Fighter vs. Rogue or Monk


Advice

351 to 400 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monk could have also reached level 20 a decade ago, and come out of retirement for "one more big fight" to "teach those whippersnappers the value of experience" ...by fighting dirty in every way imaginable. :)

Again, the whole set up is silly to begin with. The elderly ass kicking monk is at least explainable. It's even a common trope.


LoreKeeper wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I'm sorry, but not being seen until you are sixty feet away and being completely invisible right next to somebody are two very different things, especially if the person knows you are there somewhere. You can ready an action to 'hit the invisible guy when he appears' after all.
Not based on the Paizo fixes to Stealth. The monk can leave cover and stay in stealth until after his first attack against the fighter (provided the fighter doesn't manage to perceive him).

Stealth was not fixed. It was only a suggested change on the blog, no errata or FAQ means no fix especially if restricted to using core. Stealth breaks once you leave cover.


Gignere wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I'm sorry, but not being seen until you are sixty feet away and being completely invisible right next to somebody are two very different things, especially if the person knows you are there somewhere. You can ready an action to 'hit the invisible guy when he appears' after all.
Not based on the Paizo fixes to Stealth. The monk can leave cover and stay in stealth until after his first attack against the fighter (provided the fighter doesn't manage to perceive him).
Stealth was not fixed. It was only a suggested change on the blog, no errata or FAQ means no fix especially if restricted to using core. Stealth breaks once you leave cover.

Right, so we'll talk about this again when the next reprint of Core is done.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Sorry, can't use age in your favor in a contest of classes. That severely screws bias towards one class or another.

Invalid build. Keep the rules the same.

Alternatively, rule that he only got the benefits of ignoring age penalties after reaching venerable, so he has to retain the age penalties he already attained. Start sucking that -6 to Str, Con and Dex, please, for your 'free' +3 to mental stats.

Nice try, however. Now, build somethign reasonable?

==Aelryinth

The rules are the same. There are rules for being different ages, right in core, along with the benefits and penalties.

One of the monks high level class features is to take all the good of old age w/ none of the bad. If you can never enjoy the +3 mental stats w/o sucking physical ability penalties, that entire block of text is literally a waste of space that may as well have never been written. It's one of their class features. It's core. Deal with it.

The rules assumed you advance to old age. They never say you get to choose. Actually the rules say you are to roll for your age, and by the rules you never to roll venerable.

Most GM's don't enforce the rolling for age, height, and weight, but the rules are there.


Aelryinth wrote:

Since we're comparing character builds and not the relative merits of free stat bonuses from aging, it's assumed the characters are of equal age and not taking any physical penalties.

PFS does the same thing to prevent monk-cheaters from blowing point buy, which is effectively what this is doing. Dragonwrought Kobolds would (try to) do the same thing.

It's not gonna fly in any real comparison, and so is a ludicrous thing to put forwards.

It's a class feature. Deal with it.

Quote:

I'm certainly going to ignore it.

===Aelryinth

Well then, I'm going to ignore you and nothing of value will be lost.


Jodokai wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Ah, you were relying on age bonuses.

Well nobody said you couldn't but then these are fresh characters so I think everyone assumed starting ages (at least on this side of the fence).

Again, you can use any age you want, they are fresh 20th level characters, no one is born 20th level, but I'm more than willing to let the fighter builds age themselves to take advantage of venerable.

Show me the rule that says level 20 characters get to ignore the starting rules, or the rules that say you must adventure for X many years to get to level 20.

PS:They don't exist. :)


ImperatorK wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Since we're comparing character builds and not the relative merits of free stat bonuses from aging, it's assumed the characters are of equal age and not taking any physical penalties.

PFS does the same thing to prevent monk-cheaters from blowing point buy, which is effectively what this is doing. Dragonwrought Kobolds would (try to) do the same thing.

It's not gonna fly in any real comparison, and so is a ludicrous thing to put forwards.

It's a class feature. Deal with it.

Quote:

I'm certainly going to ignore it.

===Aelryinth

Well then, I'm going to ignore you and nothing of value will be lost.

Starting at old age(venerable) is not a class feature. Ignoring old age is. As I said the rules tell you how to calculate age. There is not a rule saying 20th level characters get a free pass so they can start at venerable.

If any tactic is available then the fighter can just bring in leadership, and have a caster there. At least leadership is an option by the rules, as opposed to assuming the monk is about to die of old age soon.

They are rules:

Quote:


Additional Rules Chapter

Vital Statistics

The following section determines a character's starting age, height, and weight. The character's race and class influence these statistics. Consult your GM before making a character that does not conform to these statistics.

It seems to me that you need a GM's permission to build a character outside of these rules. Nowhere does it say starting at a higher level is an exception. It does say ask the GM's permission which means to ignore these rules requires rule 0(house rule).


I'll say this: Once we agree that the characters are higher than 1st level, any "rules" governing starting characters are irrelevant, because they're not starting characters anymore.


ImperatorK wrote:
I'll say this: Once we agree that the characters are higher than 1st level, any "rules" governing starting characters are irrelevant, because they're not starting characters anymore.

C'mon now that's just a semantic argument to bend the rules to your favor... Be realistic.


It's a viable argument. You dismissing it as semantics is sad.
The Vital Statistics section is talking about starting characters. 20th level is hardly starting.

BTW:

Quote:

Age

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

No rules were broken. I choose and the Monk is above the minimum age for his class.


Ok so have we addressed what actually gives the monk a chance and what guarantees the monk/rogue combo wins vs fighter yet? (sorry didn't read the whole thin so if this was mentioned feel free to call me lazy/stupid/etc etc) By that of course I mean a pure grapple monk, If a monk can initiate a grapple successfully on a fight he will be able to hold him there while the rogue sneak attacks him and the monk takes iteratives. Maybe it's just me but the seems like the first logical step to how the monk wins this. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or show me the math of it...(sorry I would do it myself but its been a long night...)


ImperatorK wrote:

It's a viable argument. You dismissing it as semantics is sad.

The Vital Statistics section is talking about starting characters. 20th level is hardly starting.

BTW:

Quote:

Age

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

Based on you're quote I will concede its viable but your argument previously about starting at anything but first doesn't make it a starting level character is completely a semantics argument and doesn't hold any weight or relevance, you have to at least admit that.


DeusNocturne wrote:
Ok so have we addressed what actually gives the monk a chance and what guarantees the monk/rogue combo wins vs fighter yet? (sorry didn't read the whole thin so if this was mentioned feel free to call me lazy/stupid/etc etc) By that of course I mean a pure grapple monk, If a monk can initiate a grapple successfully on a fight he will be able to hold him there while the rogue sneak attacks him and the monk takes iteratives. Maybe it's just me but the seems like the first logical step to how the monk wins this. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or show me the math of it...(sorry I would do it myself but its been a long night...)

we are talking about one vs one besides a rogue can't sneak attack a person who is grappled, they are not flat footed or denied their dexterity they just get a -4 dex and -2 to attack rolls.

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:

So what is being said here is that the monk wins when he gets to set ALL the terms of engagement, from terrain to age at the time of the engagement, right down to the terms of winning.

I don't think there's any point arguing here, the goalposts will get moved every time to say "I WIN" for the monk, so I'll go be reasonable some place else.

If I was playing a monk, that would count as winning.

Cover isn't common in your game? Your dungeons and buildings don't have walls? No difficult terrain.

Interesting...


Morris Chan wrote:
we are talking about one vs one besides a rogue can't sneak attack a person who is grappled, they are not flat footed or denied their dexterity they just get a -4 dex and -2 to attack rolls.

A couple quick things:

One. towards the beginning of this thread it was supposed that neither rogue or monk could win alone but together stood a chance so that's where I was coming from there...
Two. The condition I was thinking of was Pinned not Grappled which does indeed work. However all things considered I would still say a grapple monk (perhaps Tetori archetype)could likely win one vs one with a fighter.


DeusNocturne wrote:
Based on you're quote I will concede its viable but your argument previously about starting at anything but first doesn't make it a starting level character is completely a semantics argument and doesn't hold any weight or relevance, you have to at least admit that.

I don't have to admit anything. Vital Statistics talk about starting characters. When it's not 1st level, it's not a starting character and that part of "rules" is irrelevant. Pretty simple.


Dabbler wrote:

So what is being said here is that the monk wins when he gets to set ALL the terms of engagement, from terrain to age at the time of the engagement, right down to the terms of winning.

I don't think there's any point arguing here, the goalposts will get moved every time to say "I WIN" for the monk, so I'll go be reasonable some place else.

If I was playing a monk, that would count as winning.

Please explain what is unreasonable about picking your age? Is that really what you're so upset about? That really qualifies as "setting all the terms"? Picking your age?!?

Here's what I think the real issue is, and while I've quoted Dabbler's post it applies to a lot of people: You've been told that the monk is a weak class for so long you've started to believe it, and perpetuate that theory. When it's proven that the monk has a good chance of winning against most fighter builds, people just don't want to believe it. I mean if not allowing the monk to pick his age is the only thing that keeps the fighter alive, doesn't that at least say something about the Monk's abilities?

@DeusNocturne - The rules require Core only, so no archetypes. The problem is really that the Fighter's CMD is around 38, when I looked at it the monk needed a 16 or 18 to succeed. He also had to be in HtH range and with the fighters crit chance and auto-crit confirm, it was just a bad idea.


Ok, the monk is venerable.

"When a character reaches venerable age, secretly roll his maximum age and record the result, which the player does not know. A character who reaches his maximum age dies of old age sometime during the following year."

Round 1, Monk drops dead of old age. Fighter wins.

Oh wait, he JUST reached venerable right? He's got another year? How convenient... /sarcasm


The monk has a 1/365 chance of dying on the day of the competition. Not odds I'd want in real life, but as a game character, pretty good chance of living long enough to kill the fighter first. :p

Liberty's Edge

All of which is beside the point, since only one posted monk build involved venerable and it isn't particularly important to the strategy.


Indeed. I attached it to my build as an afterthought because I forgot about it when building my character. Ended up w/ an odd wis. If the monk were "only" old, he'd have the same wisdom bonus and int and cha 9 instead of 10. No big loss if he can't be all the way to venerable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Monk isn't allowed to have any advantages, even when they're provided by his class features, right?
It amuses my how apparently it is uncontested that the Monk will lose 100% and yet every nay-sayer is trying to fiat him into submission for the contest to be "fair".


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
The monk has a 1/365 chance of dying on the day of the competition. Not odds I'd want in real life, but as a game character, pretty good chance of living long enough to kill the fighter first. :p

True, true, but like I said, that depends on the Monk reaching venerable at the most convenient point in his life for this hypothetical showdown. If he reached it say, 7 months, before the fight, he's got a much higher chance of dropping dead on that day.

The whole situation is about what is "convenient" for the day (cover, crits, etc.) but at least none of the Fighter builds (so far) play anything like Russian-roulette with the Grim Reaper. That is where the objection is coming from.


Wait, so if only Core is allowed, and Shadow Dancer is in core, what seems to be a problem for Rogue ? He can just Hide in Plain Sight, while fighter is running away around arena from rogue's shadow buddy, cause no magical weapons, means shadow is untouchable, but if we are gonna cheat a bit less, there Rogue got his flanking buddy, and they can decimate Fighter in mostly 2 full attacks duo to Strength damage. Also, its said, no magic items, not, no magical abilities, so Rogue can fetch himself Vanish, or whatever he pleases from level 1 spells.

Without Shadow Dancer, and CRB only, Fighter got such a huge advantage that its not even funny. If DM was to allow all the books, Fighter would be doomed no questions asked.


Cibulan wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
The monk has a 1/365 chance of dying on the day of the competition. Not odds I'd want in real life, but as a game character, pretty good chance of living long enough to kill the fighter first. :p

True, true, but like I said, that depends on the Monk reaching venerable at the most convenient point in his life for this hypothetical showdown. If he reached it say, 7 months, before the fight, he's got a much higher chance of dropping dead on that day.

The whole situation is about what is "convenient" for the day (cover, crits, etc.) but at least none of the Fighter builds (so far) play anything like Russian-roulette with the Grim Reaper. That is where the objection is coming from.

It's just like the Fighter having just the convenient equipment. He shouldn't have an armor or the weapon he has Weapon Training in, right? That would be too convenient. It doesn't matter that it's his class feature.

If we're denying Monks class features based on convenience, we do it to the Fighter as well. How about that?
Lets be honest here. We're comparing (or whatever we're doing here) Monk and Fighter. For the contest to be fair both should be at their fullest potential, even if that means agreeing on some conveniences.


ImperatorK wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
The monk has a 1/365 chance of dying on the day of the competition. Not odds I'd want in real life, but as a game character, pretty good chance of living long enough to kill the fighter first. :p

True, true, but like I said, that depends on the Monk reaching venerable at the most convenient point in his life for this hypothetical showdown. If he reached it say, 7 months, before the fight, he's got a much higher chance of dropping dead on that day.

The whole situation is about what is "convenient" for the day (cover, crits, etc.) but at least none of the Fighter builds (so far) play anything like Russian-roulette with the Grim Reaper. That is where the objection is coming from.

It's just like the Fighter having just the convenient equipment. He shouldn't have an armor or the weapon he has Weapon Training in, right? That would be too convenient. It doesn't matter that it's his class feature.

If we're denying Monks class features based on convenience, we do it to the Fighter as well. How about that?
Lets be honest here. We're comparing (or whatever we're doing here) Monk and Fighter. For the contest to be fair both should be at their fullest potential, even if that means agreeing on some conveniences.

First, you wildly misinterpret the benefit of that class feature. Second, you cannot seriously compare picking equipment to picking age.

Agree to disagree. No one is going to convince you otherwise, and likewise most of us aren't going to accept your reasoning.


Just let the Monk run in circles around the Fighter for 50 years until they are both venerable, then the beating starts.:)


ciretose wrote:
All of which is beside the point, since only one posted monk build involved venerable and it isn't particularly important to the strategy.

The build with 27 in widom is the one that have the higher chances to beat the fighter, the others could win but no most of the time.


Cibulan wrote:
Agree to disagree. No one is going to convince you otherwise, and likewise most of us aren't going to accept your reasoning.

My reasoning is sound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ImperatorK wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
Agree to disagree. No one is going to convince you otherwise, and likewise most of us aren't going to accept your reasoning.
My reasoning is sound.

I haven't been in this debate at all thus far, but I have to say you seem to be acting a bit childish.

Like Cibulan just said, he obviously disagrees with you, and you obviously disagree with him. Hence agree to disagree, the fact that you can't even do that is just immature.

Sorry for the harsh tone, but that that last post of yours just seemed ridiculous to me.


Schrödinger's monk can beat Schrödinger's fighter, assuming the fight takes place in a Schrödinger's arena.

PS: can the fighter run away until the monk dies of old age?


From what I understand there is actually a build for the Monk, is there not?


ImperatorK wrote:
I'll say this: Once we agree that the characters are higher than 1st level, any "rules" governing starting characters are irrelevant, because they're not starting characters anymore.

The rules I quoted did not mention staring characters. This is important since you might start a game at level 10 as an example. You are trying to cheese your way past the age limits. If not you would find a rule that said you could bypass that rule. So far I have not seen any.


ImperatorK wrote:

It's a viable argument. You dismissing it as semantics is sad.

The Vital Statistics section is talking about starting characters. 20th level is hardly starting.

BTW:

Quote:

Age

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

No rules were broken. I choose and the Monk is above the minimum age for his class.

I quoted where it said it is up to the GM. Since we are on the boards it is common to use the regular rules, and not bring in anything requiring rule 0.


ImperatorK wrote:

The Monk isn't allowed to have any advantages, even when they're provided by his class features, right?

It amuses my how apparently it is uncontested that the Monk will lose 100% and yet every nay-sayer is trying to fiat him into submission for the contest to be "fair".

How many times is "Venerable is not a class feature"going to have to be repeated?" Better yet show me where it says 20th level monks are venerable.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:
All of which is beside the point, since only one posted monk build involved venerable and it isn't particularly important to the strategy.
The build with 27 in widom is the one that have the higher chances to beat the fighter, the others could win but no most of the time.

It's a 5% difference, over 20 attacks, that was only included in one of the posted builds and would have almost no effect if it were removed.

Three ways this goes.

1.Either the monk strategy works and the fighter doesn't hit him, and the monk wins.

2. The monk strategy only partially works and each of the 20 time the monk spring attacks to paralyse or quivering palm the fighter has a chance of hitting the monk, which might be a critical, which might end the fight, which makes it more or less a "Rocket Tag" push.

3. The monk is really dumb and tries to trade punches directly and loses.


Well - can we agree on the following:

1. a fighter will typically outdamage any other core class
2. given any particular core fighter build, it is possible to design a core monk that will statistically beat said particular core fighter better than 50% of the time
3. given a sample of 10 core fighters and 10 core monks (each monk designed to be able to beat its corresponding fighter) - if you were to pick any fighter and any monk at random from those two sets, odds are in favor of the fighter winning


Quote:
The rules I quoted did not mention staring characters. This is important since you might start a game at level 10 as an example.
Quote:
The following section determines a character's starting age, height, and weight.
Quote:
You are trying to cheese your way past the age limits.

Yeah, because using a class feature is the epitome of cheese. If a Monk can't be venerable by RAW then that's a pretty useless class feature.

Quote:
If not you would find a rule that said you could bypass that rule. So far I have not seen any.
Quote:
I quoted where it said it is up to the GM.

I quoted where it's said that you can choose to determine the age yourself or through rolls.

And it's not up to the DM if the player can choose the age. It's up to the DM when the player wants to make a character that does not conform to these statistics. The Monk does. He's neither below the minimum age nor above the maximum (for his race).

Liberty's Edge

LoreKeeper wrote:

Well - can we agree on the following:

1. a fighter will typically outdamage any other core class
2. given any particular core fighter build, it is possible to design a core monk that will statistically beat said particular core fighter better than 50% of the time
3. given a sample of 10 core fighters and 10 core monks (each monk designed to be able to beat its corresponding fighter) - if you were to pick any fighter and any monk at random from those two sets, odds are in favor of the fighter winning

1. Yes.

2. Yes.
3. I think that all monks are going to have +60 movement, quivering palm and paralyzing palm regardless of what else they have. And I think most will have spring attack, because it is a monk feat they can take without prerequisites.

If they have that, they can beat most fighter builds if there is any kind of cover at all.


@ They know how they are-->I will put it like this if I have a class feature that says I get to ignore sunlight if I become a vampire that does not mean I get to become a vampire.
By the same token being allow to ignore the negative aspects of venerable assuming if you happen to live that long does not mean your character just gets to say it is venerable.

Both of those are rules 0/GM decisions.


Quote:

Age

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

I can choose my characters age. So say the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ImperatorK wrote:
Quote:

Age

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

I can choose my characters age. So say the rules.

Just stop please it is painfully obvious most of the board disagrees with you. You will not change anyone's mind so just drop it, I (much like many others I'm sure) am tired of reading you post the same justifications over and over. Agree to disagree and leave it at that.


I quoted the rules. I don't see you quoting anything of relevance.


older post correction
That should be "starting" not "staring". :)


DeusNocturne wrote:
Just stop please it is painfully obvious most of the board disagrees with you. You will not change anyone's mind so just drop it, I (much like many others I'm sure) am tired of reading you post the same justifications over and over. Agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Look again, it is painfully obvious that the Fighters disagree. The rules spell out in no uncertain terms that the player can pick their age. If the age rules were never supposed to come up, why are there rules governing them? Why was ink wasted on the monk (and druid) ability?

Like I said before, the fighters were saying how under-powered the monk was, now that the monk is kicking their builds butt, it must be because the monk is cheating. There is a famous quote by John Kenneth Galbraith: "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." Instead of admitting the monk is a viable character class and contributes just as much, if not more than, the fighter, they have to prove the monk is cheating. The thing is though, what no one wants to accept, is that even without the age, the fighter still fails his fort 45-50% of the time. It is still 3 hits and the monk wins. He also has about 15 rounds at a 30 AC (using Ki) to get those hits. The age is a non-issue, you think it's cheating, I think you're full of it and just whining because you're losing, but fine I'll get rid of it, just to see what you whine about next, because the fighter is still down in 3 hits.

Liberty's Edge

What is painfully obvious is that it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand.


I still think in any "normal" fight, monk has no chance. I just wanted to be fair and try to find a way for monk to find victory. That he has to resort to such extreme measures to avoid an actual fight at all costs and turn it into a game of rocket tag -- "will I be able to make the fighter fail 2 or more fort saves before he rolls a nat 15+ to hit me?" -- only shows how weak a class it is for a "melee combatant."

But being elderly, using lots of poisons, and so forth... it's all core.

Liberty's Edge

Define "Normal".

I've yet to see a battle map that didn't include something that could be used for cover.

351 to 400 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Fighter vs. Rogue or Monk All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.