8 creatures of your CR are an encounter of CR+6
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd rather have feats that are both flavorful and useful. I'd like to havd a feat called "Corsair" that gives you +1 to hit while fighting in a ship, non-cumulative with weapon gocus for example. Thus, I could select it and have +1 with my sabre, dagger, pistol or whip while on board, instead of +1 with swords always. WF would be better, but depenfing on the campaign, the oger feat might be interesting. However, a +1 to hit in the first attack of a combat simply isn't worth it. I can perfectly flavor and rolrplay a taldor corsair without such hortible feat, thanks
Justin Rocket wrote:
then it doesn't matter if your monk can cobtribute to the party. If you want to play a monk, do it, regardless if it is able to contribute or not.
Matt Thomason wrote:
even then, system mastery would work. It will be based around buying/geting the best gear and magic items, just like the heroquest does.
As I said, the only way to remove system mastery enterely, is to remove player choices. And that's not that good idea.
The system could have less traps, yes. It could habe less bloat of quasiuseless feats. But that's part of the ivory tower design. Seeing the rapid growth of paizo, it works. I'd rather have, say, a Corasair feat that doesn't gimp ypur character becaue it only gives you bonus to fight in a ship *the first round of combat*. But the devs seem to like this kind of "gimpyourself because of flavor" feats.
Justin Rocket wrote:
why don't play with commoner class then? Just call it a monk, and you'll be fine. Great roleplaying there. And Pete McFarmer doesn't know about your char class, so everything is cool in-game! Awesome roleplaying oportunities there.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Yes, but it's not easy to be able to do all those maneuvers efficiently at the same time.
Justin Rocket wrote:
It is early in my build so far, but I'm noticing that the average CR11 monster CMD is about 33. I'm pretty confident I can hit that. Those monsters with higher CMDs tend to have really bad will saves, which means they are vulnerable to Touch of Serenity.
In general, the problem with CR 11 monsters and maneuvers isn't CMD. It's the fact that most of the monsters once you start in the double digits CR, are immune by default to most maneuvers. You can't disarm claws, you can't trip flying creatures and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters, and that make manuevers harder to pull. But that's not a monk issue, it's a maneuver issue, regardless of class
A sorcerer won't be able to use CHA as Dex for saves or AC, so that's not very useful for him.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Assuming Farmer Pete personally saw Thor Bonegnasher do this and its not just gossip, Farmer Pete might think it is some sort of magic related to one of Thor's previous adventures, or he might that Thor's tribe are part of an exotic race, or part of a spiritual heritage, or he might think its due to Thor having Sorcerous blood, or something else. He won't blame it on class, because he has no idea what that is.
If Pete saw Thor in X Century killing half a dozen men while fighting barechested, with a great strength and ignoring pain, he'll say that's because he is a Berserker or Úlfhéðnar. He won't blame it on a "class", but he'll blame it on a "type of warrior". Specially because *several* people through the world can do it, and they are from different tribes, different heritages and have different blood. Even different races (a halfling barbarian or dwarven barbarian can have beast totem, pounce and spell sunder too)
And again, it doesn't matter if the caravan owner thinks Thor can do it because he is touched by the gods or because he ate too much spinach. The truth is, Thor can do it, and Mr Littlegrashopper can't. And that's what is important to the caravan owner. And that's what started this subplot in the thread.
Why are we talking about NPCs view of PCs? That has very little to do with class balance I'd think, or at least discussing how real life people perceive the monk and the merits of the monk class itself.
Actually, you are right. We are discussing a red herring.
I guess we are waiting to see the build that Justin Rocket was going to post.
Justin Rocket wrote:
What does Farmer Pete think about the fact Thor Bonegnasher can grow claws, fur and pounce when he gets angry, becomes strong enough to bend metal bars, and his skin is almost invulnerable to small daggers and he can dispel a Wall of Fire with a swing of his blade?
In addition to that, regardless of how Thor Bonegnasher manage to do that, the fact is: he can do it, and Johny McLittlegrasshopper can't.
Except in the first two levels, where you can't use dervish dance... why would you be doing twice as damage with a STR based magus, compared to a DEX based magus?
Also, it's not only a couple more AC, it's the REF save where you see the higher differnence
Justin Rocket wrote:
So, if people attribute magic powers to Thor Bonegnasher when he doesn't actually have any magic powers, how are those people suppossed to tell whether Thor Bonegnasher is a Fighter or Barbarian - particularly since those people have never seen the rulebook and know mostly only rumors about Thor and his buddy Flynt McPike?
Those people haven't read the rulebook, but they live in a world where some people have certain abilities. They might not have read the rulebook, but they know certain kind of warriors are able to move in armor as if it were simple cloth (7th level fighters) while others are able to enter in a furious trance and gain the strength of a bear (barbarians). Because in they world, that thing exists, and is very real. Exactly like they understand that some people is able to launch fireballs (wizards) while others are able to transform into animals (druids) even if they don't have a rulebook that say so. And it's not weird to suppose that they catalogue those people in groups, as they did in real world (where "berserkers" were a different kind of trance-warrior than Úlfhéðnar and witches were a different kind of magic-user than warlocks).
Maybe they wouldn't call those two guys applying for the job "a barbarian" and "a monk". Maybe they'd call them "Úlfhéðnar" and "Shaolin". Or "berserker" and "yamabushi". Sure, they won't say "he's 6th level". But they do know they have different abilities (because other people with those abilities exist in their world), and they know there is some kind of "rank" among them, because some of those "shaolin" or "yamabushi" or "weird bald guy in an orange robe" can slow-fall, and some other can't, and some of them are immune to poison while others aren't. I'm pretty sure they can tell the difference between that barbarian guy, whose skin become tougher, grow claws, and can pounce like a tiger, from that other barbarian guy who grow barbs from his body. Wouldn't you be able to tell the difference?
And given the fact they *can* tell the difference between a guy who grow claws, can pounce and have rhino-like skin and some other guy who leaps a lot, can stun people and fall from heights without taking damage, it's quite probable that the caravan guy hiring bodyguards would select the ones who he feels have better abilities to the success of his mission. In the case of Barbarians, not only they are much more resistant to magic... they can litterally EAT magic, and *dispel* spells and magical effects with a hit of their sword. That's a measurable, unique effect that some kind of "warriors" can do (namely, barbarians with the proper rage power), and some others can't (for example, monks).
It isn't usable vs Constructs, Elementals, animals, and several magical beasts, aberrations and monsters. Between the lowly dire rat at level 1 and the monstruous Bandersnatch at level 20, you have a *ton* of fights vs neutral creatures. Hydras, Bullettes, wyverns, oozes, golems, elementals, dire animals are all of them common enemies in most adventures. The random CN BBEG enemy also is included here (I can remember a couple of N guys in Kingmaker for example, and also in Rise of Runelords
armag and the skinsaw man, for example
Justin Rocket wrote:
Real World Eric McMerchant would call Thor Bonegnasher "a Berserker" or "Úlfhéðnar", and would attribute him near-divine powers of pain suppresion, invulnerability to wounds from fire or iron, the strength of a bear, and a inner ferocity that made him unstopable in combat. And that was in real world, where Thor Bonegnasher didn't, in fact, possess any real near-magic powers.
I did not enjoy downgrading my character, although I did so because the GM asked for it. But that's not the reason why I helped the other guys. I helped them for two reasons:1) If I was going to do significantly less damage, then the rest of the group is going to raise their damage or we'll lose. You can't beat the BBEG if your fighter and your rogue are doing like 1/5 of their potential damage due to bad player choices.
2) I play with my friends. I like my friends having fun, and they weren't having fun. As I said, even if I changed my character, or even if I left the game, that wouldn't make their characters less frustrating. You don't get frustrated because somebody else is good at things, you get frustrated because you feel you suck. If you need 10 rounds to kill an even-level CR, the game is frustrating. If those even level CR are killing you, it's even more frustrating. I don't mind if Lebron James plays basketball better than me, but I get frustrated if I miss easy layups.
Sure. But it's hard to avoid such gaps, because it's hard to avoid the players choose wrong stuff. Again, even if you seal all those six-armed-synthesist and weapon-cord-juggling gunslingers that are breaking records in the DPR olympics, that DOESN'T change the fact you can botch your character so badly that it's going to be gimped even when you compare it to a baseline, average character. Let's go back to the previous example: some guy builds a random 2h fighter with power attack and ends doing 2d6+18. Some other guy does the same with a swashbuckler-type of fighter, and he does 1d6+4. The first fighter isn't broken, or munchkin, or even optimized. It just took the regular class, the regular race and the regular feats. The problem is, the second character botched his design.
You can't have a game with balance, unless you supress the players' options. As long as I can buy Weapon Focus(staff) and Dodge for my wizard, I'll be able to fumble my character and build it heavily under average. Even if the high-octane-game-breaking stuff is controlled.
To quote the BBEG of The Incredibles... "if everything is special, then nothing is".
"Smite everything" would need a re-balance, because it's already quite good (better than Favored Enemy and Weapon Training by far) even with it's restriction of not working vs every enemy.
Gustavo- again your perfectly outlining the problem in the design, when you give players 300-400+ feats and all the feats vary widely in their effectiveness, and many have unexpected disgustingly gross and overpowered combinations, your going to get extreme imbalance in character creation as you clearly point out.
I agree with that. I'd rather have 50 good feats, than 1000 feats, 900 of them are crap and traps for non-system-mastery savvy players.
Steve- The only "page" I've seen in two years of recent PF play at a weekly open game night with roughly five games and twenty five to thirty different players and DMs, are those who built and took sick glory in their power gamer characters and those who didnt and endlessly complained about those who did.
I want to point to that bolded part as the most important one to the detrimental experience for everybody. Moaning, whining and complaining will always be counterproductive.
I'd give my own personal experience too. Recently we were playing an AP. I had a blaster sorcerer, who was doing quite good damage in most encounters. Some players were b&&!!ing about it, and complained to the GM, mainly the swashbuclker-spring-attack Rogue (who was doing just 1 sneak per turn, because of spring attack), the axe-and-shield dwarf, and the party ranger. The GM asked me to tone down the blasting, so I did, because that's what sensible players do when the GM ask them to do it. But, more important, I offered the other players advice for they characters. I took them, and, with GM aproval, we did a bit of feat-swap, item changes, and so on. The character concept remained the same (except for the ranger, who died before I could help because he was a damn-low AC character in the frontline, and rerolled as cleric). For example, the axe-and-shield dwarven fighter remained as dwarven axe-and-shield fighter. But we changed a few things here and there, we raised STR instead of DEX (which he was raising to do TWF with the shield), we bought a few items, and voila, now that dwarven fighter was good. He had a good share of spotlight and brilliant moments, including crushing a few golems, several end-this-battle-now crits, a lot more of self-reliance for being able to act (with better saves, ability to fly, etc).
The problem is not that my character does ~100 damage with a fireball at level 10. The problem is that your rogue does 15 damage at level 10. Even if my character does not exists, your character is frustrating anyways. Because he needs TEN ROUNDS to kill an equal level Monster, and that's frustrating, even there is no one in the party that outshines it. When everybody has a decent character, it doesn't really matter if someone is a bit better. You wouldn't care if I can do ~100 with my fireballs, as long as you also do ~90 with your sneaks. Maybe your character isn't as well optimized, but he is capable, he is valuable, he isn't frustrating, and he doesn't suck. That's enough, for most people, as this is a cooperative game, you don't mind if someone else is a bit better, as long as a) your party is winning and b)you are contributing meaningfully to it.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
as I said, with the same amount of changes, you can get rid of Hit Points, Base Attack Bonus, Spells or Classes. It doesn't change the fact those things aren't optional, they are hard coded in the rules. Hero Points, in the other hand, are optional.
I like dnd next proposal, with paladins, wardens and blackguards being good, neutral and evil.
Most of the listed Con are debatable at the very least.
It's impossible such gap does not exist. No matter how well you avoid certain combos that make very good characters, you can't avoid people being dumb and doing bad characters.
Take two examples:
Now we have some other player. He recently read "The three musqueteer" so he decides to build a swashbuckler. He chooses to have leather armor, because it "fits". He uses a rapier. He takes high DEX, and weapon finesse, but STR 10, because, you know, he is a swashbuckler and all of that. So, at level 5, he is doing 1d6+4. He also has low AC compared to a guy in full plate, and he spent a few feats in Disarm, which he wastes a lot because he is fighting owlbears, wolves and giant spiders, which are immune by default to half his feats.
So, how could the system help to avoid this unbalance, between the standard, absolutelly no-cheese fighter who does 2d6+18, and the poor guy who does 1d6+4? With system mastery. There are ways to build swashbucklers that don't suck. But they require system mastery.
Not really, you can buy them trained. Or just have a familiar with scent, that also work. Or use Elemental Body III and become inmune to sneak attacks.
Like I said each game has its context and to be good at dealing damage solely with most DM's will get you no-where.
Who said that? The example wizard two or three posts above this is able to dish like 300 points damage to each of 25 targets, completelly killing everything in the encounter, and still have Greater Invisibility, Teleport, Summon Monster VIII, Scry, Visions, See invisibility, Glitterdust, Protection from Evil, Greater Dispel Magic and any other utility spell you think it's important.
The only difference is that, instead of casting Haste, cast a metamagic'ed fireball that clean the board and do a huge amount of HP damage, finishing most combats right in his Initiative Moment.
Justin Rocket wrote:
do it 20 then, I was just trying to break the stale
Sure. Waste a feat on it, I'll use some of the other gazillion things that counter a rogue. Like having a dog with scent, that cost like 5gp.
The sorcerer has Knowledge Arcana. The sage gains an extra knowledge (normally Planes), which cover most of the important stuff.
Also, you are comparing it to a wizard. Sage is not a wizard archetype, it's a sorcerer archetype. You said it trades the familiar for just a flat +2 to two skills, and that's not correct. It also trades your Charisma for your Intelligence, which is GREAT, as Intelligence is much much better than Charisma as a stat.
My sage is the party face, by the way. I took student of philosophy, which also fits nicely with the archetype background. I dumped Cha, and I roleplay him like a Sheldon Cooper know-it-all, who is not the kind of guy you feel confortable going out to take a beer, but his arguments are flawless and convincent, ant it's almost impossible to argue back
Self healing in combat. Being Fear Immune. Helping others to overcome fear (and later other stuff) without wasting resources or actions (thanks to the aura)
Matt Thomason wrote:
Some people like to play one way, some another. I dislike playing the "system mastery" game, but I don't assume people that do that are playing it wrong. I'll tell them why I find a narrative story-telling combat-lite style fun, and hope maybe they'll try it out, but I can't at the end of the day tell someone else they're just doing it wrong (unless they're attempting to tell someone else that).
I think too many people mistake System Mastery (or even powergaming) with being good at combat.
In a campaign with combat-lite and narrative story-telling with lot of interaction, a person with system mastery would just recognice that Skill focus: Sense Motive is a much better feat than Weapon Focus: Great Axe. Just like he'll understand that, in such game, Detect Thoughts is a much better spell than Scorching Ray.
In the last game I GMed, which I've just mentioned, the Summoner in the party had a just decent Eidolon. It wasn't the most munchkin eidolon that you see winning the DPR olympics here. But the player had +50 and +55 in Bluff and Diplomacy, and Detect Thoughts and Seek Thoughts as spells. In his tight, low number of spells as summoner.
And he was probably the best all-around character in the campaign. Do you know why? Because many, many, many times in the campaign, diplomacy and bluff were meaningful and useful. Because being able to read other people thoughts was a damn powerful ability. Because he spent points in Leadership (without Cohort, I nerfed that), and he used his followers to build a net of spys, charlatans and smugglers.
That's what system mastery is for.
Last time I GMed, our campaign end at 20th level. Our Summoner had +55 in diplomacy. That means he could convince anybody of anything, as far as that person is possible to be convinced. (he had like +50 in bluff too). To put things in perspective, a Pit Fiend has Bluff +31, and a Solar has a Diplomacy of +32 and a Sense Motive of +33.
System mastery (or powergaming for that matter), don't have to be combat-centric or combat-related.
I know it's hard to admit for many people, but I think the best solutions is to teach the player who come with a prince who became a ranger idea, how to make it good from a mechanic perspective. Nothing you have said about that character requires him to be bad.
Justin Rocket wrote:
12th is a good level. 20th level builds are a bit irrelevant for most part. 12 is the top level in PFS, and it's a level that most, if not all, AP have adventures for.
I do not know if "slightly" is a good word for it. Specially for the ever important rods of quicken.
Depends how you build it. You should be using either Empower Rods, and Maximize feat, or Maximize rods, and empower feat.
If you are using Chain Lightning as your blast, as the person I was answering did, then you have to pay around 62.000 to 108.000 gold, for a pair of them (to be able to maximize/empower 6 times per day).
At level 17th, that's quite doable. That's what your party Monk has spent in either his +4 amulet of Mighty fist, or his +5 amulet of mighty fist. With Craft Rod (which I think it's one of the best feats for blasters), that's 31.000 or 54.000. Which is what your fellow fighter spent in his +4 or +5 weapon.
I wouldn't use Chain Lightning to start with, but as that's what was using the poster I was answering to:
Spell Specialization Chaing Lightning +2 CL
Outlander trait +1 CL +1 DC to Chain lightnings
Ioun Stone +1 CL
That's +8 Caster level, so 25d6 (with Intensify Spell). You empower it for free with Spell Perfection. It's still a 6th level spell, so you maximize it with the rod.
Now you cast a quickened Chain Lightning for free with Spell Perfection, and empower it with your rod (assuming you don't have a second rod with maximize, which you could). That's 20d6, or 120 damage.
So we have 293 damage, and we haven't added the class bonus yet. If he is a Wizard, he adds half his level twice (so +16) for 309 damage, and the ability to swap the damage to whatever he choses, which might mean 50% damage against vulnerables. If he is a Sorcerer, we have +1 per die (for +55 total damage), or +2 per die if he is a crossblooded orc/draconic sorcerer (or +110 damage).
So you can do around 310 damage, choosing your element as a wizard, or 400 damage if you focus into electric damage as a sorcerer. To 25 targets (you are CL 25), and a caster level vs Spell Resistance of 1d20+33. The DC might vary, depending on build, from DC 30, to DC 36, depending how much feats you want to spend into Elemental Focus and things like that.
And that's without doing things like 1 level dips, UMD for Beads of Karma, etc.
I know there are several weapon-user builds who can do much more than 400 in one round. But I don't know any who could do 300 to 400 to 25 targets in one round, at 1400' range. That's like 4200 to 5600 damage, assuming everybody but the first 3 make their saves, depending on the build.
Justin Rocket wrote:
and what's the role of the monk then?
by that level ypu could be doing twice that much.If you aren't doing 330+ damage by that level in one round, you aren't really blasting.
Sure, blasters are Novas. They can do this only 4-5 times per day. If your combat day is a grindfest, you'll have to "skip" a couple of the easy combats and cast a solid fog or haste or wall of stone here and there. But for 4 combats a day? Yes, you can deal 300 to 350 damage in one round to 17 targets, half damage in a save (DC can be as high as 35-39).
Having half the mosters trapped in a black tentacles nice. Having them dead is way better
James Smith 870 wrote:
Fortunately, we don't have to play with real world religions in game, as that would be a rough problem for many, it is a sensitive issue.
Now if you find a quote of Iomeadae saying the same, that might be of some use (for paladins of Iomedae, that is).
Bushido is also a code of Honor. It dies encourage the learning of archery. Roland, the gunfighter of Stephen King's Tower books, ia a member of an order of Paladin gunnfighters. I'm sure there are a lot of other codes out there, some of them ban ranged weapons, and other might ban armor, other might ban sex while some other ban war altogether.
I frequently find that the most damage i can do is to buff the martials.
It depends on what level you are currently playing, and the encounter itself.. As HaraldKlak is saying, I was able to compleatelly clean equal level CR fights in Kingmaker with a Sorcerer at around lvl 10.
As a blaster (say, admixture wizard) you can kill every Bone Devil in 20' radious with a ~105 point damage shockball. You could kill every night hag in 20' radious too. You can kill 20' radious of Nessian Warhounds with cold-balls. You are almost guaranteed to kill 20' of Fire Giants with a coldball too.
I don't know which kind of buff you can do that is the equivalent of killing half a dozen CR 10 creatures at level 10, but it's hard to see a buff that does the equivalent of 900 damage in one round.
Direct damage suck. Metamagically enhanced direct damage is great.
A 1d4 burning hands at level one sucks. But if you have Spell Specialization (burning hand), Varisian Tattoo (evocation) and the Outsider Lore seeker trait, your 5d4 burning hand at level 1 kill everything in the radius of the appropiated CR regarless of Save.
Similarly, 10d6 (average 35) at level 10 isn't that much as a fireball. But 10d6+60 with an intensified empowered maximized (with a rod) fireball is a different matter.
I also felt crane style was OP when I first saw it, because I compared it to the similar parry-ability of the duelist PrC. Crane style does pretty much the same, but without skipping your attack, and without rolling. I think they should both be similar and made as an attack of opportunity to counter the attack (and with riposte follow through with the same AoO, or maybe roll again to hit against AC).
The duelist feature sucks big time. Making Crane Wing dump into dust to balance them is like burning everybody's money to balance the wealth gap between rich and poor people.
It has 5% spell failure, which isn't cool when you are a caster.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Human barbarians have+3 class
+3 favored class
For a total of +12, not counting wisdom, feats and cloak of protection.
A 10th level monk with 20 in wisdom has +12 too (plus still mind vs enchantment, and feats and cloak of protection). However, vs a Fort save, the Barbarian has +16 plus Con Bonus, while the Monk has +7 plus CON, assuming feats and cloak are the same for both.