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

How exactly is the Brawling property worth only a +1 for pricing? How?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

The monk has four feats left, Brain-in-a-Jar. Use them. See what they change when you add some Style feats, or what-have-you. Will they change the numbers that much on a full attack or a standard moving attack?

Just remember, the Rogue has three Talents (two of which can be Advanced Talents) left as well.

So what would you suggest?

MA


Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

Even if you do prove that monks do marginally more damage than an "unarmed" rogue, remember the rogue still has twice the skill ranks that the monk has.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

I cleaned up some things (and the replies to them). Act like adults.


Human Monk 12
Lawful Neutral Medium Humanoid
Init: +5; Senses: Perception +18
AC: 27, Touch: 24, Flat-footed: 16
HP: 109 (12 HD)
Fort: +12, Ref: +12, Will: +13 (+2 against sleep effects, paralysis effects, stunning effects, and enchantment spells and effects)
Defensive Abilities: Improved Evasion, Still Mind, Purity of Body,
Immune: Disease, Poison,

Speed: 70ft
Melee:
Unarmed Strike +19*/+14 (2d8+12/19-20x2)
Vital Strike +19* (4d8+15/19-20x2)
Flurry +20*/+20/+15/+15/+10 (2d8+12/19-20x2)
Flurry with Ki +20*/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10 (2d8+12/19-20x2)
*(2d8+15/19-20x2) First attack in round.

Special Attacks: Flurry of Blows, Ki Strike (Lawful and Magic), Elemental Fist (10/Day, +1d6 Fire), Stunning Fist (10/Day, Fort DC 19, Stun 1 round or Sickened 1 minute or Fatigue), Dragon Style (You ignore difficult terrain when you charge, run, or withdraw. You can also charge through squares that contain allies), Dragon Ferocity (When you score a critical hit or a successful Stunning Fist attempt against an opponent while using this style, that opponent is also shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1d4 + your Strength bonus),

STR 24, DEX 14, CON 15, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 7,
Base Attack: +9/+4; CMB:+20 (+22 Grapple); CMD: 30 (32 against Grapple)

Feats: Toughness, Dodge, Stunning Fist, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Weapon Focus(Unarmed), Dragon Style, Mobility, Dragon Ferocity, Elemental Fist(Fire), Improved Critical, Extra Ki, Vital Strike,

Skills: Acrobatics +13 (+23 jump), Climb +12, Swim +12, Intimidate +11, Knowledge (Religion) +6, Perception +18, Sense Motive +13, Stealth +17,

Languages: Common,

SQ: Ki Pool (11 points), Slow Fall (60ft), Wholeness of Body (2 Ki, Heals 10 HP), High Jump, Maneuver Training, Diamond Body, Abundant Step,

Gear: Bracers of Armor(+3), Belt of Giant Strength(+6), Monk's Robe, Headband of Inspired Wisdom(+2), Amulet of Mighty Fists(+2), Ring of Protection(+3), Cloak of Resistance(+2),(2)Potion of Cure Serious Wounds(CL 5th), Potion of Fly (CL 5th), Potion of Invisibility(CL 3rd), Mwk Sling, (10) Sling Bullets,

Here is what i would do.


Gignere wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

Even if you do prove that monks do marginally more damage than an "unarmed" rogue, remember the rogue still has twice the skill ranks that the monk has.

The Rogue also doesn't have any of the Monk's abilities.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

Even if you do prove that monks do marginally more damage than an "unarmed" rogue, remember the rogue still has twice the skill ranks that the monk has.

The Rogue also doesn't have any of the Monk's abilities.

Monk's also don't have the Rogue's abilities like uncanny dodge, or trapfighting and trap sense.

We will get no where with this line of logic.

Anyway like I said your revised monk build does a little more damage than an unarmed rogue when not sneak attacking. But with sneak attack the rogue does more damage than your monk.

All you proved is that a monk optimized for damage is better than an unarmed rogue without sneak attack. That is a pretty low bar.

Optimized Fighters, Barbs, Paladins outdamages sneak attacking rogues.


Gignere wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

Even if you do prove that monks do marginally more damage than an "unarmed" rogue, remember the rogue still has twice the skill ranks that the monk has.

The Rogue also doesn't have any of the Monk's abilities.

Monk's also don't have the Rogue's abilities like uncanny dodge, or trapfighting and trap sense.

We will get no where with this line of logic.

Anyway like I said your revised monk build does a little more damage than an unarmed rogue when not sneak attacking. But with sneak attack the rogue does more damage than your monk.

All you proved is that a monk optimized for damage is better than an unarmed rogue without sneak attack. That is a pretty low bar.

Optimized Fighters, Barbs, Paladins outdamages sneak attacking rogues.

That was kinda the point i was trying to make. It's not just about dealing damage, abilities, skills, etc. have to be factored in also.

As far as damage goes i never expect a Monk to out damage a Fighter or Barbarian.

The Rogue might do more damage than the Monk IF he is using sneak attack. But my monk isn't just about damage output since i have given him other options, adding on Stunning Fist, Elemental Fist, and the Styles gives some added bonuses at times when attacking.

I think with the few tweaks that have been said to be coming by Paizo the Monk will be just fine.

Shadow Lodge

Brain in a Jar wrote:
I think with the few tweaks that have been said to be coming by Paizo the Monk will be just fine.

possibly, but dont hold your breath. the changes may not be what we individually hope for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there is any problem with the Barwling property, as it's been said, unarmed fighting is a quite underpowered.

This does not hurt monks, it only mocks them. Monks are not any worse than they were before Brawling was part of the game. The only thing I would change about ut is allowing to be placed on AoMF and/or BoA.

Why not simply add a line in the BoA descriptions saying that it counts as light armor for the purpose of adding enhancements?

There! Everyone is happy! Even monks! And that's saying something!

Shadow Lodge

DUH because they dont want an item to fix the succy... er, mechanical errors of the monk.

they must have said thhis at least once now, where were you?

Lantern Lodge Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@Brain in a Jar: Minor point about your monk build. Since Dragon Ferocity allows the monk to treat Elemental Fist as if he were a Monk of the Four Winds, the Elemental Fist damage would be +3d6, not +1d6.


TheSideKick wrote:

DUH because they dont want an item to fix the succy... er, mechanical errors of the monk.

they must have said thhis at least once now, where were you?

I know, I know... I suggested it as a houserule. (BTW I don't think that would fix the monk's problems, although it'd definetly be a step in the right direction)

Anyway, I've seen and taken part in more than one monk discussion. Only to be disappointed with every ruling.

I hope Paizo's revision of the class works out well, but I'm not holding my breath.

I honestly don't care anymore. If any of my players decide to play a monk, I'll point him to a homebrew forum.


Lemmy wrote:
If any of my players decide to play a monk, I'll point him to a homebrew forum.

If any of my players wants to play a monk, I'll tell him to play an unarmed fighter.


master arminas wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

MA, why do you have such a problem with the basic premise of this item, other than it screwing over monks for no good reason?

An unarmed combatant with this item is still doing less damage than a weapon-using character.

Because the price is simply too low for what it does, SotS. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like it is simply far too cheap.

MA

Let's look at the spell needed to make this armor. Bull's Strength. Increases your Str by 4, which comes out to +2 to... exactly what the armor gives bonuses to. Is it a little underpriced because it's an untyped bonus? Maybe, but who would take it if it was an Enhancement bonus?


And if was actually a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, it would cost 16,000 gp. Without figuring in the armor (including its enhancement). It might, might, be appropriate as an enhancement bonus, but as is? It is far too inexpensive for the bonuses that it grants.

MA

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So, what, it should be +2?


master arminas wrote:
various builds

MA, have you considered the possibility that Monk isn't broken, but rather, your monks are broken?

Shadow Lodge

oh burn, MA he got you! but i still agree with you that if you dont have an archetype you will be the last kid chosen for dodgeball.


Personally, I don't allow archetypes (of any class) in my game. Nor do we use feats from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. I do allow the classes, and if there is a specific feat for that class, I will allow it. But, as I said before, I am no optimizer. I prefer building a balanced character, regardless of class. I wouldn't play either the monk or the rogue I posted above (or the one by B-i-a-J). But to each their own.

And Patrick Harris @ SD? Since the developers themselves have said there is a problem with the monk (structural problem), I think we can dismiss whether or not my problems in building optimized monks creates the larger problem with the Pathfinder class.

For what it is worth, I have played monks for 26 years. In every edition. And what I like about the class isn't exactly the same as what optimizers like. In fact, the faults with the monk can be solved if monks have a weapon training-like class feature that adds to attack rolls only, a ki option to bypass DR, and a larger ki pool more appropriate to the class (something like the barbarian rage or bardic performance for uses per day). Give me those three things, and I think the rest of the Pathfinder monk would be able to compete, while not being overpowered.

MA

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Gignere wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I like how you also made the Monk using Core only. How using some style feats? How about actually using those other options. If your using Agile and Brawling which are not Core than perhaps the Monk should have some items that are not Core.

Even if you do prove that monks do marginally more damage than an "unarmed" rogue, remember the rogue still has twice the skill ranks that the monk has.

Who created the strawman that the standard should be "Better than an unarmed rogue" and what idiot decided fighting it was a good idea?

The whole issue is that the rogue can add enhancement bonuses to primary weapons AND focus on one ability score for attack bonus (Dex)

Compare like to like. An unarmed rogue build is about as useful a comparison as asking if a monk can beat a cleric with a negative wisdom bonus and no equipment at spellcasting.


master arminas wrote:

And if was actually a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, it would cost 16,000 gp. Without figuring in the armor (including its enhancement). It might, might, be appropriate as an enhancement bonus, but as is? It is far too inexpensive for the bonuses that it grants.

MA

I don't see why you're so upset about this. Unarmed fighting is underpowered. It needs any boost it can get.

The real problem is that Brawling can't be added to BoA, not that it's too cheap.

Honestly, this seems more like "If I can't have it, noone can!" than "This is broken/unbalanced."


Lemmy wrote:
master arminas wrote:

And if was actually a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, it would cost 16,000 gp. Without figuring in the armor (including its enhancement). It might, might, be appropriate as an enhancement bonus, but as is? It is far too inexpensive for the bonuses that it grants.

MA

I don't see why you're so upset about this. Unarmed fighting is underpowered. It needs any boost it can get.

The real problem is that Brawling can't be added to BoA, not that it's too cheap.

Honestly, this seems more like "If I can't have it, noone can!" than "This is broken/unbalanced."

Ghost touch is a +3 armor property . . . is this property as powerful as ghost touch? I'm not sure, but it is more powerful than any other +1 property in terms of what it grants. If it were an enhancement bonus, and if it were a +2 property, I'd have no problem with the pricing. And that holds even if you can stick it on bracers of armor.

Just my thoughts.

MA


master arminas wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
master arminas wrote:

And if was actually a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, it would cost 16,000 gp. Without figuring in the armor (including its enhancement). It might, might, be appropriate as an enhancement bonus, but as is? It is far too inexpensive for the bonuses that it grants.

MA

I don't see why you're so upset about this. Unarmed fighting is underpowered. It needs any boost it can get.

The real problem is that Brawling can't be added to BoA, not that it's too cheap.

Honestly, this seems more like "If I can't have it, noone can!" than "This is broken/unbalanced."

Ghost touch is a +3 armor property . . . is this property as powerful as ghost touch? I'm not sure, but it is more powerful than any other +1 property in terms of what it grants. If it were an enhancement bonus, and if it were a +2 property, I'd have no problem with the pricing. And that holds even if you can stick it on bracers of armor.

Just my thoughts.

MA

As a +2 property granting an enhancement bonus (which wouldn't stack with any from aomf or anything else, enhancement bonuses don't stack) it would be so useless no one would take it.

Just saying.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor , Dedicated Voter 2013

master arminas wrote:

Now, on those restrictions: name me a single other armor property that is restricted to light armor only. Any? I don't know of any. So right away, that raises questions about what the developers were doing. If you can enchant full-plate mail to be silent, or stealthy, then why can't you do so with this property?

There's other armor properties restricted to certain types of armor. From Ultimate Equipment:

Balanced - light or medium
Bolstering - medium, heavy, shields excluding bucklers
Brawling - light
Mirrored - metallic

None of those, as far as I'm concerned, could be put on bracers. Also, a little secret: when designing armor and shield properties, making sure it can be put on bracers of armor isn't a priority.


Ultimate Treasure? You mean Ultimate Equipment, perchance? All from the same book, but not ONE from any earlier publication.

MA


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By and large, the vast majority of the time someone is using unarmed combat on purpose is because they are playing a monk. Sure, fighters and other classes can go fisticuffs, but for non-monks, it is far more likely they are wielding a weapon. I think this much can be agreed by all.

The problem with something like Brawling, as written, is that the one class which could most optimally make use of it, can't, due to the armor restrictions. Again, I would warrant that the vast majority of situations where someone is wearing armor AND using unarmed combat are NOT monks. Granted, we're now slicing an already small sample down quite a bit, but again, I think that's most likely. If you're using unarmed combat and wearing armor, chances are you are a fighter, ranger, barbarian, rogue or somesuch, making use of unarmed combat. Typically a monk using unarmed combat is likely to be played wearing no armor.

So what we end up with is something that is boosting every class EXCEPT monk in the signature area OF the monk. Like a Smite Evil attribute not usable by LG aligned heroes, or a sneak attack unusable by anyone with the Trapfinding class feature. Why give the signature ability of one class a boost for any OTHER class's use? Especially when many (not necessarily all), including the designers to a degree, agree that that class already has problems?

And if I could rephrase the question concerning whether a monk should be able to excel at unarmed combat....

Every class has something which is its niche, something that it can lay claim to like no other.

Barbarian - powerful melee during rage (4 + CON mod + 2*(level-1) rounds/day)
Ranger - powerful martial vs. hated enemy (hello Instant Enemy)
Rogue - skillmaster, trapfinder and sneak attacker
Fighter - melee generalist, most powerful in the broadest melee circumstances
Paladin - powerful vs evil (likely to be most foes), most potent defenses
Druid - versatility through shapeshifting, powerful in nature
Cleric - most versatile healer
Bard - best party synergy with broad range of buffs
Sorcerer - most flexible combat caster
Wizard - most flexible generalist caster
Monk - ???

What is it, succinctly, that monks can claim as their niche? What do monks excel at? What is it that, when you want to do that thing, everyone says "Oh, definitely, be a monk"?

Monks are clearly not casters/healers. Based purely on the core rules, their ranged options are pretty limited too. Their skill point accumulation is generally going to be very low. They don't have good group synergies and party buffs. That pretty much leaves melee.

With regard to melee, they are nimble, true, but in melee you are either damaging or controlling. For damage, a monk can hold their own if the target remains stationary. Movement kills flurry. And the damage output is still not comparable to other martials at their peak. Monk flurry IS a monk's peak and it compares to other martials baselines, not their peaks.

As for control, granted, a monk can be a grapple master, able to tie up a spellcaster. But as has been pointed out, this only helps vs a spellcaster who might have a low Fort save. Against larger foes or high Fort foes, it isn't quite as compelling. Plus, to do this the monk is taking themselves out of the fight, too. Not to mention in many cases casters are capable of controlling just as well, perhaps better if they have Mass X spells to affect multiple targets.

So what, then, is the Monk's niche? If not unarmed combat damage, then what? When do they shine?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor , Dedicated Voter 2013

master arminas wrote:

Ultimate Treasure? You mean Ultimate Equipment, perchance? All from the same book, but not ONE from any earlier publication.

MA

It'd be a pretty poor book if it did everything just like earlier books did. In any case, the precedent was already there with weapons, and checking WotC's Magic Item Compendium it was done with various armor properties in that book as well.


Cheapy wrote:

A non-monk who wants to use US is not the same as a US specialist. A US specialist is going to be one of any of the archetypes listed above or a monk. The non-monk who wants to use US is probably going to be the guy who just wants to use US as a weapon, rather than a manufactured one. This guy will have IUS, but won't be minmaxing. The bonus is what helps here, not the armed attacks thing.

There are different power levels that options in this game are made for. This thread seems to be coming from the perspective of a High Power Level game, where fighters are minmaxing every advantage to get damage while using US and rangers are using Combat Style to get some of the good TWF feats cheaply. This ability was written for a lower power level than that, but such abilities are available at all power levels.

IMO its extremely easy to "minmax" a fighter. The feat choices are really simply(unarmed strike+Power attack) and anyone who sees "unarmed fighter" is going to know to pick that archetype if they want to be an unarmed strike fighter. After that, you just put a bunch of points into strength and you are good.


Gignere wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Gignere wrote:


Rogues are just as borked as monks when it comes to combat.

proving you wrong could be a interesting challenge, i probably will fail but it still will be fun to make the attempt.

Of all the melee classes rogues should be bottom of the barrel, since they have the most skill points.

Which doesn't matter very much. If you are playing in a decently sized group(4-6 players), then someone should have most skills covered anyway. Heck, if your party has a wizard he should have just as many skill points without giving up combat power.


master arminas wrote:

Personally, I don't allow archetypes (of any class) in my game. Nor do we use feats from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. I do allow the classes, and if there is a specific feat for that class, I will allow it. But, as I said before, I am no optimizer. I prefer building a balanced character, regardless of class. I wouldn't play either the monk or the rogue I posted above (or the one by B-i-a-J). But to each their own.

And Patrick Harris @ SD? Since the developers themselves have said there is a problem with the monk (structural problem), I think we can dismiss whether or not my problems in building optimized monks creates the larger problem with the Pathfinder class.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

You don't use any feats from UC or UM. You don't use archetypes. That means you run straight monks, no variation, as pictured in the core book.

And you spend all this time complaining that they're broken? No kidding they're broken, that's a first draft!

Would you even use a monk build that the developers create and call "fixed" if it's published in a subsequent book? Or are you going to demand that the it be added to errata for the CRB?

Why on earth would you limit yourself to an incredibly tiny slice of the options available and then complain that they aren't enough?!


i thought that was wierd too. i mean, apparently he uses ITEMS from new sources,
but i don't really understand the rationale there, if you don't like UC/UM optoins, why like ITEM options?
what does it matter if a special ability/exception comes from a feat/archetype/or an item?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
master arminas wrote:

Personally, I don't allow archetypes (of any class) in my game. Nor do we use feats from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. I do allow the classes, and if there is a specific feat for that class, I will allow it. But, as I said before, I am no optimizer. I prefer building a balanced character, regardless of class. I wouldn't play either the monk or the rogue I posted above (or the one by B-i-a-J). But to each their own.

And Patrick Harris @ SD? Since the developers themselves have said there is a problem with the monk (structural problem), I think we can dismiss whether or not my problems in building optimized monks creates the larger problem with the Pathfinder class.

For what it is worth, I have played monks for 26 years. In every edition. And what I like about the class isn't exactly the same as what optimizers like. In fact, the faults with the monk can be solved if monks have a weapon training-like class feature that adds to attack rolls only, a ki option to bypass DR, and a larger ki pool more appropriate to the class (something like the barbarian rage or bardic performance for uses per day). Give me those three things, and I think the rest of the Pathfinder monk would be able to compete, while not being overpowered.

MA

You don't allow splatbook material in your games, but you go ballistic over splatbook material. Bad day for logic.


Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Personally, I don't allow archetypes (of any class) in my game. Nor do we use feats from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. I do allow the classes, and if there is a specific feat for that class, I will allow it. But, as I said before, I am no optimizer. I prefer building a balanced character, regardless of class. I wouldn't play either the monk or the rogue I posted above (or the one by B-i-a-J). But to each their own.

And Patrick Harris @ SD? Since the developers themselves have said there is a problem with the monk (structural problem), I think we can dismiss whether or not my problems in building optimized monks creates the larger problem with the Pathfinder class.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

You don't use any feats from UC or UM. You don't use archetypes. That means you run straight monks, no variation, as pictured in the core book.

And you spend all this time complaining that they're broken? No kidding they're broken, that's a first draft!

Would you even use a monk build that the developers create and call "fixed" if it's published in a subsequent book? Or are you going to demand that the it be added to errata for the CRB?

Why on earth would you limit yourself to an incredibly tiny slice of the options available and then complain that they aren't enough?!

I use the Core Rulebook and the Class contained therein. I don't use supplemental feats, spells, items, or classes without a LOT of reflection upon them. I do not allow archetypes in my game, because I believe that a Core class should be good enough to stand on its own. And for the most part, they are. The monk (and the rogue) are pretty much the only problem children of the pack.

Now, if one of my players, really wants something from a later book, I read it, I consider it, and I give him a decision. And that decision is final. Right now I allow Inquisitors, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Witches. I do not allow Oracles, Magi, Summoners, Gunslingers, or Alchemists.

I also allow the Hexblade and Warlock (adapted to 3.5), along with the Warmage.

I don't particularly care for 'bloat' in the rules. I feel that if you need a half-dozen books in order to play the game, there is something wrong with the game. Felt that way in 3.5. And in 3rd edition. But I don't argue that you shouldn't have archetypes, I just don't use them.

But that is decide the point. Patrick, you are saying that the Core Rulebook Monk is broken, a 1st draft, and that the archetypes fix everything? I believe that every last single Core Class needs to be playable and enjoyable. Whether that player is spending his first night rolling dice or is a grognard who grew up in Greyhawk.

Now, I read the other material; heck, I own the other material. But I don't use it if there is not a reason to. I see no need for 300+ feats in an RPG. For several hundred spells. For a dozen variants of each and every class that has their own rules and special exceptions. If you play a fighter, then play a fighter. Not some archetyped out optimized piece of garbage with all the flavor of wet cardboard.

That's my game. It might not be yours. And I would thank you kindly to cease mocking me over how I play and how I run. You asked, I answered. And then you turn to mocking derision because I'm not playing right? Because I am having 'bad wrong fun?'

And yes, I do use errata. And I hoping to see some soon on the monk.

MA

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
If you play a fighter, then play a fighter. Not some archetyped out optimized piece of garbage with all the flavor of wet cardboard.

So, people who allow/use archetypes or optimized are doing "garbage"? Stay classy, Mr. Superior.

You ask people to cease "mocking" your game style, but you're actually mocking gaming styles right in the same post.


ok, please chill it, people...
MA, it just certainly appeared STRANGE for you to be intensely discussing balance issues of this stuff when your post seemed to say you just blanket don't use anything non-Core... if that applied to items, then even IF this item was your hopes and dreams, it wouldn't be Core. i understand that it's less black and white than that.


By garbage, I mean someone who comes to my game with a character that has two or three different archetypes applied, two or three mental stats dropped or 7 or 5 just so he can trick out his physicals to all 16+. That person is going to get a quick reality check at my table. He either draws up a character who fits in my game, or he leaves. And I have had no problem keeping a group of between six and nine players for the past decade.

Now, if they really, really, really want something from one of the books (a feat, an item, a spell, a class), and it doesn't break the game I run, I will allow it. But Paizo, just like Wizards before it, has this problem of power creep. You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

Nor are gloves of dueling, for that matter. I still participate in discussions on them, because I can read them and I can see how they can be abused. I am not, however, telling any of you not to use them. In your game, use what you want. And I will do the same.

Now in this thread, I am making the case that brawling is simply too good for its own price. It gives too many things for too low a cost. I am not one of those who argue that it should be allowed to be put on bracers of armor, but I question the intent behind it when it can be used by every class except for the monk. That seems kind of deliberate to me.

I am sorry if (some of you) folks do not appreciate hearing my opinions and thoughts on the game itself. If you cannot appreciate that my game is mine and my players, not yours.

But continue discussing this if you want. Just don't mock the game that I run, or my players, and use that as bludgeon that I shouldn't speak out on some item, feat, archetype, or spell, even though I do not allow it.

MA

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

So, there's a non-core feat that benefits Monks. You ignore it.

There's a non-core magic item that doesn't benefit Monks. You start threads about it.

I'm still asking where did logic and coherency of your arguments go, because from where I'm standing they're flying out of the window.


master arminas wrote:

But that is decide the point. Patrick, you are saying that the Core Rulebook Monk is broken, a 1st draft, and that the archetypes fix everything? I believe that every last single Core Class needs to be playable and enjoyable. Whether that player is spending his first night rolling dice or is a grognard who grew up in Greyhawk.

Now, I read the other material; heck, I own the other material. But I don't use it if there is not a reason to. I see no need for 300+ feats in an RPG. For several hundred spells. For a dozen variants of each and every class that has their own rules and special exceptions. If you play a fighter, then play a fighter. Not some archetyped out optimized piece of garbage with all the flavor of wet cardboard.

That's my game. It might not be yours. And I would thank you kindly to cease mocking me over how I play and how I run. You asked, I answered. And then you turn to mocking derision because I'm not playing right? Because I am having 'bad wrong fun?'

No, but I am saying that the archetypes fix some things.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that allowing customization leads to "garbage with all the flavor of wet cardboard" while restricting everyone to the same base set of rules somehow ... doesn't?

Finally, there is nothing in my post that mocked your play style. All the people on this thread actively mocking you, and you decide to accuse me of it? While describing a hypothetical someone else's character as "some archetyped out optimized piece of garbage with all the flavor of wet cardboard?" That makes no sense.

I don't give a damn how you play. I mean really, I don't care at all. My concern is that I came to this thread hoping to see some productive discussion, because even if (as I noted in my very first post) you do tend to blow things way out of proportion, I thought maybe you were on to something. Instead I find that after all these giant walls of text, you're not even trying to work with the monk options that Paizo has provided over the years. Instead you appear to be covering your ears, knuckles white as you fiercely clutch your CRB, and making as much noise as possible because it's not exactly how you want it.

Which, I suppose, is what everyone has been saying about you all along. So really, it's my fault for thinking that maybe you were just misunderstood.

Carry on.


Gorbacz wrote:
master arminas wrote:
You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

So, there's a non-core feat that benefits Monks. You ignore it.

There's a non-core magic item that doesn't benefit Monks. You start threads about it.

I'm still asking where did logic and coherency of your arguments go, because from where I'm standing they're flying out of the window.

Gorbacz, what if a feat came out that allowed a character using a one-handed weapon to get 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on every last single attack that they made, while wielded in one-hand? Plus, when you score a critical hit, your opponent is shaken for 1d4 + your Strength bonus rounds.

And you can get it at 5th level.

No, I don't allow it. But I am not going a crusade about it being overpowered because there are many here who like it. The same reason I haven't started a thread that postulates "Archetypes are Evil and Bad Wrong Fun!" I pick my fights. And with both this item and the bodywraps, I think that enough people see where it is not fitting in that we can have that debate without my being all alone on one side and everyone else piling on and claiming that I want to nerf the monk by getting rid of Dragon Style!

Anyway, I am done.

MA


master arminas wrote:

By garbage, I mean someone who comes to my game with a character that has two or three different archetypes applied, two or three mental stats dropped or 7 or 5 just so he can trick out his physicals to all 16+. That person is going to get a quick reality check at my table. He either draws up a character who fits in my game, or he leaves. And I have had no problem keeping a group of between six and nine players for the past decade.

Now, if they really, really, really want something from one of the books (a feat, an item, a spell, a class), and it doesn't break the game I run, I will allow it. But Paizo, just like Wizards before it, has this problem of power creep. You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

Nor are gloves of dueling, for that matter. I still participate in discussions on them, because I can read them and I can see how they can be abused. I am not, however, telling any of you not to use them. In your game, use what you want. And I will do the same.

Now in this thread, I am making the case that brawling is simply too good for its own price. It gives too many things for too low a cost. I am not one of those who argue that it should be allowed to be put on bracers of armor, but I question the intent behind it when it can be used by every class except for the monk. That seems kind of deliberate to me.

I am sorry if (some of you) folks do not appreciate hearing my opinions and thoughts on the game itself. If you cannot appreciate that my game is mine and my players, not yours.

But continue discussing this if you want. Just don't mock the game that I run, or my players, and use that as bludgeon that I shouldn't speak out on some item, feat, archetype, or spell, even though I do not allow it.

MA

the highly specialized 2handed martial with 2 or 3 archetypes with the 7 int and cha and 16+ in every physical attribute has the following drawbacks

fewer skill points per level on a skill starved class

unable to take eldritch heritage, combat expertise, nor their child feat chains.

his leadership score will be drastically hindered the moment he gets one. meaning his flunkies will either be savants like he, or people whom seek to control him.

he still needs a positive wisdom for will saves and perception. or else he is domination fodder. especially since he is a minmaxed melee meat grinder.

in favor of maximimizing melee damage, he has forsaken noncombat scenarios and probably excluded ranged combat as an option. begging the arcanist to cast fly on him.

by specializing highly in the falchion, he has designated himself a signature weapon. one that is rather rare on the treasure charts, doesn't have the overpowered advantage of reach, rolls an akward choice of dice, and is quite easy to restrict access to. you could say that falchions are rare in this region, or you could say that the high demand has left them unavailable and he has to wait in line to get a commission.

any weapon with an enhancement bonus higher than +2 is generally not available without DM fiat, even in a metropolis.

tales will spread of "Falchion Fred and how he cleaved a dragon in two with one lucky swing of his blade". people will fear him, charge him higher prices to milk more money (abusing his lesser intellect), charge him to arrange the commisions for him as an interpreter (low int/cha) and he will have difficulty explaining the kind of magical falchion he wants.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
No, but I am saying that the archetypes fix some things.

The problem: the core monk is underpowered and many abilities simply do not have synergy with one another as they do in other classes.

The Archetypes swap out abilities for other abilities, very often resulting in far better synergy. However, this leads to problems: That the monk is still, compared to other classes, underpowered; and that the core monk's weakness is further highlighted by the fact that a few archetypes such as the Zen Archer actually function. However, if you compare a Zen Archer to an archer version of the paladin, ranger or fighter you quickly see that while they hold their own as an archer, the other classes have more utility: The fighter can be a switch hitter, the paladin is also a healer, the ranger is also a scout with better melee ability and an animal companion...the monk gets slightly better saves than the ranger and fighter. Fact is, he just isn't cutting the mustard next to these classes. He's good at what he does, which is unusual for a monk, but he actually still has the problem every monk has: to be OK at one thing he has to sacrifice everything else. Other classes get to be good at one thing and OK at one or two others.

That, I think, is the point that Master Arminas is trying to make.


master arminas wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
master arminas wrote:
You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

So, there's a non-core feat that benefits Monks. You ignore it.

There's a non-core magic item that doesn't benefit Monks. You start threads about it.

I'm still asking where did logic and coherency of your arguments go, because from where I'm standing they're flying out of the window.

Gorbacz, what if a feat came out that allowed a character using a one-handed weapon to get 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on every last single attack that they made, while wielded in one-hand? Plus, when you score a critical hit, your opponent is shaken for 1d4 + your Strength bonus rounds.

And you can get it at 5th level.

No, I don't allow it. But I am not going a crusade about it being overpowered because there are many here who like it. The same reason I haven't started a thread that postulates "Archetypes are Evil and Bad Wrong Fun!" I pick my fights. And with both this item and the bodywraps, I think that enough people see where it is not fitting in that we can have that debate without my being all alone on one side and everyone else piling on and claiming that I want to nerf the monk by getting rid of Dragon Style!

Anyway, I am done.

MA

Dragon Style isn't that easy to get and is limited in it's use. I mean it only works on Unarmed Strike.

Dragon Style requires STR 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, and 3 ranks Acrobatics. It gives a few useful yet specific effects. It also only allows you to add 1.5 STR on the first attack.

Dragon Ferocity needs Stunning Fist. It adds .5 STR to damage with unarmed strike.

These style feats are meant to be easy for a monk to get. Hell all of the styles are like that.

Just because you play a very specific type of game doesn't make this new material "broken" or "overpowered" or "underpriced"

It just means you play a very different game from others since you use alot of house-rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
master arminas wrote:
You can see it in the feats. Dragon Ferocity, for example, gives you 1-1/2 Strength modifier on EVERY unarmed strike. Plus other things. That is, in my opinion, too much for a single feat. Even one needing a pre-requisite feat. So, it isn't in my game.

So, there's a non-core feat that benefits Monks. You ignore it.

There's a non-core magic item that doesn't benefit Monks. You start threads about it.

I'm still asking where did logic and coherency of your arguments go, because from where I'm standing they're flying out of the window.

Gorbacz, what if a feat came out that allowed a character using a one-handed weapon to get 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on every last single attack that they made, while wielded in one-hand? Plus, when you score a critical hit, your opponent is shaken for 1d4 + your Strength bonus rounds.

And you can get it at 5th level.

No, I don't allow it. But I am not going a crusade about it being overpowered because there are many here who like it. The same reason I haven't started a thread that postulates "Archetypes are Evil and Bad Wrong Fun!" I pick my fights. And with both this item and the bodywraps, I think that enough people see where it is not fitting in that we can have that debate without my being all alone on one side and everyone else piling on and claiming that I want to nerf the monk by getting rid of Dragon Style!

Anyway, I am done.

MA

With your example about a feat allowing characters to get 1-1/2*Str on single attacks available at level 5 is somewhat flawed. The comparison should be a feat that does the same thing, specifies a particular weapon (that a specific class focuses on), requires level 5 (in the form of skill ranks), Str 15, and 4 prerequisite feats (pushing it to level 9 for non-fighters/humans) and requires a swift action to begin using it. The class that focuses on that weapon, thus the one that benefits from this the most, gets to have 2/4 of the prerequisite feats as class features. That feat is perfectly fine, and gives a wonderful boost to the class that it targets.

I don't disagree with your playstyle MA. I quite agree with you in that I am wary of feat bloat and dislike the over-optimization. It took me quite a while to buy into allowing UM and UC, and I still can't say I am too fond of the magus and gunslinger. Not long ago my ideal table would be much like your current one as you described it.

However, there is some hypocrisy evident when you are willing to create threads criticizing things in non-Core books for not benefiting the monk, while at the same time dismissing things in non-Core books that are incredibly advantageous to the monk. It is that hypocrisy people take issue with, as it gives the impression that you are only looking for reasons to complain, whether or not that is the case.

I will not say the core monk does not have issues. Personally I think a simple fix would be to enlarge the ki pool, give the monks some ability spend ki to get enhancement bonuses or bypass DR, and take a look at the ki powers and consider emulating the Qinggong archetype within the base class by allowing monks to select ki powers/abilities to focus on various potential roles.

But "how this thing from an extended book is bad for/is unfair to the Core monk" is not a fair premise. If you are going to breach the Core-barrier in order to get the bad things into the discussion, you should not neglect other, positive, non-Core items that could balance things. In addition, any change to the Core monk must take into consideration all the non-Core material, so in an earnest discussion of what changes the class needs you need to include all the non-Core material. Just because you don't allow Dragon Ferocity in your games doesn't mean it should be ignored when considering potential changes to the class.

EDIT: typos bother me . . .


I didn't ignore it. I just didn't use it. And when Brain-in-a-Jar did use on his build, I didn't go out there and say well that's not how you build a monk. Seriously, guys? I need to use supplemental books in my own game to comment on whether or not I think items/feats/classes/spells within them are too good, good, not good enough, or junk?

Scaevola77, I don't need to bring up the style feats . . . because everyone else that is enamoured with them does. They have plenty of proponents, especially Crane, Dragon, Snake, and Tiger. Because of their popularity on these boards, I actually have the luxury of letting other folks plug them in and explain why they are so great for this build or that build.

Not ignoring, just choosing my battles.

MA


Dragon Ferocity is a must have feat for offensively inclined monks with high strength. it allows a fairly decent boost to damage if you build around an 18 STR and are willing to admit your AC sucks, or are willing to play a master of many styles/martial artist and wear light armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...I think this thread lost its meaning.

At first I thought this was another "please fix the Monk" thread, now it just became a talk about how skewed Arminas' logic is.
I would say that he shouldn't be speaking on behalf of any Monk fans anymore as a result of this little mess here, but that's just me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like that the style feats that cause you to do 1.5x str damage unarmed still don't let you get 3-for-1 power attack, RAW. Apparently. People told me so last time I asked. Still seems silly and unfair.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

MA, while I also tend to agree with you on the power bloat issue (I still remember playing with just 2 books, the PHB and the UA), this revelation also invalidates all your comparison arguments.

You optimize your comparison classes using non-core sources (Brawler archetype fighters, rogues using the agile weapon property, etc.) then build your monks using core only rules? Also, saying that your characters all have to be balanced, but optimizing your comparisons to the Nth degree?

That comes across as comparing apples to oranges in a very self-serving manner and seriously undermines what would otherwise be a good discussion about the monks weaknesses.

Master Arminas wrote wrote:
In fact, the faults with the monk can be solved if monks have a weapon training-like class feature that adds to attack rolls only, a ki option to bypass DR, and a larger ki pool more appropriate to the class (something like the barbarian rage or bardic performance for uses per day). Give me those three things, and I think the rest of the Pathfinder monk would be able to compete, while not being overpowered.

]

You say this, yet your own "fixed" monk is so frighteningly unbalanced because you have not only applied these fixes, but have made grossly overpowered adjustments to a lot of the monks other class features.

All this, combined with your "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and you're concentration on the monks offensive abilities solely, have done your cause more harm than good.


Thurin wrote:
MA, while I also tend to agree with you on the power bloat issue (I still remember playing with just 2 books, the PHB and the UA), this revelation also invalidates all your comparison arguments.

So, because I do not use these in my games, means that I cannot discuss them here on Paizo forums where people DO use them? I am not building comparison characters for my group, I am doing so here as part of the discussion.

Quote:
You optimize your comparison classes using non-core sources (Brawler archetype fighters, rogues using the agile weapon property, etc.) then build your monks using core only rules? Also, saying that your characters all have to be balanced, but optimizing your comparisons to the Nth degree?

Hardly optimizing to the Nth degree, Thurin. As I have said repeatedly, any real optimizer here would shake his head. I have done builds, for discussion on these boards, using the rules of the game as a whole (not my own house rules, not my own restrictions on the RAW) because that is a base-line. Or are you suggesting that because I don't use some facet of the game I cannot understand it?

Quote:
That comes across as comparing apples to oranges in a very self-serving manner and seriously undermines what would otherwise be a good discussion about the monks weaknesses.

Does whether or not I use any non Core material actually alter the validity of my arguments? Quickly now, we better forbid anyone with a single house rule who doesn't use every last word as a Written by the Holy Inspired Authors as the Gospel of Pathfinder, from posting again! Give me a break. Not using certain elements of the game in my own campaign does not equal failure to comprehend and understand those elements of the game. Nor does it prevent one from arguing either for or against those elements, or using them in a discussion with people who DO.

Quote:
Master Arminas wrote wrote:
In fact, the faults with the monk can be solved if monks have a weapon training-like class feature that adds to attack rolls only, a ki option to bypass DR, and a larger ki pool more appropriate to the class (something like the barbarian rage or bardic performance for uses per day). Give me those three things, and I think the rest of the Pathfinder monk would be able to compete, while not being overpowered.

]

You say this, yet your own "fixed" monk is so frighteningly unbalanced because you have not only applied these fixes, but have made grossly overpowered adjustments to a lot of the monks other class features.

Which one? I have around six or seven. LOL. Mechanically, they are not 'frighteningly unbalanced', they are on the same level as the Ranger or the Paladin. Which is what I would like to see the monk be. BUT, I realize that any 'offical' fix isn't going to go so far. And those three things that you quoted? If they fix those, then it will be enough. It won't be the monk as I imagine it, but I don't own Paizo. And they will (and do) have their own ideas about what they want the monk to be. I still probably won't use their fix in my game (because we already use at least two of my own fixes, the Tattooed Monk and the first monk fix I posted here; everything else is theorycrafting).

Quote:
All this, combined with your "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and you're concentration on the monks offensive abilities solely, have done your cause more harm than good.

When I have EVER said, "I'm right, you're wrong" to any other poster? Every last thing I have posted here I have stated it is only my own viewpoint. It is what my vision of the monk is, but I am not forcing anyone to accept that vision. I am not dismissing others out of hand because theirs differs from my own. Do I sometimes come across as an arrogant ass? Yes. Because I am one. I admit that. I relish that at times.

And yet, I cannot recall dismissing other people so cavalierly as you claim with that "I'm right, you're wrong" phrase. I freely argue and debate the issues; heck, in the 'Does the AoMF get through DR' thread, I am arguing for a position I don't believe . . . why? Because the issue needs to be raised. It needs to be settled, and even James Jacobs has agreed that we need an answer, officially, because the text is vague. For my own game, you bet the enhancement bonus from AoMF bypasses DR based on total bonus on attack and damage rolls, just like a magic weapon. But not all DMs do that. So, I play the devil's advocate so that we will (perhaps) get an answer.

Even though that isn't what I use or how I run my own game.

The very idea that one has to actually use every iota, jot, and tittle of the Pathfinder rules before one makes his opinion known on anything is asinine! Now, if you feel that because I do not (generally speaking) use much non-Core material in my home game disqualifies me somehow from discussing or using that material here . . . well, that is your own opinion. It is one you are free to have, but is merely your opinion. And that will not stop me from posting and discussing and debating.

And if you don't like that, well . . . so sorry. But I suggest you get over it.

Now, can we get back to the discussion of the brawling property instead of this tangent about how I play my game?

MA

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No, I can't. You've crossed into Ravingdork territory, and I can't take you seriously anymore. :(

151 to 200 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / How exactly is the Brawling property worth only a +1 for pricing? How? All Messageboards

©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.