Why all the monk hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

851 to 900 of 900 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Remember that scene from the popular anime where one hero from the Three Kingdoms of China held off a bridge, killing an entire army, all while completely weaponless?

No, because it wasn't in an anime.

What about that high flying wuxia character Cu Chulainn?

Wait, he wasn't wuxia? Dang!

And they all were at least epic levels characters, because otherwise we wouldn't even know their names !
You're right, Legend Lore says you have to be 11th level to qualify. That is pretty epic.

William Tell = legendary, Cu Chulainn = legendary

William Tell != Cu Chulainn

I love how three sentences of 2E fluff are a basis of some people's whole line of reasoning.

I, too, love how the section in the Players Handbook that gives you advice on what kind of character to make gives you advice on what kind of character to make.

*bubblepipes some more*

The problem is that everyone looks at x character and immidiately assumes "Oh man, so level 20." From Bilbo Baggins to Aragorn to Gandalf, to King Arthur to Conan to Beowulf to Zhang Fei to Dian Wei to the Monkey King. It doesn't matter who the character is - the automatic assumption is "He's a protagonist, level 20 for sure!"

But, no, most of them are not level 20. I mean hell, Aragorn more or less just kills a bunch of orcs and has good diplomacy and intimidate. That ain't exactly level 20 material.

So you talk about a "measily level 10 warrior," but why is that so small time? At level 10 the fighter's strength is measured in T-rexes. He can jump off a multistory building with relatively light injuries. How is this weak and measily, again?

No, the problem is that people demand a world of magic rather then a world of fantasy, and then exclude non-casters from it. Certainly, most of the "epic" characters in mythology or fiction tended to be, well, either epic, or divine. But then again, so do all spellcasters, and even then most of them are weaker then a D&D wizard. It's a double standard so huge you could drive many other, smaller double standards through it.

So yeah, we know Aragorn's name. But he's, like, level 6 in D&D standards. If that.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I love how you think you know some people's whole line of reasoning from a handful of throwaway posts.

I do, because that line is somewhat easy to figure out.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Remember that scene from the popular anime where one hero from the Three Kingdoms of China held off a bridge, killing an entire army, all while completely weaponless?

No, because it wasn't in an anime.

What about that high flying wuxia character Cu Chulainn?

Wait, he wasn't wuxia? Dang!

And they all were at least epic levels characters, because otherwise we wouldn't even know their names !
You're right, Legend Lore says you have to be 11th level to qualify. That is pretty epic.

William Tell = legendary, Cu Chulainn = legendary

William Tell != Cu Chulainn

I love how three sentences of 2E fluff are a basis of some people's whole line of reasoning.

I, too, love how the section in the Players Handbook that gives you advice on what kind of character to make gives you advice on what kind of character to make.

*bubblepipes some more*

The problem is that everyone looks at x character and immidiately assumes "Oh man, so level 20." From Bilbo Baggins to Aragorn to Gandalf, to King Arthur to Conan to Beowulf to Zhang Fei to Dian Wei to the Monkey King. It doesn't matter who the character is - the automatic assumption is "He's a protagonist, level 20 for sure!"

But, no, most of them are not level 20. I mean hell, Aragorn more or less just kills a bunch of orcs and has good diplomacy and intimidate. That ain't exactly level 20 material.

So you talk about a "measily level 10 warrior," but why is that so small time? At level 10 the fighter's strength is measured in T-rexes. He can jump off a multistory building with relatively light injuries. How is this weak and measily, again?

No, the problem is that people demand a world of magic rather then a world of fantasy, and then exclude non-casters from it. Certainly, most of the "epic" characters in mythology or fiction tended to be, well, either epic, or divine. But then again, so do...

The funny thing is, that the AD&D fluff doesn't even mention any of Tolkien's characters. Nor the Eastern ones. And it has Charlemange, Beowulf and Sindbad all as Fighter inspiration. Heck, Homer is a Bard example.

Of course, all this shows is the disconnect between the 2E archetypes themselves and the archetypes and the rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd like to apologize for wasting your time Gorbacz. I will try not to in the future.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd like to apologize for wasting your time Gorbacz. I will try not to in the future.

Too late ... I think this thread started that when the newcomers arrived and refused to read what came before in the thread.

(Like around page 12 or so I'm guessing the time-sink started?)

To be thread-relevant ... nah. I've got nothing.

The more productive thread at this point is over in "House Rules" on this topic.

:shrugs:

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CoDzilla wrote:
Put more simply, ToB made being an effective melee class a lot more casual.

Well, then we differ on what is best for the game, what is easiest for the casual, and whether or not a casual can create an effective melee without complexity you suggest. Nothing to be done.

Gorbacz wrote:
I've noticed that many of the "old crowd" prefers the mundane sword-swinging Fighter, while younger players tend to view martial classes in a more "over the top" way. Most people who decry ToB as a betrayal of D&D spirit are from the old guard, most people who think of at as a great addition tend to be in the 20-30 age group.

I couldn't have explained that better if I tried.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
guided property defines how one attacks with the weapon it effects

Brass Knuckles are not unarmed strikes, so a Guided Unarmed Strikes won't help but a Guided Brass Knuckles would help.

Mikaze wrote:
Again, what about his feelings on the matter? Does only one person at the table get to decide what is or is not D&D?

What are you saying? One of these three options:

1) I shouldn't have allowed ToB in the game in the first place? I did because I was thinking of the player and hoping he had fun.
2) I should have quit running the game, because I don't like having a Crusader and feeling like I'm running Anime & Dragons?
3) I should have told the player he wasn't welcome to the game because he wanted to play a Crusader and I couldn't run with a Crusader any more?

None of those options were desired. The only reasonable option I could see was spend 20 hours crafting a new mechanic for his crusader to use his Crusader abilities. A mechanic he played for a couple months, but ultimately switched to Sorcerer. Should I have not gone the extra mile? Should I have just said, "you suck" and closed up my game to never run again?


Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Remember that scene from the popular anime where one hero from the Three Kingdoms of China held off a bridge, killing an entire army, all while completely weaponless?

No, because it wasn't in an anime.

What about that high flying wuxia character Cu Chulainn?

Wait, he wasn't wuxia? Dang!

And they all were at least epic levels characters, because otherwise we wouldn't even know their names !

I have to disagree here. I really, really can't think of any mythological heroes from any source whatsoever that would fall into 3.0's epic levels.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


I have to disagree here. I really, really can't think of any mythological heroes from any source whatsoever that would fall into 3.0's epic levels.

Meh, I think a lot of that is because there is no real accepted standard for what constitutes high level play or epic level play in terms of source material.

Some people think level 10+ is superhero play and level 20+ is the realms of gods and demigods duking it out. Others have it where level 20+ is where you begin to actually be seen as a threat by other powers (Forgotten Realms is particularly guilty of this).

The best inspiration for epic level play that I've yet seen has been the awesome Eadric storyhour on ENworld. Even though the characters are well into the range of 30+ HD the campaign world, not to mention the multiverse as a whole is littered with things just as powerful if not more powerful.

I like the concept of it doesn't matter how big you get, someone is always bigger and badder than you.


although caster types have all sorts of options available to them, they are most often depicted improperly in these kinds of arguments,

Wizards have limited spell slots.
the more slots the fill up with flying, invisibility, summoning monsters and creating barriers, the less offensive spell slots they have.

so who cares if hes hiding behind a wall of force if all his slots are burned up and he cant toss anything really nasty at you, or that ,many of them.

bear in mind there are other members of the party, if he wants to charm or imobilize the fighter, hes used a spell (and a turn).
the partys mage can counterspell or dispell.
etc etc.

and your assuming (almost always in these arguments) that the wizard knows your coming, has tons of rounds to prepare for you and has just the right spells.

an obvious sign of poor Dm/min maxing.

bear in mind a higher level monk can also dimensional step to get around alot of these things.
if you want to keep dimensional step out of the arguement, your are talking a monk with lower than 11th level or so.

a wizard of that level (assuming hes the same level as the pcs)
only has access to one 6th level spell.

not to burst your bubble but all the really swell party killers are higher level spells than that.

you can fly around invisible all you want, but thats assuming the cielings are high enough to get away with that.

At lower levels I have never failed to get my hands wrapped around a spell casters neck in under three rounds when playing a monk.

save one, he was a vampire, and went desolid alot.
come to find out the DM made some errors i his notes and the vamp was way more powerful that he should have been, which means (after the total party kill from essentially what ended up being an accidental CR25 vampire) we figured out i would have killed him in...
o wait
the third round.

Dark Archive

Cirno wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Cirno wrote:
No see they made fighters like casters because now fighters have difference stances and maneuvers and styles of attack just like real martial arts and real fighting techniques so clearly that must be magic. Don't you know? Real medieval knights never used any techniques at all, they just aimlessly bashed each other over the head!
Right, because desert wind magic flaming sword is a martial discipline! LOLcirno!
Yes, odd how the arcane martial class meant to act as the monk-alike and is given complete supernatural overtones has supernatural abilities just as the monk did.

Didn't your quote reference Medieval Knights? So it it asian themed monks or knights?

You need to make up your mind cirno and stop changing your argument and examples to fit your need.


Pendagast wrote:

Stuff

The thing is that some posters live in a place called OptimizationVille of Opville for short.

In Opville the caster and his buddies use secure camping spells like rope trick and mordekainen's mansion to hang out in relative security while they are planning their antics.

Once they are fully loaded for bear they scout their surroundings (typically using divinations) to determine major weaknesses and formulate a plan of attack.

They then proceed to buff with all number of 1/min per level buffs.

For the core only mage this typically includes mirror image, blur/displacement, overland flight, and improved invisibility.

The result is an invisible, flying, displaced caster with a ton of mirror images preventing easy targeting. It's also quite possible he's got a freedom of movement effect to prevent grappling (otherwise known as magedeath). He also calls or summons some brutes to be meathshields and/or deliver CDGs.

The team then blitzes the maximum number of encounters they can reasonably hit given limited resources and limited duration of buffs. They don't push beyond roughly 25% of daily resources remaining. Upon reaching that threshold, they withdraw and enter a secure camp and the cycle begins again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Basically under this scenario the monk sucks as a magekiller because he doesn't have a good way to negate flying, invisible, displaced, freedom of movement, mirror imaged SOS casters.

Sure he's got pretty decent saves (Good saves + resistance items FTW!) but the caster has a couple of enervation spells that he can use to weaken the monk and then he starts spamming SOS. The monk eventually fails a save and gets CDGed by a minion creature.

You might not play with this playstyle but it certainly exists and is supported within the rules. If you really want to improve gameplay you should probably look towards tightening up the margins as well as the average gamer experience.


vuron wrote:
...

The problem is in the scenario you describe, no class is suitable to take on the caster.

Unless of course there is a wizard in the party that can Greater Dispel, or set up an anti-magic field. In which case the monk will take out the caster with impunity.


LoreKeeper wrote:
vuron wrote:
...

The problem is in the scenario you describe, no class is suitable to take on the caster.

Unless of course there is a wizard in the party that can Greater Dispel, or set up an anti-magic field. In which case the monk will take out the caster with impunity.

The scenario is exactly why the high-end metagame is so retarded. Short of blatant DM metagaming there really isn't much the noncasters can do vs a full buffed high level arcanist.

The layered buffs and defenses allow the wizard o' doom to do his thing with relative impunity while he's in Super Saiyan mode.

Greater Dispel basically requires a caster or caster equivalent such as a high CR outsider or a Dragon. It's no longer about non-caster vs caster but about caster + retinue vs caster + retinue.

AMF also requires a caster and while it is a big threat that's why the optimized arcane casters have retinue creatures like corporeal undead, called outsiders or golems as bodyguards.

The AMF monk is immune to the caster but still struggles to get into range (AMF means no flying unless he's some weird monstrous PC) of the caster. Called creatures put a beatdown on the noncaster.

Personally I think this style of play is undesirable but it definitely exists (although I think it's the exception rather than the norm). Unlike most of the 3.x types I think the solution is not to buff the noncasters to 3.x caster levels but rather to figure out the strategies that enable god wizards and nerf the spells and mechanics that enable that playstyle.


The situation/playstyle Vuron is describing is, in my OPINION, a contributing factor to the monk hate.


Dragonsong wrote:
The situation/playstyle Vuron is describing is, in my OPINION, a contributing factor to the monk hate.

Buffed up wizards are hardly necessary to shut down monks. Even if he isn't invisible, and mirror imaged (which don't even work together) and so forth he's still flying, because high level casters do so as a matter of course. And that's enough.

Dark Archive

vuron wrote:
Unlike most of the 3.x types I think the solution is not to buff the noncasters to 3.x caster levels but rather to figure out the strategies that enable god wizards and nerf the spells and mechanics that enable that playstyle.

This right here...

Here are a few things from my game that I am working on to fix the magic problem (probably will get flamed):

Part of the major design flaw of 3rd edition is they kept the cap on certain spells -ex Magic Missile, x5 missiles max, yet Charm Person can charm any humanoid, no consideration of level. Then say compare Charm Person with Sleep, which does have a max HD value. So they made spell level considerations with some spells, but others were left 100% open/scalable and independent of target. Stupid and inconsistent design.

Fix:Limit DCs to max +5 for spells (not SLAs). Doesn't matter what your mods or boosters are, the spells have caps on DC based on their level, not yours.

Actually the max is +3, but if they make the effort to buy feats to increase the DC they get to do this twice (+2) and only if they cast spells from their specialization group.

So it doesn't matter what your Int modifier is, Hold Person has a Max DC 18 (Wizard 3rd level spell, +3 max from modifiers + 2 for both spell focus feats).

So in my game Charm Person would at best effect a low level mook (6th level cap) and still have a Max DC of 16 (1st level=11 + 5 max modifiers). If you want a higher DC Charm person use Charm Monster or a meta a higher level Charm Person (and slot).

This forces casters to use lower level spells on lower level targets and higher level spells for level appropriate challenges.

Monster SLAs will mostly remain unchanged unless they operate like a full caster, then they will be subject to these same rules.
Supplemental casters will not have DC caps, ex- Dragons barely dip into casting levels and power in relation to their CR so their lower level spells still need to be viable to the higher level PCs/threats they will encounter. So no cap on their Charm Person for a Dragon (or other supplemental casting creature).

That plus:
All non-touch spells as are full round actions (again a few exceptions).

Summoned creatures take up party xp in encounters, summoned creatures that get killed go against casters xp (no more trap bait).

Spell resistance exists to limit spell dependency. Drop stupid abilities or spells that nerf SR, it exits as a creature ability for a reason and not just a speedbump. Overcoming SR is a part of creature design, single spells which negate it (crappy spell compendium of crap) break the fundamental value of the creature. Just another "I win".

Tweak a few spells, what can and cannot stack - say body/personal transmutations or enchantment (no fly and invisible at same time), and you will find that casters quickly come back down to earth while still offering plenty to his party.


CoDzilla wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
The situation/playstyle Vuron is describing is, in my OPINION, a contributing factor to the monk hate.
Buffed up wizards are hardly necessary to shut down monks. Even if he isn't invisible, and mirror imaged (which don't even work together) and so forth he's still flying, because high level casters do so as a matter of course. And that's enough.

Mirror Image still works on the opposition with see invisible effects up, which isn't completely uncommon at that level.

True Seeing of course trumps both but that is a decidedly less common buff for most mid-tier opposition.

Layered defenses man layered defenses.


vuron wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
The situation/playstyle Vuron is describing is, in my OPINION, a contributing factor to the monk hate.
Buffed up wizards are hardly necessary to shut down monks. Even if he isn't invisible, and mirror imaged (which don't even work together) and so forth he's still flying, because high level casters do so as a matter of course. And that's enough.

Mirror Image still works on the opposition with see invisible effects up, which isn't completely uncommon at that level.

True Seeing of course trumps both but that is a decidedly less common buff for most mid-tier opposition.

Layered defenses man layered defenses.

True, but honestly that's overkill for most adventures. Just invis + flight trumps most of the MM.

Shadow Lodge

For all those flying wizard the monk just can't get too: It's Zen Archery, the best thing for monks since Unarmed Strike!

KILL IT WITH FIERY ARROWS!


Dragonborn3 wrote:

For all those flying wizard the monk just can't get too: It's Zen Archery, the best thing for monks since Unarmed Strike!

KILL IT WITH FIERY ARROWS!

Which of the tens of thousands of 5 foot squares within range do you aim at in order to hit the invisible, flying wizard?


Auxmaulous wrote:
Cirno wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Cirno wrote:
No see they made fighters like casters because now fighters have difference stances and maneuvers and styles of attack just like real martial arts and real fighting techniques so clearly that must be magic. Don't you know? Real medieval knights never used any techniques at all, they just aimlessly bashed each other over the head!
Right, because desert wind magic flaming sword is a martial discipline! LOLcirno!
Yes, odd how the arcane martial class meant to act as the monk-alike and is given complete supernatural overtones has supernatural abilities just as the monk did.

Didn't your quote reference Medieval Knights? So it it asian themed monks or knights?

You need to make up your mind cirno and stop changing your argument and examples to fit your need.

Wow it's almost as if Tome of Battle had three classes, not just one!

Imagine that!

So I could - hypothetically speaking, of course, since ToB only had one class - make a "warblade" (Just the name I've come up with here) to act as the extraordinary yet not supernatural warrior type, I could make a...let's call it a Crusader, very western name, to act as the divinely inspired warrior (sort of like the paladin), and...I dunno. Well, we could make a more supernatural based warrior, with a menuver called Desert Breeze or Desert Gust or - oh, I know, Desert Wind! It'll be very middle eastern themed, lots of fire and desert related ideas. This arcane supernatural based warrior will be called the...swordsage, right. And it could be our version of the monk. Oh, the monk is a class I also just made up, since surely it has never existed in D&D before.

There, in this completely hypothetical view, we'd have three classes for three different archtypes.

Too bad there's only one, right Auxmaulous?

Dark Archive

Sorry, am I missing the part about the medieval knights in the ToB? Is that supposed to be interchangeable with the Warblade?

So no, not divine, not middle eastern or asian themed - just medieval knights. You know, the example you brought up in your original nonsensical post.

Lets see how your non-supernatural class stacks up.
So the non-supernatural Warblade - the class who has access to supernatural powers that allow him to: see invisible foes, speed up time, Self-heal(4e), redirect melee attacks to enemies, turn his body to stone 1/round, cause an earthquake by channeling his ki and striking his weapon into the ground...is not supernatural?

Really cirno, Non-supernatural?

You don't how pathetic it is to try pedal this stuff as non-magical. How does any of this mesh up with your example techniques used "like real medieval knights"........oh wait, it doesn't.

ToB was a poor attempt to balance out the issues in 3.5 of caster dominance while keeping fighters and monks in the same game using a separate set of rules for these new martial classes.
Bad design, bad fix and overall a major screw-over of every non-caster class not in the ToB. They should have just came out and said it - d20 doesn't work and we ruined the game.


Auxmaulous wrote:

the class who has access to supernatural powers that allow him to: see invisible foes, speed up time, Self-heal(4e), redirect melee attacks to enemies, turn his body to stone 1/round, cause an earthquake by channeling his ki and striking his weapon into the ground...is not supernatural?

Some of these are not even remotely supernatural and the others I have never seen.

see invisible:never seen
speed up time:never seen
redirect attacks-not SU at all. It is actually more believable than improved evasion.
turn his body to stone-Never seen
cause an earthquake-sounds familiar, but I dont remember the "ki" part.

The redirect attack maneuvers are very specific. There are more than one, and they don't all work the same. Naming them(problematic maneuvers) specifically will help this go faster.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


see invisible:never seen
speed up time:never seen
redirect attacks-not SU at all. It is actually more believable than improved evasion.
turn his body to stone-Never seen
cause an earthquake-sounds familiar, but I dont remember the "ki" part.

I assume the first two are Diamond Mind maneuvers, and not at all supernatural. Hearing the Air is not See Invisibility, it is noticing the minor changes in the environment that an invisible opponent makes. The movement of leaves and puff of dust as the enemy steps past, the sound of his breath and rattle of his armor. Time Stands Still may sound like it is supernatural, but it is just a trained warrior moving faster than a lesser warrior can. Same way a 20th level fighter can attack four times in the same space of time as a 1st level fighter takes to attack once.

Earthstrike Quake does mention ki, and may seem like a little much. Of course, if you're a warrior with a 30 Str, you should be able to shake the ground with a punch anyway, but we won't argue that. Iron Bones gives DR/adamantine, but how else are we supposed to represent a warrior that can survive a punch from a giant?


Auxmaulous wrote:

Sorry, am I missing the part about the medieval knights in the ToB? Is that supposed to be interchangeable with the Warblade?

So no, not divine, not middle eastern or asian themed - just medieval knights. You know, the example you brought up in your original nonsensical post.

Lets see how your non-supernatural class stacks up.
So the non-supernatural Warblade - the class who has access to supernatural powers that allow him to: see invisible foes, speed up time, Self-heal(4e), redirect melee attacks to enemies, turn his body to stone 1/round, cause an earthquake by channeling his ki and striking his weapon into the ground...is not supernatural?

Really cirno, Non-supernatural?

You don't how pathetic it is to try pedal this stuff as non-magical. How does any of this mesh up with your example techniques used "like real medieval knights"........oh wait, it doesn't.

ToB was a poor attempt to balance out the issues in 3.5 of caster dominance while keeping fighters and monks in the same game using a separate set of rules for these new martial classes.
Bad design, bad fix and overall a major screw-over of every non-caster class not in the ToB. They should have just came out and said it - d20 doesn't work and we ruined the game.

Pstt, you can see invisible creatures if you beat their hide checks (invisibility gives a bonus tyo hide to not be seen) in D&D. Says so in the PHB.

Yep at level 3 easily, a Rogue can see invisible targets 50% of time automatically.
DC 20 = know they are nearby. DC 40 = know exactly where they are.
Oh, snap all rogues must be magical.
But seriously, seeing invisible creatures isn't hard. You just need to have good eyes or be trained in it (the stance in ToB).
Gretting around the concealment is harder.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Sorry, am I missing the part about the medieval knights in the ToB? Is that supposed to be interchangeable with the Warblade?

So no, not divine, not middle eastern or asian themed - just medieval knights. You know, the example you brought up in your original nonsensical post.

Lets see how your non-supernatural class stacks up.
So the non-supernatural Warblade - the class who has access to supernatural powers that allow him to: see invisible foes, speed up time, Self-heal(4e), redirect melee attacks to enemies, turn his body to stone 1/round, cause an earthquake by channeling his ki and striking his weapon into the ground...is not supernatural?

Really cirno, Non-supernatural?

You don't how pathetic it is to try pedal this stuff as non-magical. How does any of this mesh up with your example techniques used "like real medieval knights"........oh wait, it doesn't.

ToB was a poor attempt to balance out the issues in 3.5 of caster dominance while keeping fighters and monks in the same game using a separate set of rules for these new martial classes.
Bad design, bad fix and overall a major screw-over of every non-caster class not in the ToB. They should have just came out and said it - d20 doesn't work and we ruined the game.

Pstt, you can see invisible creatures if you beat their hide checks (invisibility gives a bonus tyo hide to not be seen) in D&D. Says so in the PHB.

Yep at level 3 easily, a Rogue can see invisible targets 50% of time automatically.
DC 20 = know they are nearby. DC 40 = know exactly where they are.
Oh, snap all rogues must be magical.
But seriously, seeing invisible creatures isn't hard. You just need to have good eyes or be trained in it (the stance in ToB).
Gretting around the concealment is harder.

Even if you beat the stealth/hide check you can't see them. You just know what square they are in. Even knowing what square they are in still means a 50% miss chance.


Auxmaulous wrote:


Spell resistance exists to limit spell dependency. Drop stupid abilities or spells that nerf SR, it exits as a creature ability for a reason and not just a speedbump. Overcoming SR is a part of creature design, single spells which negate it (crappy spell compendium of crap) break the fundamental value of the creature. Just another "I win".

Yeah, it's been a terrible idea since 2E's Tome of Magic first gave us Lower Resistance.

That being said, 3E Assay Resistance etc. aren't even really the problem -- the problem is that there were/are too many good spells that SR doesn't apply to at all.

Really, when designing spells, SR: No should be a several-level kick vs. a mechanically equivalent spell that IS subject to SR -- but it's not.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Again, what about his feelings on the matter? Does only one person at the table get to decide what is or is not D&D?

What are you saying? One of these three options:

1) I shouldn't have allowed ToB in the game in the first place? I did because I was thinking of the player and hoping he had fun.
2) I should have quit running the game, because I don't like having a Crusader and feeling like I'm running Anime & Dragons?
3) I should have told the player he wasn't welcome to the game because he wanted to play a Crusader and I couldn't run with a Crusader any more?

None of those options were desired. The only reasonable option I could see was spend 20 hours crafting a new mechanic for his crusader to use his Crusader abilities. A mechanic he played for a couple months, but ultimately switched to Sorcerer. Should I have not gone the extra mile? Should I have just said, "you suck" and closed up my game to never run again?

You could have taken other options.

4) You could have discussed your apparent discomfort about his character's "anime"-ness and found a way to get over it. Either by:
4a) Working with the player on sublte refluffing.
4b) Rolling with the idea of a fantastical fightin' man and how the world reacts to that.
5) You could have inquired online on how to look at the class in a way that doesn't fall back on "fantastic fighter = ANIME".

Sorry man, but my sympathies are with the player that had his character, which he was evidently having fun with and was balanced to boot, fiddled with so late in the game because someone thought he was having badwrongfun.

And I'm not even a big fan of the Bo9S.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Sorry, am I missing the part about the medieval knights in the ToB? Is that supposed to be interchangeable with the Warblade?

That is one archtype a warblade can take, yes.

Quote:
So no, not divine, not middle eastern or asian themed - just medieval knights. You know, the example you brought up in your original nonsensical post.

Ok, warblades then.

Quote:
see invisible foes

High spot = I'm a wizard!

Quote:
speed up time

High reactionary speed = I'm a wizard!

Quote:
Self-heal(4e)

HP has never been pure physical damage. Ever.

Quote:
redirect melee attacks to enemies

Knowing fencing and how to riposte = I'm a wizard!

Quote:
turn his body to stone 1/round

Which maneuver is this?

Quote:
cause an earthquake by channeling his ki and striking his weapon into the ground...is not supernatural?

Ogres and trolls are all wizards!

Are you a fan of Insane Clown Posse? Because it seems everything in the normal natural world to you is some kind of miracle.

This just goes back to my initial gripe - that people for whatever reason believe that European knights literally did nothing but bop each other on the head with big sticks that were vaguely sharpened.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Are you a fan of Insane Clown Posse? Because it seems everything in the normal natural world to you is some kind of miracle.

Just pointing out that this is my proudest line yet.


How about we just handle this discussion peacefully, both of you, and address specific maneuvers one at a time.

Which maneuver are you referring to which turns an opponent's attack back on them Auxmaulous?

EDIT: As a DBZ fan (although I'd be the first to admit I hate the long power up sequences), I feel obligated to point out that nothing ToB or or anything else (even the Epic Level Handbook) does anything to bring D&D anywhere close to DBZ. To get a character comperable to DBZ (at least, anything beyond Radditz anyway) would require characters with WELL over 100 strength and dexterity, massive movement speeds, SU flight, and the capacity to blow the planet up.)

Dark Archive

kyrt-ryder wrote:

How about we just handle this discussion peacefully, both of you, and address specific maneuvers one at a time.

Which maneuver are you referring to which turns an opponent's attack back on them Auxmaulous?

I don't care about the ToB or the powers, imo they are crap.

The design reason behind the ToB is more of an issue - as in a fix for d20 gaming which WotC lost control over.

If people like the ToB, good for them.
I see it as a piss-poor attempt to patch over the problems with ever escalating power of casters. They couldn't put the genie back in the bottle and dare not fix or cap D20 gaming in any way, so they tried to release another crap genie. And they failed.


Auxmaulous wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

How about we just handle this discussion peacefully, both of you, and address specific maneuvers one at a time.

Which maneuver are you referring to which turns an opponent's attack back on them Auxmaulous?

I don't care about the ToB or the powers, imo they are crap.

The design reason behind the ToB is more of an issue - as in a fix for d20 gaming which WotC lost control over.

If people like the ToB, good for them.
I see it as a piss-poor attempt to patch over the problems with ever escalating power of casters. They couldn't put the genie back in the bottle and dare not fix or cap D20 gaming in any way, so they tried to release another crap genie. And they failed.

I understand your position Auxmaulous, I'm asking more out of curiosity for the sake of discussion than to try to prove any specific points.


IMHO this discussion is pointless.

Pathfinder melee PCs already are "unrealistic". Speaking of manga, not at a dragonball level but at a "berserk" level.

Take a look at Barbarian strenght surge. Just imagine a strengh check of +32 or such what could be.

A scythe weapon master fighter can crit for 300 damage or so. That means cut a dragon in half with a blow.

A 20 level monk can fly walking on the air.

Pounce, odd movements, standard action attacks.. are already available for this or that class or feat combination.. Other things are under a different shapes but the result is the same (the Paladin is an holy dude that beats evil and heal allies.. the final effect is the same of the crusader). Strike + condition is covered by critical feat, maneuver feats and the dirty trick maneuver.

I like more how pathfinder managed it because I like mix feats and class features to obtain an effect at the moment, but IMHO the book and the new melee classes are not that different, barring action economy and few saving throw maneuvers.

Dark Archive

You know, I was looking in the book and the Hungry Ghost mountain build can actually be pretty solid. Maybe not reduce, but I started him out to level 8 for PFS and he has a lot going for him; certainly very good saves, and not awful awful AC. And his ki pool should stay solid, enabling lots of extra attacks. Overall even if not the best build, may certainly be the most fun PFS character I can build (really in the mood to do a non-caster, though often there seems to be a lack of support players in our local PFS, so who knows)?

So this thread has been pretty inspiring. If you look past the straight DPS, and look at survivability, I think the stock on monks goes up quite a bit :).


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


It's extremely relevant because the actual DnD setting didn't give the fighters anything super special. Instead it crippled the casters. I really hated playing in that setting.

Again, whatever authors of Lankhmar setting did, instead of making levels cap at 5, as they should to reflect low-fantasy realities of Lankhmar this has no impact on stuff in the books. Sorcerers like Sheelba and Ningauble (not sure if I remember the spelling correctly) still represent the top tier of power in the books. They are not Better Than You to the extent even Gandalf is, but that's because the whole setting is low level, and a bunch of mooks is a grave threat even to the most hardened adventurers.

More importantly for "actual gameplay" in Lankhmar as written by Leiber, magical thingies are Better Than You. Weird demons, that can arbitrarily target you or be accidentally summoned flatly cannot be destroyed by stabbing them with your sword. You need to find their plot weakness. You cannot aspire to loot undead-filled temples or monster-infested ruins of a sunken city (even when said city surfaces, so you don't need water breathing to go there), because undead and monsters will just kill you all-too-human ass.
Now, while I remarked on this adventure style derogatorily two posts ago, it is not actually bad (I like most of Lankhmar stories). Non-superpowerful heroes trying to make their way in the hostile world, dodging stuff that can crush them and defeating supernatural forces by wit and determination make for a good stories.
However, such heroes have no place in a DnD campaign. At all. DnD presumes that PCs actually confront the great mashup of fantasy and mythology monsters, liberally sprinkled with more powers, and stab them right in the face. And then you go to defeat even more ridiculous things. DnD always was such, earliest incarnations of the game (when certifiable evil gods were eminently killable before level 20) even moreso than the current ones. This means, that mundane fighters, by definition, fail at DnD.
And even if you use stealth superpowers and christmas tree effect to graft enough numbers on them to actually survive against castle-sized monsters (that also might be - at the same time - quick-thinking masters of arcane arts), they will still remain inherently boring, compared to people who can warp reality. That's because in RPG format things that make problem-solving parts of the books' plots interesting generally turn into pixel-b&!&~ing, and because players want input into the plot too (and pure fighters have much less, if any, ways, to impact the plot on their own power).

Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Moorcock's worlds are also very different. In fact, each world is different from the others. I preferred the Elric saga. In that one, casters were also very different and it was the non-casters that did the best unless a pact was made. The very high majority of people in the world were non-casters.

Olololol. Elric Saga? The world where, unless you can bargain with outsiders, the titular characters will kill you and your whole castle without save? Where unless you have serious magic, artifacts or at least magical monsters in your disposal, you can choose between being a sidekick to someone who has, or being a scenery (which gets blown up with abandon)?

Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Umm, I don't think we read the same books. Moorcock didn't use a lot of casters in his books. Even the infamous Stormbringer was used by a caster. Elric didn't need the artifact because he was a fighter. He needed it because he was frail.

If there is supposed to be some coherent thought here, I don't see it. Let me explain my observations again, in two simple points:

1)Elric is a caster. He needs Stormbringer to be able to screw his cousing without juicing himself on drugs (although he still can juice himself on self-cooked drugs and, in true caster fashion, completely ignore the drawbacks he took at the chargen whenever it is actually important, unless GM decides that it's the time to screw him over). He doesn't need it to summon Colossal elementals and animal lords to ruin his enemies' day, or to strike bargains with gods.
2)Elric both can shake his world with his power and is significantly more powerful than other Moorcock's heroes. He does not rely on his major artifact to survive literally every significant encounter, like Corum does (in the first trilogy, in the second he gets a bit better, but still mostly can only deliver McGuffins). He is not restricted to fighting mundane mortals, like Hawkmoon is.
Conclusion: one of the supposed "old-school" sources of inspiration, namely Moorcock's books fully support the idea that casters > warriors. However you rationalize it with "that how the world was set up", the fact remains, that either the fighter's world is set up to tone the supernatural stuff way down (save for magitech, that - at least the forms that are useful in personal combat - is available to everyone), or the fighter is basically an attachment to his artifacts.


Auxmaulous wrote:
FatR wrote:
And all those with extensive banlist clearly mistrusted the players and feared losing their precious control.
Standard denner mantra

Do you have any comments more productive, than this pitiful attempt at ad hominem, that also shows your complete ignorance about the Gaming Den mentality*?

*One can criticize the Den's approach to writing DnD houserules for promoting, rather than curbing down the worst aspects of 3.X gameplay. One cannot criticize it for being tolerant of supplement-diving.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
FatR wrote:
(if you try, the monsters will just eat the party at two-digit levels - at the latest, in my Paizo AP games melee types were unable to fight undebuffed enemies without dying alot by level 6-7 - unless you rewrite them too, at which point you have a new goddamn edition)
Why is a new edition a bad thing?

A new edition is not a bad thing it itself. I'm just pointing out, that you cannot change the underlying assumptions of the game with a few houserules.


*looks at title and previous discussion*

*looks at current topics brought up*

*looks back at title*

Sigh ... could this one die? Seriously ... just open up a new thread to out-logic each other.

I was actually interested in this thread at one point ... before it got thread-jacked. I mean, how far off-topic are you trying to get?

:shrugs sadly:

*shakes fist to the heavens*

;-)

Liberty's Edge

CoDzilla wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
And yes, since anime = trash, anything can be "too anime". We don't need DBZ D&D, the game has already got enough problems as it is.

Now I know you're just trolling.

Far as I'm concerned this conversation is finished.

I realized Aux was nothing but a troll within 5 minutes of joining these boards. It took you that long?

And CoDzilla would know.

Liberty's Edge

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

*looks at title and previous discussion*

*looks at current topics brought up*

*looks back at title*

Sigh ... could this one die? Seriously ... just open up a new thread to out-logic each other.

I was actually interested in this thread at one point ... before it got thread-jacked. I mean, how far off-topic are you trying to get?

:shrugs sadly:

*shakes fist to the heavens*

;-)

As the OP, I feel like the thread has both worked and run it's course.

Most of the people actually interested seem to agree the Monk has a place and a niche, and there was a lot of rules discussion about variants and options that made everyone realize that there isn't really any "problem" that needs to be fixed.

Most of the rest are trolling each other at this point.


ciretose wrote:

As the OP, I feel like the thread has both worked and run it's course.

Most of the people actually interested seem to agree the Monk has a place and a niche, and there was a lot of rules discussion about variants and options that made everyone realize that there isn't really any "problem" that needs to be fixed.

Actually, as this thread spawned two others about "fixes" I don't agree with your conclusion but, its time for this thread to go night night and if the TOB discussion needs to continue it can have its own thread.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CoDzilla wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
And yes, since anime = trash, anything can be "too anime". We don't need DBZ D&D, the game has already got enough problems as it is.

Now I know you're just trolling.

Far as I'm concerned this conversation is finished.

I realized Aux was nothing but a troll within 5 minutes of joining these boards. It took you that long?

^ Irony.


CoDzilla,

You mentioned you and your group made some clarifications and fixed a few TOB maneuvers. Would you mind sharing them with me? I've been working on getting a good understanding of the TOB and could appreciate others' take on it.

If you have a write-up or can type up your group's mods, would you send them to (there are no spaces): temp it is at the G mail . com ?

Thank you.

V

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some rather virulent arguing, despite the age of the thread. Also, locking this one instead of necroing it for a 'removed posts' announcement.

851 to 900 of 900 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the monk hate? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion