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

Why do Pathfinder classes, or any other build choice, need to live up to a specific number?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

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.

The same goes with feat, races, items, and when these things don't meet the certain expectations of some people then they feel like the class or specific build option is useless. It's like these build options all have to be worth taking strictly by the numbers and I just don't agree with that.

On these boards I see a lot of people asking questions they already have personal answers for, seemingly for no other reason than to provoke others into yelling at each other.

You don't like it, so you don't do it, and good for you.

Matters to other people, so let them do it, and try not to let it bother you.

Your post is written in a way that would seem to imply that we should be impressed with you and your decision. Master the ability to let others have their fun WITHOUT having to shove how cool you are in their faces. THEN I'll be impressed.

Liberty's Edge

shallowsoul wrote:
30 DPR is still contributing no matter what you say and no matter how bad you don't want it to be.

30 DPR at times is just getting in the way. There's costs in both character-space and player-space for carrying around someone who is not carrying their weight. Your monk could get another character killed if he's between the fighter and the guy the fighter needs to charge (or in tight quarters, attack). And why are they giving you a share of the treasure if you aren't pulling your weight?

And there's the question of player time. Pathfinder games generally qualify as combat-heavy games, unless Paizo is missing the mark with their adventures and PFS scenarios and books full of monsters that spend a page to tell you how to kill it and how can it kill you and 3 sentences on what it looks like. And in combat-heavy games, I get a little tired of multi-hour-long combats where one player spends their 15% of the time doing attacks that don't effectively damage the creature. We would get done that much quicker if ineffective fighters don't spend our time doing things that have no real effect on the battle.

Star Voter 2013

prosfilaes 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.

30 DPR at times is just getting in the way. There's costs in both character-space and player-space for carrying around someone who is not carrying their weight. Your monk could get another character killed if he's between the fighter and the guy the fighter needs to charge (or in tight quarters, attack). And why are they giving you a share of the treasure if you aren't pulling your weight?

And there's the question of player time. Pathfinder games generally qualify as combat-heavy games, unless Paizo is missing the mark with their adventures and PFS scenarios and books full of monsters that spend a page to tell you how to kill it and how can it kill you and 3 sentences on what it looks like. And in combat-heavy games, I get a little tired of multi-hour-long combats where one player spends their 15% of the time doing attacks that don't effectively damage the creature. We would get done that much quicker if ineffective fighters don't spend our time doing things that have no real effect on the battle.

Completely wrong, prosfilaes. When shallowsoul says his monk is effective, he actually means he and his friends have fun when they play RPGs together. How could you misunderstand that?!?

/sarcasm

Sorry, couldn't help it, I've been perversely enjoying too many of Roberta Yang's scathing posts :)


So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?

Grand Lodge

Bearded Ben wrote:
So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?

Not very much because ANYBODY can be there to be a flanking buddy...even a trained pet.


in 3.5. i had a monk player who was effective. he merely did the mcguyver thing, which wasn't a feature of the class but a feature of his intellect. so his mcguyver contribution superseded any weak contributions he would have otherwise made. it was the player, not the character.


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.

You are good at dodging questions. I will rephrase it again.

Any class can be fun, but when looking at the mechanical aspects of a class, and making sure it is good for the game what are your standards, and how is the monk a good class across the board*.

*Basically how would you expect the monk to be useful in a game that does not just use humanoids, and mooks, but monsters also, and APL+ encounters. Corner cases aside.

PS:Once again nobody is saying you have to provide DPR , for the purpose of this statement.

edit:We will also assume the GM does not go out of his way to increase or decrease the difficulty of the game.

edit2:I had a fellow player run an expert once, and he did fairly well. That is why I brought the expert example up earlier.

Silver Crusade

Cold Napalm wrote:
Bearded Ben wrote:
So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?
Not very much because ANYBODY can be there to be a flanking buddy...even a trained pet.

Once again the point has been missed. If your interest is to do the most damage, shut out encounters right away and win the game then are a few classes that do this better than any other class. If this is your attitude then Pathfinder needs to drop all other classes except for three or four classes because technically they do it the best.

You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike 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.

You are good at dodging questions. I will rephrase it again.

Any class can be fun, but when looking at the mechanical aspects of a class, and making sure it is good for the game what are your standards, and how is the monk a good class across the board*.

*Basically how would you expect the monk to be useful in a game that does not just use humanoids, and mooks, but monsters also, and APL+ encounters. Corner cases aside.

PS:Once again nobody is saying you have to provide DPR , for the purpose of this statement.

edit:We will also assume the GM does not go out of his way to increase or decrease the difficulty of the game.

edit2:I had a fellow player run an expert once, and he did fairly well. That is why I brought the expert example up earlier.

And you are good at ignoring whats right there in your face so I will make it simple. All classesneed some tweaking at the end of the day but some are actually quite satisfied with classes like the monk as is. The monk isnt broken so its effectiveness is subjective and if you dont think its effective enough then thats your opinion but your opinion isnt the one all opinion that is right. Opinions arent right and they arent wrong, they are what they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike 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.

You are good at dodging questions. I will rephrase it again.

Any class can be fun, but when looking at the mechanical aspects of a class, and making sure it is good for the game what are your standards, and how is the monk a good class across the board*.

*Basically how would you expect the monk to be useful in a game that does not just use humanoids, and mooks, but monsters also, and APL+ encounters. Corner cases aside.

PS:Once again nobody is saying you have to provide DPR , for the purpose of this statement.

edit:We will also assume the GM does not go out of his way to increase or decrease the difficulty of the game.

edit2:I had a fellow player run an expert once, and he did fairly well. That is why I brought the expert example up earlier.

And you are good at ignoring whats right there in your face so I will make it simple. All classesneed some tweaking at the end of the day but some are actually quite satisfied with classes like the monk as is. The monk isnt broken so its effectiveness is subjective and if you dont think its effective enough then thats your opinion but your opinion isnt the one all opinion that is right. Opinions arent right and they arent wrong, they are what they are.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a poorly made class because the GM can adjust for it?

What tweaks do the other classes need?

What I am saying is that nobody has yet to show a build and or strategy that show how a monk can work on a consistent basis without the GM's having to give it a helping hand. I am sure that if the full caster classes were being critiqued in such a manner it would be very possible to make them viable unless the GM went out of his way to nerf them. The same could be said for a ranger.

I have no problem with class X being defended. What I am saying is that all I am getting from anyone is that "in my games...", but by that logic the expert is good enough to be a PC class since I saw one of those contribute in a game.

If someone thinks the monks is fine in their games that is fine, but if the point being defended is that the monk is fine as a whole, and not just their games then that point is what should be defended.

Due to lack of evidence for the monk to be able to contribute* consistently I see no reason to think the clas is fine.

*contribute=be a meaningful member of the party

PS:I also noticed you did not say how a monk is useful in this thread or the other one. You also did not answer the "X+1" question. You someone tried to turn it into another DPR issue. I don't expect for you to answer. This is just me making a notation of questions not being answered in either thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
However, DPR fanboys and girls are usually more vocal (and less mature) about their opinions about what is "fun" and what is "good" even though they are incredibly 'late' to the gaming genre.

As many times as I have seen people called names for actually doing math I can't believe that statement was even made. I even had to make a thread once explaining that it was not just about the numbers. I guess I will have to post the link once I relocate it.

edit:Link to the "not about the numbers thread."

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another ignored question for the Honourable Mr. shallowsoul:

littlehewy wrote:
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?

Actually, don't bother answering, I'm not really interested in my question nominally being responded to while in fact being pushed aside in favour of another unrelated topic...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
And you are good at ignoring whats right there in your face so I will make it simple. All classesneed some tweaking at the end of the day but some are actually quite satisfied with classes like the monk as is. The monk isnt broken so its effectiveness is subjective and if you dont think its effective enough then thats your opinion but your opinion isnt the one all opinion that is right. Opinions arent right and they arent wrong, they are what they are.

First off, cop out. Seriously. You throw this crap into everyone's faces, whine and moan, and argue that monks are mechanically viable, and then when you are shown to be a fraud you begin dancing around an abstract idea that everything is fine if one person thinks it is, combined with an appeal to "I'm a better/older/wiser roleplayer than you are" as a declaration that "I'm not/can't be wrong, you young 'uns just don't understand roleplaying games". You need to act your age apparently and learn when to take responsibility for your assertions.

Also, opinions can be right and wrong. People are entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to an opinion. I may even have the wrong opinion. But that doesn't change that opinions can be right or wrong when they are about something quantifiable and capable of being examined.

If it was my opinion that fire is not put out by lack of oxygen, I would be wrong. If it was my opinion that humans can function underwater for days at a time with no need to breath without some sort of mechanical assistance, I would be wrong. If I asserted that Jello was made out of boiled tangerines and rainbows, I would be wrong.

And if I asserted my opinion, and held my opinion despite being shown not only are my assertions without merit but are actually proven wrong by existing knowledge and data combined with basic human principles of logic and reasoning, then I would cease merely being wrong and begin being wrong and looking a fool.


littlehewy wrote:
Actually, don't bother answering, I'm not really interested in my question nominally being responded to while in fact being pushed aside in favour of another unrelated topic...

I see what you did there... Maybe reverse psychology will work on him.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
And you are good at ignoring whats right there in your face so I will make it simple. All classesneed some tweaking at the end of the day but some are actually quite satisfied with classes like the monk as is. The monk isnt broken so its effectiveness is subjective and if you dont think its effective enough then thats your opinion but your opinion isnt the one all opinion that is right. Opinions arent right and they arent wrong, they are what they are.

If opinions aren't wrong, why did you start this thread to tell them their opinion was wrong? Some are satisfied, and some aren't; some of those that aren't are using objective standards, but the choice to use those standards is still an opinion that apparently can't be wrong.


Burn~ Ashiel's on fire (though, I'm sure oxygen has nothing to do with this fact).


Detect Magic wrote:
Burn~ Ashiel's on fire (though, I'm sure oxygen has nothing to do with this fact).

Speaking of on fire (in the universe exploding sense). Let's see what occurs if "opinions aren't wrong" was an actual law of reality.

Person 1: "It's my opinion I am correct."
Person 2: "It's my opinion that you're wrong."

Reality bluescreens. Oh wait, look at that. It doesn't, because we can see that one of these statements must be correct, but not both. This is called reasoning. Some people in these forums should seriously study and study hard on this topic so as to save people the time of having to debunk them every time they come along and make bizarre assertions and arguments.

Also, many of us need to learn sometimes we are wrong. It is human nature to sift through right and wrong. We are not right all the time. No one is. However, the frequency in which the things we assert or even propose that are "correct" increases manifold by using rational reasoning thought on the way to those conclusions, and testing those theories against basic principles before we publicize them. In doing so, and by becoming informed on the subject matter, one is incredibly likely to present things that are correct or true right out of the gate, and greatly minimize the frequency of looking like an fool before your peers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Bearded Ben wrote:
So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?
Not very much because ANYBODY can be there to be a flanking buddy...even a trained pet.

Once again the point has been missed. If your interest is to do the most damage, shut out encounters right away and win the game then are a few classes that do this better than any other class. If this is your attitude then Pathfinder needs to drop all other classes except for three or four classes because technically they do it the best.

You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

No Shallowsoul, we aren't. I strongly suspect we've all done that (I know I have). What YOU are clueless about is how the game we tried to do it in hammered our concept in the face repeatedly with the fact that the mechanics do not back up the fluff, and the concept was pretty much DOA.

In short, we role-played to have fun, and the broken mechanics stomped our fun. That's why many of us want the monk to be fixed, so we can play monks and have fun.

shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Every class has a little paragraph entitled "Role" that tells you what that class should be doing. In every case but one, those classes can do it. In the case of the monk, it can't. I do not think that expecting that statement to be borne out by the mechanics as it is in every other class over-expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread went exactly as I anticipated


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Predictable, isn't it?

Silver Crusade

Dabbler wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Bearded Ben wrote:
So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?
Not very much because ANYBODY can be there to be a flanking buddy...even a trained pet.

Once again the point has been missed. If your interest is to do the most damage, shut out encounters right away and win the game then are a few classes that do this better than any other class. If this is your attitude then Pathfinder needs to drop all other classes except for three or four classes because technically they do it the best.

You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

No Shallowsoul, we aren't. I strongly suspect we've all done that (I know I have). What YOU are clueless about is how the game we tried to do it in hammered our concept in the face repeatedly with the fact that the mechanics do not back up the fluff, and the concept was pretty much DOA.

In short, we role-played to have fun, and the broken mechanics stomped our fun. That's why many of us want the monk to be fixed, so we can play monks and have fun.

shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Every class has a little paragraph entitled "Role" that tells you what that class should be doing. In every case but one, those classes can do it. In the case of the monk, it can't. I do not think that expecting that statement to be borne out by the mechanics as it is in every other class

over-expectations.

The problem lies in the fact that we dont have the same vision for the monk. I dont see the monk as a heavy hitter.

I see an unarmed person who doesnt wear armor, is very fast, and has a few supernatural powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Predictable, isn't it?

Wanna know what the driving force behind this Thread is....it´s THIS


Smug Narcissist wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Predictable, isn't it?
Wanna know what the driving force behind this Thread is....it´s THIS

Hehehe...inflated self-love


I can understand why people get angry with this subject there is no right way to role play
I must admit though that i'm in favour of shallowsouls opinion i have nothing against players who want to play a dpr character if that what floats there boat then fine as long as everyone in there party is liked minded then go ahead if that's how you like to play then fill your boots
I just think that they are missing out on something I'm not saying that the way they play is wrong just a little 2 dimensional and they miss out on playing some really cool and fun characters just because they don't kick out enough damage
And i agree with another earlier post that said this is very much the computer game or wow mentality that all problems are solved by killing stuff (now i enjoy a good fight as much as the next player) but I'm not bothered if someone is doing more damage than me so long as the party survives don't matter who killed what.


shallowsoul wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Bearded Ben wrote:
So (tangent warning) how much DPR/contribution points is "my monk turtles up and provides a flank buddy for the fighter/barb/rogue" worth and is it greater than the pitiful 30 DPR the monk is putting out?
Not very much because ANYBODY can be there to be a flanking buddy...even a trained pet.

Once again the point has been missed. If your interest is to do the most damage, shut out encounters right away and win the game then are a few classes that do this better than any other class. If this is your attitude then Pathfinder needs to drop all other classes except for three or four classes because technically they do it the best.

You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

No Shallowsoul, we aren't. I strongly suspect we've all done that (I know I have). What YOU are clueless about is how the game we tried to do it in hammered our concept in the face repeatedly with the fact that the mechanics do not back up the fluff, and the concept was pretty much DOA.

In short, we role-played to have fun, and the broken mechanics stomped our fun. That's why many of us want the monk to be fixed, so we can play monks and have fun.

shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Every class has a little paragraph entitled "Role" that tells you what that class should be doing. In every case but one, those classes can do it. In the case of the monk, it can't. I do not think that expecting that statement to be borne out by the mechanics as it is in every other class

over-expectations.

The problem lies in the fact that we dont have the same vision for the monk. I dont see the monk as a heavy hitter.

I see an unarmed person who doesnt wear armor, is very fast, and has a few supernatural powers.

Funny, we all actually have the same vision for the monk. But in our vision the monk can still be useful in a fight without being a heavy hitter, can survive fights despite not wearing armor, can do something with his speed besides runing around missing targets and has supernatural powers that are actually useful.

Marathon Voter 2014

So wait, you guys don't care about my DPR?
I thought you'd be pretty impressed.

What, only people with low DPR make sarcastic comments about DPR?
Yeah, well your face is dumb.

Is this going to cost me my spot on the A-team raid list?


I pretty much view class balance in terms of the idea that a class should be roughly equivalent to the utility provided by a replacement PC of another class.

Basically this carries over the idea of something like the Value of Replacement Player used in baseball sabremetrics. The idea is that in theory any PC is readily replaceable should they get killed in action (rolling up a new character in town) and that any given PC should be within a certain range of average given the established campaign norms (point buy level, class level, existing party composition, etc).

As such most party members can be replaced with a similar PC that fills a similar "role" even if they are a different class. With the monk in particular it's ability to fit into any specific role is almost always eclipsed by another class. Fighters are better fighter, rogues are better skill monkey, spellcasters are better spellcasters, etc. Now in theory being second best in a wide variety of areas is a decent concept even if in practice it's not that fun but the truth is that almost all the other jack of all trades classes like the Bard, Inquistor, Magus, etc tend to be better at covering a wide variety of class roles as well as being able to contribute via relatively unique mechanics. The Monk has a bunch of quirky mechanics but they are generally badly synched together.

Star Voter 2013

shallowsoul wrote:
You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

Uh, my favourite class is bard, and when I make one I usually don't bother working out its DPR.

So, no.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

I can understand why people get angry with this subject there is no right way to role play

I must admit though that i'm in favour of shallowsouls opinion i have nothing against players who want to play a dpr character if that what floats there boat then fine as long as everyone in there party is liked minded then go ahead if that's how you like to play then fill your boots
I just think that they are missing out on something I'm not saying that the way they play is wrong just a little 2 dimensional and they miss out on playing some really cool and fun characters just because they don't kick out enough damage
And i agree with another earlier post that said this is very much the computer game or wow mentality that all problems are solved by killing stuff (now i enjoy a good fight as much as the next player) but I'm not bothered if someone is doing more damage than me so long as the party survives don't matter who killed what.

You haven't actually read the thread, have you?

Noone has anything against cool concepts and nobody advocates playing pure DPR characters. What they're trying to say is that whatever your concept is, it has to be mechanically sound to be useful to the party. If you're playing a noble or scholar who accompanies the group solely for his skills but has to be protected in a fight, like Shuriken Nekogami mentioned she wanted to do earlier, then it is okay to drop your DPR as long as your skills really are that good. In that case nobody would mention DPR but we would try to figure out how to get the biggest number of skills maximised and which skills you should spend feats and abilities to get as high as possible. If you can do the skill checks for the rest of the group, you ARE pulling your weight and the rest of the group can focus on their on roles, i.e. your bodyguards.
And nobody here is bothered if another party member is doing more damage than they are. What does bother us is when someone presents a character that doesn't do much damage, doesn't contribute with any outstanding skill, and doesn't have any consistently useful abilities or spells and that can't survive any level appropriate encounter and says it's a mechanically viable character. You may be having fun, your grou may not have a problem and your DM may like to throw kobolds and goblins against tenth level characters, but none of that means the class is mechanically viable.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

I can understand why people get angry with this subject there is no right way to role play

I must admit though that i'm in favour of shallowsouls opinion i have nothing against players who want to play a dpr character if that what floats there boat then fine as long as everyone in there party is liked minded then go ahead if that's how you like to play then fill your boots
I just think that they are missing out on something I'm not saying that the way they play is wrong just a little 2 dimensional and they miss out on playing some really cool and fun characters just because they don't kick out enough damage
And i agree with another earlier post that said this is very much the computer game or wow mentality that all problems are solved by killing stuff (now i enjoy a good fight as much as the next player) but I'm not bothered if someone is doing more damage than me so long as the party survives don't matter who killed what.

You haven't actually read the thread, have you?

Noone has anything against cool concepts and nobody advocates playing pure DPR characters. What they're trying to say is that whatever your concept is, it has to be mechanically sound to be useful to the party.

Lol what I'm saying is, don't waltz into a thread about the mechanical effectiveness of monks, claim that monks are perfectly fine and contribute well, get your argument shot to hell, then start your own thread suggesting that some people think PF is only about DPR.

It's offensive, as well as patently false. Don't do it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

The problem lies in the fact that we dont have the same vision for the monk. I dont see the monk as a heavy hitter.

I see an unarmed person who doesnt wear armor, is very fast, and has a few supernatural powers.

I see what you did there...ignored what I wrote and went off at a tangent about your monk concept rather than address the point that the role assigned to the monk in the CRB is something he cannot mechanically do. You are still talking about heavy hitters when I have already said that other factors can indeed make up for this - if you have them available, and if they are effective.

Or in other words, my concept is like yours, save that I want them to be effective on a par with other combat classes in a fight. Not better than them, but on the same playing field. Not a heavy hitter necessarily, just effective with maneuvers, or stunning fist, in such a way that they can look at the rogue, the bard, or the ranger and say "Hey, I did my share! I might not have killed many orcs, but I tied down this bunch here and made them sorry they crossed us until Fred the Fighter splattered them after he did for the leader! I might not have fought the demon as well as the paladin, but I hurt him and got his attention until you guys caught up!"

That's what I want: A monk that lives up to it's fluff as well as any other class lives up to theirs.


littlehewy wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

I can understand why people get angry with this subject there is no right way to role play

I must admit though that i'm in favour of shallowsouls opinion i have nothing against players who want to play a dpr character if that what floats there boat then fine as long as everyone in there party is liked minded then go ahead if that's how you like to play then fill your boots
I just think that they are missing out on something I'm not saying that the way they play is wrong just a little 2 dimensional and they miss out on playing some really cool and fun characters just because they don't kick out enough damage
And i agree with another earlier post that said this is very much the computer game or wow mentality that all problems are solved by killing stuff (now i enjoy a good fight as much as the next player) but I'm not bothered if someone is doing more damage than me so long as the party survives don't matter who killed what.

You haven't actually read the thread, have you?

Noone has anything against cool concepts and nobody advocates playing pure DPR characters. What they're trying to say is that whatever your concept is, it has to be mechanically sound to be useful to the party.

Lol what I'm saying is, don't waltz into a thread about the mechanical effectiveness of monks, claim that monks are perfectly fine and contribute well, get your argument shot to hell, then start your own thread suggesting that some people think PF is only about DPR.

It's offensive, as well as patently false. Don't do it.

I said that too. See:

VM mercenario wrote:
What does bother us is when someone presents a character that doesn't do much damage, doesn't contribute with any outstanding skill, and doesn't have any consistently useful abilities or spells and that can't survive any level appropriate encounter and says it's a mechanically viable character. You may be having fun, your grou may not have a problem and your DM may like to throw kobolds and goblins against tenth level characters, but none of that means the class is mechanically viable.

Star Voter 2013

VM mercenario wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Lol what I'm saying is, don't waltz into a thread about the mechanical effectiveness of monks, claim that monks are perfectly fine and contribute well, get your argument shot to hell, then start your own thread suggesting that some people think PF is only about DPR.

It's offensive, as well as patently false. Don't do it.

I said that too. See:

VM mercenario wrote:
What does bother us is when someone presents a character that doesn't do much damage, doesn't contribute with any outstanding skill, and doesn't have any consistently useful abilities or spells and that can't survive any level appropriate encounter and says it's a mechanically viable character. You may be having fun, your grou may not have a problem and your DM may
...

As we say in Australia: Same dog, different leg :)

I was specifically talking about a certain person's behaviour on the boards, whereas you were discussing more of an "at the table" situation.

Both things suck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Lol what I'm saying is, don't waltz into a thread about the mechanical effectiveness of monks, claim that monks are perfectly fine and contribute well, get your argument shot to hell, then start your own thread suggesting that some people think PF is only about DPR.

It's offensive, as well as patently false. Don't do it.

I said that too. See:

VM mercenario wrote:
What does bother us is when someone presents a character that doesn't do much damage, doesn't contribute with any outstanding skill, and doesn't have any consistently useful abilities or spells and that can't survive any level appropriate encounter and says it's a mechanically viable character. You may be having fun, your grou may not have a problem and your DM may
...
As we say in Australia: Same dog, different leg :)

He he he.


No I've read about half of the thread the other half was of no interest to as it's gone off at a tangent and i was giving my opinion on the question in the op (which is what the thread is about)

Star Voter 2013

The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
No I've read about half of the thread the other half was of no interest to as it's gone off at a tangent and i was giving my opinion on the question in the op (which is what the thread is about)

Lol that's nominally what the thread is about... But not what it's actually about.

Star Voter 2015

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
I just think that they are missing out on something I'm not saying that the way they play is wrong just a little 2 dimensional and they miss out on playing some really cool and fun characters just because they don't kick out enough damage

No, you're missing a point here, too. It's not about one class not doing enough damage, but still being useful in other ways. It's about Class A doing everything Class B does, except better. I'm not saying, "oh, well class B does this one thing that's just not powerfull." I"m saying it's totally identical and Class A is just better at it.

There is no concept possible that can only be filled by a Monk, just as there is no concpet that can only be filled by a Fighter, Wizard, or any other class. Concept and flavor are independent of class. Just as an example, if I wanted to make a brawler, someone that just punches and grapples the crap out of monsters, how many ways could I make that? Without even thinking for a moment, I could say Monk, Fighter, or Barbarian--and I actually have multiple archetypal options for Fighter on top of that. There's also probably a way to pull it off with a Rogue or Ninja, a Ranger, maybe a Paladin or Cavalier--crap, I could do that with a Sorcerer if I really wanted.

So, now that you know your concept works just fine with multiple classes, why would you choose to play as the one with the worst mechanics (i.e. Monk)? The concept is exactly identical and all the flavor can be the same if you go a differet route--so why take the weaker choice?

That's not "real rolepalying." That's not "appreciating a different kind of playstyle." That's being stubborn/bad at math.

When something sucks, it should be made better. Trying to claim it doesn't really suck just stops progress for no conceivable reason.

You want to know a "dark truth" about D&D 3rd edition (so Pathfinder has to deal with a lot of its baggage)? One of the writers not only admitted, but stated proudly, that some options were designed to look good but actually be worse than other options. These are like "Timmy" cards in Magic: The Gathering--the flashy stuff that champions know are garbage but that casual players eat up. This was done purposefully to reward players for system mastery, but in truth, it just punishes people who lack it or don't care about it.

Pathfinder did a lot to try and fix this kind of stuff, but at the root of it all, the problem still exists. So, when you play a Monk as is--even claiming it's totally fine--you do so because you were deliberately deceived, so that players like me could feel cool for noticing it sucked and picking something different. And even as the sort of player that is supposedly rewarded by that design, I still think it's BS.

shallowsoul wrote:
You, and a few others, are clueless as to the notion of someone choosing a class because they like it and its concept along with its mechanics as is.

I can understand wanting a specific flavor--even taking inferior mechanics because they're "cool"--but you can get all the same flavor you attach, say to the monk, and put it on another class.

It's not like taking an flavorful quirky spell like Malicious Spite over a proven fight winner like Black Tentacles. I can understand a choice like that--even defend it. No, this is like being offered a $20 bill and saying, no thanks, I'd rather have a $10. That sort of behavior is baffling.


I <3 Innuendo Golem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
No I've read about half of the thread the other half was of no interest to as it's gone off at a tangent and i was giving my opinion on the question in the op (which is what the thread is about)

The thread is about a whiny guy throwing false accusations against the whole board after he posted a crappy build in a thread about mechanics and a consensus was reached that his build was mechanically crappy.

Now he says we are obsessed with DPR and shouldn't criticize his build because he has fun with it and the rest of us don't understand fun and don't play rpgs in the right way.
We're trying to say that if he has fun then go ahead, noone is stopping him. But don't go into a thread about monk mechanics saying it's a mechanically good monk build when know it isn't.

Star Voter 2013

VM mercenario wrote:
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
No I've read about half of the thread the other half was of no interest to as it's gone off at a tangent and i was giving my opinion on the question in the op (which is what the thread is about)

The thread is about a whiny guy throwing false accusations against the whole board after he posted a crappy build in a thread about mechanics and a consensus was reached that his build was mechanically crappy.

Now he says we are obsessed with DPR and shouldn't criticize his build because he has fun with it and the rest of us don't understand fun and don't play rpgs in the right way.
We're trying to say that if he has fun then go ahead, noone is stopping him. But don't go into a thread about monk mechanics saying it's a mechanically good monk build when know it isn't.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up :)


Sorry but the op was about why some players need there characters to do as much dpm as possible and if they don't then there no good
I'm say that if you want to do loads of damage play a class that does that and don't say something is broken because it does less damage you can't (nor should you be able to) have a rouge out damaging a barbarian
If you want to do damage play the class that lets you

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

But mplinindusatries, I do not think you understand!

I do not collect money to spend it, I just like looking at the pretty faces, and who the heck wants to start at another picture of Jackson? You do not understand my economics style!


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Sorry but the op was about why some players need there characters to do as much dpm as possible and if they don't then there no good

I'm say that if you want to do loads of damage play a class that does that and don't say something is broken because it does less damage you can't (nor should you be able to) have a rouge out damaging a barbarian
If you want to do damage play the class that lets you

Except that's a strawman argument that no one has been making. No one says the only thing that matters is getting your DPR as high as possible

(For values of No one that include a handful of trolls and other idiots.)

The OP said that, but he was responding to the situation described with a monk build proposed in a mechanics thread.


shallowsoul wrote:


The problem lies in the fact that we dont have the same vision for the monk. I dont see the monk as a heavy hitter.
I see an unarmed person who doesnt wear armor, is very fast, and has a few supernatural powers.

There is nothing wrong with that. I just want the monk to actually be good enough that I can't just replace him with am expert or warrior, not notice the difference. <---Yeah most of my experiences are that bad, barring corner cases. Or someone(anyone) can help me figure out why monks don't work without me having to go easy on the monk or setup a situation just to make sure the monk does look good. Considering Dabbler's troubles I am sure he would like to have this info also.

Once again:The monk does not have to do frontline(fighter, paladin barbarian etc) damage, but he has to do something, and be good at doing it.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

I can understand why people get angry with this subject there is no right way to role play

This thread is not about RP.

Basically some of us believe that a class should be able to contribute under a variety of GM's without the GM having to provide an assist. Some people think that if they have to provide an assist, that the class is still ok.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:


I see what you did there...ignored what I wrote and went off at a tangent about your monk concept rather than address the point that the role assigned to the monk in the CRB is something he cannot mechanically do. You are still talking about heavy hitters when I have already said that other factors can indeed make up for this - if you have them available, and if they are effective.

Or in other words, my concept is like yours, save that I want them to be effective on a par with other combat classes in a fight. Not better than them, but on the same playing field. Not a heavy hitter necessarily, just effective with maneuvers, or stunning fist, in such a way that they can look at the rogue, the bard, or the ranger and say "Hey, I did my share! I might not have killed many orcs, but I tied down this bunch here and made them sorry they crossed us until Fred the Fighter splattered them after he did for the leader! I might not have fought the demon as well as the paladin, but I hurt him and got his attention until you guys caught up!"

That's what I want: A monk that lives up to it's fluff as well as any other class lives up to theirs.

He keeps right on doing that. The "X+1" argument came up earlier, and he jumped on DPR. I explained that DPR does not even need to be involved, so he said

"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."

However none of us can find his answer. He just refuses to answer questions or situations presented to him. Well he said the standard was fun, to which I presented the "expert" scenario. No answer from him for that.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

DPR isn't the number all classes need to live up to. It is what some classes (fighter/Barbs) basically do as their primary "thing". Those classes kill things with weapons, as the role they fill.

Other classes do other things. Other builds for other classes do other things.

The question to ask is "What can my class/build" do that makes the party better able to meet "X" objective.

Damage is almost always valued, so it is an easy go to for valuing a class.

Utility is harder to calculate, and more GM variable. Much like Charisma value varies greatly from GM to GM, so do the number of skill checks, frequency of ambush, availability of rest, etc...

DPR is an easy measure that applies to all games. In all games, enemies have hit points, and the more damage you do.

The reason people don't question a low hitter like the bard's DPR is that it is clear they have value to all parties in all situations.

Classes and builds are only problems when they don't add value to the group at a level equal to what another party member would. If the rogue can sneak behind the enemy and get a full round of attacks against a flat footed enemy before they can call for backup, that is better any other option sometimes.

Playstyle varies. GM preference varies. Power creep loophole access varies.

But DPR is DPR. And people like concrete numbers.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Sorry but the op was about why some players need there characters to do as much dpm as possible and if they don't then there no good

I'm say that if you want to do loads of damage play a class that does that and don't say something is broken because it does less damage you can't (nor should you be able to) have a rouge out damaging a barbarian
If you want to do damage play the class that lets you

We never argued that you had to do have a high DPR if you are making a class. He just keeps trying to push things, that way despite several of us saying that is not the case.

What we have said is that a class should be able to hold its own in most tables even when the GM's runs a variety of encounters/situations, and runs the bad guys in an intelligent manner, without going out of his way to help Class X.

As an example if you make a druid(a class that can do damage), but you choose to focus on casting spells instead, that is ok. Most likely you have other things you can do that will be useful, and not just in corner cases.

151 to 200 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why do Pathfinder classes, or any other build choice, need to live up to a specific number? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

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