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

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


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

251 to 300 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damage and efficiency are fundamentally important in a system that places combat above everything else. Even 2e described combat as being the "meat" of the system itself. Is pathfinder any less combat oriented? No.

The only reasonable thing to do in such a system is to balance all characters' combat efficiency because a character who isn't efficient in combat is a character who stands around doing nothing.

He's going to be:

1: Bored
2: Dead weight to the rest of the group

Characters who lack combat capability work in systems that de-emphasize combat and emphasize social interaction and adventuring.

Before I played Pathfinder/DnD I came from a system that had a bard class. It couldn't cast spells. It couldn't sing to improve morale or give advantages. It could use weapons, though not as good as a dedicated combat class. What could it do? Smooth talking and actually playing instruments. The game also had a monk class. Hint: Think less shaolin and more Sean Connery from The Name Of The Rose. And a scribe: He was good at writing and knowledge skills.

I was really surprised when I started playing DnD that it had this focus on character balance. Now I understand why it is necessary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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 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

I'm going to preface this post by assuring you that I'm not trying to be smart, nasty, snide or say you're doing anything wrong with your monk. Good times, happy vibes!

But you've got the wrong end of the stick completely. You've missed the point of the current discussion. This thread has really nothing to do with your monk, your game, or whether you're doing anything wrong.

This thread is representative of a movement on these boards that really likes the idea of the monk class, but is supremely disappointed about its actual effectiveness, not in one game, but in all sorts of games. To be blunt, unless the game is at the low end of the difficulty spectrum (which is a perfectly valid way to play!), the monk class consistently comes up short in effectiveness in many ways.

The movement I referred to, in part, makes so much noise on these fora because it wants the developers and designers to have no illusions about the fact that the monk class needs a serious overhaul/upgrade. The only way to do that is to keep this kind of dialogue happening.

On the other hand, if someone comes up with some kickass builds that demonstrate how the monk can hold its own in a medium-to-high difficulty game, it's party time! Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, as some of the people continuing this dialogue (not me) are very, very good at constructing effective characters.

So, the fact that you enjoy your monk character and believe the class is effective doesn't mean anything, considering that no one knows anything about your game. It actually just diverts the conversation into meaninglessville. This happens regularly, and some people do get a bit blunt when it happens again... If, on the other hand, you show us your build and it rocks! then everyone would love to see it.

Happy gaming dude. There's no need to think anyone's saying you're doing anything wrong, because you can't play this game wrong if your group is having fun :)

Peace out.


Well said.


I think one of the differences can be the selection of opponents. Not simply whether or not they are CR appropriate but which ones they are in the first place. NPCs are probably going to be different than monsters for the monk to battle. His stunning fist will be more useful. Disarm and trip can come into play more often. Quivering palm may see more use. There will be lower ACs, lower hit points and lower saving throws to worry about. These are the non-optimized NPCs (which I only use for bosses). It's also more likely that he would see multiple NPCs at a time in combat than a single opponent, allowing him to use his flurry against multiple opponents at a time.

It's entirely possible, still playing by RAW, without lowering the bar, that simply playing in a different campaign with different opposition, that the monk is doing just fine. Like everyone else, there is the confirmation bias that needs to be worked through. We all have it, some are clouded by it and some recognize it and try to avoid it.

Silver Crusade

I wouldn't underestimate Stunning fist because it's an ability that can end a fight immediately. I know I know, if it works but we always assume creatures fail their saves against spellcasters so why not the monk, or do we need to continue to keep him weak in order for the arguments to hold more weight? I'm not saying Stunning is the end all best ability but it's not weak by any means.


I don't think DPR optimization is the problem, more like a symptom. Call it DPR, or class superiority assumptions, or what have you, but it seems like people will push these views on others, either intentionally or not. That gets on a lot of peoples' nerves. To illustrate what I mean, I see a lot of threads on these boards that go something like this: The thread creator will post something that goes like, "I have an idea about playing a character who is class X and uses ability/weapon/spell Y to accomplish goal Z. Please help me optimize this concept." And instead of trying to help help the poster accomplish their goals within the guidelines they've explained, people will tell them that they shouldn't play class X or use spell/weapon/ability Y because it's sub-optimal and should do something else instead. That's very obnoxious to read, because essentially what you're telling the person is that playing their concept is playing the game the wrong way.

Nobody likes to be told that they're playing the game the wrong way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not arguing it's overall effectiveness. I'm saying that many monsters have high Fortitude saves (or are simply immune to stunning) and it can be difficult to overcome those but if you are going up against opponents with lower Fortitude saves, the ability becomes more useful.

Everything is campaign dependent. No matter how much we want to evaluate something in a vacuum or by looking at our own campaigns, we should at least acknowledge that some classes fit fine in other campaigns without any coddling by the GM or any house rules.

Grand Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
I wouldn't underestimate Stunning fist because it's an ability that can end a fight immediately. I know I know, if it works but we always assume creatures fail their saves against spellcasters so why not the monk, or do we need to continue to keep him weak in order for the arguments to hold more weight? I'm not saying Stunning is the end all best ability but it's not weak by any means.

We assume creatures fail their saves against casters because they are tossing out DC 25 spells against saves that are like +10. So looking at 25% fail rate. So more then half the time it works...so generally it works. Your stunning fist is DC 20 vs +10 to saves with a 25% miss rate so your looking at 67% fail rate...or more the half the time it fails so generally it does not work. That is a pretty damn big difference. And stunned for one round HARDLY end any encounters unless it's a trivial at APL or below encounter with one critter.


1) The monk has to hit on the declared attack.
2) The monk has to deal damage
3) The target must fail thier fort save


I think the second you come to a community to get advice on anything as loaded as a build you are going to get some percentage of responses that will basically amount to "you are doing it wrong" or "badwrongfun" ahead.

I think individual campaigns can almost always adapt to supoptimal play strategies but you are still going to get advice that is essentially along the lines of "You could do that but you might try this instead". I think that in many cases this is what some people want to hear but many people also don't want to hear stuff that challenges their assumptions.

My personal opinion is that while suboptimal play strategies can cause problems because suddenly the PCs don't meet the expected norms established by the games there is also a tendency for highly optimized play strategies to also be disruptive as most APs don't assume complete system mastery.

The biggest challenges of course are groups that have a mixture of highly skilled optimizers and very casual players. In these situations it's very easy for the casual players to take cool options that are simply mechanically inferior and feel really inadequate when the optimized player can totally dominate encounters that they struggle with.

Many (but not all) people feel that the Monk is currently one of those trap options that looks cool but is almost completely inferior to the other class options provided. Pathfinder made many improvements in terms of the gap between the haves and the have nots but in the case of the Monk there is a very real concern that the RAW Monk and further rulings from developers have made that class quite problematic in terms of how it works with the game.

Andoran

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

And so you don't even try.

Please understand, you saying 'it works for me' tells us nothing we don't already know. We know some people are fine with it. What we don't know is how.

Are we doing something wrong?
Are you using rules (or NOT using rules) differently than we are?
Have you changed something that benefits the monk class?

'I don't have a problem with the monk' doesn't answer the question. 'I just play different than you' doesn't either. And 'I don't play to win/to optimize/to rollplay' is insulting.

We just want to have the same success with our monks that you have with yours. If you aren't going to help with that, your point of view is welcome, but ultimately unhelpful.


Maybe i just have different expectations as to what the monks roll is.
I don't expect a monk to be a front rank fighter and would never use him as one ,
I view them in a more scout light fighter roll able to move round the battle help out as needed flanking when they can
In the scouting roll with a good skill choice they can be stealthy and quick able to climb with ease as they are not in heavy armor and they can not be disarmed (unless you cut there arms and legs off ).
In an urban setting they can easily appear as a humble traveler there ki abilities can give them a nasty surprise to the unwary.
So in my view they fill the role i see them in nicely


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Maybe i just have different expectations as to what the monks roll is.

I don't expect a monk to be a front rank fighter and would never use him as one ,
I view them in a more scout light fighter roll able to move round the battle help out as needed flanking when they can
In the scouting roll with a good skill choice they can be stealthy and quick able to climb with ease as they are not in heavy armor and they can not be disarmed (unless you cut there arms and legs off ).
In an urban setting they can easily appear as a humble traveler there ki abilities can give them a nasty surprise to the unwary.
So in my view they fill the role i see them in nicely

But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.


Ok name me one class that at 10 lvl gets 4 attacks a round a base speed of 60 feet a round can fall 50 feet and take no damage, is immune to all diseases can do a 20 foot long jump or a 5 foot high jump from a standing start and a max of half damage from a spell with a reflex save
Without using ANY magic items

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ranger. Druid maybe.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Ok name me one class that at 10 lvl gets 4 attacks a round a base speed of 60 feet a round can fall 50 feet and take no damage, is immune to all diseases can do a 20 foot long jump or a 5 foot high jump from a standing start and a max of half damage from a spell with a reflex save

Without using ANY magic items

To be clear, you are moving the goalposts a bit here. The claim mplindustries was responding to by saying monks do "those things" worse was in reference to your claims about roles (i.e. front rank fighter, scout light fighter, scout, disguised as non-combatant).

And for those roles, other classes fill them out better.

With regard to your specific points above, no, remarkably no other class has the full list of monk class abilities seeing as those are monk class abilities. Those saying monks have problems are not saying that every single ability a monk gets can be mirrored identically by other classes without resorting to using magic items. The claim is that for a given role, other classes simply serve the role better vis-a-vis mechanics.


Ok now prove it show me how


I see your point but the skills and abilities I've listed are what allow a monk to fill the roles i stated in my earlier post.
Can other classes do some of those roles better absolutely , but all those roles i don't think so (but i'm happy to be proven wrong)
I view the monk as a character that can do several things well and with the right skills and feat a couple of thing excellently and that's there role to fill in the gaps in a party's skills allow other to excel at other things well


I think mobile independent scouting platform is a worthwhile archetype although long scouting missions tend to create the decker problem where the rest of the party is doing nothing while scout man is exploring the dungeon.

The challenge of the Monk is that because it's really MAD it can't really go with a focused build like a dex rogue so it's ability modifiers are lower, it's also likely got less free cash because it costs so much to purchase AoMF and the level appropriate headband and belt. In contrast the rogue can often get a dex boosting belt and a stealth competency item and be good to go.

Add in the difficulty in bypassing a large number of perception checks and it's really challenging to be an effective scout as a monk vs CR appropriate foes.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Exactly.

+3 Weapons = Cheese

Partially filled wands to get under WBL = Not Cheese

Purchasing services to have a +3 weapon made = Cheese

Purchasing Genie Binding services to give attribute bonuses = Not Cheese

Clear as mud.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Ok now prove it show me how

Ranger, 10th

Two-Weapon Fighting combat style (identical to flurry)
Remove Disease (3rd level Ranger list, at 10th level would require WIS)
Glide spell (1st level Ranger list, no fall damage)
Jump spell (1st level Ranger list, +10 Acrobatics (goes up with clvl))
-- sadly Rangers lack the Evasion class feat (available only to Rogues and Monks by default)

Is this identical? No. Removing a disease is clearly not the same as being immune to it. Is it close enough? In the vast majority of cases, yes.

And that's the key to the discussion. Monks are less effective in, as I put it, the vast majority of cases. Are there corner cases where it's good to be a monk? Well, if a pit trap with an anti-magic zone is not detected and is deep enough that it will insta-kill someone, then yes, it's great to be a monk. That would be a corner case. In most situations for any role, a monk will be, by the numbers, less effective than any other class which is suited for that role and in some cases even less effective than classes not suited for that role.

And to put it back into your court, what does the monk lose in order to be immune to disease, capable of falling any distance, getting a full BAB full attack action, being able to perform jumps?

In the majority opinion, the core monk loses considerably more than they gain for those features.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Ok now prove it show me how

Jump, long strider, evasion at 9th, two-weapon fighting specialization with a +10 BAB.

I did misread immunity to disease as poison, but the Ranger gets both remove disease and neutralize poison so it's handled. They admittedly do not have an easy way to drop 50 feet without injury (possibly summon nature's ally or a flying animal companion to carry them) but overall the Ranger will be a better scout in every way the monk is.

Edit: Curse this slow phone.


Just so I'm clear as to which monks are being referred to as mostly useless, are we talking core monk or every monk archetype as well? Because the Zen Archer is pretty good at putting things full of arrows, IMO.


Quintessentially Me wrote:
sadly Rangers lack the Evasion class feat (available only to Rogues and Monks by default)

Actually, they get Evasion at 9th level.


Xexyz wrote:
Just so I'm clear as to which monks are being referred to as mostly useless, are we talking core monk or every monk archetype as well? Because the Zen Archer is pretty good at putting things full of arrows, IMO.

When I talk about monks sucking I'm talking about monks that are not:

1) Zen Archers
2) Just a dip for a level or two
3) A total support character built on a Sensei base


Some of the other archetypes can hold there own well enough; they at least do what they are advertised to do. Whether that is something the full ruleset really allows is another question, but they can do their schtick as well as any other class, which is more than can be said for the core monk.


littlehewy wrote:

@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).

Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.

wraithstrike - I have posts where I went through the Kingmaker AP and there isn't a single encounter that a monk of equal level couldn't hit/damage or be effective.

You also say "50% chance" of being perceived. How did you come up with that number? Did you go through 100 different encounters and track the number of times you were and weren't caught in different enviornments or did you look at a chart that says average perception at this level is X so the monk has a 50% chance? I would guess the latter. Practical application, that most dismiss, was a very different story. Being able to talk to anything to know what's in the next room, being able to teleport, not wearing armor, having a DEX through the roof, stealth as a class skill, and using the envoirnment to my advantage. The ridiclous amount of movement meant that I was past them in 1 round only moving half speed (even if I had to leap), so no penalties there, and only 1 perception check.

The difference between math, and practical application.


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post. That was uncalled for.

I'm guessing that was mine, I quoted someone who basically said "the people who disagree with me are all new to roleplaying and as such have nothing of value to contribute" and I replied with a very mild epithet referring to his age ... my jibe might be a little personal, but I personally thought his attitude was more offensive. I adjust to board rules though, mea culpa ... won't happen again.

The majority of the post was on topic though ... so I'll just rehash it.

The way O/AD&D was played shouldn't be brought into discussions about 3e/PF ... this is because rules do have an impact on the way a game is played. The fast leveling, the ability of PCs to shrug off attacks from lower level threats due to faster HP/AC scaling, the insanely high amount of magic items ... all this contribute to a game where it becomes hard to tell a story story about fragile adventurers in a world of much greater powers who triumph mostly by luck, except for the very low levels.

3e/PF is not about Fafhrd and the Grey mouser or Cugel, it's about Pug and Rand al'Thor. PCs are the destined heros, worldbreakers, drivers of and not cogs in the machine ... that's the kind of campaign 3e/PF does well ... as long as no one wants to play a monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Ok name me one class that at 10 lvl gets 4 attacks a round a base speed of 60 feet a round can fall 50 feet and take no damage, is immune to all diseases can do a 20 foot long jump or a 5 foot high jump from a standing start and a max of half damage from a spell with a reflex save

Without using ANY magic items

Actually this list of stuff serves to shine a light on why the monk is such a poorly-executed class.

4 attacks per round? By level 10 even most of the 1/2 BAB classes can get access to a spell and be capable of this. Also, most of your list is invalidated by this because it is based on movement, and unlike a couple of other class options, full attacking while using any of those movement benefits cannot be combined for the Monk.

Speaking of the running, jumping, and falling abilities...woohoo, you just presented a list of options that can be duplicated or superseded by spells in the 1-3 level range! When your 10th level class abilities are outdone by other classes 4th and 5th level gains, you do not get to boast. Also, most classes that don't cast spells are not worried by falling 50 feet, because unlike the overly-MAD monk, they had enough points to place some into Con for bonus HP.

Immunity to disease is meh, at best. Most diseases in PF are not much of a short term threat, and if a class does not have access to the 2nd or 3rd level spell option, there is plenty of time to find someone of 4th or 5th level who does.

Evasion is nice, but is not as big a deal at 10th level for those classes that do not have it. Reflex save HP damage is not going to be much of an issue for the other non-MAD guys who again had the points available to place into Con for bonus HP.

But yes, in a running, jumping, and falling competition that disallows spells and items, the monk will win quite often. Perhaps we should change the name of the class to "Gymnast"?


Detect Magic wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
sadly Rangers lack the Evasion class feat (available only to Rogues and Monks by default)
Actually, they get Evasion at 9th level.

Oops.. thanks for that. :)


mplindustries wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Just so I'm clear as to which monks are being referred to as mostly useless, are we talking core monk or every monk archetype as well? Because the Zen Archer is pretty good at putting things full of arrows, IMO.

When I talk about monks sucking I'm talking about monks that are not:

1) Zen Archers
2) Just a dip for a level or two
3) A total support character built on a Sensei base

Hmmm, what about Martial Artist, Sohei and Tetori? I haven't crunched the numbers but at a glance they seem to be legitimate as characters that can pull their own weight.


mplindustries wrote:
But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.

Which is a problem if you're optimising a spreadsheet, but not if you're playing a roleplaying game.


Oh boy are we getting into the stormwind fallacy part of the discussion now? Wanting a mechanically effective character is not equivalent to bad roleplaying just like playing a mechanical unsound character doesn't suddenly make you a better roleplayer.

Wanting to have an equivalent success percentage as other PC classes is a good thing. People shouldn't be forced to play the martial arts equivalent of the BMX Bandit when they just want to look cool hitting stuff with their hands.

Having the monk actually be able to contribute in a wide variety of areas without being overwhelmed by virtually every other PC class option is a good thing.


Funky Badger wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.
Which is a problem if you're optimising a spreadsheet, but not if you're playing a roleplaying game.

At least until you waltz into town and roleplay your 10th level Monk badass with no real emphasis on social skills, who then proceeds to get his rear end stomped by a competently played 6th level (insert just about any class here.)

The point is that sometimes the roleplaying needs to be backed up by the mechanics, otherwise you aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and this is the problem the Monk player faces when at the table with players of other classes.


Xexyz wrote:
Hmmm, what about Martial Artist, Sohei and Tetori? I haven't crunched the numbers but at a glance they seem to be legitimate as characters that can pull their own weight.

Martial Artist is a 5 level dip for Barbarian, as far as I've seen. I don't know, it could be ok--never saw anyone try more than 5 levels.

Tetori was legitimately broken (as in, didn't work broken) when I last checked (which was admittedly a year ago or so).

Maybe Sohei might be ok. I don't know for sure, though--I've never seen one used for anything but the Full martial proficiencies side of an Empyreal Sorcerer Eldritch Knight.


Moro wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.
Which is a problem if you're optimising a spreadsheet, but not if you're playing a roleplaying game.

At least until you waltz into town and roleplay your 10th level Monk badass with no real emphasis on social skills, who then proceeds to get his rear end stomped by a competently played 6th level (insert just about any class here.)

The point is that sometimes the roleplaying needs to be backed up by the mechanics, otherwise you aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and this is the problem the Monk player faces when at the table with players of other classes.

And that really happens, outside of your fevered imagination?

Fair enough, but not in my experience.


Funky Badger wrote:
Moro wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.
Which is a problem if you're optimising a spreadsheet, but not if you're playing a roleplaying game.

At least until you waltz into town and roleplay your 10th level Monk badass with no real emphasis on social skills, who then proceeds to get his rear end stomped by a competently played 6th level (insert just about any class here.)

The point is that sometimes the roleplaying needs to be backed up by the mechanics, otherwise you aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and this is the problem the Monk player faces when at the table with players of other classes.

And that really happens, outside of your fevered imagination?

Fair enough, but not in my experience.

What in a roleplaying game does happen outside of our feverish imaginations? You completely miss the point, which was that the Monk is not participating in the same game as everyone else with regards to how the mechanics of the class interact with the roleplaying potential of the class.

A 10th level (insert other class here) typically has the game mechanics to back up their roleplay, whereas a 10th level Monk does not, unless his roleplay is centered around "I am really good at running, jumping, and falling."

Silver Crusade

Moro wrote:
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

Ok name me one class that at 10 lvl gets 4 attacks a round a base speed of 60 feet a round can fall 50 feet and take no damage, is immune to all diseases can do a 20 foot long jump or a 5 foot high jump from a standing start and a max of half damage from a spell with a reflex save

Without using ANY magic items

Actually this list of stuff serves to shine a light on why the monk is such a poorly-executed class.

4 attacks per round? By level 10 even most of the 1/2 BAB classes can get access to a spell and be capable of this. Also, most of your list is invalidated by this because it is based on movement, and unlike a couple of other class options, full attacking while using any of those movement benefits cannot be combined for the Monk.

Speaking of the running, jumping, and falling abilities...woohoo, you just presented a list of options that can be duplicated or superseded by spells in the 1-3 level range! When your 10th level class abilities are outdone by other classes 4th and 5th level gains, you do not get to boast. Also, most classes that don't cast spells are not worried by falling 50 feet, because unlike the overly-MAD monk, they had enough points to place some into Con for bonus HP.

Immunity to disease is meh, at best. Most diseases in PF are not much of a short term threat, and if a class does not have access to the 2nd or 3rd level spell option, there is plenty of time to find someone of 4th or 5th level who does.

Evasion is nice, but is not as big a deal at 10th level for those classes that do not have it. Reflex save HP damage is not going to be much of an issue for the other non-MAD guys who again had the points available to place into Con for bonus HP.

But yes, in a running, jumping, and falling competition that disallows spells and items, the monk will win quite often. Perhaps we should change the name of the class to "Gymnast"?

I'm sorry but you can't use 'having access to a spell' as part of your argument. That's Luke saying you can have an AC better than a fighter but you need spells XYZ to do it therefore, the fighter sucks.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Funky Badger wrote:


The point is that sometimes the roleplaying needs to be backed up by the mechanics, otherwise you aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and this is the problem the Monk player faces when at the table with players of other classes.

And that really happens, outside of your fevered imagination?

That really happens in my experience.

My monk could talk the talk but he absolutely could not walk the walk.

The monk class should be capable of living up to its image without breaking its own flavor.


shallowsoul wrote:
I'm sorry but you can't use 'having access to a spell' as part of your argument. That's Luke saying you can have an AC better than a fighter but you need spells XYZ to do it therefore, the fighter sucks.

If you can cast those required spells and be reasonably expected to keep them up for every meaningful encounter during the day, how is that not a valid argument?

If a Cleric, for example, can beat the Fighter in AC with spells, then the Fighter is not the best at having AC.

If that same Cleric could also do more damage, buffing, healing, and non-combat utility stuff than the Fighter, then there would be a problem (hint: in 3rd edition, there was a problem--it's less pronounced in Pathfinder).

Silver Crusade

mplindustries wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm sorry but you can't use 'having access to a spell' as part of your argument. That's Luke saying you can have an AC better than a fighter but you need spells XYZ to do it therefore, the fighter sucks.

If you can cast those required spells and be reasonably expected to keep them up for every meaningful encounter during the day, how is that not a valid argument?

If a Cleric, for example, can beat the Fighter in AC with spells, then the Fighter is not the best at having AC.

If that same Cleric could also do more damage, buffing, healing, and non-combat utility stuff than the Fighter, then there would be a problem (hint: in 3rd edition, there was a problem--it's less pronounced in Pathfinder).

Depends on how many spells we are talking about and if it's a spellcaster class. Action economy economy comes into play.

Silver Crusade

Mikaze wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


The point is that sometimes the roleplaying needs to be backed up by the mechanics, otherwise you aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and this is the problem the Monk player faces when at the table with players of other classes.

And that really happens, outside of your fevered imagination?

That really happens in my experience.

My monk could talk the talk but he absolutely could not walk the walk.

The monk class should be capable of living up to its image without breaking its own flavor.

You claim the flavor doesn't match up. How about give us some examples?


shallowsoul wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm sorry but you can't use 'having access to a spell' as part of your argument. That's Luke saying you can have an AC better than a fighter but you need spells XYZ to do it therefore, the fighter sucks.

If you can cast those required spells and be reasonably expected to keep them up for every meaningful encounter during the day, how is that not a valid argument?

If a Cleric, for example, can beat the Fighter in AC with spells, then the Fighter is not the best at having AC.

If that same Cleric could also do more damage, buffing, healing, and non-combat utility stuff than the Fighter, then there would be a problem (hint: in 3rd edition, there was a problem--it's less pronounced in Pathfinder).

Depends on how many spells we are talking about and if it's a spellcaster class. Action economy economy comes into play.

Oh, I agree. But many, many buffs are very long lasting, plus there are things like Extend Spell to make them last even longer. If you have a good scout (say, a familiar or, as mentioned above, a Ranger maybe), you can also see most fights coming and cast your shorter duration buffs just before.

I generally discount any buff spell that lasts less than a few minutes at least, though, except for truely profoundly powerful buffs such as Haste.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:

Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.

The difference between math, and practical application.

Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.

Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.

Silver Crusade

littlehewy wrote:
Jodokai wrote:

Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.

The difference between math, and practical application.

Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.

Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.

What about the people that don't share your experiences and applications? You going to say they are wrong?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, there has been some nice discussion going on ingeneral terms actually, but the discussion has still been about actual game mechanics rather than "it's fine, you're dumb" (I'm referencing others here, not you).

251 to 300 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.