What the OP is "really" talking about isn't necessarily DPR.

It's the onus on these boards that if you don't agree with mainstream how much you are ridiculed for it.

15 year old snot nosed punks to 45 year old pencil necked geeks who wouldnt talk to their 80 pound grandmother that way IRL jump down your neck in a condescending in your face manner because you aren't a fanboy of the acceptable "cool guy" paradigm.

Case in point: Several years ago, I posted my dissatisfaction with the Serpent's Skull AP, and by extension how APs were dwindling in good content in general, only to be dog piled by masses of fan boys and girls with their zombie like opinions on how their hive mind could only accept how 'great' the authors at paizo are, and no other point of view had any validity.

Now, years later, after this has happened to come to fruition I find it almost amusing to read how so many people are now saying the same thing and citing the Serpent's Skull AP as the example to what they are talking about. Because the popular opinion has shifted enough to allow them to say it.

That's what his real POV is really, DPR is the symptom, not the disease.

I think it's worth noting that YOU are the one who has been the most insulting on this thread, and the one who seems to me to be the least accepting of other's opinions.

And I'm so sick of hearing about the "good old days" of RPG's before WoW when everyone only cared about playing their role. It's total BS. I've been playing D&D for 20 years and there were just as many brainless hack and slash players back then as there are now, now there's just more math behind their madness.

And the reason the boards lean so heavily toward "optimization" or "dpr" in my opinion is that when someone discusses their build on a post, it doesn't make sense to say "oh I think you should do <BLAH> with your build" talking about role playing, because there's no right answer. On the other hand, the game is much more broken down and quantified now so there ARE "right" answers when it comes to optimization. There are certain things that are mechanically better than others. Taking each of those choices isn't necessary, and may not fill the needs of the player, but it's as close as you can get to the "right answer."

TLDR: get over yourself :)

2handed weapons aren't really neccessary. thier damage tends to be overkill. you can do just fine with a 1handed weapon. yeah, you can kill anything you reach in one round, but anything can kill you pretty quickly too.

Why DPR? Because it is a standard we can talk about. We can't talk about how great your RP is.

As for the "standard" game...Ii is assume basically AP level...which is LOWER then most games around here...but then again DPR isn't even compared to AP encounters...they use straight out monsters from the beastiary...which is even EASIER then AP encounters. If your character can't do anything useful in these encounters, they will DIE in an AP(or in the case of the monk that are hard to hit but can't do anything...a TPK). If your character can deal with even an AP, it is not generally useful...no matter how good it maybe for your homebrewed game.

shallowsoul wrote:

DPR!

On these boards I see a lot of people judge the effectiveness of a class by it's DPR and I want to know why that magical number matters so much?

Personally: my PFS character just used his 5th level feat to make diplomacy a class skill.

I just don't feel a need to keep funneling everything into DPR.

I think that depends on how your GM runs the game, and what you expect your character to do.

Let me rephrase that. I am not saying every feat has to go into DPR. I am saying how much you don't boost damage depends on other variables. You have to take all factors into consideration. You can be the most useful character without focusing on DPR at all.

Wraithstrike, I'm surprised you fell into shallowsoul's little trap on this thread :)

You are a master provocateur shallowsoul. Chaos ftw!

He does not lay traps. He creates threads, hopes that people agree, and refuses any that disagree. The only shame is that the new guys wanted to make assumptions about what I was saying, when if they had been around longer, would have known that I don't tell people how to play, and that my statement was general in nature.

The strange thing is this was explained in the monk threads. You can't use RP or playstyle as an excuse for a class's mechanics. Either the class is capable of contributing or it is not*.

*If someone needs to know the rules as well as Dabbler, myself, Ashiel, and so one just to make the class competent that is still a fail.

To the new people:If the GM has to lower the bar the class is not doing well. That does not mean you are having bad wrong fun if you choose to help the class out, but rule 0 does not mean a class works. It just means you can make it work for your table.

By now I would like to think SS's question has been answered.

<takes a bow> :)

*rousing applause

I shall tell you how to win Pathfinder.

Are you making the game fun for yourself, and the other players at the table?

If the answer to both parts of this is "Yes", you are winning.

If the answer to either part of this is "No", you have yet to learn before you can snatch this d20 from my hands, and leave the monastery.

DPR!

On these boards I see a lot of people judge the effectiveness of a class by it's DPR and I want to know why that magical number matters so much?

I'm going to commit a forum sin by not reading the entire thread before commenting. But, I read a few, and I only have one relatively constructive thing to say.

Why not have the characters in the party be power-balanced with one another? I think it's more fun to play in (and more fun to GM for) a party in which the challenges presented are challenging for all of the characters, but not overwhelming for any of them.

Now, what standard can we agree upon for that power level?

I'm starting a Skull & Shackles campaign right now, and my players all agreed to make what I would call "tier 2" characters. It's a five player group with a variety of gaming experience. Here's what we have:

• Monk (Monk of the Four Winds)
  
• Gunslinger (Buccaneer)
  
• Bard
  
• Magus
  
• Inquisitor

I will be honest I did not read the whole thread. A lot of it started to seem to whiny to keep my interest.

All I have to add is if you are playing anyone that's martial and that PC is not concerned with being the best they can then you are playing an idiot. These people wade into battle and but their lives on the line as well as the lives of their companions. RP wise they should be very concerned with being the best that one can be. There is no such thing as "Meh that's good enough." when its life or death.

On these boards I see a lot of people judge the effectiveness of a class by it's DPR and I want to know why that magical number matters so much?

My group and I don't build PC's to reach those numbers, we come up with concepts and then we choose a class or classes that enable us to play those concepts mechanically. Sometimes the there may be two or more classes that do not have good synergy but that's okay because the synergy isn't what we were going for.

What's the connection between the two statements? The fact that you don't worry about playing effective characters has nothing to do with whether or not DPR is a good measure of effectiveness.

A lot of what comes off the boards moves into RL when different groups game together at saw a store or event, really pushing out role players for the betterment of the MMORPG types, which by nature are pushier know it all types.... true RPers are more the timid geeky type.

This is pretty much why the table top war craft types didn't get along with the PnP DnD types... its a personality clash. Now the warcraft types have become a majority in Table top RPGs... so it pushes on the guys with the ten foot poles and the bards built to be an awesome painter and tuba polisher.

There is also a good amount of internet bullying by the DPR masses as to people who don't agree with them and how cool they are.

But as Tri and Seranov point out, there isn't a "right way" and it just comes down to selective reading, and horse blinders.

Lies and slander I say! But no, in all seriousness Pentagast you are making some pretty big and unfounded claims about some incredibly wide assortments of people of different races, religions, genders, backgrounds, and so forth. Claims that could be considered outright insulting to either group. "True RPers are the more timid geeky type"!? Seriously? Seriously? That statement alone is loaded, because you are basically denouncing everyone who enjoys RPing but is not also timid and geeky, because by your definition if they are not then they are not true RPers.

And you declare that MMO players are "by nature" (like that means something) are "pushier know-it-all types". The gall. Seriously. Your post is actually amazingly offensive to me, because I have several tabletop players who have played and continue to play many MMORPGs (including World of Warcraft) who put a lot of thought into their characters, their histories, and roleplaying. Meanwhile, I've seen another guy who is "a true roleplayer" who is the pushiest prick this side of the table and isn't welcome to play in my games because he can't keep his pushy prickness to himself.

You chastise people for playing MMORPGs, and yet countless people who love playing MMORPGS have been playing tabletop games tons longer. There are entire guilds dedicated to In-Character-Roleplaying on many of these servers. "Hack and slash" games existed since the dawn of the game. Heck, games like NetHack and Diablo games are based on old D&D type dungeon crawlers. Your post is not just wrong, biased, hateful, and loaded with poor stereotype that we should seriously be growing out of, but it's also ignorant and hypocritical as well.

/agitated rant induced by allergies to auroch feces

Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

That's called metagaming. :P

The problem is it's turned into overkill. The standard numbers for monsters in the books is not hard to reach so I don't see the problem.

Because when everyone else can meet and easily exceed those numbers, the DM ups them, and then where is your character? Either dead or struggling to contribute, and that's not fun. So you need to meet the benchmark of the other character classes that are doing what you do, be it by combat tricks or by bashing away.

Actually all of that would depend on the dice and how you use what you have at your disposal. Just because you may not be the biggest and the strongest doesn't mean you can't be the best. Intimidate is a Bard skill and you have some spells that you can use like "Cause Fear", "Grease", "Lesser Confusion", "Hypnotism" etc...

"The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift - but that's the way to bet." Finagle Murphy.

You can use other abilities to make up combat effectiveness, but you have to have the abilities and they have to work. And yes, there is an element of luck, but you don't win fights by praying to be lucky, you win fights by rigging the odds in your favour every way you can and hoping the other guy isn't lucky.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

That depends on the group, though, doesn't it? If you are the weakest in the group, the DM tailoring the encounter to the group will go against you, because that encounter has to be strong enough to challenge the stronger members.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with synergy. Lot's of people try and choose race, class, and other things that mesh well but that's not what we are really talking about. It's about not having to get that Skill at +65 when the DC's are only in the 20's but being called "not contributing" when you don't have those inflated numbers.

That all depends on what you are trying to do. For example, if the party are climbing mountains to reach Xin-Shalast, a +5 Climb skill for the regular characters is all they need. But if you are the scout and have to trail-blaze up the north face of K2, you want that Climb skill as high as it will go. +7 Perception on a regular 10th level character may be fine in the rank-and-file, but anything less than max for the party scout is not recommended.

Subjective, pure and simple. What constitutes as "useful" and "contributing" is a matter of opinion that varies from group to group. There is no one "point" of usefulness.

This is very true, but some things can be measured objectively. You can't say whether a character will contribute in a given situation, but you can ask how easy is for a given class to be able to contribute in that situation, and this can be used as an objective measure of how useful a class is likely to be.

...and that's why people talk about DPR.

Oh my. Look at what I've started. The forum is discussing its own recent failings?

*Emperor Palpatine voice*
My manipulations are proceeding exactly as I have foreseen.

*Resumes munching popcorn*

Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.

I can attest to this.

Why would you post your build asking for help or whatever with it, unless you were going for something measurable, like DPR or otherwise maximizing the effectiveness of your character?

It's not like you're posting you build to say, "Hey, what worthless feat can I take to make my character chat with princesses better?"

Oh, I don't know, to show off my awesome character concept and show how a fighter can be more than just a fighter, perhaps? Rather than people enjoying a cool character concept, and thanking me for sharing it, I got "you're wrong" and "RK sucks" and "RD's an idiot." (It's this growing rampant disrespect that I consider to be said recent failing of these boards.)

The problem is when someone posts a build, let's say fighter since he's talking about DPS, and says that his fighter can do X, Y, and Z well someone jumps in and says that he can't do 350 DPR. He says, yeah, but he can do 250 plus those other things and he only needs 250 because our group also has a barbarian doing 300 DPR. He still gets people saying the 250 isn't good enough.

The complaint isn't about critiquing mechanics. It's about critiquing a single mechanic while ignoring all the rest.

SO TRUE!!!

Bunch of stuff.

To be fair it was about his monk build that was dishing out 30 DPR at level 10. When a simple THF is doing 90+DPR. The difference wasn't 350 and 250. But 90+ and 30.

350 or 250 who cares, everything will drop in a couple of rounds. But 90+ and 30 that is the difference between two rounding something at level 10 or taking 7 rounds to kill something.

Shallowsoul is defending the monk class and his build specifically saying that 30 dpr is still contributing. Because it is greater than 0. However, his monk build doesn't have any utilities that any other 4 skill per level class doesn't have.

So if he is doing barely more DPR than an Aristocrat (even a warrior built right can do more) his build is very problematic, and that implies the monk class is very problematic.

You also have to remember that DPR assumes averages. Against some targets that monk would have been reduced to providing flanking bonuses or cheerleading (not that I have anything against cheerleaders, I just happen to think bards do it better). This is because the odds to hit drop to low enough at high ACs (that monk's bonus to hit was not great) that a spate of mediocre rolls leave you having contributed nothing. Of course you could get lucky, but rolling five attacks a round waiting for a natural 20 that doesn't happen can be bitterly frustrating for all the fun of it when it happens once in a blue moon.

I'm not saying you couldn't have fun with this monk, or that it would be bad in all situations, but you can't in honesty say a build is 'good' when it only functions in half the encounters of any other class.

Ravingdork wrote:

Bunch of stuff.

To be fair it was about his monk build that was dishing out 30 DPR at level 10. When a simple THF is doing 90+DPR. The difference wasn't 350 and 250. But 90+ and 30.

350 or 250 who cares, everything will drop in a couple of rounds. But 90+ and 30 that is the difference between two rounding something at level 10 or taking 7 rounds to kill something.

Shallowsoul is defending the monk class and his build specifically saying that 30 dpr is still contributing. Because it is greater than 0. However, his monk build doesn't have any utilities that any other 4 skill per level class doesn't have.

So if he is doing barely more DPR than an Aristocrat (even a warrior built right can do more) his build is very problematic, and that implies the monk class is very problematic.

And you do know that RD's build was doing 75 DPR at level 18 right? And yes he made the same claim that 75 DPR is enough because the other party members can help do more damage. And yes a level 18 aristocrat kick the living snot out of his "fighter" at level 18 in DPR. And he was using a 25 PB with 75% average health and leadership and a periphery enchantment too.

Had he claimed he had an interesting character to share, it would not have been really an issue as his character was pretty interesting...but the claim was that he had a fighter that can do all this other stuff and the reason he got called out is because we all told him no he wasn't a fighter anymore and could not do the job of a fighter with 75 DPR at level 18.

Why do builds have to live up to a certain number?

This is a tough question to answer, and depends completely on your DM. Since numbers are vital to how combat and skills checks are recommended to work in PF, some thresholds exist. These thresholds consist of:
1) Number of rounds in which you can kill your opponent.
2) Number of rounds for which you can survive.
3) % chance of passing a skill check.

Now, tables exist showing the averages for different CR levels and monsters, but like most rules etc. these are just guidelines. Building a build that hits all the averages, in other words, is building a build that will fail in as many cases as it succeeds (by built I mean a level progression chosen for a goal, and usually planned out in advance to a large extent). While I hate crunching numbers in game, lets look simply at CR one encounters as per the Bestiary. I am using shoelessinsights table.

1) Number of rounds it takes to kill a monster.
CR one monsters have an average AC of 14 (12 touch), and an average HP of 13. Lets assume an optimized fighter with 20 STR and a melee weapon. The +6 (BAB +1, STR mod. +5) to hit means that he will miss only on rolls of 8 or lower (40% of the time). Also using a standard weapon (longsword), a hit will deal 1d8+6 damage. On a successful hit (60%), you have a 25% chance of killing the monster in one hit (7 or 8). This is a 15% chance of one hit killing your average CR1 monster with a level one fighter who has done nothing more than put a 20 in STR and buy a longsword. If you make the fighter a small creature, the to hit roll is increased by one, but the hit in STR (18+2 to 18-2) lowers your to hit modifier to +5, and you now will deal 1d6+5 damage. This leaves only a 55% chance to hit, and a one turn kill only possible with a confirmed critical hit. There is a 10% chance to crit, and a 55% chance to confirm, leaving a very tiny % chance of a one hit kill (3.025%)
In terms of two hit kills, the big one will kill the average monster every time (1+6)x2=14. This is about a 36% chance. The small fighter is harder to calculate, but even a roll of a 1 the first time deals 6 damage, leading to a 12.5% chance for the creature to survive the next round. This is at worst an 87.5% chance chance to kill in two hits, or 26% chance). Seems like most combats either way will be over in two hits, which will be somewhere between three or four rounds.

Considering that a CR1 monster/encounter is assuming a party of 4, this challenge is not hard to beat at all. Even a party with a completely anti-optimized fighter (5 STR with a -3 modifier) will hit the monster 20% of the time. In a party with 4 people, the other three people will be able to contribute, and so the one poor fighter will not help as much as it should, but it will not be useless completely. Given the STR is so low, maybe he has a ton if INT, and is able to use different knowledge skills to help the team plan against many foes. Maybe he has a lot of CON, and walks in the front of the marching order. Maybe a lot of DEX, and is able to just shoot the enemies with the same high to-hit chance as before, but without the DEX aiding the damage dealt. Not being able to overcome the AC is a problem, so it must be considered using numbers, but even a horrible character will be able to contribute something.

2)Number of rounds you will survive. The database I have does not give the average damage a CR1 creature would deal, but a fighter optimized for HP would begin with 10(HD)+5(CON)+1(favored class), and maybe 14 AC (10+1[shield]+3[armor]), though depending on the starting equipment, it could be as high as 21 (full plate mail and a heavy shield). The average Attack bonus for a CR1 monster is 3, to they are only hitting you on a 19 or 20. If you are fighting a First level NPC, this likely means you get critically hit, meaning if they are armed with a normal weapon you are taking from 8 (1+3)x2 to 22 (8+3)x2 damage. There is a 37.5% chance you will be killed in one round if they hit, and with the 10% chance to hit, there is a 3.75% chance you will die in one round.
Now we look at the anti-optitmized HP choice. 7 HP fighter (10-3(CON)). There is the same 10% chance to hit, but if they do hit, you will die no matter what. So the difference is 3.75% to 10%. A little less than three times more likely to die, but still a low percent chance. The relation between AC and HP regarding how long you will survive is something to play around with in your own time :)

3) Percent chance of passing a skill check. Each +1 you get increases your odds quite a bit. For an easy task (DC5) it raises it 20%, for a normal task (DC10) it is 10%, and for a hard task (DC20) it raises it 5%. at +10 you autopass tasks that you can take 10 for. If you max out CHA at the beginning, you get to +10 by level 2[5(CHA), 3(class ability), 2(Skill ranks)]. If you dump CHA, you have to wait until level 10,[-3(CHA)+3(class ability)+10(skill ranks)]. If you are the trap-finding person in your party, or the knowledge person, or the magic-identifying person, you cannot afford to waste 8 levels of time to get to that benchmark. Odds are you will have missed a ton of opportunities in that time.

So this is why you are held accountable to numbers. Three numbers, time it takes to kill enemies, time it takes to be killed, and you ability to pass skill checks, all effect your own life and the life of your party potentially. If you cannot meet those benchmarks, you are more likely to die, or cause your party to die. However, it is not the players job to predict and guess what the DM will send them. Even on these forums you hear about the spiral of player optimization leading to DM ramping up the difficulty, leading to more optimization, leading to a situation that both the players and the DM hate (either a killer DM scenario, or an angry rules-lawyering/powergamer/munchkin scenario).

Largely, like many other issues, it requires a calm discussion before the game begins, where the players explain what they expect, the DM explains what his expectations are, and by character generation, everyone has a good idea as to what type of game will be played.

Now, as per the exceptions. You can kill a monster by dropping it into a pit filled with spikes. throwing it off the edge of a cliff. Poisoning it and running away. Drowning it. Hiring others to kill it. Stealing its soul. Suffocating it. Lighting it on fire. Starving it to death. Stabbing it in the back.

You can *not* kill a creature by dominating it. Moving it. Befriending it. Avoiding it. Luring it away. Waiting for it to leave. Forcing it to sleep. sneaking by it. Distracting it. Scaring it. Tricking it.

You can even the odds in any fight by hiring people to help you, finding out as much as you can about the enemy, location, social dynamics of the enemy, weaknesses, fondnesses, abilities etc of the enemy.

Losing really hard in a game means that a lot has been failed to be done. The problem is that numbers like DPR are easy to argue about, while finding different solutions to problems is difficult to argue about. So even a terrible *character* can be successful with an excellent *player* behind them, and vice-versa!

Seranov wrote:

If it bothers you, just skip past it.

Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.

Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.

And this is why I haven't posted stats feats or anything else. But you *can* read my logbook and find out how Solwynn feels about current issues, her thoughts and how she views the world

I removed some jerkery.

Ravingdork wrote:

Bunch of stuff.

To be fair it was about his monk build that was dishing out 30 DPR at level 10. When a simple THF is doing 90+DPR. The difference wasn't 350 and 250. But 90+ and 30.

350 or 250 who cares, everything will drop in a couple of rounds. But 90+ and 30 that is the difference between two rounding something at level 10 or taking 7 rounds to kill something.

Shallowsoul is defending the monk class and his build specifically saying that 30 dpr is still contributing. Because it is greater than 0. However, his monk build doesn't have any utilities that any other 4 skill per level class doesn't have.

So if he is doing barely more DPR than an Aristocrat (even a warrior built right can do more) his build is very problematic, and that implies the monk class is very problematic.

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

The problem comes in that everything your theoretical monk can do, another class could do better. If Class A can contribute X, but Class B can contribute X+1 without changing anything except mechanics (i.e. all the fluff can be the same), then why would you ever play Class A?

shallowsoul wrote:

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

The problem comes in that everything your theoretical monk can do, another class could do better. If Class A can contribute X, but Class B can contribute X+1 without changing anything except mechanics (i.e. all the fluff can be the same), then why would you ever play Class A?

Other classes can do things better than some classes, so what? Again, you don't seem to understand that that's not what it's all about. Fighter's can out damage rogues, rangers, Inquisitors etc but people still play these classes.

Your view of RPGs and mine are just polar opposites.

I don't care so much for the DPR olympics. If your monk does a little less damage than the fighter, I am ok with that.

BUT if you totally messed up your monk so he doesn't even contribute to the group anymore?----well why divide treasure and exp with someone who is not doing their part?

Flavor is nice and makes the game fun---when you take it too far and quit contributing to the group? Then you step on the fun of others. You don't have to keep up on DPR (or other ways of contributing--ie diplomacy, trap finding etc) but if you are not doing your fair share expect others to get a little upset sometimes.

If you want to take basket weaving, origami etc to make you feel all role playing god----and then your party fails because you can't contribute when it counts?---expect some resentment

mplindustries wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

The problem comes in that everything your theoretical monk can do, another class could do better. If Class A can contribute X, but Class B can contribute X+1 without changing anything except mechanics (i.e. all the fluff can be the same), then why would you ever play Class A?

Other classes can do things better than some classes, so what? Again, you don't seem to understand that that's not what it's all about. Fighter's can out damage rogues, rangers, Inquisitors etc but people still play these classes.

Your view of RPGs and mine are just polar opposites.

No, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying other classes can do individual bits of your character (DPR or skill checks or whatever) better, I'm saying that other classes could do everything you do better.

If Class A did more damage than Class B, but Class B had better skills, there's still plenty of justification to play Class B. But if Class A does more damage, has more mobility, the same or better skills, the same or better defenses, and can be fluffed identically, then Class B serves no purpose.

Gignere wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Bunch of stuff.

To be fair it was about his monk build that was dishing out 30 DPR at level 10. When a simple THF is doing 90+DPR. The difference wasn't 350 and 250. But 90+ and 30.

350 or 250 who cares, everything will drop in a couple of rounds. But 90+ and 30 that is the difference between two rounding something at level 10 or taking 7 rounds to kill something.

Shallowsoul is defending the monk class and his build specifically saying that 30 dpr is still contributing. Because it is greater than 0. However, his monk build doesn't have any utilities that any other 4 skill per level class doesn't have.

So if he is doing barely more DPR than an Aristocrat (even a warrior built right can do more) his build is very problematic, and that implies the monk class is very problematic.

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

If "anything" no matter how small is contributing the experts are an ok PC class, and so are commoners.

If you are not saying "anything" will do then how about giving us some standards to go by.

mplindustries wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

The problem comes in that everything your theoretical monk can do, another class could do better. If Class A can contribute X, but Class B can contribute X+1 without changing anything except mechanics (i.e. all the fluff can be the same), then why would you ever play Class A?

Other classes can do things better than some classes, so what? Again, you don't seem to understand that that's not what it's all about. Fighter's can out damage rogues, rangers, Inquisitors etc but people still play these classes.

Your view of RPGs and mine are just polar opposites.

MPL was not just talking about DPR. He was saying if a class can do one thing, and another class can do that one thing plus other things when why play the first class. He was not limiting "X+1" to DPR. So with DPR aside, what is your answer?

shallowsoul wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be. You, like some others around here, still don't get it when it comes to why someone chooses a class to play. Do you get that it's not about the DPR or a quick killing ability? The Monk I built can still do damage, act as a scout, Stun the hell out of creatures and anything else I can think of. Some of us don't need things simple and straight forward to be useful.

The problem comes in that everything your theoretical monk can do, another class could do better. If Class A can contribute X, but Class B can contribute X+1 without changing anything except mechanics (i.e. all the fluff can be the same), then why would you ever play Class A?

Other classes can do things better than some classes, so what? Again, you don't seem to understand that that's not what it's all about. Fighter's can out damage rogues, rangers, Inquisitors etc but people still play these classes.

Your view of RPGs and mine are just polar opposites.

MPL was not just talking about DPR. He was saying if a class can do one thing, and another class can do that one thing plus other things when why play the first class. He was not limiting "X+1" to DPR. So with DPR aside, what is your answer?

I've already given my answer, I didn't place it between the lines so it's easy to see.

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

I've already given my answer, I didn't place it between the lines so it's easy to see.

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

I'm not suggesting your theoretical monk didn't contribute. I'm only suggesting that another character could function identically and contribute equally or better in every possible way.

Like I said, if one character contributes X, and other contributes X+1, why choose to only contribute X?

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

If "anything" no matter how small is contributing the experts are an ok PC class, and so are commoners.

If you are not saying "anything" will do then how about giving us some standards to go by.

What is your standard? What is it that you are defining it by, other than your own opinion which (to us) seems baseless and arbitrary.

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

Other classes can do things better than some classes, so what? Again, you don't seem to understand that that's not what it's all about.

No, but it is a substantial portion of it. The effectiveness of the class is not the only deciding factor about playing it, but is IS a factor. If you cannot make your concept work with the class, then it's time to choose a new class.

Fighter's can out damage rogues, rangers, Inquisitors etc but people still play these classes.

Inquisitors and rangers get spells that fighter's don't have. Class effectiveness is about more than just DPR, after all. In DPR terms a ranger can WAY out-damage a fighter, but against their favoured enemy/enemies only.

The problem is when you have a class that is outdone at everything it does by another class at almost every turn, then you have a problem in class design.

Your view of RPGs and mine are just polar opposites.

Actually I doubt they are that far apart at all. The major difference seems to be that personally, I measure the mechanics to make what I want a character to function as that concept requires, and you aren't so bothered. Great if that works for you, but for some people they like the crunch to match the fluff. But good news, if the monk changes as the devs have promised, it won't make any difference to you.

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

What is a contribution?

Well, I would say that if you are meant to be able to cast spells, then you have to cast spells that help the party. If you are meant to have skills that do things, they had better be effective at doing them. If you are meant to fight, you should be able to do things in a fight - either tie down foes, incapacitate them, or substantially hurt them. Now if you are dishing out 30DPR and everyone else is turning out 100DPR, I'd say that may be contributing, but not substantially in the damage stakes, so he'd better have something else to throw in the mix.

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

My brother has played and had fun with an expert. I can roleplay and enjoy a warrior, or an expert, or adept, or aristocrat, or commoner. Why aren't you making posts about how freaking awesome commoners are?

Why are you participating in class comparisons, and then whining about them, when we're discussing actual mechanics?

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

My brother has played and had fun with an expert. I can roleplay and enjoy a warrior, or an expert, or adept, or aristocrat, or commoner. Why aren't you making posts about how freaking awesome commoners are?

Why are you participating in class comparisons, and then whining about them, when we're discussing actual mechanics?

Because NPC classes aren't allowed in our games.

Also, my players don't want to play Experts, Warriors, Commoners, Adepts, or Aristocrats, they want to play the classes that are available and they want to play them the way they want.

The Monk, and classes like it, are meant to be the 5th wheel of the group. They are that little bit extra that a party doesn't need but wouldn't turn away because every bit helps.

Shallowsoul:

I think what bothers people is that you claim your character is "effective", "contributing" etc, when by common understanding of these terms on these boards, you are incorrect. Then, when confronted with these simple truths, you shift the goalposts and suggest that that "contributing" means having fun.

Well, in a sense you are correct, just not in the sense that you yourself actually began discussing this character. You posted that character to make a point, and when your point was soundly refuted, you twisted the conversation to be about something else - "contributing fun" instead of being "mechanically effective", which was your original point.

It's called sophistry. And some people find your "debating" techniques annoying, if not downright offensive.

Me, I find them rather amusing :)

To summarise: You weren't discussing creating a fun character concept that improves everyone's enjoyment of the game - you were discussing a build and promoting it as mechanically effective. You failed, and so have shifted the goalposts.

The only thing the monk class needs to live up to is its flavor.

Currently, the core monk is not doing that job very well.

Forcing monks into an expected role of "fifth wheel" is setting up fans of the monk concept for disappointment.

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

My brother has played and had fun with an expert. I can roleplay and enjoy a warrior, or an expert, or adept, or aristocrat, or commoner. Why aren't you making posts about how freaking awesome commoners are?

Why are you participating in class comparisons, and then whining about them, when we're discussing actual mechanics?

Because NPC classes aren't allowed in our games.

Also, my players don't want to play Experts, Warriors, Commoners, Adepts, or Aristocrats, they want to play the classes that are available and they want to play them the way they want.

The Monk, and classes like it, are meant to be the 5th wheel of the group. They are that little bit extra that a party doesn't need but wouldn't turn away because every bit helps.

So what you're saying is that monks are a mechanically weak class, but you (and/or your players) still have fun playing them? Great. That's wonderful.

It doesn't have a place in a discussion about whether the monk works mechanically or not.

Shallowsoul:

I think what bothers people is that you claim your character is "effective", "contributing" etc, when by common understanding of these terms on these boards, you are incorrect. Then, when confronted with these simple truths, you shift the goalposts and suggest that that "contributing" means having fun.

Well, in a sense you are correct, just not in the sense that you yourself actually began discussing this character. You posted that character to make a point, and when your point was soundly refuted, you twist the conversation to be about something else - "contributing fun" instead of being "mechanically effective", which was your original point.

It's called sophistry. And some people find your "debating" techniques annoying, if not downright offensive.

Me, I find them rather amusing :)

To summarise: You weren't discussing creating a fun character concept that improves everyone's enjoyment of the game - you were discussing a build and promoting it as mechanically effective. You failed, and so have shifted the goalposts.

Actually no. Having fun is part of it but I never said it was all of it and I have already explained this if you would just take the time to go back and read through the posts. When people, in my group that is, make characters they know that we will be in combat at times so they make their character according to what they want whether it's more combat and less non or less combat and more non.

While I wasn't trying to get the best optimization out of my Monk build in the other thread it was enough to contribute to a party. I don't really give a rat's ass about what contribution means to some people on these boards but what I do care about is the fact that people have the nerve to down others when they don't focus on those things.

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

My brother has played and had fun with an expert. I can roleplay and enjoy a warrior, or an expert, or adept, or aristocrat, or commoner. Why aren't you making posts about how freaking awesome commoners are?

Why are you participating in class comparisons, and then whining about them, when we're discussing actual mechanics?

Because NPC classes aren't allowed in our games.

Also, my players don't want to play Experts, Warriors, Commoners, Adepts, or Aristocrats, they want to play the classes that are available and they want to play them the way they want.

The Monk, and classes like it, are meant to be the 5th wheel of the group. They are that little bit extra that a party doesn't need but wouldn't turn away because every bit helps.

So what you're saying is that monks are a mechanically weak class, but you (and/or your players) still have fun playing them? Great. That's wonderful.

It doesn't have a place in a discussion about whether the monk works mechanically or not.

I don't believe the Monk was designed to be a power house and I think people's expectations are set a little higher than the class was intended.

thejeff wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

My brother has played and had fun with an expert. I can roleplay and enjoy a warrior, or an expert, or adept, or aristocrat, or commoner. Why aren't you making posts about how freaking awesome commoners are?

Why are you participating in class comparisons, and then whining about them, when we're discussing actual mechanics?

Because NPC classes aren't allowed in our games.

Also, my players don't want to play Experts, Warriors, Commoners, Adepts, or Aristocrats, they want to play the classes that are available and they want to play them the way they want.

The Monk, and classes like it, are meant to be the 5th wheel of the group. They are that little bit extra that a party doesn't need but wouldn't turn away because every bit helps.

So what you're saying is that monks are a mechanically weak class, but you (and/or your players) still have fun playing them? Great. That's wonderful.

It doesn't have a place in a discussion about whether the monk works mechanically or not.

I don't believe the Monk was designed to be a power house and I think people's expectations are set a little higher than the class was intended.

I've heard expectations as low as "equal the rogue or bard".

Because NPC classes aren't allowed in our games.

So what? I didn't tell you that you can't play an NPC class instead of a PC class. The books don't tell you that either. Just it's generally accepted that they are inferior, mechanically, to PC classes (which is also why the bestiary considers them +1 CR /2 levels instead of +1 CR / level).

Also, my players don't want to play Experts, Warriors, Commoners, Adepts, or Aristocrats, they want to play the classes that are available and they want to play them the way they want.

Again, irrelevant to the argument you make.

The Monk, and classes like it, are meant to be the 5th wheel of the group. They are that little bit extra that a party doesn't need but wouldn't turn away because every bit helps.

You can get more mileage out of the cohort from leadership as long as it isn't a monk. You say the monk is a 5th wheel. I think it's a broken down spare tire on the back of a 12 wheel vehicle. The 13th unlucky wheel that comes after every other class, and in some cases NPC classes in terms of competence and/or teamwork potential.

But the thing is, I actually can back up that claim with facts. You on the other hand say you don't need facts because if you're doing anything at all then you're great, don't have issues, and have no mechanical problems. Anyone who has any sort of capability for logical or rational reasoning understands that these are not only unrelated, but two entirely different arguments.

Can someone have fun with an inferior class? Well, yes they can. I've run games where all the PCs played NPC classes with 3 point buy. Does it mean that NPC classes aren't weaker than PC classes? Hell no. Does monk being a "PC class" that you could theoretically have fun with (assuming you have fun dying constantly unless your GM coddles your character like a little babe, not hitting anything reasonable for your level range, not being able to withstand NPCs with tactics or tools, having defenses that are mediocre at best, and so forth) make it at all equal to other PC classes? Hell no to that too.

When people, in my group that is, make characters they know that we will be in combat at times so they make their character according to what they want whether it's more combat and less non or less combat and more non.

Sure. That's cool. The group I run has players that feel the same way, and everyone has fun. I dig it.

But it's irrelevant to the ongoing conversation you joined about the monk's in effectiveness in combat.

While I wasn't trying to get the best optimization out of my Monk build in the other thread it was enough to contribute to a party. I don't really give a rat's ass about what contribution means to some people on these boards but what I do care about is the fact that people have the nerve to down others when they don't focus on those things.

If you don't care about other people's understanding of contribution, specifically with reference to monks, why did you bother posting in a thread about the monk's effectiveness in combat? The discussion was about mechanical effectiveness, and assuming you weren't merely trying to derail the topic (a big assumption, I know), why bother posting if you don't care about the topic?

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Your definition of contribution and what a player has to contribute is different from mine.

The problem is you haven't actually shared your definition. At least not that we can tell. Wraithstrike said:

It's called "fun". That is the level of contribution that I require.

Game contribution comes in many forms whether it's from combat or out of combat.

So you have moved the goalpost to it's contributing if I say so now is it? What is fun for you may or may not be fun for ANYONE ELSE. Just because somebody thinks it's great fun to stab themselves over and over again does not mean they can go and claim that stabbing oneself is perfectly fine because it is fun for them. Fun for you group...great, have at it...but your claim wasn't it works for us and it's great, your claim was it WORKS...there is a freaking HUGE difference you need to learn there.