end of a charge?
There was one in 3.5 I believe (specifically meant for Monks, it had lessened prereqs for Monks I think), but not in Pathfinder that I know of.
And I think it was 3rd Party too.
Also, the MoMS giving up Flurry IS a bit of a hit to straight damage, yeah. I have mine set up (with a Brawler dip) to deal solid damage with a single hit (+18 to-hit/+25 damage on 1st, +13/+22 on second) and it depresses me that my DPR is only around 30-ish.
Though that doesn't factor in possible extra hits from Snake Fang (up to 3) and Panther Style (up to 4) at +16/+25, which'd probably situationally bring it up higher.
Still it's hella FUN.
Though in my rebuild I'm considering giving up Panther Style for Hamatula Strike because impaling people on my arm sounds sweet.
Just not sure if it'd be a trap coming in at level 9. If I went Monk 5/Brawler 4 instead of 6/3 I could get Greater Grapple and Hamatula Grasp in there too pretty easily which sounds like it may or may not be better.
Would that raise or drop DPR, I wonder? What's the average CMD at level 9+?
For monsters or Class leveled humanoids? I've generally found that any melee style character I'm playing tends to be somewhere between 26 and 30 at around those levels.
If an encounter is lasting 15 rounds something has taken a turn for the boring and tedious.
It may be. Or it may not. It depends on the situation
** spoiler omitted **
This. Also there is such a thing as having more than one important encounter per day. I mean not in all groups certainly but some DMs won't just let you nova and then throw you softball fights for the rest of the day.
No? You post a paladin. Try to make one that is worse than a monk without dumping strength or cha.
Worse? Seems a stupid goal with silly criteria, but ok
Because that's the nice thing to do? The upside is I still prefer the paladins class features to the monk. Only bad thing about a paladin is its code of conduct.
Edit: that paladin hits more often and has more BAB than the monk. He also happens to be immune to several effects, has at least okay saves, and can bypass DR by not liking someone. He also has litany of righteousness and can still help the party with spells and his detect evil.
I am not crazy awesome at math or anything, but doesn't a monks extra attacks technically mean they hit about the same amount as other martials, despite missing more often due to slightly lower bab? I mean are we just assuming the hit less because of their attack bonus but not taking into account their greater number of attacks?
Yeah mostly, but the issue really comes to a head against things with very high AC's or DR where putting out more attacks at a lower bonus can start to hurt you A monk landing 5 hits at 15 damage per hit does 75 damage in a round a Barbarian landing 2 for 32.5 does the same but the monk loses 50 to DR 10/- while the Barbarian would lose 20 that's really the killer point for monks which is why they ought to have better ways to bypass DR in general I think.
So... why has nobody pointed out to Marthkus that a monk gets pounce too?
In the form of Tiger Pounce. The "pounce" isn't as far as a charge, but on the other hand it is much more versatile about what you can do in conjunction with the "pounce" (other than moving around corners).
Mostly because it's a 4 feat investment none of which can be taken as monk bonus feats and it's not true pounce if you face anything with move above 30 it doesn't work and it doesn't work in the first round, or against any new creature. It's more like pounce-light it's still good but has it's own penalties.
EDIT: Because you asked for it again even though it was on page 16 here was my barbarian build from page 16 again
Bob the Barbarian revenge of Bob:
Bob - Race Human Class Barbarian no archetype although he was originally a invuln. rager and would do better as such.
Base stats - Str 22(+2 race +2 levels+2 enh), Dex 12, Con 18(+2 enh.), Int 10, Wis 14(+2 enh.), Cha 7. Raging 26, 12, 24, 10, 14, 7.
Feats in order from 1 to 9 - Power Attack, Furious Focus(Bonus), Raging Vitality, Extra Rage Power(Animal Fury), Extra Rage Power Superstitious, Improved Critical(Falchion).
Rage Powers - Lesser Beast totem 2x claws, Animal Fury 1 1d4 bite, Superstition +4 morale bonus to saves vs spells Su abilities or SLAs, Reckless Abandon, Ghost Rager, Greater Beast Totem.
Items - Jingasa of Fortunate soldier, Dust Rose Ioun Stone, +1 Ring of Prot., +1 Amulet of Nat. Armor, Belt of Physical Might(Str,Con), Feather Step Slippers, Headband of Wis +2, Cloak of Resistance +2, +6k extra I think.
To hit is at +21,+16 for the Falchion, +13 Bite, +13,+13 Claws.
Damage per hit should be 2d4+15 , 1d4+4, 1d6+8/1d6+8
Power attack can go -3/+9 on top of that if you like, Crits on a 15+, and Reckless abandon can go +3 hit/-3 AC if you need to.
HP is Hovering around 150 while raging
AC however is only at 25 and can go as low as 20 if he takes all the penalties from rage and Reckless Abandon which is his real weak point.
Saves while raging hover around - Fort 16, Ref 6, Will 9 with them going up to 20,10,11 against spells.
I don't think bard can be as combat effective as a monk, and I don't think a barb can't be as versatile as a monk.
Prove me wrong.
Inspire courage
skills
spells
EDIT: Since you picked the bard, you chose the latter two options, comparing the monk against the bard and fullcasters for both versatility in combat and utility out of combat. The bard is also a good party face.
My build is up, I hit 89 DPR 10 time a day with 22 AC (26 100 minutes a day) at 10th level. I am immune to all disease and poison, have all good saves, move 60 per, have spring attack, 5 skill points a level, no ACP, and improved evasion and 70 hit points.
You can do either bard or barbarian (I said Barb, not Bard in the 2nd part) or both.
My Barbarian build does most of those things Round the same AC if he chooses not to take penalties to it, (A +20 to your fort save is pretty darn close to immune to poison and disease no?)
He has an ACP although I had 6k laying around at the end which I could have used to mithral his bp and negate it I think he had 1 less skill point per level, iirc moves 40(you win here but he's much more effective if he can pounce than your normal move and even on a normal move he still puts out more hurt), no improved evasion but he does have improved uncanny dodge, trap sense +3 which blows, similar level of saves I think and double your hp, oh and dr 2/- which is mediocre but adds up. He also suffers no penalty for fighting incorporeal creatures in terms of his damage.
And I think I have one less rage power on him than I was supposed to ...
The Dragon Style Chain is pretty sweet. Let me swap out spring attack and Combat maneuver Defense in the earlier build for Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity.
So I lose spring attack, but I gain the ability to charge through allies and difficult terrain, in addition to +6.5 damage per attack (3 from dragon, 3.5 from elemental fist). And as always, please check my math.
Original Build. All attack numbers are the same, damage goes up by 3 (1/2 strength).
Regular flurry: 49.68
Ki Flurry: 64.8
Ki/Haste/Flurry: 79.9 (10 times a day)
I also have been doing power attack wrong, so ignore those numbers on previous builds (I told you to check my math...) This is without power attack, and actually looking at it, power attack isn't that great and I might swap that out as well...in fact, take out power attack, take Dragon Style at 5, dragon ferocity at 9 and I get to keep spring attack :)
I assume haste is from boots of speed?
Generally I don't buy them since haste is one of the best buffs relative to spell level as it hits the whole party more or less and lasts a decent amount at the level you get it and as a result it's not unreasonable to expect an arcane caster to have picked it which would be more cost effective(not to mention you could just all pitch in a share of money for a pearl of power of the right spell level if the caster was really a butt about it and still come out ahead.)
But if we start to include haste in general you'll see that it heavily favors the conventional classes running TH builds off the top of my head it added around 39-40 dpr to the barbarian I posted earlier. Which probably makes me an idiot for not buying boots of speed I guess XD.
Rearranged and changed some stuff. Don't really NEED more than a 15 Dex except for AC reasons.
Let's try and run the numbers on it now, tell me if I'm doing this wrong.
Two-Weapon Fighting DPR:
H 1st set Chance to hit (AC 24): 75%
H 2nd set chance to hit: 54%
H 3rd set chance to hit: 33%
D Average Damage: 11.5
S Precision damage: N/A
T Chance to threat: 25%
C Crit damage multiplier: x2
hd+tchd
12.94 x2
9.32 x2
5.7
So, 50.22 DPR normally? That's a pretty big hike up from before if this math is correct.
Now, with the strongest favored enemy, that's +6 to-hit/damage on every swing, so let's see there.
So.
Two-Weapon Fighting with Favored Enemy DPR:
Kukri +24/+24/+19/+19/+14 (1d4+15, 15-20/x2)
H 1st set Chance to hit (AC 24): 100%
H 2nd set chance to hit: 79%
H 3rd set chance to hit: 58%
D Average Damage: 17.5
S Precision damage: N/A
T Chance to threat: 25%
C Crit...
Well I think your math is right except the highest possible hit % is 95 since a 1 always misses.
Also yes str focus does do alot of work particularly for a ranger since he has almost no penalty from focusing it heavier armor covers his AC mostly and he can cheat to get the feats out of the combat style it's one of the reasons a Ranger is generally considered the best two weapon fighter.
Of course! All I need is extra 40-point buy and double WBL! Maybe a few templates too!
Anything can be awesome at anything with enough resources invested.
But like I said, those resources are not always available. And sadly, Monks usually need considerably more than they can be reasonably expected to have access to.
Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.
You should go back and look at what has been produced so far with a 20 pt build and WBL.
Some of it is good some is not, options are limited most of those builds have no choice but to go dragon style and rely on spamming ki attacks most of which are capped at 10x per day not a negligible amount but is still a fairly limited resource and worth keeping an eye on particularly when you're sharing it for qinggong abilities or AC.
In particular the dragon style power curve is somewhat wonky but most of the monk builds have a few bad mid levels from 2-5 where their money is too low to pick up their items and they don't seem to get much in the way of bonuses out of leveling. Are they as bad as I thought? No. Are they still quite limited in viable build routes? Yes.
Also if you can run a dpr on the barb I posted on page 16 I'd like to know how that build did in comparison also dpr vs DR targets is still something I'd like to see for all the builds if anyone knows how to run it.
Bob - Race Human Class Barbarian no archetype although he was originally a invuln. rager and would do better as such.
Base stats - Str 22(+2 race +2 levels+2 enh), Dex 12, Con 18(+2 enh.), Int 10, Wis 14(+2 enh.), Cha 7. Raging 26, 12, 24, 10, 14, 7.
Feats in order from 1 to 9 - Power Attack, Furious Focus(Bonus), Raging Vitality, Extra Rage Power(Animal Fury), Extra Rage Power Superstitious, Improved Critical(Falchion).
Rage Powers - Lesser Beast totem 2x claws, Animal Fury 1 1d4 bite, Superstition +4 morale bonus to saves vs spells Su abilities or SLAs, Reckless Abandon, Ghost Rager, Greater Beast Totem.
Items - Jingasa of Fortunate soldier, Dust Rose Ioun Stone, +1 Ring of Prot., +1 Amulet of Nat. Armor, Belt of Physical Might(Str,Con), Feather Step Slippers, Headband of Wis +2, Cloak of Resistance +2, +6k extra I think.
To hit is at +21,+16 for the Falchion, +13 Bite, +13,+13 Claws.
Damage per hit should be 2d4+15 , 1d4+4, 1d6+8/1d6+8
Power attack can go -3/+6 on top of that if you like, Crits on a 15+, and Reckless abandon can go +3 hit/-3 AC if you need to.
HP is Hovering around 150 while raging
AC however is only at 25 and can go as low as 20 if he takes all the penalties from rage and Reckless Abandon which is his real weak point.
Saves while raging hover around - Fort 16, Ref 6, Will 9 with them going up to 20,10,11 against spells.
This is the start of the archive, we might end up doing a contest in another thread. There's a lot of level 8 and 10 monks, so I'll list both.
I took some time off to enjoy a day at the zoo while this thread simmered. I can't afford to get too obsessive 8P
That said:
** spoiler omitted **...
Does good damage but it's AC is very low for it's level. Even after buffs it's poor for it's level and I assume one of the +4s you're counting to his AC is the one round per ki point dodge bonus but frankly it's so mediocre verging on bad of a ki point usage that I wouldn't count it personally.
Hp is somewhat low (personally I think 9-10/lvl is ideal for a front liner).
And while his damage is okay he loses access to a +1 to hit and Damage if he's within 10 feet of any allies which is certainly not ideal for someone who's trying to flank or hold a passageway or something like that.
@wraithstrike (and whoever else does actual analysis)
I think my submission does fairly well for an unarchetyped monk.
Decent level 1 is always good 15 AC and 13 hp is in line.
Action economy on drinking potions isn't great but since it's the equivalent of just having fobbed off slow fall for barkskin as a qinggong I'll ignore that. AC is okay not great although if you could stack all the buffs on it's in line with your level. DPR is a little on the low side but your damage per hit is high enough to have a good option when fighting things with DR and the twohand strike from tiger style does give you a good option if you're really having issues with DR.
Tiger pounce gives you decent sticking(although no option against flight, ddoor, or similar non withdraw actions. You have relatively low ki points compared to other builds thus far so using the extra ki attack is going to be something you're very thrift with particularly if you had the qinggong barkskin taking up 2 ki points a day.
Overall not bad, but at the same time not really awe inspiring. Probably the best unarmed monk I've seen in the thread thus far but ideally someone with more experience with monks could fact check it to make sure everything adds up.
Edit: My biggest issue would be from levels 2-5 or so he's going to be a little too easy to hit since most of your core AC items are relatively expensive compared to buying armor.
Agreed with DM Blake and Kayerloth I think if he was involved in the adventure for a session or two and wasn't there just for the conclusion he should get a boon if not tough luck. But at the end of the day it's always your call.
I've participated in these threads over and over and tried (though I'll admit boorishly and failing) to defend monks. Here's my question. To the monk haters... what are you guys trying to get out of flaw picking Monks? The end result being no one ever plays Monks again? All your rage will make Paizo change Monks even though they were built in 3.5 this way, possibly giving an automatic 18 in STR and WIS? Are people ranting just to rant? I don't know what the masses are hoping to gain other than trolling on a weak class. Enlighten me. I've pointed out Monk's strong points, which were undermined and I got "other classes have those too so Monk sucks." and "they have nothing original and specific to themselves, which makes them worse than the other classes."
What change(s) can anyone make to build them up? Put a solution to all these problems.
If we can convince the community the Monk is a weak core class what will happen? The community will express their displeasure with a crappy class, the likely end result is that paizo will look at that displeasure and consider "Hey maybe if we release a book called Monastic Awesomepossumness, consisting of a series of feats, items, archetypes(replacing the abilities everyone knows sucks on the monk), and enhancement bonus abilities, and maybe errata the AoMF to be able to stack up to +5 flat and +5 extras like every other weapon, which allow monks to avoid the MAD mess that is their life people will probably buy it because clearly they want Monks to not suck or they wouldn't b!~%@ about it so much!"
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
I disagree slightly here. S&B most definitely can also include TWF.
it can, but it requires many levels and a lot of system mastery to pull off, trading damage potential for defense and control. making it a completely different type of 2WF.
Perhaps but I think if you're going to cull the playing field of everything people acknowledge as being good it wouldn't actually matter if the monk came out ahead because he'd be the top dog of the sucky option brigade.
I'd say he should be compared to TWF builds but also to 2HF and S&B builds(A ranger at least can S&B for twf and damage purposes technically) because these are the builds which coexist in his role as a frontline melee character, I agree ignoring archers is for the best they aren't really pertinent to the discussion at hand.
You're using a CL 20 which implies you found a 20th level wizard willing to waste his time casting spells on your low leveled butt.
And frankly while the book includes rules for this chances are very very good a DM who isn't trying to give you a free pass to keep you from sucking because of the class you chose would look at you and tell you the 20th level spell casters are all busy with things far beyond the scope of your puny mortal affairs and put you on their waiting lists, check back in in 2-4 years.
Edit: @ Tarantula - I know it's pretty uncommon and frankly I would expect roughly half of DMs to deny you access to it which is why I generally don't include it in my build ideas but since it pretty much gives the best bonus you could get out of power attack without a Str requisite it's the best option available. I would have said pick up power attack but you'd need a 13 in Str to do so I suppose you could dock 1 point off of your dex to get it and frankly it would enhance the levels where you're too low to afford a agile enchant so might be worth it?
Fair, trade out Vicious Stomp then while it's good it's mostly a gravy source of damage while doing your tripping the support elements still function without it, unless you could move something like agile maneuvers into a monk bonus feat slot I think that would be the best way to cram it in there.
I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. Can we make his damage per hit higher without trading something else equally important?
Can we get his HP higher without trading something important?
Just was thinking of something, can a monk who takes catch-off guard use improvised arrows with various enhancements to get around DR?
Hmmmm
Maybe but you can't flurry with improvised weapons unless you take the one archetype that did that.
As for HP the trade of a -2 to Cha based skills and a -1 skill point per level from my suggestions is well worth 2 hp per level and at level 10 that would be a net +20 to your hp. Particularly since nothing you took was charisma based and in due time you could pick up the extra +1 to Int somehow.
Damage is much rougher, I'd say piranha strike but you'd need weapon finesse which I don't see on the write up but if you don't have it I can't see how it would work with a dex build? Maybe trade out imp crit for it since frankly imp crit isn't worth all that much on an unarmed monk imo. It wouldn't be great because it penalizes his to hit ability but if he were in a situation where DR is completely butchering his damage it might well be worth it in exchange.
If they get saves against your spells an 18 or higher would be preferable.
Generally a raw 18 costs too much unless you're spamming straight save or dies all day. If you mean you're going to go battlefield control/support in the support spells/control type melee build you could definitely get by with only a 16 or possibly less since you don't have to deal with enemies saving against you.
Here is the level 10 monk I came up with. Strategy is of course to trip using ki throw to help reposition them for the party fighter to get a full-attack off. Vicious stomp is just gravy. I spent all gold to the last drop. You could drop the headband and buy some magic shurikens or something to deal with fliers/other things you can't melee.
Edit: I think this guy meets (as best as possible) Mikaze's criteria.
Edit2: Not sure how it is giving me a +16 for my Unarmed, but then a +17 for flurry. Anyone enlighten me?
Reposting this with correct stats: Apparently PCGen has bugs with flurry. These stats should all be correct.
** spoiler omitted **...
HP is rather low for a front liner even with a solid AC(albiet not a fantastic one) which is worrisome, and even worse level 1 HP is very very low. I'd be concerned about his ability to live through the low levels without getting hammered by a lucky high roll although this isn't a monk only problem.
Damage per hit is also concerningly low in the event of DR he has a lot of trouble adding any significant damage.
Against some of those he can rely on tripping/throwing which is a plus but against anything untrippable with DR (say a flying demon, or some sort of serpent/golem) he might have a distinctly unfun time particularly since against fliers he can neither do damage or combat maneuvers.
I'd suggest trading for the shurikens so he has some ranged combat ability and tank Cha to a 7 and knock Int. to a 13 to get a 14 in Con.
As for the original post, underpowered is a point of perspective. Monks can have the spotlight too, but only if the GM shares it. (Then again, the game being played is only as good as the GM running it).
I can see how some folks probably never have the thought of "Man, we could really use a monk right now." But at the table, you should be a team (unless blatantly roleplaying otherwise). If someone is performing up to par, help him out and get him up to speed! Things look and feel much better when working as a team. Nobody remembers the A-Guy, but they remember the A-Team
Uh plenty of people remember the A-guy. Conan the barbarian yep, his team? Who the hell were they?
King Arthur, yep. His team? The knights of the round table sure the B list guys. Oh and Merlin who is a bad ass in his own right. (Now if like perhaps many of us you're an arthurian lore nerd you're going to trot out all his classic knights but that's not really the point we're looking at the layman's view of Arthur)
Now I'm not saying that it's not a team game or that focusing on team play isn't critical at a certain level to both making sure everyone is relevant or having fun(I certainly find that both of those are enhanced by playing as the A-Team)
But imagine being Frodo hanging out with Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli, and Legolas. A big Troll shows up and you're attacked by a swarm of orcs and goblins, Aragorn hews them down with Cleaving blows, Boromir holds the corridor by virtue of his armored body and shield, Gimli doles out Power-full Attacks with his two handed Longaxe, and Legolas mows down anyone who gets by with arrows, Frodo on the other hand cowers in the corner and gets KO'd by the troll in the first or second round of combat. If someone was playing Frodo they're almost certainly having less fun than everyone else at the table.
Being the b list hero hanging out with the Justice League isn't going to be fun which is why ideally you can up yourself to being at your A game if everyone else is playing at that level. Not saying monks can't do so but most of the ways to do so are fairly limited (Zen Archer, Sohei, Tetori sortof, Drunk Master sortof) or not thematically what we want from the monk(two hand fighter with a sword).
I don't have to surpass anybody to prove monks are viable. All I have to show is monks are competitive. Since nobody is going to argue that the posted fighter and barbarian builds are not viable, I've already managed that.
Give me a day or two and I'd be glad to. Today is sadly consumed by a pesky lab report I have to take care of.
As for your build please feel free to make an unarmed monk of any archetype you so desire and weigh him up. And run your dpr calculations for enemies with DR 5/ or DR 10 just so we can see how each class would fare under those circumstances.
1. Legal things fit the flavor of the class as described in the fluff of the core book. It is highly preferred to not use an archetype of the class, as that pretty much is saying you want to be a different kind of that class. So stick to core class to prove your point. Someone even offered quigong as a compromise. You can use other paizo material, just not archetypes.
We are not allowed to use archetypes created to address complaints about the class. (archetypes do not exist in core).
Quote:
2. The 2 archetypes that are useful are already well known. People do not complain about those two archetypes. Most classes can pick from most of their archetypes and still be effective. Monks cannot.
You have already barred monks from all content not in the core rulebook, while allowing other classes access to archetypes. Specifically, you are barring the most effective archetypes from consideration while offering a single archetype that does not address DPR as a consolation prize. DPR is being used as the sole metric for comparison, even though unarmed monks can end the fight much more quickly through other means.
Quote:
3. Single large attacks help damage creatures with DR better than lots of mediocre attacks. Single attacks that almost always hit are usually better than lots of attacks that seldomly hit.
See math posted upthread showing sohei DPR vs fighter and barbarian DPR.
Quote:
4. I won't change any of these that I have stated. Post when you have an effective build.
The rules have already been changed such that the build I posted surpassing both the fighter and barbarian in damage is no longer allowed for consideration. The initial rules were PFS legal, that was altered when a viable monk build was posted.
You are picking what I am allowed to use for my weapon. You are picking the single archetype I am allowed to use, one carefully vetted. You are not placing these restrictions on builds from other classes.
It would be equivalent to my...
Neither of the builds you used as "benchmarks" from other classes had any relevant archetypes whatsoever. A Invulnerable Rager's primary ability is DR which is completely negligible because you aren't looking at the effective hit points he gets from having it because quite frankly it's a pain in the ass to calculate.
On top of that the benchmark you used for the barbarian was an antimage which is hardly a good example of how to min max a barbarian for dpr but is a much more potentially useful character in a party setting which again we aren't looking at.
Waiting for their first turn in the initiative to come up. We have a high initiative modifier due to DEX, improved initiative, and that handy Lookout feat. We can zip past them while they are still flat-footed in the surprise round, and usually get an attack in as well (which is when I try to trip the opponent). Then we get to act before them in the first round as well, so they are probably still flat-footed.
I don't know how it is where you play, but around here the typical PFS table is far more likely to be 6 (and often 7) players than 4, and we're lucky if we've got a single arcane or divine caster, let alone one of each. We're more likely to be the point team with a barbarian, fighter, or druid+pet or two (or three) as backup.
We more than pull our weight in most of the parties we play in. In one recent table the monk was out-damaging the barbarian (who was, admittedly, lower level). Suggesting that we aren't doing our fair share is insulting.
You don't always act in a surprise round. If they aren't surprised you shouldn't be acting at that point lookout or no.
As for PFS I couldn't tell you how it is here I don't play PFS but the standard for home games in every game I've played has been 4 sometimes it goes up sometimes down but almost never above 5 or below 3. Frankly PFS really doesn't appeal to me but that's neither here nor there.
@Tarantula - You raise a fair point I didn't notice the incorporeal bit. But lets be honest everyone expects fighters to get hosed by anything vaguely ghost-like.
