MAD Monk? Big Deal! Just be still y'all grasshoppers


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Giant axes from a cyclops should do more damage than a guy's fists, just saying. :)

I'll give you one mountain dungeon where monks did well (party of four, two were monks), really rough terrain and hiking long distance, climbing a lot, fighting on precarious surfaces, having the ac to take attacks from multiple areas, dealing with poison.

Terrain slowed you down if your speed was low and couldn't pass the acrobatics. If you couldn't stay in control, enemies got height and on top of you.
Long distance, tough environment, lot of fort saves, monks are good at those (but yep, other melee can be better).
Lot of climbing checks up and down, not wearing armour sure was helpful. Being strong and skilled in these areas also helped.
Fighting in less than even terrain, the two monks did great.
Knocking things down to their doom (the monks did that too, stunning fist came out as well successfully, bullrush chars would be great here as well).
Their high reflex saves also helped them not plummet to their deaths or slip on ice.
Great ac, lots of attacks from multiple directions. Also did great here. Not so much full round, more moving, fighting, getting to a better spot, jumping/climbing.
Poison reared its head, one monk was immune (all levels in monk), one multiclass monk passed his saves. I love poison, throw it in a lot.

They did great actually, one of the monks ended up dying, because he tried to spring attack a party of winter wolves, and ran away from the party but not so far as to escape, and didn't climb up the way they had came. Poor guy, he got unlucky. Facing all the problems up to that point, the monks did really well. The other monk got through no problem.

I didn't place these situations to show how good the monk was, it was just hiking through frozen lands into a dormant volcano, down to fight the big bad, the dungeon was vertical. It was inspired by spelunky and games like uncharted, where to be slow is to die. The monks did great.

http://images.jayisgames.com/dora_spelunky_3.gif


The DM indded may have forgotten the blindsense. On the AC, it is slightly below a CR 13. However, thats what is written in the monster manual. Possibly why the DM boosted hp to 270 when the original amount was 230.


Ah, forgot to add, the monks also got to use their slow fall multiple times as they went down into the dungeon, the others had to make more high dc checks or risk taking hp damage or instant-death.

Simply, if you run your games like an action-adventure film, monks can do great and seem so fantastic as they leap, climb, slide down, kick a** and pass the saves to deal with obstacles.

If your dungeons are more flat, with more a room clearance style, get up close and chop a lot/shoot/blast the monk can seem inferior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
No, he can whip his bow out and fill the guys back with arrows exerting himself a lot less in the process.

Whipping out the bow = move action, so a standard action remains for firing one or two arrows, maybe three (Rapid Fire, Manyshot). This might be enough to stop the running guy if the fighter is an archer built but in general he won't be (and comparing the monk against specialized fighter builds depending on what aspect of the monk we are looking at is plain wrong). In rooms and corridors even this might not be sufficient as the running guy has already turned a corner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things like terrain (difficult causes movement penalties), Visibility (low light, complete pitch darkness, invisible creature?) Climate? frozen tundra, extreme cold forcing fort saves vs becoming a popsicle. Blazing deserts forcing fort saves vs becoming baked. If its extreme temperatures, endure elements won't cut it. Frostburn and sandstorm have specifics categories of extreme temperatures. All these require fort saves. Certain other melee classes also have good fort saves. What they don't have is immunity to natural diseases (except the paladin) and later, poisons. They stand a good chance of passing the save but low rolls do happen. If its low enough, the modifier won't be sufficient. Good reflex and will saves means they''ll be able to evade area of effects pretty well and shrug off compulsions and enchantment spells. This is something th fighter and barb will struggle with. THings like distance and mobile enemies. Skirmishers who shoot from a distance and stay out of range. Seen it happen. Fighter with base speed 30 and barb with 40 couldn't catch them. Very messy situation. They were forced to flee after being gradually whittled down. A monk of their evel would stand a better chance of catching them and interrupting their shots. With the exclusion of the enemy's skills and abilities, there are other factors which can make encounters very challenging. Listed above are someof them. Don't any of these make a difference in your games?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really think it all boils down to game style. My DMs have ran very dynamic games that monks did well in. In the few flat face to face slug fests the fighter did a little better perhaps. However when terrain got rough the monk literally carried the fighter through the place.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
1) System mastery. Wouldn't system mastery by mastery of the whole system? There is a whole system other than the feats, knowing feats is not system mastery, it is knowing a fair bit and getting some info on one part of the system. You don't need mastery to play monks, just the basics and sound advice on feats.

There are three main parts to the system: character design, combat and magic. As the monk doesn't use magic, we can safely discount them. Feats are part of character design, so you have to know character design, and they are also part of combat and the monk is a combat class.

Therefore, you need to know character design and combat well to pick the right feats. That's the 2/3 of the system that applies to the monk, and I call that system mastery as the other 1/3 doesn't have any bearing.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

2) "If you move, you won't hit anything. If you don't move..."

If a monk moves, they won't hit anything? Er, not in my experience. They can charge, they can spring attack, they can move and hit. Not everything has an ac of 40. Moving an attacking also doesn't mean a manoeuvre check will fail either.
If they don't move, they can flurry, they can put dodge and expertise to use.

If they don't move, they are not a mobile skirmisher. Monk's can try and hit things, sure, and a natural 20 always connects, but face it a monk with 3/4 BAB and no enhancement will not land a solid attack as often as a full BAB class with an enhanced weapon will. Or even another 3/4 BAB class with a decent weapon.

As for maneuvers, they can work great...if they apply. Can't disarm a dragon, trip an ooze or grapple a huge giant.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

3) "As for the feats they get, these are all well and good but they just put you half-way up the ladder and no further"

What ladder? A grappling monk can grapple, a monk with charge feats is good on the charge. They get a lot, they are good across a variety of "ladders" and if you really concentrate your feats, there is no half up the ladder about it.

Greater Grapple? Swift Grapple? Greater {insert maneuver here} for that matter. None of these are included in the monk's bonus feats, and to get them you need Combat Expertise. Combat Expertise requires intelligence. Can we say MAD, anyone?

Basically, the monk can be matched or beaten at any maneuver by any fighter with the inclination to do so, because the fighter has better access to the feats higher up the feat chain. He has better access because he only has two or three stats to worry about, while a monk trying to get there has five to worry about.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

4) "The monk is in a bit of a bind here because he can go places but often do little when he arrives."

The monk can't flurry the round after they arrive? They can't tie up opponents (grapple or defence), they can't move around and flank attack, then flurry? Speed is a wonderful asset.

Flurry means running up to somebody, waiting a round while they get the first full-attack in, then flurrying (probably hitting them less often for less damage) - not a good idea.

Grappling is good, but only against certain opponents - can't grapple a huge giant. Not something you can rely on.
Flanking means you need somebody to flank with, and who else in the party can keep up with the monk? Any character that can move ten feet or more can provide flanking; if you moved fifty feet you probably lost your flanking buddy.

Speed is helpful, but over-rated.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

5) "As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it."

Your experiences with stunning fist are not the same as everyone elses. How many times did you try to use it? Were you focusing only on opponents that had a good save against it? Lot of variables here. I've seen it used a fair bit (gmed for a few monks) and while it doesn't always work, I've seen it work more than once in seven levels.

I used it against wizards, clerics, rogues, guards, everything I came across. I used it in FoB and as an opener rushing up to targets. Most of the time, I just missed. The few times I hit, they saved - except one time.

Sure, I was probably getting the short end of the stick from the gods of dice, but the point here is that this highlights the monk's fundamental problem of not being able to hit reliably.

Stunning fist would be a lot more useful if it lasted until 'discharged' by a hit, but it isn't.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

6) "Sorry, but this is a myth that the monk is able to get by without equipment, he is dependent on ONE expensive piece way too heavily."

Amulet of mighty fists has never come up in my games. They haven't been in the loot, no one has rolled it. They can still hit, they can still damage. Their hands count as magical and other things as they level. Without the amulet, monks can indeed work, and do well.

It's not needed for maneuvers, true, but monks should be more than maneuvers because maneuvers don't work on everything. Without an AoMF a monk isn't able to hit as well as a rogue or a cleric with a decent weapon. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Even with the AoMF a fallen paladin hits harder and more reliably than a monk.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
7) "No, he can whip his bow out and fill the guys back with arrows exerting himself a lot less in the process." In long chase scenes, in engagements that go into cover and out of bow range, the monk is great at those. Good ol' base speed.

It's useful, but not a show-stopper. In chase scenes, sure, the monk can get ahead of the foe so they have to stop a round and kill him, giving the rest of the party a chance to catch up. It's an asset if you have to chase a single person, sure. But how often does that happen?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

8) "Running fast is one thing the monk can do better than anyone. Sadly, it doesn't achieve much save to separate the monk from the rest of the party."

Except it also leads to a bonus to great leaps/jumping.

Which are just more ways of separating from the party so encounters kill you. Unless you are scouting...which monks are not generally good at, because they lack the skill points.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

9) "I see no sign of monks NOT stacking up well with a fighter"

Grappler monks vs non grappling damage dealing fighters, e.g. two handers, e.g. sword and board with medium weapons.
Monks can move and keep at range, use magicla javelins, they have snatch arrows.
If the fighter does roll badly and gets their favourite essential weapon sundered/disarmed and taken, they don't fist fight monks so well.

If.

Assuming a the fighter carries a spare weapon (most do) he doesn't have to fight the monk unarmed. Even unarmed, the fighter not optimized for unarmed fighting can give the monk a run for his money. The fighter optimized for unarmed fighting hands the monk his ass.

As for ranged combat, for the monk to hot the foe the foe can hit the monk and the fighter has access to better weapons.

As for grappling, sure a specialist grappler can beat a non-specialist at grappling - most of the time. A monk grappler against a fighter grappler is a whole different ball-game.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

10) "i think you've see too many sucky monks compared to super optimized fighters with perfectly picked gear."

Seen a fair bit of both. I like fighters, some friends like monks.

Which is fair enough. I have played both, and the fighter is easy to make work compared to the monk.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
No, he can whip his bow out and fill the guys back with arrows exerting himself a lot less in the process.
Whipping out the bow = move action, so a standard action remains for firing one or two arrows, maybe three (Rapid Fire, Manyshot).

Quickdraw is a fighter bonus feat that any switch-hitter should take. Just saying.


wraithstrike wrote:


No my NPC's don't always fight to the death, but the monk is far from the only person that can stop a fleeing enemy. The fighter is also not the only person shooting him in the back if party is not taking prisoners either. In short it will not just be 1 or 2 arrows.

It take a very contrived scenario for the monk's services to be needed.

If the bad guy has cover to run two then why are the caster's not cutting off his path with spells?

- prisoners: good point, you don't take prisoners as easily with a bow; the monk has an advantage there

- so, you assume that all party members with ranged weapons will drop whatever they are doing at the moment (e.g. fighting against another foe), pull out their bow/crossbow/sling whatever and try to hit the running guy? THAT is contrived...
- maybe the casters are busy with other enemies or have used up the appropriate spells already? If it happens to be that the casters are not occupied and still have the appropriate spell, fine, they can stop a fleeing enemy, too. That's beside the point, though, as we were comparing the monk to the fighter and not to the fighter AND casters.

wraithstrike wrote:
7. If an enemy is hurt bad enough to flee a full attack from a bow will likely put him down. No chase needed, and like I said if speed is needed there are ways to get it.

An enemy does not have to be hurt badly to flee. He will flee if he sees that his friends are getting cut down without him being able to do anything about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:


Whipping out the bow = move action, so a standard action remains for firing one or two arrows, maybe three (Rapid Fire, Manyshot).
Quickdraw is a fighter bonus feat that any switch-hitter should take. Just saying.

Poor monk. Always compared to the damage optimized two-handed weapon fighter, the specialized unarmed fighter, the specialized maneuver fighter, the switch-hitter, the rogue (scouting/skills), casters and many more AT ONCE. Of course he can't beat all these specific builds. Funny that it takes so many different adversaries to take up the monk...

Don't misunderstand me: the monk should get some improvements, I agree on that. But don't make him worse than he is.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:


Whipping out the bow = move action, so a standard action remains for firing one or two arrows, maybe three (Rapid Fire, Manyshot).
Quickdraw is a fighter bonus feat that any switch-hitter should take. Just saying.

Poor monk. Always compared to the damage optimized two-handed weapon fighter, the specialized unarmed fighter, the specialized maneuver fighter, the switch-hitter, the rogue (scouting/skills), casters and many more AT ONCE. Of course he can't beat all these specific builds. Funny that it takes so many different adversaries to take up the monk...

Don't misunderstand me: the monk should get some improvements, I agree on that. But don't make him worse than he is.

I'm not. Monk has some great features, the problem is he has ended up a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. The fighter DOES have more access to and better options for combat feats that make some of the monk's abilities, should a fighter with such a build be present, redundant. The rogue and ranger ARE on the whole better at scouting.

The monk has a lot of neat abilities but they don't mesh the way they need to for them to be worthwhile having.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


No my NPC's don't always fight to the death, but the monk is far from the only person that can stop a fleeing enemy. The fighter is also not the only person shooting him in the back if party is not taking prisoners either. In short it will not just be 1 or 2 arrows.

It take a very contrived scenario for the monk's services to be needed.

If the bad guy has cover to run two then why are the caster's not cutting off his path with spells?

- prisoners: good point, you don't take prisoners as easily with a bow; the monk has an advantage there

- so, you assume that all party members with ranged weapons will drop whatever they are doing at the moment (e.g. fighting against another foe), pull out their bow/crossbow/sling whatever and try to hit the running guy? THAT is contrived...
- maybe the casters are busy with other enemies or have used up the appropriate spells already? If it happens to be that the casters are not occupied and still have the appropriate spell, fine, they can stop a fleeing enemy, too. That's beside the point, though, as we were comparing the monk to the fighter and not to the fighter AND casters.

wraithstrike wrote:
7. If an enemy is hurt bad enough to flee a full attack from a bow will likely put him down. No chase needed, and like I said if speed is needed there are ways to get it.
An enemy does not have to be hurt badly to flee. He will flee if he sees that his friends are getting cut down without him being able to do anything about it.

I assumed the bad guy was running because the fight was lost. If the fight is not lost why is he running. If the fight is lost why are his buddies still fighting?


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:


Whipping out the bow = move action, so a standard action remains for firing one or two arrows, maybe three (Rapid Fire, Manyshot).
Quickdraw is a fighter bonus feat that any switch-hitter should take. Just saying.

Poor monk. Always compared to the damage optimized two-handed weapon fighter, the specialized unarmed fighter, the specialized maneuver fighter, the switch-hitter, the rogue (scouting/skills), casters and many more AT ONCE. Of course he can't beat all these specific builds. Funny that it takes so many different adversaries to take up the monk...

Don't misunderstand me: the monk should get some improvements, I agree on that. But don't make him worse than he is.

I don't know why anyone favorited this. A fighter has more than enough feats to have quick draw, and there is no reason to not have it really.

A fighter can specialize in 2-handed weapons, and still use a bow reasonably well. When you have more feats than you have class level, and you get to choose the feats freely I don't see the issue.


The equalizer wrote:
The DM indded may have forgotten the blindsense. On the AC, it is slightly below a CR 13. However, thats what is written in the monster manual. Possibly why the DM boosted hp to 270 when the original amount was 230.

Gotta love these completely naked dragons. Mage armor is a +4 AC to the dragon for hours. The moment the dragon sensed an enemy, if he doesn't just cast it throughout the day, he could have flown up and buffed or just buffed right there. +20% evasion. Assuming of course the dragon isn't wearing any studded leather armor or anything (I mean the dragon can make the stuff himself more than likely, and the cost for a truly goofy sized suit of studded leather is still less than 1,000 gp). Shield pushes the dragon's AC to 31 if he cared enough to do so. I mean they cast like sorcerers, so the 1st level spell slot isn't going to be missed.

All of this assuming, of course, that the dragon isn't wearing any of his treasures. Wondrous items like cloaks and such adjust themselves to fit their wearers, and dragons have voices and fingers capable of articulating complex words and manipulations. You'd be lucky if the dragon didn't have an amulet of natural armor, cloak of resistance, and ring of protection somewhere on him providing him bonuses to saves and AC (AC 32-33 easy).

Just hearing about that encounter sounds like an incredibly fail dragon. I'd say that I wish the dragons in our games were so suicidal, but I'd be lying through my teeth. I kind of like the fact my group doesn't look at dragons and go "oh boy, triple treasure rating on a steamroller encounter". I'm kind of happy that when my PCs see a dragon, they go "oh crap, get out the A game guys, we got trouble!". I mean, one of the dragons in my Red Hand Remix is mean as hell.

The party will encounter him on a bridge. He pre-buffs with stuff like mage armor, then swoops down blowing a cone of acid on them while flying by. He has Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows, and wears masterwork studded leather armor provided for his military use as an ally of an army. He carries some wands and magic trinkets with him and has a +19 UMD check. My PCs are going to love the encounter.

The Exchange

I have been a supporter of monks for quite some time. Anyone looking back through some of my earlier posts could postulate that my reason for joining the forums was to open some people’s eyes about this classically overlooked character.

From a dps standpoint full Bab classes with 2 handed weapons rule the world. From a world altering prospective wizards can shape and change the world that the dps junkies claim to rule.
I’ll go so far as to throw the rest of the powerhouse class together, wizard welcome your little sister the sorcerer to your table oh look your cousins the divine casters are here welcome oracles and clerics have a seat the druid should be here soon he was busy playing with the dps junkies so he’ll be a little late.

Monks and rogues fall into a special section of dnd where if your party can support you playing a fun character you can on occasion shine brighter than any other. But you will find yourself situational.

Big draw backs are ranged damage and versatility. The monk has his tools. He has good skills amazing saves and a sub-optimal Bab progression.

To the dps ahololics participating in the dps Olympics, monks are a full dps class when it matters if played right. If I only get one attack make it a combat maneuver. If I get a full attack let it is a flurry. Again this is situational and not every attack spikes the damage charts. Hell none of them might but he’s still contributing.

Now to the OP you have fallen into one of the worst things you can do. Claim that everyone else is wrong and you are right. For many reasons monks are not worth playing. In a high ac game vs. lots of big monsters you will find yourself plinking away ineffectively at monsters you love to miss. You also require multiple stats that some of the others don’t. Some games are for power gamers. If you don’t play in those then don’t ridicule the people who do. I understand most of them will be bullheaded and call you wrong but falling into a debate online is akin to finding a stud in your wall and beating your forehead off of it.
I love monks my current pfs toon is a lore warden/maneuver master who through feats will be wearing full mithril plate. Yeah I give up a ton of monk stuff but I keep some of the amazing abilities of maneuver master. And I get to keep punching people and that makes me happy.

Enjoy your character let others enjoy there’s. Just don’t ever play a character that the rest of your party has to carry through adventures just because you are having fun playing it.


Dragon in studded leather? Do dragons get armour proficiencies? It certainly isn't very iconic. Do all great monsters wear armour now?

(A troll barb in hide armour made of the skin of travellers and goats would be smashing though).

A fighter dragon or a dragon with some class levels of course would be able to wear studded, but that isn't the base dragon we are talking about.

To Dabbler on the monk being redundant if a fighter of his focus/build is there, that isn't true. You simply have two characters that can do something really well (like disarm). The fighter can have that combat manoeuvre, or the focus of the monk, and have feats left over. The monk too now gets a lot of feats, will have some left over and will be faster than the fighter, with the better saves and those tasty immunities. I never understood why players get annoyed if another char can do what they can do. Stack your great abilities and thrash the foes. Trip your way to the nine hells.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Dragon in studded leather? Do dragons get armour proficiencies?

With masterwork studded leather, they don't need proficiencies.


Lol. I'm imagining the dragon operating a tannery, and knitting the armour together.

Or no! It gets its slaves to make it, and then brutally punishes them because it isn't comfortable, none of them ever having had to make studded leather for giant lizards before. Dragon asks, "do I look like a rogue in this?" They are unsure how to respond, someone gets dumped in the tanning "solution".

Sometimes guys, the why don't they do this for the bonuses gets silly. They are dragons, their skin is like steel, sticking armour on top of that is going to lead to an arms race with a disgusting high ac for dragons. Let us not go down this path less dragons in +5 studded leather becomes some type of new norm spawned from here.

Other iconic creatures I want to wear studded leather:

Beholders (so they become magic baseballs)
Oozes (goop in a pouch)
Carrion crawlers (leather socks of paralysis)
Bulette (a brick in a handbag)


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Lol. I'm imagining the dragon operating a tannery, and knitting the armour together.

Or no! It gets its slaves to make it, and then brutally punishes them because it isn't comfortable, none of them ever having had to make studded leather for giant lizards before. Dragon asks, "do I look like a rogue in this?" They are unsure how to respond, someone gets dumped in the tanning "solution".

Sometimes guys, the why don't they do this for the bonuses gets silly. They are dragons, their skin is like steel, sticking armour on top of that is going to lead to an arms race with a disgusting high ac for dragons. Let us not go down this path less dragons in +5 studded leather becomes some type of new norm spawned from here.

Other iconic creatures I want to wear studded leather:

Beholders (so they become magic baseballs)
Oozes (goop in a pouch)
Carrion crawlers (leather socks of paralysis)
Bulette (a brick in a handbag)

War animals wear armor all the time due to their riders giving it to them. Dragons are smarter than animals. So smart in fact that they realize they have soft weak spots and that they're not actually immune to swords. Any dragon is going to realize that it can be cut, and a lightweight non-hindering layer of armor can easily offer more protection. Perhaps the dragon even considers it a fashion statement, and has it studded with pretty stones instead of iron (stone studs have negligible effect on it as a material).

There's no more of an "arms race" concerning dragon AC than there is with anything else. Not sure if you noticed, but the first thing I mentioned was mage armor which most dragons will probably have if they cast as a sorcerer (+4 AC that stacks with their AC and lasts hours). Mwk studded leather is a fallback in case they get dispelled. They're also not exactly the only creature to benefit from armor.

I mean, take a lizardfolk and slap some mwk studded leather on them. That's +5 natural, +3 armor. A marilith decides being naked on the battlefield might not be very smart against those pesky adventurers that have been causing her troops grief for the past two adventures might don some masterwork +1 mithral chainmail for a quick +5 AC, or simply use a scroll of mage armor herself (25 gp, +4 AC lasts the whole battle).

Incidentally, every creature you mentioned except the oozes actually have good reasons to be in armor. Beholders are smart enough to force their slaves to craft them armor (possibly to help protect their eyestalks). Carrion crawlers could be trained as guard beasts or warbeasts, and encasing them in studded leather would make them more dangerous. A bulette? Well if you're putting armor on your mounts, a bulette mount would be pretty badass.

I already mentioned that the dragon is actually participating in a war. He is a champion of the army that the party is trying to stop. The armor was gifted to him by the army, crafted to his specifications (the finest tanned leathers, the best buckles, and so forth, hence masterwork). It actually doesn't mean a whole to his AC (he could have just used mage armor but dragons in armor are cool).

The monsters that appear in the Bestiary are naked versions of them, with no equipment assigned. That's the GM's job. The GM gets to look at the marilith and pit fiend and say "Hm, triple treasure, that means they get X * 3 gp worth of gear and treasures, so this marilith is wearing this and that, and the pit fiend has a staff of...".

A single pit fiend as 134,000 gp worth of gear. That means that pit fiend's "treasure" very well might include...
Large non-humanoid sized +5 studded leather armor (25,700 gp)
amulet of mighty fists (speed) (45,000 gp)
dusty rose ioun stone (5,000 gp)
minor cloak of displacement (24,000 gp)
ioun stones (+2 str, +2 dex, +2 con) (24,000 gp)
2,300 gp in mundane treasures (coins, gems, art, jewelry).

Pit Fiend: "Where is your god now!? Hahahahaha!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

A single pit fiend as 134,000 gp worth of gear. That means that pit fiend's "treasure" very well might include...

Large non-humanoid sized +5 studded leather armor (25,700 gp)
amulet of mighty fists (speed) (45,000 gp)
dusty rose ioun stone (5,000 gp)
minor cloak of displacement (24,000 gp)
ioun stones (+2 str, +2 dex, +2 con) (24,000 gp)
2,300 gp in mundane treasures (coins, gems, art, jewelry).

Pit Fiend: "Where is your god now!? Hahahahaha!"

I pity the fool...


Ashiel wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Lol. I'm imagining the dragon operating a tannery, and knitting the armour together.

Or no! It gets its slaves to make it, and then brutally punishes them because it isn't comfortable, none of them ever having had to make studded leather for giant lizards before. Dragon asks, "do I look like a rogue in this?" They are unsure how to respond, someone gets dumped in the tanning "solution".

Sometimes guys, the why don't they do this for the bonuses gets silly. They are dragons, their skin is like steel, sticking armour on top of that is going to lead to an arms race with a disgusting high ac for dragons. Let us not go down this path less dragons in +5 studded leather becomes some type of new norm spawned from here.

Other iconic creatures I want to wear studded leather:

Beholders (so they become magic baseballs)
Oozes (goop in a pouch)
Carrion crawlers (leather socks of paralysis)
Bulette (a brick in a handbag)

War animals wear armor all the time due to their riders giving it to them. Dragons are smarter than animals. So smart in fact that they realize they have soft weak spots and that they're not actually immune to swords. Any dragon is going to realize that it can be cut, and a lightweight non-hindering layer of armor can easily offer more protection. Perhaps the dragon even considers it a fashion statement, and has it studded with pretty stones instead of iron (stone studs have negligible effect on it as a material).

There's no more of an "arms race" concerning dragon AC than there is with anything else. Not sure if you noticed, but the first thing I mentioned was mage armor which most dragons will probably have if they cast as a sorcerer (+4 AC that stacks with their AC and lasts hours). Mwk studded leather is a fallback in case they get dispelled. They're also not exactly the only creature to benefit from armor.

I mean, take a lizardfolk and slap some mwk studded leather on them. That's +5 natural, +3 armor. A marilith decides being naked on the...

To give the monk a chance we should stick to stock monsters, not using their wealth to make them better. :)


That's a nice theory Ashiel, and you sure like to type long and argue things out.

Now please show me the actual evidence of a dragon in studded leather in the bestiary. Or bestiary 2, or the old monster manuals of which pathfinder drew from, or any pathfinder adventure path. It doesn't happen in any of the official books. Because dragons don't wear studded leather, unless a dm changes that. You have got seriously side-tracked trying to argue the monk is poor, so far side-tracked you are trying to argue dragons will wear studded leather despite this never being mentioned in any of the official sources. The original example of the monks thrashing the dragon, it wasn't wearing studded leather either, but if you can argue it should have been, maybe just maybe the monk will look worse, because they would have more trouble hitting a dragon armoured up more than it naturally is.


Ashiel likes to think that a monster will use it wealth to equip itself. Personally I only do that against optimized groups, and otherwise use stock monster. I also only use stock monsters in debates except for certain situations.

Stock monster="As is" in the book, no alterations at all.


The problem with not using the monster's hoard, is when it comes time to generate it. I remember once, my DM was astonished that we killed a CR 17 dragon, at 11th level (I think), in roughly 3 rounds. There is a spell called Hide From Dragons in the Spell Compendium, that allowed us to move up into his lair, while he was sleeping, and we got the surprise round off. When we generated the hoard afterward, the DM was annoyed because of the stuff generated. There is no way a CR 17 Black Dragon, wouldn't use that Staff of Power in his hoard, to kill us.

If a creature has a large amount of treasure, and isn't pre-generated, then you run into problems of things like, "Cloak of Displacement? Why didn't he wear that?". If you don't pre-generate hoards, then you shouldn't be generating hoards with any magical items, because the monster *would* be using them if they were useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
To give the monk a chance we should stick to stock monsters, not using their wealth to make them better. :)

I won't declare that the other classes need that favor.

Quote:

Ashiel likes to think that a monster will use it wealth to equip itself. Personally I only do that against optimized groups, and otherwise use stock monster. I also only use stock monsters in debates except for certain situations.

Stock monster="As is" in the book, no alterations at all.

You literally cannot use "stock monsters" by RAW and it make sense most of the time. RAW most intelligent stock monsters have gear. Gear that they can use. Unless every sentient enemy is sitting naked on top of thousands of gold pieces waiting for the adventurers to come and kill them while they are in the nude, it's not going to work. It's not like your average marilith is walking around naked with 6 mundane swords and 64,000 gp in pouches hanging on chains attached to her nipple rings.

The game was not designed that way. Even as far back as the 3.x DMGs, it discusses running a good game. A game run as expected tends to make sense. You won't kill a group of hobgoblins wielding entirely mundane gear only to walk into the next room and find a +1 sword just lying there. One of those hobgoblins will instead be wielding that treasure if they know that it is there. If you read up on your dragon lore from books like the Draconomicon, dragons use items like amulets, rings, cloaks, wands, staffs, armor and other things as it suits them.

Even NPCs like orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins are generally incomplete if you go with them out of the bestiary. They are assumed to have NPC-gear appropriate for their CR, but most are only given a small fraction of their total value with the option for the GM to choose the rest. Every orc, every goblin, that you come across should have 260 gp worth of treasure on them, which they will be able to use. That includes weapons, armor, and consumables.

I wouldn't want to play in a game were mariliths are played like some sort of cookie cutter bimbos with less than 3 brain cells, who choose to fill rooms with +3 swords of asswhupping while insisting to walk around naked, leaving her finest weapons, armors, and trinkets, away from her while using only mundane longswords to to fight the demon-killing adventurers.

3.5 Loyalist might want to go back and see that I said the dragon that had anything at all to do with a monk was simply being played wrong (ignoring his blindsense and other abilities), and probably should have just flew and casted mage armor (better than mwk studded leather by the way). I didn't actually say anything concerning the monk vs non-stupid dragons.

The game assumes that the NPCs will have their treasure. That's how it has always been. If a mariliths "treasure" includes a +2 battleaxe, then she'll probably be wielding that instead of one of her stock longswords. If she has a +3 cloak of resistance, well she'll be wearing that too. An enemy doesn't get +1 CR due to gear until they've been given PC wealth.

But far be it for me to dare think that a great magical being with super human intelligence might think to wear something like, comfortable, easy to move in, and protective, that is just another piece of its vast treasure horde. In fact, the dragon should probably simply walk up to the PCs, strip down, and hand them his Triple treasure rating in carefully counted platinum pieces and then promptly throw himself on the adventurer's swords like intelligent wealthy NPCs are apparently supposed to do in some people's games.


Tels wrote:

The problem with not using the monster's hoard, is when it comes time to generate it. I remember once, my DM was astonished that we killed a CR 17 dragon, at 11th level (I think), in roughly 3 rounds. There is a spell called Hide From Dragons in the Spell Compendium, that allowed us to move up into his lair, while he was sleeping, and we got the surprise round off. When we generated the hoard afterward, the DM was annoyed because of the stuff generated. There is no way a CR 17 Black Dragon, wouldn't use that Staff of Power in his hoard, to kill us.

If a creature has a large amount of treasure, and isn't pre-generated, then you run into problems of things like, "Cloak of Displacement? Why didn't he wear that?". If you don't pre-generate hoards, then you shouldn't be generating hoards with any magical items, because the monster *would* be using them if they were useful.

Exactly. The 3.x DMGs said pretty much the same thing. It's why I don't randomly generate treasure after encounters, but before encounters, and before the game (usually, but if I have a random generator on a laptop I might get lazy). The game assumes that monsters will use their treasure. For example, planetars have double treasure. Part of that treasure has been allocated to a +3 greatsword, leaving them 31,650 gp worth of treasure unaccounted for. This is an example of the planetar using treasure from his value. We could instead give him a +2 ghost touch glaive, and still have more or less the same planetar. Out of his 31,650 gp of treasure remaining, he probably has a number of other trinkets such as...

Ioun stones, amulets, scrolls, wands, staffs, potions, armors, and so forth. Hell, he might be wearing celestial armor. You want the treasure, then take it from him. But don't expect him to fight you naked and then throw all his fat lewts at you like some sort of treasure-belching balor.


Ashiel wrote:
...He has Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows, and...

Here's one word to describe my reaction to that: Meep!

Here's a few more: That seems a bit overkill, but totally awesome at the same time. I like the story behind that, and I think that would make a nifty encounter. Personally, I think the dragon should be wearing some form of plate, since that makes a bit more sense to me that if it's actually wearing armor, it should at least make it strong armor. I know that would impose an Armor check penalty, but if you made it mithral and I think there's a low level spell for lowering that penalty in Ultimate Magic... I could be wrong, but I know that spell exists somewhere.

Also, I applaud you and your group for being a mature bunch of people who won't cry foul the first time a Buggeroff Dragon harmlessly swats away the first projectile fired at it every round. It's so refreshing to know that there are groups that function better than the one I play with. *Sigh.*

I would ask one question before fading from this board, since I've contributed nothing towards its point and merely focused on your dragon. What level is your party for this encounter?


No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5. I know the Draconomicon had plenty of ideas, now present the stats. It doesn't seem like pathfinder has followed the armoured dragon idea and for once I side with pathfinder on this.

A dragon gathers a hoard over time, hmm yep, okay, how does the dragon put on a magic ring made for humanoids? Which giant talon will it fit? Does a dragon wear a cloak on each wing? Because it certainly doesn't fit a huge dragon's back properly if it made for say, an elf.

If a dragon doesn't have servitors, or is animalistic like a white dragon, how does it get giant-sized armour? If it is a black dragon that lives in marshes, how does the armour not rot, rust or foul?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5.

WTF are you talking about? You want me to present you premade lists of dragon treasure for a creature that is supposed to be custom built and treasure divvied out? Are you mad, man? I already showed you a monster who is quite clearly using gear from his treasure allotment because it suits him. Just because a dragon wearing armor doesn't fit into your narrow ideas of what should or should no be does not make it my problem.

Quote:
A dragon gathers a hoard over time, hmm yep, okay, how does the dragon put on a magic ring made for humanoids? Which giant talon will it fit? Does a dragon wear a cloak on each wing? Because it certainly doesn't fit a huge dragon's back properly if it made for say, an elf.

Last I checked, with the exception of armor and weapons, magic items are one-size fits all.

Quote:
If a dragon doesn't have servitors, or is animalistic like a white dragon, how does it get giant-sized armour? If it is a black dragon that lives in marshes, how does the armour not rot, rust or foul?

It's a green dragon actually. Also, taking 10 on a Craft check isn't difficult for most dragons. But yeah, slaves works too. Many dragons, especially large or gargantuan ones will have some mooks like kobolds to craft them armor if they wanted.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5. I know the Draconomicon had plenty of ideas, now present the stats. It doesn't seem like pathfinder has followed the armoured dragon idea and for once I side with pathfinder on this.

A dragon gathers a hoard over time, hmm yep, okay, how does the dragon put on a magic ring made for humanoids? Which giant talon will it fit? Does a dragon wear a cloak on each wing? Because it certainly doesn't fit a huge dragon's back properly if it made for say, an elf.

If a dragon doesn't have servitors, or is animalistic like a white dragon, how does it get giant-sized armour? If it is a black dragon that lives in marshes, how does the armour not rot, rust or foul?

Kay, I have to respond to that.

We'll go with the 3.5 rules on this. According to the MIC, EVERYTHING sizes to fit whatever is trying to wear it. Ma-gic-all-y. The exceptions are weapons, shields and armor that aren't fitted with the Sizing property. And even those things can have their abilities used by creatures of vastly different sizes. I believe the example in the book is a Halfling using the wish in a colossal wishing dagger, or something similar.

Ring? Try putting it on. Its size changes. It could shift from bead to bladeless fan size to fit its user, and then adjust so it fits snugly. And shifts again when you go to take it off.

Cloak? It might not have to size. It could just be a 3 feet by 5 feet rectangle to cloth hanging across the dragon's neck or back. The clasp would size to the dragon's throat.

Armor? I'll let Ashiel cover that one, but simply put, a lot of work by smaller creatures. How does it not rot, rust or foul? Magic/special treatments to prevent it.


Ashiel wrote:


You literally cannot use "stock monsters" by RAW....

I am not following.

Quote:
RAW most intelligent stock monsters have gear.

I was saying additional gear(what is not in the books). If the bestiary gives it to them of course they can use it. Now from an immersion or common sense point I am with you 100%, but the book does not assume common sense. Notice that the monster creation table and "stock monsters" have similar stats.

For those of you reading this the monster creation table tells you what the AC, attack roll, saves, and so on a monster of CR X is expected to have.


Provide a link from an official dnd book, to a single dragon in armour. Pathfinder preferred, but 3.5 works too. That is what I am talking about.

Magic items are-one size fits all? How does the huge dragon put the ring on its giant claw? Hint: it doesn't have humanoid fingers. If it had say, a glove or storing or gloves of dex which it got off a dead wizard or rogue, how do they fit the dragon? Giant claws with blade-like ends are not so good for getting your warm gloves on. Same applies to shoes/boots.

Black dragons typically reside in marshes.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Black_Dragon

Greens are temperate forests (although they rock pretty hard in marshes and have been presented in these areas before, green-marsh-slime)
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Green_Dragon

So those are two types that I've never read about in armour, which reside in terrain which would foul and ruin most armour sets.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5. I know the Draconomicon had plenty of ideas, now present the stats. It doesn't seem like pathfinder has followed the armoured dragon idea and for once I side with pathfinder on this.

For the studded leather? A normal dragon with a +3 armor bonus. Done.

Was that really so hard?


Nakteo wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5. I know the Draconomicon had plenty of ideas, now present the stats. It doesn't seem like pathfinder has followed the armoured dragon idea and for once I side with pathfinder on this.

A dragon gathers a hoard over time, hmm yep, okay, how does the dragon put on a magic ring made for humanoids? Which giant talon will it fit? Does a dragon wear a cloak on each wing? Because it certainly doesn't fit a huge dragon's back properly if it made for say, an elf.

If a dragon doesn't have servitors, or is animalistic like a white dragon, how does it get giant-sized armour? If it is a black dragon that lives in marshes, how does the armour not rot, rust or foul?

Kay, I have to respond to that.

We'll go with the 3.5 rules on this. According to the MIC, EVERYTHING sizes to fit whatever is trying to wear it. Ma-gic-all-y. The exceptions are weapons, shields and armor that aren't fitted with the Sizing property. And even those things can have their abilities used by creatures of vastly different sizes. I believe the example in the book is a Halfling using the wish in a colossal wishing dagger, or something similar.

Ring? Try putting it on. Its size changes. It could shift from bead to bladeless fan size to fit its user, and then adjust so it fits snugly. And shifts again when you go to take it off.

Cloak? It might not have to size. It could just be a 3 feet by 5 feet rectangle to cloth hanging across the dragon's neck or back. The clasp would size to the dragon's throat.

Armor? I'll let Ashiel cover that one, but simply put, a lot of work by smaller creatures. How does it not rot, rust or foul? Magic/special treatments to prevent it.

I actually find the idea of a dragon wearing a cloak like a bib quite funny.


Aratrok wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

No references at all Ashiel. You say it is in their, yeah? Show me the stats of a dragon in armour or link it. Because it sure isn't in the bestiaries or the monster manuals if we want to go back to 3.5. I know the Draconomicon had plenty of ideas, now present the stats. It doesn't seem like pathfinder has followed the armoured dragon idea and for once I side with pathfinder on this.

For the studded leather? A normal dragon with a +3 armor bonus. Done.

Was that really so hard?

An official source. Not us just doing it on the fly, something actually from the rulebooks. I could present my next dragon in lamellar diapers, but that doesn't mean it is what is standard and what monks would be facing (to try to get this back on topic).

I was just going through the bestiary. Not seeing armour on the dragons, or any of the pics presenting them as such. Not on the stats, not in the pics, not in the fluff...


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Aratrok wrote:


For the studded leather? A normal dragon with a +3 armor bonus. Done.

Was that really so hard?

An official source. Not us just doing it on the fly, something actually from the rulebooks. I could present my next dragon in lamellar diapers, but that doesn't mean it is what is standard and what monks would be facing (to try to get this back on topic).

I was just going through the bestiary. Not seeing armour on the dragons, or any of the pics presenting them as such. Not on the stats, not in the pics, not in the fluff...

Wearing an appropriate suit of non-magical studded leather armor grants a +3 armor bonus. This doesn't change if you're a different size category, it just changes the weight and cost of the item. Hell, if you're that uncomfortable with it just call it barding.

There's no reason a dragon would put less stock in protective armor than any other intelligent being.


Except it is already naturally armoured, heavily, and other beings are presented in the stats as wearing protective armour, there are plenty of examples of this, but not dragons.

Dragons don't wear armour! :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Official Source: Draconomicon.
Item: Dragonarmor of Inviniciblity.
Page: 82.
Is there a picture: No.
Do I care: No.


I'm glad we finally have a reference. Good that you got it for us, even if you don't care. Thanks.

Now, has this been carried over to pathfinder?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Except it is already naturally armoured, heavily, and other beings are presented in the stats as wearing protective armour, there are plenty of examples of this, but not dragons.

Dragons don't wear armour! :P

The big ol' fighter has plenty of magical items shoring up his defense. His skin is artificially toughened, attacks are deflected away from him, and he moves more quickly than is natural.

Does this mean he doesn't wear armor either? More protection is more protection, and in this case it's at a minuscule cost to the dragon. Maybe a dragon with 3 intelligence isn't going to be wearing armor or using Mage Armor, but the rest of them should be.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I'm glad we finally have a reference. Good that you got it for us, even if you don't care. Thanks.

Now, has this been carried over to pathfinder?

Yeah. See "Equipment: Armor for unusual creatures".

Wraithstike wrote:

I was saying additional gear(what is not in the books). If the bestiary gives it to them of course they can use it. Now from an immersion or common sense point I am with you 100%, but the book does not assume common sense. Notice that the monster creation table and "stock monsters" have similar stats.

For those of you reading this the monster creation table tells you what the AC, attack roll, saves, and so on a monster of CR X is expected to have.

And I'm saying that's BS. The creature creation chart is good for naked monsters, but even the bestiary monsters don't match up to it. For example, using the Pit Fiend as an example again, the average AC of a CR 20 in monster creation is 36. A pit fiend has 38. The pit fiend self buffs to AC 42 using its own spell-like ability. The creature statistics in the monster creation chapter are a first step, showing a completely naked creature before buffs or items.

If you guys want to be children about this, you can't use human NPCs either, because they don't have a statblock presented anywhere in the game. Only the means to create them. You also obviously have only orcs who wield falchions and have the exact same gear. Not even as much gear as they're supposed to have, since the statblock says they have NPC gear but doesn't spell out every piece by coin.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Provide a link from an official dnd book, to a single dragon in armour. Pathfinder preferred, but 3.5 works too. That is what I am talking about.

Magic items are-one size fits all? How does the huge dragon put the ring on its giant claw? Hint: it doesn't have humanoid fingers. If it had say, a glove or storing or gloves of dex which it got off a dead wizard or rogue, how do they fit the dragon? Giant claws with blade-like ends are not so good for getting your warm gloves on. Same applies to shoes/boots.

Black dragons typically reside in marshes.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Black_Dragon

Greens are temperate forests (although they rock pretty hard in marshes and have been presented in these areas before, green-marsh-slime)
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Green_Dragon

So those are two types that I've never read about in armour, which reside in terrain which would foul and ruin most armour sets.

By the rules in 3.5, and I beleive PF dragons can wear magic items. Many of them resize. They just need a similar body part to for the slot.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I'm glad we finally have a reference. Good that you got it for us, even if you don't care. Thanks.

Now, has this been carried over to pathfinder?

Rules wise there is not reason a dragon can't wear armor or barding.

The equipment section list rules for armor for unusual creatures. There is no special notation saying dragons don't qualify.


You could stick a dragon in armor and give them rings of protection and afew other magic items. If that is happening, then the monster's CR is going to go up. If the CR doesn't change, then you're short-changing the characters of their hard-earned xp.If you fill too many body slots of the dragon or any other monstrous creature with magic items, then it may become something the party can't take even if they could originally take the base creature.


The equalizer wrote:
You could stick a dragon in armor and give them rings of protection and afew other magic items. If that is happening, then the monster's CR is going to go up. If the CR doesn't change, then you're short-changing the characters of their hard-earned xp.If you fill too many body slots of the dragon or any other monstrous creature with magic items, then it may become something the party can't take even if they could originally take the base creature.

If its ac is nine higher than the standard dragon of its supposed CR, it will be more of a challenge.

Dragon with tower shield and cloak bib!


Ashiel wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I'm glad we finally have a reference. Good that you got it for us, even if you don't care. Thanks.

Now, has this been carried over to pathfinder?

Yeah. See "Equipment: Armor for unusual creatures".

Wraithstike wrote:

I was saying additional gear(what is not in the books). If the bestiary gives it to them of course they can use it. Now from an immersion or common sense point I am with you 100%, but the book does not assume common sense. Notice that the monster creation table and "stock monsters" have similar stats.

For those of you reading this the monster creation table tells you what the AC, attack roll, saves, and so on a monster of CR X is expected to have.

And I'm saying that's BS. The creature creation chart is good for naked monsters, but even the bestiary monsters don't match up to it. For example, using the Pit Fiend as an example again, the average AC of a CR 20 in monster creation is 36. A pit fiend has 38. The pit fiend self buffs to AC 42 using its own spell-like ability. The creature statistics in the monster creation chapter are a first step, showing a completely naked creature before buffs or items.

If you guys want to be children about this, you can't use human NPCs either, because they don't have a statblock presented anywhere in the game. Only the means to create them. You also obviously have only orcs who wield falchions and have the exact same gear. Not even as much gear as they're supposed to have, since the statblock says they have NPC gear but doesn't spell out every piece by coin.

The chart is not exact, and many monsters that are stronger than normal in one area are weak somewhere else. Ashiel no need to be insulting. The game does not assume you will equip every monster on your own. The bestiary monsters are basically plug and play, and their stats naked are what they are supposed to be. It is not a coincidence that a monster listed with a magical weapons and armor has similar stats to what the chart says.

Example

Quote:


Ghaele CR 13

XP 25,600

CG Medium outsider (azata, chaotic, extraplanar, good, shapechanger)

Init +5; Senses darkvision 60 ft., detect evil, low-light vision, see invisibility; Perception +20

Aura holy aura

Defense

AC 28, touch 16, flat-footed 26 (+4 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +12 natural)

hp 136 (13d10+65)

Fort +17, Ref +11, Will +16

DR 10/cold iron and evil; Immune electricity, petrification; Resist cold 10, fire 10; SR 25

Offense

Speed 50 ft., fly 150 ft. (perfect)

Melee +2 holy greatsword +22/+17/+12 (2d6+12)
average damage assuming all attacks hit which is what the book uses is 57

I did just pick the first monster I saw.

monster creation chart standard wrote:


CR=13
high attack=+22

avg damage=60<---The Ghaele is short by 3, but that is not really a big deal since it can cast spells as a 13th level cleric.

AC=28

Note that the numbers are the same. More evidence follows.

I will also add this which references step 7 for creating monsters and goes against you this statement by you. Step 7 is quoted at the bottom.
I will quote you first.

Ashiel wrote:


The creature statistics in the monster creation chapter are a first step, showing a completely naked creature before buffs or items.
Quote:


Step 9: Treasure

A creature should have an amount of treasure appropriate to its CR. See Table: XP and GP Values by CR for a list of treasure totals based on CR. For some creatures, their treasure consists of the loot from their recent meals strewn across their lairs, while for others it consists of a greed-fueled hoard or even gear it uses in combat. Make sure to account for any weapons or armor that the creature is using, as determined by step 7.

As you can see the combination of step 7 and 9 means that all magical gear is to be accounted for in the stats.

Quote:


Treasure: The exact value of the creature's treasure depends on if you're running a slow, medium, or fast game, as summarized on Table: Treasure Values per Encounter. In cases where a creature has specific magical gear assigned to it, the assumption is a medium game—if you play a fast or slow game, you'll want to adjust the monster's gear as appropriate. “Standard” treasure indicates the total value of the creature's treasure is that of a CR equal to the average party level, as listed on Table: Treasure Values per Encounter. “Double” or “triple” treasure indicates the creature has double or triple this standard value. “Incidental” indicates the creature has half this standard value, and then only within the confines of its lair. “None” indicates that the creature normally has no treasure (as is typical for an unintelligent creature that has no real lair, although such creatures are often used to guard treasures of varying amounts). “NPC gear” indicates the monster has treasure as normal for an NPC of a level equal to the monster's CR.

Hobgoblin-->
Quote:
Treasure NPC Gear (studded leather armor, light steel shield, longsword, longbow with 20 arrows, other treasure)

If you look at the NPC table for wealth. NPC wealth and the "standard" wealth are not the same because the NPC wealth is used to equip certain monsters, while the standard wealth is just treasure, unless certain things are specifically listed.

CR 13 standard wealth=11,600 gp

13th level NPC(hobgoblin as an example)=21,000 gp for a PC class. Monster's using NPC wealth normally have less natural abilities so they need magic items to make them into a viable threat.
------------------------------------------------------

Quote:


Step 7: Other Statistics

Using Table: Monster Statitics by CR, Table: Creature Statistics by Type, and Table: Statistics Summary, you can now determine many of the creature's other statistics.

When building a creature's Armor Class, start by adding armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses to its Dexterity modifier. If a creature does not wear armor, give it a tougher hide to get it near its average AC. Remember that creatures with higher hit point totals might have a lower Armor Class, whereas creatures with fewer hit points might have a higher Armor Class. If a creature's Armor Class deviates from the average by more than 5 points, it might not be the right CR.

When determining a creature's attack bonuses, refer to the guidelines from Table: Monster Statistics by CR based on the creature's CR. If the bonus is too low, consider increasing the creature's Strength or Dexterity, or increasing the amount of damage it deals to above the average. If the bonus is too high, consider decreasing the creature's Strength or Dexterity, or decrease the amount of damage it deals. If this value is significantly different, and the creature is intended to rely on melee or ranged attacks, consider adjusting the creature's CR.

Use Table: Average Die Results to determine the number of damage dice, combined with damage bonuses, that the creature needs to reach the average damage for its CR. The creature might need additional or more damaging attacks to approach the average. Remember that creatures that primarily deal damage with other abilities, such as spells, do not need to meet the average damage for their attacks. You can also use Table: Average Die Results to determine a creature's average hit points. Remember that PC class levels provide the maximum number of hit points at 1st level.

Repeat this process for a creature's saving throws. If the saving throws are too high, consider altering the ability scores on which they are based.

When determining a creature's speed, first decide if it has any alternative modes of movement, such as burrow, climb, fly, or swim. Most Medium creatures have a base speed of 30 feet. Quadrupeds and Large creatures increase this by 10 feet each. Smaller creatures decrease this base speed by 10 feet. If a creature is particularly fast or slow, modify the base speed by 10 feet. Burrow and climb speeds are usually half a creature's base speed, while flying speeds are roughly double. Remember to give a creature the appropriate skills for any unusual movement methods.

By accounting for the magic items in step 7 you match the chart which step 9 is telling you to do.

edit:When I say the chart is not exact, what I mean is deviation by a point or 2 is ok, but you should make up for it somewhere else.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


What we have here is a clear refusal to acknowledge that monks can take down big monsters. I'm gmed for a monk majority party, they were not tpked by the big bads.

3.5, would you like to tell me how this is happening? I am critical of such things because I have yet to a case where a rule or massive tactical error was not made. If I was GM'ing a party of monks they would most likely die.

251 to 300 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / MAD Monk? Big Deal! Just be still y'all grasshoppers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.