Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

If Monks have trouble hitting...


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,235 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Dabbler: Consider this wording instead:

Tweaked Wording:
At level 4, and every 4 levels thereafter a Monk gains a +1 bonus to any attribute of their choice. This bonus is applied exactly like the bonus from leveling up normally. The total bonus to any single attribute from this class feature and the normal bonus from leveling up may not exceed +1 for every four character levels.

It allows for more fluid multiclassing.

@Jupp: As opposed to the +20/+20, with some points left over, that Ilja's system allows? I fail to see the discrepancy. The ability to switch your bonus also complicates matters. How does this work with prerequisites? It's really better if the point-buy system is never looked at after creation.

Ilja's system is good in concept, but its execution is inelegant. That doesn't mean its unworkable, or even that it's not worth working on, but invoking the point by system is clunky at best.


Cool ideas!

Some form of blinking tied to their flurry could also be good. As in, make a couple of attacks, blink back 15 for safety. Blink in from 15 away, continue flurry (after burning one of the attacks to use the blink).

Some martial artists can be on you so quick, just an idea. A better magical spring attack for the monk.


I like Dabbler's simplification in some ways - it's easier to count, for one. What I don't like is the it works bad when multiclassing or adding the class to a creature. Unfortunately it doesn't encourage you to not keep dump-stats (if you as a monk dump int and cha, you'll put a single point in one at 16 and a point in each at 20). It doesn't give more for putting in a low score.

What about this?

Disciple of Perfection (Ex): At level 2, and every 2 levels thereafter a Monk gains an ability score increase of 1 each in three of it's lowest ability scores (do not include bonuses when determining this). If several scores are tied, the monk may choose which scores.

This more or less means monks have no dump stats period after a while, but I don't know how much it would increase their potency in battle.

If we look at a 15 pt buy monk it might look something like this:
Str 14 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 7 Wis 14 Cha 7

At 6th level it's like this:
Str 15 Dex 16 Con 15 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 10 (ability has given mods of +2 Int/Cha, +1 Wis)

And at 12th level it's like this:
Str 16 Dex 18 Con 16 Int 13 Wis 17 Cha 13 (ability has given mods of +3 Int/Cha, +2Str/Con, +1 Wis)

And at 20th level:
Str 18 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 17 Wis 18 Cha 17 (ability has given bonus mods of +5 Int/Cha, +2 Str/Con +1 Wis compared to standard)

Now, compared to a standard monk, this one isn't going to be that much better in combat, but it will be a far more useful for skills. Monks already would be decent for skills if they weren't forced to dump Int so often to be even adequate in combat.

This isn't a fix on it's own, but rather just intended at the MAD problem - it would still need help bypassing DR and such (here both Ciretose and Dabbler have good ideas).

EDIT: Also, I like that at 20th level it is ALMOST 18 in every stat. That's kinda cool. I think with another starting spread 18 in all would be possible.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jupp wrote:
ok so let me change my original statement, i missexpressed my concern,

Now I see your concern - then again, then again, while the two stats at maximum is large, it is compensating for sucky stats elsehwere. Another way might be to have it not kick in until 8th level, so you get +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 to stats.

SoulGambit, I like your simplified execution, but it means you end up maxing out two stats rather than spreading the love, which was kind of the idea, and what happens when you multi-class for a level and do not have the two boosts arrive at once?

Ilja, I like the concept of upping the lowest scores, but then we reduce effectiveness as well, and every two levels is way too much.

How about this as an alternative:

Quote:
Perfecting the Body and Soul: At 4th level, and every four levels thereafter, the monk gains a +1 bonus in their lowest physical and their lowest mental attribute. In the case of a tie, the monk may choose.

This way it doesn't matter where the monk places their four-level stat boost, even if they stack it with this it's not going to come out broken. However, I am not sure if it would then boost the monk up much. The mental boost in particular is not going to go far, probably sinking into a reduced charisma for many levels.

Physically it's a boost, but perhaps not to the stat you want to boost.

Alternatively:

Quote:
Perfecting the Body: At 8th level, and again at 16th level, the monk gains a +1 bonus to all their physical attributes: strength, dexterity, and constitution.
Quote:
Perfecting the Soul: At 12th level, and again at 20th level, the monk gains a +1 bonus to all their mental attributes: intelligence, wisdom & charisma.


But what if someone wants to play a pit-fighter with dumped Int/Cha? That should be an option. Also, lessening the impact of dumped stats only encourages people to use them more often. As an aside, this is what happens when you implement Ilja's idea with lowest 3 or lowest Phys / Mental.

Stuff here:
Currently, the quintessential dumpstat Monk at 20pt buy (PFS) is STR 16 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 14 / CHA 7.

Adding directly to Wis (First idea) is the same.
With lowest 3 or lowest Phys/Mnt you get

STR 16 / DEX 13 / CON 13 / INT 9 / WIS 16 / CHA 7

All three at level 8:

Normal: STR 18 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 14 / CHA 7
Directly to Wis: STR 18 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 16 / CHA 7
Lowest 3: STR 18 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 11 / WIS 16 / CHA 9
Lowest Phy/Mnt: STR 18 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 16 / CHA 9

The primary benefit of all the changes is allowing +2 Wis. It's a question of what happens to Int and Cha. And I believe this falls under "causing too many changes without benefit."

Rather than mitogate the roleplay and rollplay aspects of making a dumpstat, why not make them less necessary? Why not take one of the Monk's stats and make it less necessary? I say nix Dex, but have a feat (super special Monk feat that is also Weapon Finesse) or use the Flowing Monk Archetype to bring it back in as necessary.

Monk AC: When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk may use his Wisdom score as his base AC and CMD in place of the normal 10 (that is, the Monk's AC, before adding any modifiers, is equal to his Wisdom Score, not 10). A monk using this option can not benefit from any Armor or Natural Armor bonuses to AC, and is treated as having a +0 Maximum Dexterity Modifier as though from armor. At level 4, and every 4 levels thereafter the Monk's Maximum Dexterity Modifier while using this option increases by +1.

Note that as this is the Monk's base AC, this applies even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses this option when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.

Note: The Flowing Monk should base this off of Dexterity instead of Wisdom. Alternatively, include a feat that both swaps this feature to Dexterity -and- functions as Weapon Finesse for only monk weapons, including for purposes of meeting prerequisites.


Dabbler wrote:
Ilja, I like the concept of upping the lowest scores, but then we reduce effectiveness as well, and every two levels is way too much.

I'm not sure I get you... Are you saying it's too weak because of reduced effectiveness, or too strong because of frequency? Maybe those even out?

It might be too much, but I'm not really sure. Looking at 10th level, scores have increased from
Str 14 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 7 Wis 14 Cha 7 to
Str 16 Dex 18 Con 15 Int 12 Wis 16 Cha 12 (dex is from regular leveling)

So at 10th level, it's +1 to hit/damage, +1 ac/ki/stunDC and will, and going from useless at skills to mediocre at skills. For a class that should be decent at skills I don't think that's broken.

Most AP's top out at around 14th level, at that point the stats would look something like this:
Str 17 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 14 Wis 16 Cha 14
At this point, it's increased by 1hp/level and +1 fort, and being actually quite decent at skills (6 maxed skills and at least a +2 from ability scores).

To me, this seems about right. It's only gotten a tiny boost in combat power compared to the RAW monk but quite a large gain in skill versatility.

Dabbler wrote:

Perfecting the Body: At 8th level, and again at 16th level, the monk gains a +1 bonus to all their physical attributes: strength, dexterity, and constitution.

Perfecting the Soul: At 12th level, and again at 20th level, the monk gains a +1 bonus to all their mental attributes: intelligence, wisdom & charisma.

At 10th level this means they've gotten +1 to Str, Dex, and Con. I think that's... not very remarkable at all. It doesn't kick in at all until 8th level and is a really weak ability regardless. Most AP's end around 14th level or so so you're only going to see a very marginal ability. At 16th level, you've gained +1 to attack and damage, +1 hp/level, +1 ref/fort/ac/init and +1 to some skills.

If it's +2 each time it'll be a bit more noticeable, but it still doesn't "even out" the scores.

I much prefer the "increase lowest score" method,


Ganryu wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Can you even have a +1 Holy Greatsword? Holy is a +2 enhancement; I was always under the impression that in order to put an effect on an item, it had to have atleast the same enhancement as the effect (so a +2 weapon for a +2 effect). Have I been misunderstanding this for... well forever?

Yes you have been having that misunderstanding for, well, forever :P

You can have a +1 holy greatsword. It will cost as much as a +3 greatsword.

To calculate the price, add the enhancement modifiers.

Thanks for the info!


Instead of a pool or extra ability points, what about just giving Monks a +2 training bonus to 1 stat every 3 levels, with the rule that it may not apply to the same stat twice?


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Instead of a pool or extra ability points, what about just giving Monks a +2 training bonus to 1 stat every 3 levels, with the rule that it may not apply to the same stat twice?

Because then they'll still dump Cha and Int to 7 and only by level 15/18 raise them to 9. Which to me is one of the main flavor disconnects for me with the monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Cool ideas!

Some form of blinking tied to their flurry could also be good. As in, make a couple of attacks, blink back 15 for safety. Blink in from 15 away, continue flurry (after burning one of the attacks to use the blink).

Some martial artists can be on you so quick, just an idea. A better magical spring attack for the monk.

Blink as a high-mid power for monks would be cool...because blink is awesome. It definitely makes them magical and fun.

Ilja, it's neat that a side effect of your proposed Perfection ability is that monks grow into skill monkeys over time. (or skill adepts.)


Oh hey, as a quick sidebar. Is there a chance of creating some objective measures so we know when the Monk is "fixed." One issue I've always had in these monk discussions is that it's a bit of a moving goalpost. I admit, I only skimmed the past 10 or so pages, but I think people were standing a 10th level Monk up against a Glaabazu for some reason, which is a TPK at that level unless the party is very optimized / well-prepared?

What I mean is, lets say we come up with the most phenominal Monk fix ever, and its applied. What would that look like, in a way that can be objectively measured?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

SoulGambit0 wrote:

Oh hey, as a quick sidebar. Is there a chance of creating some objective measures so we know when the Monk is "fixed." One issue I've always had in these monk discussions is that it's a bit of a moving goalpost. I admit, I only skimmed the past 10 or so pages, but I think people were standing a 10th level Monk up against a Glaabazu for some reason, which is a TPK at that level unless the party is very optimized / well-prepared?

What I mean is, lets say we come up with the most phenominal Monk fix ever, and its applied. What would that look like, in a way that can be objectively measured?

This is what was discussed in the "Is it broken" monk thread, relative to the CR chart on the bestiary.

1.Should be able to hit with a primary attack more than 50% but less than 75%
2.Stunning fist should work more than 10% but less that 25%
3.AC should be greater than the Bestiary averages (it is a melee class)
4.DPR should be greater than the average ¾ caster class wading into melee but less than the average Martial Class (we can discuss what these exact numbers are, but again, just looking for consensus)
5.All of this should be able to be accomplished unarmored and unarmed.

I believe on #4 we came up with a number that was basically 1/4th of Hit Points for equal CR (Or at least I did).


The common feeling I get in these 'show your build'/'theorycrafting'/'class fix' threads is a wish to have a Pathfinder character simulator. This would be a computer program where you could quantify builds in combat versus opponents--plug in all the stats, add tweaks, and then let the monkbot attack the orcbot and see what happens.

I figure it would only cost one zillion dollars to simulate and require programmers from Weta Digital.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axolotl wrote:
I figure it would only cost one zillion dollars to simulate and require programmers from Weta Digital.

Wow, you hold programmers in weird regards. ^.^ I could do it if I had the time and considered doing it a few times this last year for my own sake. However, my version would only support the small features I thought were worth testing, so it was far from complete.

For an estimate of how this type of project would go: my time is generally worth 30 bucks an hour and I could get something basic up in 8 months at 40 hours a week.

Essentially, the production of a tool such as this would cost $40,000 and there's more programmers out there that can do it that are not simply from Weta Digital.

Hell, if anybody wanted to create a donation and managed to get $40,000 together, I'll do it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Speaking of time, I've been meaning to get back into this thread more actively instead of reading it, but I may not be able to create the tests I wanted to.

So far, I'm with ciretose on just about everything he said... don't let it go to your head buddy. :)

What I would like to add is this:

Requirements wrote:

1.Should be able to hit with a primary attack more than 50% but less than 75%

2.Stunning fist should work more than 10% but less that 25%
3.AC should be greater than the Bestiary averages (it is a melee class)
4.DPR should be greater than the average ¾ caster class wading into melee but less than the average Martial Class (we can discuss what these exact numbers are, but again, just looking for consensus)
5.All of this should be able to be accomplished unarmored and unarmed.

Number 1 is completely irrelevant. Hit chance affects other things, and it is those other things that we actually need to measure. For the monk particularly, hit chance affects Stunning Fist chance and DPR.

Since we have metrics that are both DPR and Stunning Fist related, we do not need a Hit chance requirement as well. In fact, DPR and Stunning Fist chance also take into account the DR problem, so these metrics tell us all that we need to know.

My point is, it does not matter how many times you attempt to hit or how many times you hit. What matters is what those hits actually contribute.


Some thoughts on the perfecting body/soul stuff:

Improving Str, Dex, Con, and Wis fits my picture of a monk very well.
Improving Int or Cha does not, though, so I'd suggest to take those two out of the extra points gained.

What do you think?


Ilja wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Instead of a pool or extra ability points, what about just giving Monks a +2 training bonus to 1 stat every 3 levels, with the rule that it may not apply to the same stat twice?
Because then they'll still dump Cha and Int to 7 and only by level 15/18 raise them to 9. Which to me is one of the main flavor disconnects for me with the monk.

But what prevents a Monk from doing this same basic thing with their pool of pb points?


GrenMeera wrote:
Axolotl wrote:
I figure it would only cost one zillion dollars to simulate and require programmers from Weta Digital.

Wow, you hold programmers in weird regards. ^.^ I could do it if I had the time and considered doing it a few times this last year for my own sake. However, my version would only support the small features I thought were worth testing, so it was far from complete.

For an estimate of how this type of project would go: my time is generally worth 30 bucks an hour and I could get something basic up in 8 months at 40 hours a week.

Essentially, the production of a tool such as this would cost $40,000 and there's more programmers out there that can do it that are not simply from Weta Digital.

Hell, if anybody wanted to create a donation and managed to get $40,000 together, I'll do it.

I was exaggerating. ;) Weta did pioneer Massive many years back for battle simulation; of course, you don't need visuals for this sort of simulation. This sort of discussion merits its own thread, though.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

GrenMeera wrote:

Speaking of time, I've been meaning to get back into this thread more actively instead of reading it, but I may not be able to create the tests I wanted to.

So far, I'm with ciretose on just about everything he said... don't let it go to your head buddy. :)

What I would like to add is this:

Requirements wrote:

1.Should be able to hit with a primary attack more than 50% but less than 75%

2.Stunning fist should work more than 10% but less that 25%
3.AC should be greater than the Bestiary averages (it is a melee class)
4.DPR should be greater than the average ¾ caster class wading into melee but less than the average Martial Class (we can discuss what these exact numbers are, but again, just looking for consensus)
5.All of this should be able to be accomplished unarmored and unarmed.

Number 1 is completely irrelevant. Hit chance affects other things, and it is those other things that we actually need to measure. For the monk particularly, hit chance affects Stunning Fist chance and DPR.

Since we have metrics that are both DPR and Stunning Fist related, we do not need a Hit chance requirement as well. In fact, DPR and Stunning Fist chance also take into account the DR problem, so these metrics tell us all that we need to know.

My point is, it does not matter how many times you attempt to hit or how many times you hit. What matters is what those hits actually contribute.

Ability to hit is irrelevant? Seriously?

If I miss 50% of the time, as a melee class, that is fine.

ooooook.....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

Ability to hit is irrelevant? Seriously?

If I miss 50% of the time, as a melee class, that is fine.

ooooook.....

Does the melee class have two attacks or ten? Hit chance is only part of a larger equation.

This ignores the remainder of my point:
If you miss 50% of the time, but have twice the attacks at equivalent damage, you will have precisely the same DPR.

Tell me, on a purely DPR standpoint, what is the difference between:
Attack 4 times, miss 2, 1d8 damage
Attack 2 times, miss 0, 1d8 damage

One of these has a 50% higher miss chance compared to the other, but they are exactly the same outcomes. DPR is the outcome and as a metric it CONTAINS hit chance.

Now, DPR is not the only thing affected by hit percentage, but what else is? Stunning fist chance for starters, but this also requires that you bypass damage reduction and do damage. Therefore, stunning fist chance is also a valuable metric alone that CONTAINS hit chance.

The misses/hits were the means to the end. However if we want deterministic evaluations, we can look directly at the outcomes of the equations in order to balance the input variables. Hit chance is an input variable and DPR is an outcome.

I'm not saying ignore hit chance, I'm saying that when you look at DPR and stunning fist chance, you ARE looking at hit chance and it becomes irrelevant to independently evaluate unless you cross curve against another value set.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

When you miss more than 50% of the time, the class becomes frustrating to play.

The game isn't just a math problem.

EDIT: Not to mention DPR starts from the presumption of a full attack on each turn.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When you are purely talking game balance, then yes it is. I was under the assumption that this thread was about game design and balance.

However, I concede that your point is not simply game balance. If you feel that too many misses is frustrating (which is opinion and not fact and one that I agree with), then you must work the equation for the sake of game balance.

Essentially, if you want to hit more often and NOT affect DPR, then you must either lower the damage output per hit or reduce the number of attacks (or chance crit chance but Monks already have the worst crit chance so we have hit a brick wall here). More input variables, but DPR is still the game balance metric to start from because it can be compared to the other classes while the other variables cannot (they are not in comparable equivalency).

I agree that missing too much is frustrating. However if we want to balance the monk, he must either miss or do worse damage per hit. This is because his number of attacks is high. DPR is still our metric when we want to balance against other classes.

HOW we accomplish DPR is up to the build suggestions. The method to one's madness is not truly important when creating the metric to success.


On the subject of the monk who gains ability score increases while leveling, I have a few things I'd like ask if it hasn't been covered yet (which may muddy the water a bit).

1) What happens when said monk is reincarnated? You normally drop all your physical ability scores, aging modifiers, and anything other than your base benefits and then gain new racial modifiers. But your mental statistics stay the same.

2) How does it interact with creating new characters are higher levels? This is especially a concern for NPCs who often have to be generated above 1st level, often fairly quickly. It seems that it would be incorrect to generate the NPC's final stats and then apply all the mods at once, rather than applying the mods over the course of levels. Also, how does it interact with templates and the like?

2.a) For example, let's say the BBEG chooses his Strength to buff because it's the lowest of his stats (I believe that was the qualifier the last time I looked), and then goes and drinks the last canister of mutegen and turns into Super BBEG and gets the giant template or something and a big buff to his Strength and debuff to his Dexterity. Does the modification re-fit retroactively?

2.b) If you made a skeleton or zombie out of the monk, since these appear to be modifications to their direct ability scores via an Ex ability (as in the Ex ability mods them, but once modded it's part of the ability score alone and not merely an effect of the Ex ability) it seems like this would make monks darn good skeleton and zombie stock since monks would be likely to have high stats across the board.

3) How does it interact with non-abilities? I presume they would just be ignored, but it's something of a question as a ghost-monk or shadow-monk or an undead-monk might have to worry about this (most incorporeal creatures have no Strength, undead have no Constitution, etc).

4) How does it interact with Ability Drain. Unlike damage drain actually lowers an ability score according to the rules, so if the monk's stats do not have to retroactively re-shuffle to the lowest stats, then getting ability drained would actually be a way to powergame it. For example, you could ability drain Strength until it was your lowest statistic each time you were to gain your benefits, then apply them all to Strength and then get the drain removed. Now the ability score would be your highest and then some!

4.a) If it does retroactively re-fit, how do you propose to handle the bookkeeping mess that would entail? Can you imagine the look on everyone's faces at the table?

GM: "The succubus removes her profane gift from your monk who accepted it while charmed. You suffer 2d6 Charisma drain. You've got 5 minutes to recalculate all your ability scores from your monk perfection shifting around."

4.b) Would inherent modifiers count? Would having your wizard friend or some other spellcaster provide increases to your statistics suddenly cause you to have to re-distribute your bonus points, or would they be considered separate as a magic item since they don't mod the actual score?

These are all some questions I'd be interested in having answered. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SoulGambit0 wrote:
But what if someone wants to play a pit-fighter with dumped Int/Cha?

Well, monk says to me nimble, skilled, spiritual warrior, so why they would pick a monk for this option is beyond me. An unarmed fighter suits the concept better.

ciretose wrote:

This is what was discussed in the "Is it broken" monk thread, relative to the CR chart on the bestiary.

1.Should be able to hit with a primary attack more than 50% but less than 75%
2.Stunning fist should work more than 10% but less that 25%
3.AC should be greater than the Bestiary averages (it is a melee class)
4.DPR should be greater than the average ¾ caster class wading into melee but less than the average Martial Class (we can discuss what these exact numbers are, but again, just looking for consensus)
5.All of this should be able to be accomplished unarmored and unarmed.

I believe on #4 we came up with a number that was basically 1/4th of Hit Points for equal CR (Or at least I did).

This is what we started with. It's kind of made more of a balance between all of the factors, because you can me more accurate and do less damage, have stunning fist odds high as long as it doesn't terminate the fight, etc.

So what I think we kind of morphed to (or I did, anyway):
1. Odds to hit should never be better than a full BAB class not using it's 'special' - a non-smiting paladin was what we made for comparison - and preferably slightly less.
2. Stunning fist should be able to work. It can't work every time, but it can't work so infrequently that the monk can't rely on it. More like 20-35% of the time.
3. AC needs to be good because HP are always going to be less than amazing.
4. DPR should be more than 20 but less than 40. The above paladin manages around 50, a magus makes from 25-60 depending on his buffs. 1/4 of 130hp is around 35.
5. This should be unarmed and unarmoured.

It was hard to quantify the effect of maneuvers as they really depend what you are fighting, we're running some more tests.

Liam ap Thalwig wrote:

Some thoughts on the perfecting body/soul stuff:

Improving Str, Dex, Con, and Wis fits my picture of a monk very well.
Improving Int or Cha does not, though, so I'd suggest to take those two out of the extra points gained.

What do you think?

The head of the martial arts school I used to train in said that his best weapon was his mind, and the best way to defeat an enemy was to make them your friend. So yes, actually I think this very appropriate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, what I'm getting at ciretose, is that number 2 and number 4 need much greater focus. If we become satisfied with both number 2 and number 4, we no longer need number 1 except for flavor, and it's up to your build suggestion to supply that, not the measurement metric.

Where would you most be happy with DPR compared to the other classes? Unbuffed, self buffed, and party buffed should all be considered.

Dabbler it would be great for you to weigh in as well. A consensus on number four should be addressed. It would help this very useful and intelligently approached discussion.
EDIT: Oh, you answered me already!

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

The title of the thread is "If monks have trouble hitting..."

Literally, that is the title of the thread.

Yes there is a trade off between damage and attack bonus, but the monk isn't outdoing anyone for damage. When incorporating buffs, you can't ignore the fact that you can also enlarge fighters/rangers/paladins/rogues etc...

DPR is 'a' factor. It comes into play with regards mainly to full attacks, which are a part of the game, but not the game.

It is nice to know, there should be benchmarks, but ability to actually hit things matters.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...and for the record, GrenMara, yes it was Ninjitsu I studied...:D

Edit: To add to what ciretose said, actually hitting the target affects everything the monk can do to a target. They cannot stun it, trip it, grapple it, disarm it or otherwise hurt it if they can't hit it.

So odds to hit really matter and influence everything.

Damage resistance is more of a corner case, but if the odds to hit are high, and the damage is low, then the monk needs a means of bypassing DR or the monk is shut down by foes with it. I mention this because it is kind of important in some cases.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

And for clarification on 4, I think Dabblers number is without burning ki and with no additional buffs at 10th level.

I prefer the same criteria vs 1/4 of the hit points by CR. YMMV.


GrenMeera wrote:

When you are purely talking game balance, then yes it is. I was under the assumption that this thread was about game design and balance.

However, I concede that your point is not simply game balance. If you feel that too many misses is frustrating (which is opinion and not fact and one that I agree with), then you must work the equation for the sake of game balance.

Essentially, if you want to hit more often and NOT affect DPR, then you must either lower the damage output per hit or reduce the number of attacks (or chance crit chance but Monks already have the worst crit chance so we have hit a brick wall here). More input variables, but DPR is still the game balance metric to start from because it can be compared to the other classes while the other variables cannot (they are not in comparable equivalency).

I agree that missing too much is frustrating. However if we want to balance the monk, he must either miss or do worse damage per hit. This is because his number of attacks is high. DPR is still our metric when we want to balance against other classes.

HOW we accomplish DPR is up to the build suggestions. The method to one's madness is not truly important when creating the metric to success.

Dice variance is bad for the players. It isn't bad for the GM because the GM gets to roll many more times than the PCs, and also GMs have unlimited NPCs.

In a typical fight even 4 attacks with a full round action, a player is still probably making under 20 attack rolls, due to movement positioning etc.. So although mathematically if you have twice the number of attacks but half the hit rate, it should be equivalent, this is a long run average based on the law of large numbers. If you only roll 10 times a fight, you can easily whiff 70+% of your hits, even 100% of your hits on any given fights with a 50% hit chance. That is why it can lead to frustration. Just stringing a few misses on a few crucial rolls can lead to PC death such that they never live to see the law of large numbers to even out their miss attacks.

Lowering variance helps the player, that is why it is recommended that for PCs you should take average HP rolls, instead of rolling the HP die 19 times. Because you can get screwed pretty hard if you string a few ones together before you get to the few 10's that will average it out on the long run.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So far we only looked at level 10, and I think comparing the monk's damage output to those of 3/4 and full BAB classes is probably a better yardstick as damage output proportional to monster CR varies by class level. What 1st level fighter can't one-shot a goblin?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, DPR means Damage per Round, and if you spend the round doing a standard action instead of a full round attack, then a standard action IS your DPR across the time span of that one round.

Assuming that DPR just means full round attacks is simply ignoring scenarios and data, and I'm never a fan of ignoring data. Standard actions should of course be considered. It is something the monk is not good at, and therefore should get scrutiny.

I'm in the process of trying to come up with a good metric that isn't being used right now for CMB. Perhaps disabling chance? I've always viewed the Monk's intended role to be about disabling anyway since Stunning Fist is primary focus. Sure he doesn't do his role well, but that's what we're here for right?

On the topic of roles, buffing and disabling is often not brought up. In fact, I consider the Bard to be the master of these roles yet some call him a DPS. D&D essentially doesn't give much value to the "tank" role. This role barely exists as there's no way to maintain or control aggro. It mostly comes up when you have battlefield control spells to single file the opponents.

Scout, Skills-monkey, Tank, Buffer, Disabler, Battlefield Control, and DPS (if I'm missing any please add). I personally view the Monk as a failed Disabler/DPS and would like to see this come to pass. What role do you guys want to see the Monk actually accomplish? Do we have agreement here?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gignere wrote:

Dice variance is bad for the players. It isn't bad for the GM because the GM gets to roll many more times than the PCs, and also GMs have unlimited NPCs.

In a typical fight even 4 attacks with a full round action, a player is still probably making under 20 attack rolls, due to movement positioning etc.. So although mathematically if you have twice the number of attacks but half the hit rate, it should be equivalent, this is a long run average based on the law of large numbers. If you only roll 10 times a fight, you can easily whiff 70+% of your hits, even 100% of your hits on any given fights with a 50% hit chance. That is why it can lead to frustration. Just stringing a few misses on a few crucial rolls can lead to PC death such that they never live to see the law of large numbers to even out their miss attacks.

Lowering variance helps the player, that is why it is recommended that for PCs you should take average HP rolls, instead of rolling the HP die 19 times. Because you can get screwed pretty hard if you string a few ones together before you get to the few 10's that will average it out on the long run.

I agree with this so much! I was trying to not impress my own game design methods into this quite yet, but this is how I view it personally.

D&D has never been a friend to this methodology though compared to most other RPGs. I mean, a D20 itself is the bane of dice variance. Also, like Shadowrun players can attest to, some players really like rolling a lot of dice! It starts becoming flavor and opinion that override the mathematical rule of averages on this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

On the subject of the monk who gains ability score increases while leveling, I have a few things I'd like ask if it hasn't been covered yet (which may muddy the water a bit).

1) What happens when said monk is reincarnated? You normally drop all your physical ability scores, aging modifiers, and anything other than your base benefits and then gain new racial modifiers. But your mental statistics stay the same.

2) How does it interact with creating new characters are higher levels? This is especially a concern for NPCs who often have to be generated above 1st level, often fairly quickly. It seems that it would be incorrect to generate the NPC's final stats and then apply all the mods at once, rather than applying the mods over the course of levels. Also, how does it interact with templates and the like?

2.a) For example, let's say the BBEG chooses his Strength to buff because it's the lowest of his stats (I believe that was the qualifier the last time I looked), and then goes and drinks the last canister of mutegen and turns into Super BBEG and gets the giant template or something and a big buff to his Strength and debuff to his Dexterity. Does the modification re-fit retroactively?

2.b) If you made a skeleton or zombie out of the monk, since these appear to be modifications to their direct ability scores via an Ex ability (as in the Ex ability mods them, but once modded it's part of the ability score alone and not merely an effect of the Ex ability) it seems like this would make monks darn good skeleton and zombie stock since monks would be likely to have high stats across the board.

3) How does it interact with non-abilities? I presume they would just be ignored, but it's something of a question as a ghost-monk or shadow-monk or an undead-monk might have to worry about this (most incorporeal creatures have no Strength, undead have no Constitution, etc).

4) How does it interact with Ability Drain. Unlike damage drain actually lowers an ability score according to the rules, so if the...

I think right answer to all of these questions is "the same thing that happens to ability score increases everyone gets at every 4th level". I don't think there needs to be a whole complicated mechanic for it.


Ashiel wrote:

On the subject of the monk who gains ability score increases while leveling, I have a few things I'd like ask if it hasn't been covered yet (which may muddy the water a bit).

1) What happens when said monk is reincarnated? You normally drop all your physical ability scores, aging modifiers, and anything other than your base benefits and then gain new racial modifiers. But your mental statistics stay the same.

This could be solved (at least in those concepts not involving point buy) by designating the increases as untyped bonuses instead of ability score increases. I dislike that somewhat, but it doesn't matter that much.

Quote:
2) How does it interact with creating new characters are higher levels? This is especially a concern for NPCs who often have to be generated above 1st level, often fairly quickly. It seems that it would be incorrect to generate the NPC's final stats and then apply all the mods at once, rather than applying the mods over the course of levels. Also, how does it interact with templates and the like?

You would apply it in order, just like how you need to apply feat requirements in order. Unless you're making a large quantity of high-level monks with different ability score spreads this won't be a large problem. I mean, I did the level 1-18 spreads in like 3 minutes.

Quote:
2.a) For example, let's say the BBEG chooses his Strength to buff because it's the lowest of his stats (I believe that was the qualifier the last time I looked), and then goes and drinks the last canister of mutegen and turns into Super BBEG and gets the giant template or something and a big buff to his Strength and debuff to his Dexterity. Does the modification re-fit retroactively?

I wouldn't normally apply anything retroactively, too much work for me. But adding templates is always a DM design thing so should be easy to work out.

Quote:
2.b) If you made a skeleton or zombie out of the monk, since these appear to be modifications to their direct ability scores via an Ex ability (as in the Ex ability mods them, but once modded it's part of the ability score alone and not merely an effect of the Ex ability) it seems like this would make monks darn good skeleton and zombie stock since monks would be likely to have high stats across the board.

It does seem like it would work better as a bonus, taking this into account. As an untyped bonus it would be lost in the transformation into a skeleton.

Quote:
3) How does it interact with non-abilities? I presume they would just be ignored, but it's something of a question as a ghost-monk or shadow-monk or an undead-monk might have to worry about this (most incorporeal creatures have no Strength, undead have no Constitution, etc).

They'd be ignored. So yeah, for those it'd be pretty strong.

Quote:
4) How does it interact with Ability Drain. Unlike damage drain actually lowers an ability score according to the rules, so if the monk's stats do not have to retroactively re-shuffle to the lowest stats, then getting ability drained would actually be a way to powergame it.

It interacts by the DM saying "nope!". Basically, when I discuss houserules, I do so with the assumption that people want to enjoy playing the game rather than gaming the game. If one wants a waterproof rulesystem that can't be rules lawyered to abuse it, this houserule wouldn't be for that person.

Personally I'd just count the base ability score ignoring everything except the starting scores/racial, the gains from HD and the gains from the ability itself. YMMV.

Quote:
4.b) Would inherent modifiers count? Would having your wizard friend or some other spellcaster provide increases to your statistics suddenly cause you to have to re-distribute your bonus points, or would they be considered separate as a magic item since they don't mod the actual score?

Bonuses are applied afterwards (part of why I preferred it as actual ability increase, it seems clearer that way).


Quote:
It interacts by the DM saying "nope!".

Then it's a bad rule and needs work. I use house rules to make up for bad mechanics. Not add new bad mechanics. These are things you need to work out if you are going to present this as a monk fix, because expecting people to house rule your house rule, or ignoring things that come up is irresponsible.

The example I gave is not even an unlikely one to happen "accidentally". There are quite a few creatures, diseases, poisons, and so forth that can or will cause actual ability drain which does reduce scores and things based on them. This could easily result in a score that used to be your highest becoming your lowest, but later may be your highest again.

Quote:
I do so with the assumption that people want to enjoy playing the game rather than gaming the game. If one wants a waterproof rulesystem that can't be rules lawyered to abuse it, this houserule wouldn't be for that person.

Some people (I'm not saying I, but I know several people who are good people) enjoy the game for the game aspect. They would do this and not do so maliciously. They would merely see it as something that could be done. And if it works, then it works. When discussing fixes for monks, saying "it won't be abused, the GM can handle it" is as bad as just saying "Monks have no problems, the GM can handle it".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isnt badwrongfun to game the system, its just not something that i want in my game. I think abilities having clear intent and being easy to read is more important than them being waterproof, and i think pathfinder is having issues in being too legalese. And i havent presented it as a fix, but as a WiP concept (i've stated several this several times in several posts, that it's not a finished idea of a rule but rather a concept to work on and test)

Since some people seem to have found this useful, it can't really be dismissed just becaude it doesnt fit all groups.

It'd be quite easy to fix if you want it in words though - if the ability had the line "when determining lowest stats, do not count any bonuses, penalties or other effects that can be removed.". It would make the intent very clear, and to those enjoying rules lawyering - why would one even want to make the rules waterproof? Since they're enjoying the rules lawyering, let them do it. To those who doesn't want to do it, the intent there would be clear.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing anyone does at "your" table isn't badwrongfun as long as "You" and your friends like it. You can and should run "your" table in the way you all enjoy it the most.

If you want to all play talking dinosaurs attempting to get into dental school in Victorian England, that is not badwrongfun if everyone is having fun putting T-Rex in a Corset and making rolls to see if the filling sets properly.

However when people try to insert what is done at "your" into "the" table, that I have a problem with.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Curse you Ciretose, I will never look at a set of bones in a museum the same way, ever again.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Dabbler wrote:
Curse you Ciretose, I will never look at a set of bones in a museum the same way, ever again.

I would play a cockney Triceritops with a heart of gold, trying to stay safe from Jack the Raptor as she says to tries to pay off her student loans from dental school.

"'Ello govenah! I got a spike an me nose an two on me 'ead. Fancy a shag?"


ciretose wrote:

Nothing anyone does at "your" isn't badwrongfun as long as "You" and your friends like it. You can and should run "your" table in the way you all enjoy it the most.

If you want to all play talking dinosaurs attempting to get into dental school in Victorian England, that is not badwrongfun if everyone is having fun putting T-Rex in a Corset and making rolls to see if the filling sets properly.

However when people try to insert what is done at "your" into "the" table, that I have a problem with.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, so I feel I have to clarify. I agree with what you said, completely. That is more or less what I was trying to say.

My ideas for the monk houserules where not intended as "paizo should put this in the monk, ASAP!" but rather "maybe this could turn into an interesting house rule for those that like it".

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wasn't directed at you, was agreeing with you.


Ilja wrote:
It isnt badwrongfun to game the system, its just not something that i want in my game. I think abilities having clear intent and being easy to read is more important than them being waterproof, and i think pathfinder is having issues in being too legalese. And i havent presented it as a fix, but as a WiP concept (i've stated several this several times in several posts, that it's not a finished idea of a rule but rather a concept to work on and test)

Perhaps we are getting off on the wrong foot here. I'm criticizing (I hope constructively since I'm not just criticizing it but explaining WHY I'm criticizing it so as to bring up things you may wish to address) the rule, not you, or your group, or anything else of that nature. A work in progress of a concept that may be a fix (at least that's what this appears to be from what I've seen of it) so to speak. When we're working on rules we need those rules to be solid. Doesn't matter if your lead designer or rulesmaster at Paizo or making homebrew stuff, if you're making rules you should strive to make sure they are good rules.

Part of making good rules is trying to stay abreast as to how those rules will interact with the system as a whole. Presumably this is why one might discuss house rules or designs with someone else who also has an interest in such things, or why game developers like Paizo playtest things (at least in theory).

Quote:
Since some people seem to have found this useful, it can't really be dismissed just becaude it doesnt fit all groups.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the idea entirely. But if the idea has its flaws and instead of addressing those flaws we are told to ignore them then it diminishes the value of said idea. Again it goes back to something of a quality thing.

Now in your post you mentioned a way to clarify what you can and cannot (and parenthesis are super useful for specifying things in rules) and that is progress and makes your idea closer to complete. Kudos on that. It may need some specifics or a nice example to lead the reader, but the start of it is there and that makes it far more usable in an actual game where characters may get ability drained.


Got you. Read your post as more aggressive than it was probably meant.


Ilja wrote:
Got you. Read your post as more aggressive than it was probably meant.

Not a problem. It was pretty late when I wrote the post and sometimes I lose some of my ability to project my thoughts in a clear manner when I'm fatigued. Sorry for the confusion. At any rate, good job on the idea as it seems pretty popular and has a nice ring to it (and honestly raising ability scores as a class/hit-die feature has never been very overpowered at all).

EDIT: A great example would be monsters and stuff like Savage Species. Sean K. Reynolds did some good work on Savage Species (which was an inspiration for most of us afterwords who tweaked, modified, or came up with other types of racial progressions) so if you haven't seen it, you should check it out (it's very underpowered in fact, because the monsters in the book don't gain hit dice as fast as PCs but they were likely erring on the side of caution to avoid people thinking it overpowered).

It had (and let to) a lot of races with high ability scores and lots of racial hit dice receiving their ability scores as a function of hit dice, much like a class feature (similar benefits can be seen in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana racial paragons, which are effectively racial levels/HD for core humanoids). Which is understandable. +2 to an ability score is +1 to lots of little things throughout a character, which makes for a pretty decent class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Curse you Ciretose, I will never look at a set of bones in a museum the same way, ever again.

I would play a cockney Triceritops with a heart of gold, trying to stay safe from Jack the Raptor as she says to tries to pay off her student loans from dental school.

"'Ello govenah! I got a spike an me nose an two on me 'ead. Fancy a shag?"

...hang on, I think I know that girl...


@GrenMeera: I like your bottom-line philosophy, but when designing games you can't just look at the math. The final number is important, but how we reach that number allows a designer to make an artistic statement. There is a difference in feel between lots of little attacks and one big, solid blow.

From a mathematical perspective, there's also a difference because of outside resources (buffs). A monk benefits tremendously from +To-Hit and +Damage, while a THF benefits tremendously from extra attacks. That has to be considered.

Then there's the concept of being useful on turns where you can't full attack. I don't know about anyone else, but actually getting a full attack is often a problem unless I'm a ranged combatant or its a bruisery miniboss/BBEG, or otherwise the "main enemy" of the encounter. Otherwise concentrated fire from the entire team means that most mooks die horribly on the charge.

@Dabbler: I was trained similarly. Not all schools teach that, and I really don't like closing possible concept. To go back to the character I play now, he has a low Int/Cha but he has Wisdom through the roof. He's dumb as a box of rocks and is more than a little abraisive, but he can usually intuit (massive Sense Motive) what people want and just blindly helps them. Usually, he makes his fair share of friends. His monastic training, the discipline (used to deal with his anger issues), and confucious sayings he occassionally bastardizes and repeats have become staples of the character. It's been a blast. To bring this back to a more general statement, closing concepts and applications of classes is, in my opinion, always bad. At the very least, it's more intrusive than what needs to be.


SoulGambit0 wrote:

@GrenMeera: I like your bottom-line philosophy, but when designing games you can't just look at the math. The final number is important, but how we reach that number allows a designer to make an artistic statement. There is a difference in feel between lots of little attacks and one big, solid blow.

From a mathematical perspective, there's also a difference because of outside resources (buffs). A monk benefits tremendously from +To-Hit and +Damage, while a THF benefits tremendously from extra attacks. That has to be considered.

Then there's the concept of being useful on turns where you can't full attack. I don't know about anyone else, but actually getting a full attack is often a problem unless I'm a ranged combatant or its a bruisery miniboss/BBEG, or otherwise the "main enemy" of the encounter. Otherwise concentrated fire from the entire team means that most mooks die horribly on the charge.

Part of the problem with differing the feel of damage output by nature of multiple/weaker attacks vs. fewer/harder attacks is DR as well as requiring a full attack action to achieve the multiple attacks.

Because DR shaves a flat amount off of each attack, it is possible to have those multiple/weaker attacks zeroed out. In addition, the fewer/harder combatant is not penalized as much for being mobile whereas the multiple/weaker combatant loses a much larger percentage of their attacks and thus potential DPR.

As a result, what could be construed as fluff ends up as crunch.

I wonder how it would play out if DR only affected the first attack of all iterative attacks from a given attacker for a given round? (I'm just kind of musing here as that clearly goes well beyond a fix for monks but it is an interesting thought.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SoulGambit0 wrote:

@GrenMeera: I like your bottom-line philosophy, but when designing games you can't just look at the math. The final number is important, but how we reach that number allows a designer to make an artistic statement. There is a difference in feel between lots of little attacks and one big, solid blow.

From a mathematical perspective, there's also a difference because of outside resources (buffs). A monk benefits tremendously from +To-Hit and +Damage, while a THF benefits tremendously from extra attacks. That has to be considered.

I have to agree. However, there is another important difference, damage resistance. DR will shut down 'lots of small attacks' completely, but one big attack overwhelms it. Without a means to bypass DR, the small-attacks method dies at higher level.

With the difference in buffs, it's horses for courses. Bardic song is a common buff that would boost the many-attacks style, haste is a common buff that favours the massive attack style. Neither is broken because of it, they just work a little differently.

SoulGambit0 wrote:
Then there's the concept of being useful on turns where you can't full attack. I don't know about anyone else, but actually getting a full attack is often a problem unless I'm a ranged combatant or its a bruisery miniboss/BBEG, or otherwise the "main enemy" of the encounter. Otherwise concentrated fire from the entire team means that most mooks die horribly on the charge.

Another fault with flurry-of-blows that makes it problematic at times.

SoulGambit0 wrote:
@Dabbler: I was trained similarly. Not all schools teach that, and I really don't like closing possible concept. To go back to the character I play now, he has a low Int/Cha but he has Wisdom through the roof. He's dumb as a box of rocks and is more than a little abraisive, but he can usually intuit (massive Sense Motive) what people want and just blindly helps them. Usually, he makes his fair share of friends. His monastic training, the discipline (used to deal with his anger issues), and confucious sayings he occassionally bastardizes and repeats have become staples of the character. It's been a blast. To bring this back to a more general statement, closing concepts and applications of classes is, in my opinion, always bad. At the very least, it's more intrusive than what needs to be.

Sounds like fun! I prefer playing smart characters myself, but I can get the fun in playing dumb. I don't want to close down options either, but at the end of the day a +2 bonus to a 7 Int character is still going to leave them less than a genius...they are a little smarter, thanks to experience, but not hugely so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said on another thread, it is a myth that monks get more attacks than anyone else.

The barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (using two-weapons) gets the following attacks per round on a full-attack:

1st: 2 attacks
6th/7th: 4 attacks (fighters/rangers at 6th; barbarians/paladins at 7th)
11th: 6 attacks
16th: 7 attacks

The monk's progression with his flurry of blows is this:

1st: 2 attacks
6th: 3 attacks
8th: 4 attacks
11th: 5 attacks
15th: 6 attacks
16th: 7 attacks

Less attacks at 6th and 7th level, less attacks at 11th level, they only match the other classes at 15th+.

But wait, MA! You are forgetting that the monks get an extra attack by spending ki. No, I am not. A monk's ki pool is very limited (at 1st level, a monk with a 16 Wis will have 4 points; a 20th level monk with a 24 Wis will have 17). Even though that adds ONE additional attack.

Compare that to a speed weapon, or the haste spell (which doesn't affect unarmed strikes by RAW. NOTE: I think it should, but technically it doesn't).

But there is also Medusa's Wrath . . . which isn't a monk only feat. ANY class that meets the prequisites can get it and use it if the target meets the conditions.

No, monk's don't get MORE attacks than other classes to begin with. They basically get the same number of attacks on a full-attack as any other full BAB class. Thus, it is a myth that monks get extra attacks to make up for their lower to-hit chances.

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Soul Gambit wrote:

@GrenMeera: I like your bottom-line philosophy, but when designing games you can't just look at the math. The final number is important, but how we reach that number allows a designer to make an artistic statement. There is a difference in feel between lots of little attacks and one big, solid blow.

From a mathematical perspective, there's also a difference because of outside resources (buffs). A monk benefits tremendously from +To-Hit and +Damage, while a THF benefits tremendously from extra attacks. That has to be considered.

Then there's the concept of being useful on turns where you can't full attack. I don't know about anyone else, but actually getting a full attack is often a problem unless I'm a ranged combatant or its a bruisery miniboss/BBEG, or otherwise the "main enemy" of the encounter. Otherwise concentrated fire from the entire team means that most mooks die horribly on the charge.

Dabbler wrote:

I have to agree. However, there is another important difference, damage resistance. DR will shut down 'lots of small attacks' completely, but one big attack overwhelms it. Without a means to bypass DR, the small-attacks method dies at higher level.

With the difference in buffs, it's horses for courses. Bardic song is a common buff that would boost the many-attacks style, haste is a common buff that favours the massive attack style. Neither is broken because of it, they just work a little differently.

I agree with you both, and specifically why I said that you cannot ignore data. The damage done on a standard action should also be reflected in a DPR comparison. The damage done against DR should also be reflected in a DPR comparison. The damage done while buffed, while not buffed, while upside down... I really don't believe there's a such thing as too much data.

This is why I usually scoff at people who believe that game balance is "just do this". When you are doing it properly, you have a LOT of work to compare. Did you know the mathematician/chemist who created Settlers of Catan spent over 20 years looking at data making sure that the game had proper balance?

"Even 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' has nine outcomes that must have a comparative chance to win." - Dave Arneson told me this while teaching game theory, RIP :(

master arminas wrote:

As I said on another thread, it is a myth that monks get more attacks than anyone else.

The barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (using two-weapons) gets the following attacks per round on a full-attack:

While I appreciate the intent of what you're saying here, and very much appreciate the tables you made, I tend to look at this a little differently.

A monk does get more attacks at the cost of hit chance.

However, this is not exclusive. Any melee taking TWF feats is getting more attacks at the cost of hit chance as well.

I would rather say that they all are instead of none of them do. The monk simply gets these feats intrinsically as part of their class design within special limitations, while the other classes have them as feat choices.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,235 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / If Monks have trouble hitting... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.