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

201 to 250 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Dabbler wrote:
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.

I didnt go off on a tangent. I gave you my answer and I cant help it if its not the one you wanted to hear.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think he can accept that. Can you accept that most people, in this thread, think you're wrong about the monk?

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:


Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

Yes. He has said as much multiple times.

Can you accept the fact that there are a lot of people frustrated with the monk because they think it falls short of its flavor and are not unhappy because they're "inexperienced" or "not real roleplayers"?


On a website like this were we don't have access to the complete workings of your campaign it's really impossible to rely on anecdotal evidence to contradict the well documented mechanical weaknesses of class.

So should we engage in juvenile "Is not, Is too" shouting matches or should we try to agree on a common objective framework to measure the utility of a class or build?

Personally I find that theorycrafting is often taken past the point of diminishing the enjoyment in a game but I also see value in providing empirical evidence regarding class options so that the designers and our fellow gamers can avoid common pitfalls associated with taking cool options without looking at the mathematical underpinnings behind a class or a class feature.

That's how the hobby advances in terms of playability and quality rather than shifting the burden of balancing every conceivable option to the individual DM.

I personally love to house rule but not every likes to do that and furthermore most are pretty bad about it. I'd much rather have a robust framework developed by the designers so I have less house ruling necessary to generate the game I'd like to run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
I didnt go off on a tangent. I gave you my answer and I cant help it if its not the one you wanted to hear.

No, you just didn't answer to the issue, which is that I don't think it is unjustified to expect the monk class to fulfil it's clearly stated role, as laid out in the CRB, and you apparently think it is in spite of the fact that every other class in the CRB can do so. Instead you just talked on about your concept of the monk instead. You didn't mention why you felt the expectation was unjustified in the face of stated role in the CRB, which is what I wanted to know.

All well and good, as I said your concept is not that different to mine with one glaring point: I expect my monk to be able to back the fluff with the crunch. If you don't have an issue with the crunch, great! Enjoy your game. But I don't play in games that allow that without me getting my character's face kicked in, and I prefer to play a hero, not a doormat.


Dabbler wrote:
But I don't play in games that allow that without me getting my character's face kicked in, and I prefer to play a hero, not a doormat.

QFT


Irontruth wrote:

What else is someone supposed to judge about your character, other than mechanical effectiveness?

Are we supposed to critique how well your character is being roleplayed?

Or are you annoyed at quality of etiquette on the boards that people are critiquing your character in a rude way?

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

The problem I have with it, is when people look at raw numbers and come to the conclusion that what they say is the end all be all of balance and class effectivness.

I have quite a bit of exprience taking character to high levels. I rarely see high level fighters because they are simply too limited at higher levels when everyone else is teleporting around and/or flying. By the time the fighter gets to the fight, it's over, so all that awesome to hit and damage ratio is completely wasted. Straight math, best class in the game, practical use, not so much. People use math and forget that math doesn't reflect practical application. That's when I get annoyed.


Jodakai- I think a good percentage of people will actually suggest that the Fighter is actually significantly behind the pure casters in terms of overall power particular at high level. Plenty of people refer to this as the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem.

The problem is that even relatively weak class like the fighter (good at DPR, weak at everything else) tend to completely outclass the monk in terms of impact on the game.

If you assume that there are 3 phases of each D&D game: combat, exploration, and social the monk is average to poor in each phase of the game.

Combat- Mediocre
Exploration - Average
Social- Poor

The fighter has difficulty in the exploration and social phase but at least has a relatively strong combat phase that helps.

Assistant Software Developer , Star Voter 2014

I removed a post. That was uncalled for.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that some posters thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or calling them out on their behavior, only bumps the thread and encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.


He he he. Attention.

He he he. Bumps.

Silver Crusade

Mikaze wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

Yes. He has said as much multiple times.

Can you accept the fact that there are a lot of people frustrated with the monk because they think it falls short of its flavor and are not unhappy because they're "inexperienced" or "not real roleplayers"?

You mean the few people that post in this thread? Sure I can accept that but I haven't seen the Monk change all that much so I guess there aren't enough people who don't like the Monk to bring on it's change.

Silver Crusade

Dabbler wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I didnt go off on a tangent. I gave you my answer and I cant help it if its not the one you wanted to hear.

No, you just didn't answer to the issue, which is that I don't think it is unjustified to expect the monk class to fulfil it's clearly stated role, as laid out in the CRB, and you apparently think it is in spite of the fact that every other class in the CRB can do so. Instead you just talked on about your concept of the monk instead. You didn't mention why you felt the expectation was unjustified in the face of stated role in the CRB, which is what I wanted to know.

All well and good, as I said your concept is not that different to mine with one glaring point: I expect my monk to be able to back the fluff with the crunch. If you don't have an issue with the crunch, great! Enjoy your game. But I don't play in games that allow that without me getting my character's face kicked in, and I prefer to play a hero, not a doormat.

Sounds like you just don't like to lose, which every class does at some point, but that sounds more like a problem with playstyle than with a class. Apparently all classes don't fit your preferred style but it's not their fault.


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.

Yes. To my knowledge this is the monk build that was presented when he was arguing that monks are fine, don't need help, etc.

Shallowsoul's Monk:
"Dugan Stoneknuckles" 10th level Dwarven Monk (20 point buy)
Str:16
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:13
Wis:21
Cha:5
Init:+2
AC: 25
29 (Versus Giants)
HP: 10d8 + 10
Spd: 50
Fort: +11 (+2 vs spells, spell like and Poison)
Ref: +11 (+2 vs spells, spell like and Posion)
Will: +14 (+2 vs spells, spelllike and Posion)(+2 vs Enchantment spells and effects)
Attack: Flurry: +14/+14/+9/+9 Spend a Ki Point for another +14: 2d6 + 5
Kamas: +12/+12 Spend Ki Point +12: 1d6 +3
Feats: Mobility, Dodge, Extra Ki, Stunning Fist DC: 20 10/day (Fatigued & Sickened), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Spring Attack, Combat Expertise,
Ki Pool: 9
Abilities: Darkvision 60ft, Evasion, Improved Evasion, Fast Movement, Still Mind, Flurry of Blows, Unarmed Strike, Maneuver Training, Ki Pool (Magic & Lawful), Slow Fall 50ft, Purity of Body, High Jump, Defensive Training, Greed, Hatred, Hardy, Stability, Stonecutting, Weapon Familiarity, Wholeness of Body,
Skills: Acrobatics: +10, Climb: +3, Escape Artist: +7, Perception: +15, Sense Motive: +12, Stealth: +11, Swim: +3.
Items: Belt of Giant Str +2, Headband of Inspired Wisdom +2, Bracers of Armor +4, Cloak of Resistance +2, Masterwork Cold Iron Kama, Masterwork Silver Kama, Monk’s Robes, Amulet of Mighty Fists +2,

I still have three feats to choose so as soon as I decide which ones to take I will post them.

This was Dabbler's response.

Dabbler's Response:
Shallowsoul, this monk is dire. He shows up all the problems with monks we have talked about.


  • His AC is on the low side. Not the worst I have seen, but it's not great either. Combined with his hp, he's a glass cannon.
  • His hitting is not good. At 10th level he should be looking at +16 at least. This is the level that other combat classes start at, and usually have means to boost it further.
  • Hit points will be poor, the equivelant of a combat class with a 10 Con. The only warrior I'd take into a fight with a Con score this low is a paladin who can self-heal.
  • Damage output looks good, but it's not. If he runs into anything with any kind of serious DR he's in trouble. So he's a glass cannon with glass cannon balls.
  • Saves are pretty good. Skills are OK. He's hard to sneak up on and hard to hurt by magic or traps, but he's not going to be scouting well either.

He basically shows that if you try to balance the line between strength and dexterity, it doesn't work well for you. His odds to hit are too low, and his damage output isn't great, and neither is his AC. His stunning fist is nasty, but only if it hits. Put him up against a CR10 creature and he struggles: it hits him easier than he hits it, so it will do more DPR to him than him to it, and it has more hit points to soak the damage so it can probably withstand being stunned once (odds are not good, though - 30% chance of failing the save if it's got a good fort save, combined with a 55% chance to hit means only 1/6 attempts will work).

The first boss-fight I faced with my last monk at level 10 was a devil, and it shut me down completely: flying, so no trip; natural weapons, so no disarm; high AC, so I couldn't hit it readily; DR, so even when I did, I could only score minimal damage. All I could usefully do was provide flanking, and that's all your monk could do in such a situation as well.

Dabbler's response to Shallowsoul's monk actually barely discusses DPR. He notes Shallowsoul's monk appears to have decent DPR-potential, but that it falls flat in the face of AC and Damage Reduction. More attention is given to his AC, his attack rolls, his hit points, and also gives attention to skills, mobility, and so forth.

When I criticized the build, DPR didn't even come up that I can recall. I looked at this "monk" and was appalled by the sheer lack of survivability this thing had. It was a 10th level character with no ranged combat presence at all (can't shoot anything), no ability to fly (no ranged presence and no flight makes Stewie a dead boy versus anything with). It was a 10th level character with a 4th-6th level character Armor Class. Its hit points are horrible at a mere 58. Its saving throws aren't even anything to write home about, but are probably the best thing out of the package. It's combat maneuver defense is only 27.

DPR is the last thing I'm looking for on this build. You have to live long enough to deal damage after all. I look at this build and I cannot see it not getting completely crushed and dismantled by anything around it level range vs CR range. He is a prime target for badguys to kill him and take his stuff ('cause despite being loaded down with lots of expensive magic items he's practically naked in terms of capability).

Just to put this into perspective, he would get dismantled by an Erinyes Devil viciously easy, and this is a summoned minion that can easily pop up in his level range (all it takes is an 11th level NPC wizard or cleric without PC wealth by level, or a scroll of summon monster VI before that). The monk has no hope of fighting this CR 8 opponent. She can fly, hit his AC relatively effortlessly (on a full-attack she has a 50%/50%/25% chance to hit him for about 13 damage per round, which will kill him in 6 rounds). That's if she doesn't just slam him with unholy blight every round on the round (even if he's Lawful Neutral he is taking 6.75 damage every round assuming he is making his saving throws).

That's assuming of course it was merely summoned. If he actually had to participate in a fight against an erinyes she'd have her whole arsenal at her disposal including her ability to summon more.

Or how about a Succubus? Also a summon-able monster at this level range, and equally capable of thrashing this monk. It has an at-will charm monster at a DC the monk has little hope of overcoming multiple uses of, as well as suggestion. If the succubus uses a suggestion to get him to kiss her, then he's pretty much doomed (each kiss bestows a -1 penalty on attacks, saves, and skill checks, and re-applies suggestion to do it again). If the succubus just want's to beat him to a pulp, then she can just cast vampiric touch and channel it through her claw attacks (deals 1d6+1+6d6 damage and she gains it as temporary HP).

Keep in mind these are minion-worthy at this level. His monk is 10th level. These guys are CR 8 and below. In an actual encounter with these sorts of creatures, he could easily be seeing 2 or 3 of them at a time. Heaven help him if he had to face a pair of succubi or erinyes, or a pair of lillend azatas, or whatever. Heaven help him of the GM uses NPC classes like warrior and just beats him down the old fashioned way. Heaven help him if he encounters a wizard or sorcerer at even a few levels below him who wants him dead.


shallowsoul wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I didnt go off on a tangent. I gave you my answer and I cant help it if its not the one you wanted to hear.

No, you just didn't answer to the issue, which is that I don't think it is unjustified to expect the monk class to fulfil it's clearly stated role, as laid out in the CRB, and you apparently think it is in spite of the fact that every other class in the CRB can do so. Instead you just talked on about your concept of the monk instead. You didn't mention why you felt the expectation was unjustified in the face of stated role in the CRB, which is what I wanted to know.

All well and good, as I said your concept is not that different to mine with one glaring point: I expect my monk to be able to back the fluff with the crunch. If you don't have an issue with the crunch, great! Enjoy your game. But I don't play in games that allow that without me getting my character's face kicked in, and I prefer to play a hero, not a doormat.

Sounds like you just don't like to lose, which every class does at some point, but that sounds more like a problem with playstyle than with a class. Apparently all classes don't fit your preferred style but it's not their fault.

Oh I get it now. So the correct way to roleplay a monk is to consistently lose (read: die) against enemies who are below your level on a regular basis, unlike every other class in the game. Why didn't I see it before. Yes, you've made me understand the monk's real role and the playstyle of the "true roleplayer". Thanks Shallowsoul. I don't know what I was thinking.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Sounds like you just don't like to lose, which every class does at some point, but that sounds more like a problem with playstyle than with a class. Apparently all classes don't fit your preferred style but it's not their fault.

Lose? Dude, you didn't even show up on the battlefield! You went to another field somewhere insignificant and said in effect "S*** you guys, I'm going home." That's not me losing, that's you pretending you weren't running away when you were.

I'm done with you.

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:


You mean the few people that post in this thread? Sure I can accept that but I haven't seen the Monk change all that much so I guess there aren't enough people who don't like the Monk to bring on it's change.

The developers have said that the core monk needs help and that a change is in the works.

Star Voter 2013

Lol notice how this is appearing regularly on shallowsoul's threads?

Ross Byers wrote:

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that some posters thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or calling them out on their behavior, only bumps the thread and encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.


littlehewy wrote:

Lol notice how this is appearing regularly on shallowsoul's threads?

Ross Byers wrote:

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that some posters thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or calling them out on their behavior, only bumps the thread and encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.

Yeah, we should probably take Ross' Advice. (^~^)"

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:

Lol notice how this is appearing regularly on shallowsoul's threads?

Ross Byers wrote:

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that some posters thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or calling them out on their behavior, only bumps the thread and encourages them to continue.

Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them.

Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.

Oh dammit.


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

I have no problem with you or anyone else being happy with the class, but if you are going to participate in a thread about the monk's mechanical features, and say we are incorrect then you need to bring something besides personal experience.

In other words I haver never said you were having bad wrong fun.

I am saying that if the GM does not adjust for the monk it will suffer if the player wants to do more than play for the sake of playing*, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

*Actually I had more detailed reasons, but I don't care to repeat them.


Mikaze wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

Yes. He has said as much multiple times.

Can you accept the fact that there are a lot of people frustrated with the monk because they think it falls short of its flavor and are not unhappy because they're "inexperienced" or "not real roleplayers"?

Oh look a poster who actually reads what I post.

<Thanks Mikaze for helping me realize I did not just imagine making those posts.>

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

Yes. He has said as much multiple times.

Can you accept the fact that there are a lot of people frustrated with the monk because they think it falls short of its flavor and are not unhappy because they're "inexperienced" or "not real roleplayers"?

Oh look a poster who actually reads what I post. I was sure I had made those post.

<Thanks Mikaze for helping me realize I did not just imagine making those posts.>

Nope, they were real!

You're also not imagining the clowns looking in your windows at night!


With Ross's statement I am out of here. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damnit, and i was so hoping the clowns were Not real. Thanks Mikaze.

On the flip side, (not arguing for either end,) but Shallowsoul's monk above would be fine at my table. I'd like to see a few changes to the monk happen(and have posted as such in the past), but i have seen plenty that range from viable to almost too good.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Seriously? Your gonna go there. Your gonna say that having a character built JUST to stand around is contributing in a general game. I don't give a rat's arse if it works just fine in YOUR game...but you can not seriously make the arguement that is an actual effective build IN GENERAL...because most of us really honestly don't care about your game. The two things that matters is MY game and IN GENERAL. We discuss IN GENERAL, we as for advice for MY games. Can you honestly not grasp this basic BASIC concept?

Grand Lodge

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)

Funny thing...about half the time, the tangents are what the thread is really about...the other half, they really are tangents.

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Rathendar wrote:

Damnit, and i was so hoping the clowns were Not real. Thanks Mikaze.

One trick to calm your nerves while you're making your way through your house at night is to remind yourself that all clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur.

Grand Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:


Can you honestly accept the fact that there are people out there that think the monk works just fine and they are happy with the class?

Yes I can accept that you are prefectly happy with the monk...you seem to however be utterly UNWILLING to accept that most of us DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Rathendar wrote:

Damnit, and i was so hoping the clowns were Not real. Thanks Mikaze.

One trick to calm your nerves while you're making your way through your house at night is to remind yourself that all clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur.

Having been to Knossos Palace on Crete, and having seen that maze said Minotaur used in the legend...Not Helping. ;)

Grand Lodge

You know...even with all the crud that I have tossed back and forth with RD...I think this maybe the first time I actually wanted an ignore option...


vuron wrote:

Jodakai- I think a good percentage of people will actually suggest that the Fighter is actually significantly behind the pure casters in terms of overall power particular at high level. Plenty of people refer to this as the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem.

The problem is that even relatively weak class like the fighter (good at DPR, weak at everything else) tend to completely outclass the monk in terms of impact on the game.

If you assume that there are 3 phases of each D&D game: combat, exploration, and social the monk is average to poor in each phase of the game.

Combat- Mediocre
Exploration - Average
Social- Poor

The fighter has difficulty in the exploration and social phase but at least has a relatively strong combat phase that helps.

As the 15th level monk, I can tell you I contributed GREATLY in all 3 aspects. No one could explore better than me (to include the casters, 1 magus 1 Wizard) Combat, I had no issues hitting or overcoming DR (look at average AC's of CR 14 monsters and look at what attack bonus the monk can achieve).

I also think people give casters WAY too much credit. I think it comes from people not actually playing a caster, just reading through the spells. They see spells and think what a wizard could do with it and assume that the wizard will always have it ready. A lot of the arguments are simply theory crafters saying what could happen. They typically give the casters unlimited resources, don't keep track of spells known or spells per day in their comparison, and make ridiculous statements with no basis in facts like "it only takes 1 or 2 spells to end an encounter". They also assume that a 5' step ends all of the caster's problems. I've asked people to create the uber all powerful wizards because I'd love to see one, but no one has taken me up on it yet.

I don't want to center this on the Monk (although it does always come around to that for some reason) but don't believe the hype. It comes from people that crunch numbers instead of playing the class. At 15th level a monk is always busy and a fighter is usually bored.


Jodaki myself and Dabbler have both played monks. I have also GM'd them. We are not just throwing numbers out there. We have also ran simulations with party support, and the monk has gotten the same results in the simulations as it did in actual games.

How were you scouting well. Every monk build I have seen has about a 50% to not get seen or not get ambushed by CR=APL monsters.

I do agree with you that casters get too much credit most of the time, but I can see it happening if the GM is not as good as the player is with regard to system mastery.

If you were able to contribute with the monk a lot of us need help to include the devs.


wraithstrike wrote:

Jodaki myself and Dabbler have both played monks. I have also GM'd them. We are not just throwing numbers out there. We have also ran simulations with party support, and the monk has gotten the same results in the simulations as it did in actual games.

How were you scouting well. Every monk build I have seen has about a 50% to not get seen or not get ambushed by CR=APL monsters.

I do agree with you that casters get too much credit most of the time, but I can see it happening if the GM is not as good as the player is with regard to system mastery.

If you were able to contribute with the monk a lot of us need help to include the devs.

Yes. I too would like explanations as to how and why, not merely declarations. I can declare myself the King of England. Providing legitimate documentation of royal bloodline is a bit trickier.

Star Voter 2013

@Jodaki: I'm not trying to be rude, but anecdotal evidence just doesn't hold much water in these conversations.

Why? Because for all we know, you're a super-optimiser that plays with 6 year olds, so of course your monk would be Captain Action. Now, I highly doubt that's the case, but how are we to know?

Numbers, however, are easily compared, and difficult to argue with (even more difficult than shallowsoul).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:


Numbers, however, are easily compared, and difficult to argue with (even more difficult than shallowsoul).

Not sold on that...numbers can be manipulated to tell many different stories...which is why we always ask HOW the numbers came about and not just the numbers. SS on the other hand...well yeah there is no argument, discussion or any sort of conversation with him.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cold Napalm wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


Numbers, however, are easily compared, and difficult to argue with (even more difficult than shallowsoul).
Not sold on that...numbers can be manipulated to tell many different stories...which is why we always ask HOW the numbers came about and not just the numbers. SS on the other hand...well yeah there is no argument, discussion or any sort of conversation with him.

Fair enough, I didn't really intend it as an axiomatic statement...

Could you agree that numbers are more easily comparable, and harder to argue with than anecdotal evidence? I'd settle for your provisional agreement :)

Grand Lodge

littlehewy wrote:

Could you agree that numbers are more easily comparable, and harder to argue with than anecdotal evidence? I'd settle for your provisional agreement :)

Well, that I really can't argue with... :) .

Star Voter 2013

Oh, and I had a typo in that first post, let me fix it...

Too late. It should read: (though not as difficult as shallowsoul).

Done!

Silver Crusade

I will say that in a lot of our games, magic item shops rarely exist and finding time to craft is hard. All these arguments about the numbers when you are free to pick and choose any feat or item you want at a particular level is a bit one sided. What actually goes on in real games can be very different.

Throwing up builds is great and all but you aren't gauranteed to get the items you want.


shallowsoul wrote:

I will say that in a lot of our games, magic item shops rarely exist and finding time to craft is hard. All these arguments about the numbers when you are free to pick and choose any feat or item you want at a particular level is a bit one sided. What actually goes on in real games can be very different.

Throwing up builds is great and all but you aren't gauranteed to get the items you want.

I agree, that in real games you don't get every item you want, but you don't have to. I can still get pretty close to what I would like in most games.

You don't really need a magic item shop. When I did get to play I might have to commission an item to be made, and wait for X amount of days or weeks in game time before I got the item, but I for the most part I my character's were comparable to whatever was posted here.

As for feats those are normally free to be chosen, unless the build on the board is using every Paizo book in existence, but that is not needed. Most of us seem to be allowed to use the hardcovers though.


I don't have a problem with the monk class they work fine for me but then i'm not a player who is to worried about "optimizing " my character build as long as it works ok and does what i want it to then its fine by me
And i'm sure there are loads of different ways to get that extra +1 or 2 to my dice rolls or do a slightly higher average damage but i'm not bothered i like my characters just as i make them
I do have a problem with people who say that i'm doing it wrong and that there is a better way to do it sorry but you have a Different way of doing it so you can achieve Different end results it's not a better way it's just your way to achieve your character and it's not better than mine or anyone else's


shallowsoul wrote:

I will say that in a lot of our games, magic item shops rarely exist and finding time to craft is hard. All these arguments about the numbers when you are free to pick and choose any feat or item you want at a particular level is a bit one sided. What actually goes on in real games can be very different.

Throwing up builds is great and all but you aren't gauranteed to get the items you want.

Which is why we post based on the core rules which say what the expected availability of magic items are, the expected capability of crafting, the expected availability of casting services, expected wealth, and so forth.

What is reasonable in your game might not be reasonable in my game and vice-versa. That much is exceptionally clear with the readiness for people to denounce others as being "cheesy" so quickly on these boards.

So we use the standard as a meeting grounds. If you want to discuss something in the realm of your own little demi-game, then you need to put that forth ahead of time.

"Hey, my GM doesn't let us pick our feats, spells, or buy magic items. We aren't allowed to craft magic items either. Of course, we only fight mooks and not level-appropriate enemies as a compensation, so we're not assuredly going to die. Help me pick a good class, and explain the reasons." might be a good way to get people to give you something you prefer. Insulting them on the other hand is not a good way. Implying or outright stating they are bad roleplayers is a horrible way to communicate. Respect other peoples' games as you expect yours to be.

When you posted your monk, I was honest. The standard game as it is presented would swallow him up. Your monk would not survive in my games because my KOBOLDS would slaughter him. Yes, the CR 1/4 and 1/3 kobolds in my games would eat your posted monk for breakfast and spit him out for their gelatinous cube garbage disposal to take care of the rest. Against actual CR-appropriate encounters, I looked at your monk and saw a zombie waiting to happen.

Again, much to the irony, your DPR actually didn't come up in my evaluation. IMHO it needed to go back to the drawing board before we even got to DPR. Your monk couldn't handle basic things in the game for its level, and I knew the moment I used any sort of interesting enemies and/or encounters that you'd be spending the rest of the evening rolling up a new character. I'd rather not have to keep introducing characters into the plot or having PCs who are walking diamond-dumps (as in the material components for raising characters).

Your build was helpful to the conversation though. It illustrated the problems monks have quite well. It showed their horrible MAD. It showed how you tried to make a good monk, but he ended up with terrible statistics and a complete lack of options. Often lacking options that PCs have from 1st level to deal with common threats (like a viable means of dealing with ranged threats).


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

I don't have a problem with the monk class they work fine for me but then i'm not a player who is to worried about "optimizing " my character build as long as it works ok and does what i want it to then its fine by me

And i'm sure there are loads of different ways to get that extra +1 or 2 to my dice rolls or do a slightly higher average damage but i'm not bothered i like my characters just as i make them
I do have a problem with people who say that i'm doing it wrong and that there is a better way to do it sorry but you have a Different way of doing it so you can achieve Different end results it's not a better way it's just your way to achieve your character and it's not better than mine or anyone else's

So explain why your monk works. Educate us. You say vague things like "extra +1 or 2" and say a few things implying that it's an optimizer vs non-optimizer thing, but I'm just concerned about just standard stuff. As I said, Shallowsoul's monk would have gotten eaten by my CR 1/4 to 1/3 kobolds.

Show me what you do different. Show me what monk you don't have a problem with, because I want to see if it could continue to not have a problem in the games I am aware of. At the moment, pretty much every other class in the game I have no problems finding a place for in my games, but monks are an exercise in failures. Failures on most fronts. I'm not the sort of GM who beefs up every encounter (I know some who love adding tons of class levels to absolutely everything, or optimizes NPCs like PCs, or gives out PC wealth to NPCs and such, but that's not how I roll).

The problem is, and this gets kind of irritating, is that those who claim all is right in the neighborhood can't seem to produce evidence that supports their claims. Generally it just falls back to something easily summarized as "The monk is fine and if you don't think so you're a dirty optimizer".


Shallowsoul's monk build looked fine to me (in terms of what is attainable). I think if I were to build a monk, it'd look very similar (but less short and beardy).

The problem isn't Shallowsoul. It's the monk class in general (which I think is the point a lot of you are trying to make).

The monk class just can't compete.

Ashiel wrote:
When you posted your monk, I was honest. The standard game as it is presented would swallow him up. Your monk would not survive in my games because my KOBOLDS would slaughter him. Yes, the CR 1/4 and 1/3 kobolds in my games would eat your posted monk for breakfast and spit him out for their gelatinous cube garbage disposal to take care of the rest. Against actual CR-appropriate encounters, I looked at your monk and saw a zombie waiting to happen.

Please, tell me more.


Ok now that you've thrown your toys out of the pram I'll repeat it's my character in my game and it works just fine now you don't have to agree with me that's your right to your opinion as it's i my right to my opinion and we shall agree to disagree
Everyone view things differently and some people won't see eye to eye on things but that's just the way of the world sorry i'm not going to change my mind just as i'm sure you are not going to change yours


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Ok, now that you've thrown your toys out of the pram, I'll repeat: it's my character, in my game, and it works just fine! Now, you don't have to agree with me. That's your right (to your opinion), as it's my right (to my opinion). We shall agree to disagree?

Everyone views things differently and some people won't see eye-to-eye on things. That's just the way of the world. Sorry, I'm not going to change my mind, just as I'm sure you are not going to change yours.

Added punctuation.


Mikaze wrote:
Rathendar wrote:

Damnit, and i was so hoping the clowns were Not real. Thanks Mikaze.

One trick to calm your nerves while you're making your way through your house at night is to remind yourself that all clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur. All clowns are the Minotaur.

I'll just replace the word Minotaur with Holstaur and giggle happily.

Also, I'm starting to suspect that this is a troll thread, not to be taken seriously.


Thanks detect magic ( i get very lazy about that when using my smart phone)


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Thanks detect magic ( i get very lazy about that when using my smart phone)

Haha, it drives me nuts! *shakes fists in air*

201 to 250 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.