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

351 to 400 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

It's not that people are discussing DPR that's the problem. It's that people are making it out to be like that is ALL that matters, and negatively criticizing anyone who thinks otherwise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Can you point those people out RD?

Please make sure they aren't reacting to someone jumping into a DPR conversation with a non-DPR argument.


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

There's a big difference in having the maturity to ignore off-topic posts, and being juvenile enough to attack someone for a difference of opinion, TOZ.

Most posters don't simply say, "that's off-topic, please take it elsewhere." They usually openly attack the perpetrator's view points and opinions, calling him "wrong"--which is ironic, because someone's "opinion" cannot, by definition, be wrong.


To me, it's not about a specific number as it is a range of numbers that allow the the character to be effective, and thus more likely to be "fun" over a long campaign, while not being overpowered. The problem with the core monk is that in certain campaigns (those that stick fairly close to psuedo-historical themes and opponents over it's entire duration) and against certain creatures, it is a perfectly viable option. However, eventually most campaigns end up wandering away from NPCs and deeper into the realm of mythology and fantasy; this is where monks start to have severe problems, and are often unable to meet even the most basic numbers needed to be able to perform effectively.

The class will never be the strongest class in the system, and it doesn't need a lot of major changes, but it could certainly use some reorganization and tweaking to make it so that the abilities synergize better and overall performance can hit the minimum base line a lot more consistently. As it is, it's mostly a hodge podge of interesting, but not individually all that spectacular, abilities that often don't work with each other, and even the most efficient builds built by the most experienced players still only manage to reach the level that other classes can reach with even basic, non system mastered builds. That is the problem to me; it's not just one number, or even one set of numbers, it's that the whole package tends to work against itself more often than it helps itself, and thus, has difficulty over a campaign to sustain both effectiveness and "fun." They are great for one shots, but after a while, the lack of mechanical support in an typical campaign is going to drive the player crazy.


Ashiel wrote:
Not a problem. All of those things are VERY easy to quantify. The catch is that it takes multiple steps. In this case of checking the conditional frequency of occurance. Now what that means is that we can evaluate a series of "what if" scenarios to identify plausible situations that can occur during a game, and then see how much something contributes to your ability to function in those situations.

Easy huh, you failed miserably to come anywhere near making anything that even might be close to a rational answer. Let me just take one small sample of what you said and completely destroy it, and hope you'll understand and believe I can do it to the entire post.

Ashiel wrote:
In the case of movement speed, it's quite easy. Movement speed is simply how far you can move (and also a modifier to Acrobatics jump checks). Smaller environments such as indoors or inside caves or tunnels will rarely reward exceptional movement speed,

Okay, here's your first flaws: "Smaller" is unquantified. You have defined "inside" as smaller or in a cave, is smaller, but an entire Drow city is "in a cave" I hardly think that qualifies as "smaller". Now if I have a 2 man party a 15' wide cave wouldn't be small. If I have a 10 man party, it is. Are you adjusting your formula for size based on size of the party (which would be roughly from 1-infinity), if not, your math is wrong.

Your initial premise is also flawed in that smaller doesn't automatically negate the benefits of movement. If you move over half your speed, you take a severe hit on stealth checks and acrobatics checks to avoid AoO. If a room is 40' and someone with 80' of movement wants to stealth through the room, 1 round, zero penalty, 1 perception check to detect him. 30' movement, 2 rounds minimum, 2 perception checks. Their odds of detection just doubled. Did you figure that into your equation? Did you adjust for every possible room size, again roughly 1" to infinity.

And no you really can't examine archetypical even and scenarios to get a fair estimate unless you can also determine the number of times each of those events come up, which of course, you can't.

Gignere wrote:
I can't believe you are still beating that dead horse with the hypothetical monk build. At level 20, classes with no heals has to build defensively to win. However, your monk was hardly a power house it had to have cover and ping the fighter to death over 20 rounds, that proves nothing. If at level 20 you take 20 rounds to kill anything your whole party will be wiped.

First, wasn't hypothetical it was actually built out for all to see. Second, wait, so what you're saying is that the monk's effectiveness is situation? Wow, profound. I probably should have made that the point of every post I've made on this thread... o_O. Third, and a Fighter that can't catch anything to hit it before the fighter dies isn't a real boon to the party either.

wraithstrike - my post is filled with the majority and most. I've even added a couple seems to. Don't force a shoe if it doesn't fit.

And as always, the same people believe, the same people don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

There's a big difference in having the maturity to ignore off-topic posts, and being juvenile enough to attack someone for a difference of opinion, TOZ.

Most posters don't simply say, "that's off-topic, please take it elsewhere." They usually openly attack the perpetrator's view points and opinions, calling him "wrong"--which is ironic, because someone's "opinion" cannot, by definition, be wrong.

Ashiel wrote:

...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.


Detect Magic wrote:

I think that what it comes down to is:

- Some people want balance.
- Some people don't care as much about balance (they care more about flavor, even if it costs them mechanical advantage).

Nobody's going to change their mind. These are two fundamentally different persons whose expectations are completely different from one another. Figure out what camp you're in and find a table that accommodates.

Cheers?

But I don't think these are mutually exclusive. A person can appreciate both, and want the class to do both well.

This is what I -- and at east Ashiel and Dabbler -- wnat from the monk. Their flavor is rocking! Some of their abilities are also rocking! (Jodokai's anecdotes highlight some of these very well.)

What we don't like is that a number of the class's abilities and writeups suggest it can do somethign that it really struggles to do.

PRD wrote:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.

Overcoming obstacles? It's generic and suggests the monk does thing outside of combat. Cool. I get 4 skill points, though their scope is somewaht limited. And they also get a bunch of cool and unique class abilities. Speed, Dimension Door, etc. Great!

But look at the last 3/4 of the role writeup... it's all combat-related. And combat is rolled into the monk's role, he needs to be able to deliver on this. And the problem I have wth it -- and I know that at least Ashiel and Dabbler agree with me -- is that the monk struggles to hit moderate or high AC's. Flurry means your -2 down from full BAB, expensive enhancements for unarmed strikes (AoMF is 2.5x the cost of weapon enhancements) means you're another couple of points behind otehr martial characters, and the tendency for the monk to be MAD means they lose another couple of points here and there.. falling still farther behind.

So the monk (if those few things are true above) is -3 to -5 points in attack rolls behind his fellow martial characters... that's a pretty big deal.

And that' smy issue. I don't want him dropping damage numbers like a fighter or barbarian. I want him to hit and for those hits to mean something (like being able to consistently deliver my Stunnng Fist).

I guess my point in all of this, though, is that a class should have both kick-ass flavor/concept AND functional mechanics that contribute to any given encounter (be it a combat encounter or otherwise).


You'd fall into the first category of people that I listed, Eben (as would I). The flavor is there, but the mechanics aren't--which is a huge detriment to playing the class. Still, some don't mind the mechanical disparity and play the class anyways.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I guess RD can't actually produce any examples.


Detect Magic wrote:
You'd fall into the first category of people that I listed, Eben (as would I). The flavor is there, but the mechanics aren't--which is a huge detriment to playing the class. Still, some don't mind the mechanical disparity and play the class anyways.

Yah, i just want to make sure it's known that those two things can and should co-exist. Just because someone doesn't care about a class's mechanical parity doens't mean that it should be there.

And I guess that's one fo the things that makes me scratch my head. If only a few small tweaks is all that we're asking for in order for it to more consistently perform, why should someone who only cares about flavor worry about such a change?

It's not as if we're asking for a full re-work... well, at least i'm not.


Detect Magic wrote:

I think that what it comes down to is:

- Some people want balance.
- Some people don't care as much about balance (they care more about flavor, even if it costs them mechanical advantage).

Nobody's going to change their mind. These are two fundamentally different persons whose expectations are completely different from one another. Figure out what camp you're in and find a table that accommodates.

Cheers?

Having balance and flavor are not mutually exclusive, unless part of the flavor includes sucking.


Detect Magic wrote:

I think that what it comes down to is:

- Some people want balance.
- Some people don't care as much about balance (they care more about flavor, even if it costs them mechanical advantage).

Nobody's going to change their mind. These are two fundamentally different persons whose expectations are completely different from one another. Figure out what camp you're in and find a table that accommodates.

Cheers?

And when "flavor" is already noted to be available in both cases?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I guess RD can't actually produce any examples.

I very well could. I'm just too lazy to do so. (You all know who you are anyways.) Unlike many posters, I try not to get crazy involved in someone else's argument.


Gignere wrote:
Having balance and flavor are not mutually exclusive, unless part of the flavor includes sucking.

I never said as much.

Ashiel wrote:
And when "flavor" is already noted to be available in both cases?

The point is that some people will play a character that is mechanically handicapped (almost as if they're paying a "flavor-tax"), whilst others won't (they demand the mechanics live up to the flavor).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Unlike many posters, I try not to get crazy involved in someone else's argument.

Ah, you're right. I've asked shallowsoul the same thing and gotten no answer either.

Silver Crusade

Sometimes flavor is achieved by selecting optimized options. I honestly don't remember there being a section in the books detailing which options you are supposed to take.


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

Whatever makes your day, TOZ. I'm moving on.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Unlike many posters, I try not to get crazy involved in someone else's argument.
Ah, you're right. I've asked shallowsoul the same thing and gotten no answer either.

Why do you pretend to be so clueless or are you just trying to bait someone?

Grand Lodge

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

Nah, just trying to get you to make a concrete statement instead of all these passive posts that make who and what you're talking to/about unclear.


Jodokai wrote:


Are you adjusting your formula for size based on size of the party (which would be roughly from 1-infinity), if not, your math is wrong.

And no you really can't examine archetypical even and scenarios to get a fair estimate unless you can also determine the number of times each of those events come up, which of course, you can't

First things first you don't need to have the problem go from one to infinity since technically you aren't in a fight until you are within perception range of your opponent. So the problem is really from 1 to the edge of this perception range

Now here is the general way I'd go about determining the quantifiable value of any one of the monks various abilities.

Step 1. Stat up a few monk builds and enter them into your programming language of choice I'm only familiar with Matlab so I'll assume this is actually possible with that programming language though another may be more optimal. For each of these builds make sure you have an exact duplicate that is only missing the one ability you are testing for, in this example move speed

Step 2. Enter all the Monsters of Cr+-1 from the monk with all their abilities into this program. This may take awhile

Step 3. Make an imaginary battlefield that the monk and the creature will fight on

Step 3. Program a fight sequence where the two fighters start at fixed distance from each other. Then have them fight realistically,for instance if they get low enough on health they may attempt to abscond.

Step 4. Run a simulation of this 100,000 times keeping track of 4 things. Damage dealt ratio, Damage received ratio, Win rate, and Survival rate. Do this for every monster.

Step 5. Change the distance and run again till you've done every possible distance

Step 6. Change the battlefield then do step 4-5 again.

Eventually after tons and tons of testing and retesting you'll come out with the average percent, as well as the average variance, by which the monks combat and survivability are improved by the ability.

Admittedly there may be a few problems with the specific example I have given, I think there probably should be even more things analysed, yet do not let this distract from the main point of this post. Namely that there is indeed a method through which one can quantify how "good" any particular class ability is to a character.


Ravingdork wrote:
Most posters don't simply say, "that's off-topic, please take it elsewhere." They usually openly attack the perpetrator's view points and opinions, calling him "wrong"--which is ironic, because someone's "opinion" cannot, by definition, be wrong.

It is my "opinion" that you need to rethink that statement.


Smug Narcissist wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Most posters don't simply say, "that's off-topic, please take it elsewhere." They usually openly attack the perpetrator's view points and opinions, calling him "wrong"--which is ironic, because someone's "opinion" cannot, by definition, be wrong.
It is my "opinion" that you need to rethink that statement.

Yeah. Opinions can most definitely be wrong. This is provable as such:

It is my opinion that opinions are never wrong.
It is my opinion that opinions are always wrong.

It's my opinion that neither of the above opinions are right.


Keep your opinions to yourself! :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I give my opinion freely to the people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Opinions are things like "pizza is delicious" or "I think fighters are dumb." They are by their very nature subjective. Facts are things like "the sky is blue" or "the world is round." They are objective.

THIS IS TAUGHT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE.

Many people make a bad habit of confusing the two. An opinion cannot be right or wrong, as everyone's is different.

EDIT: Ashiel, calling something an opinion doesn't make it one. If I say, "it is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" that isn't an opinion, it's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Shadow Lodge

Because if a classes job is to kill stuff , you should be reasonably good at killin stuff.


Ravingdork wrote:

Opinions are things like "pizza is delicious" or "I think fighters are dumb." They are by their very nature subjective. Facts are things like "the sky is blue" or "the world is round." They are objective.

THIS IS TAUGHT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE.

Many people make a bad habit of confusing the two. An opinion cannot be right or wrong, as everyone's is different.

EDIT: Ashiel, calling something an opinion doesn't make it one. If I say, "it is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" that isn't an opinion, it's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Dude, nice that you went to elementary school, but that doesn´t change the fact that opinions can be wrong , opinions are interpretations of facts ,they are not feelings but subjective beliefs and therefore can be, and often enough are,wrong.


Ravingdork wrote:

Opinions are things like "pizza is delicious" or "I think fighters are dumb." They are by their very nature subjective. Facts are things like "the sky is blue" or "the world is round." They are objective.

THIS IS TAUGHT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE.

Many people make a bad habit of confusing the two. An opinion cannot be right or wrong, as everyone's is different.

EDIT: Ashiel, calling something an opinion doesn't make it one. If I say, "it is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" that isn't an opinion, it's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

You're right.

Now we can argue over whether statements are really opinions or not instead. That'll be so much better.


Here are three definitions of opinion from Webster's dictionary.

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Nothin' subjective in there, no sirree. Just as you can have a belief in something that's wrong, you can have an opinion that's wrong.

"It is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" is entirely valid. It's an opinion, and it's a demonstrably wrong one.

Silver Crusade

Aratrok wrote:

Here are three definitions of opinion from Webster's dictionary.

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Nothin' subjective in there, no sirree. Just as you can have a belief in something that's wrong, you can have an opinion that's wrong.

"It is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" is entirely valid. It's an opinion, and it's a demonstrably wrong one.

So now what?

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Here are three definitions of opinion from Webster's dictionary.

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Nothin' subjective in there, no sirree. Just as you can have a belief in something that's wrong, you can have an opinion that's wrong.

"It is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" is entirely valid. It's an opinion, and it's a demonstrably wrong one.

So now what?

It is my opinion that you haven't given any response as to how your monks face the CR (or under-CR) appropriate challenges presented by the posters in this thread, other than saying that running around and effectively adding less to a combat than a low-level summon monster spell is "contributing".

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah, just trying to get you to make a concrete statement instead of all these passive posts that make who and what you're talking to/about unclear.

I'm afraid that's not my problem. I've already posted what I needed to and I don't know why you pretend that you don't know who some of us are referring too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So nothing. I just don't like seeing language mis-used, and the validity of the use of the word "opinion" is a whole lot more stimulating than the back and forth "nu-uh", "yeah huh" going on in the rest of the thread. It's not going to go anywhere until you actually address the issues you've been presented with instead of dodging them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah, just trying to get you to make a concrete statement instead of all these passive posts that make who and what you're talking to/about unclear.
I'm afraid that's not my problem. I've already posted what I needed to and I don't know why you pretend that you don't know who some of us are referring too.

Because I don't know. I can guess, but that guess is not knowledge, it is supposition.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah, just trying to get you to make a concrete statement instead of all these passive posts that make who and what you're talking to/about unclear.
I'm afraid that's not my problem. I've already posted what I needed to and I don't know why you pretend that you don't know who some of us are referring too.
Because I don't know. I can guess, but that guess is not knowledge, it is supposition.

Clearly you are expected to have developed telepathy by now.


"I don't want you thinking that we did here is normal or okay in any way."


my saturday group at one point, had a guy whom only played monks and clerics. he was more effective when he pulled an outside of the box solution than when he tried pummeling things.

he didn't use his monk features most of the time, most of the time, he was mcguyvering both the terrain, and the tools within the enviroment. something that can be done by any class.

he really didn't need a particular class to pull his stuff off. it wasn't that his monk abilities were effective. he was naturally a player with a High IRL wisdom score.

his characters couldn't hit a thing in melee combat, ((or ranged)). but he was Mcguyver incarnate.

Silver Crusade

Serum wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Here are three definitions of opinion from Webster's dictionary.

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Nothin' subjective in there, no sirree. Just as you can have a belief in something that's wrong, you can have an opinion that's wrong.

"It is my opinion that the sky is chartreuse" is entirely valid. It's an opinion, and it's a demonstrably wrong one.

So now what?
It is my opinion that you haven't given any response as to how your monks face the CR (or under-CR) appropriate challenges presented by the posters in this thread, other than saying that running around and effectively adding less to a combat than a low-level summon monster spell is "contributing".

Try the why hate monks thread and you will see a build. While it's far from the best, it can still contribute to the party.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts and replies. Do not call other posters trolls or accuse them of trolling. Please use the flagging feature. Additionally, there's been some less-than-nice back and forth in this thread, please try to be civil and stay on topic.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Again, please stay on the topic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've seen your monk. I wasn't impressed, and other posters have gone into great detail as to why it fails to meaningfully contribute (being melee focused with no ability to survive in melee being a major problem).

The problem here is that you claim that it can meaningfully contribute anyway, but don't define what contribution is to you (it certainly isn't hitting ACs more often than not or not dying). Perhaps the discussion can move on when you answer that question, and explain why you feel the monk is doing his job. Until then, we're stuck in this loop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think many groups are going to have a combat/exploration/social ratio of something like 40-30-30.

We've seen over and over in threads that the Monk is pretty limited in combat due to their accuracy lagging behind the expected numbers for a PC vs a CR appropriate foe. Stunning fist also tends to be pretty limited due to the difficulty in boosting the save vs average fort saves. CMB is also an issue.

There are mechanical fixes to this that range from simple (Full BAB, cheaper AoMF, etc) to almost complete rewrites.

In terms of exploration the Monk isn't horribad but it's still far from the utility of the Rogue or even the Ranger. It's got good saves which help durability but it's functionality as a solo scout is dramatically overrated simply because average perception scores tend to overwhelm the monks ability stealth. It's a great runner and can navigate pit traps like a pro but it tends to run into problems vs stuff like locked doors...

For social phases of the game poor skill selection and the extreme likelihood that Charisma will be a dump stat is a significant challenge. Unless the entire social phase is pure roleplay with no dice rolls needed the monk tends to be useless in the social phase.

For miscellaneous utility there are some okay abilities but the monk doesn't make the rest of the team better (the Bard is almost exclusively cooperative) as such it's kinda a solo class (although not good as a solo). It also is unlikely to help out in the form of crafting due to the lack of skill points for crafting and no magic crafting abilities.

Almost all the classes have one or more areas of the game that they really shine in. Personally I think some classes like the fighter are way too focused on combat to the point where they tend to be largely useless in exploration (other than carrying the gear) and social (intimidate isn't always a valid course of action). The monk doesn't really shine at any area and doesn't make anyone else better either. That's a real drawback to the class.

Silver Crusade

vuron wrote:

I think many groups are going to have a combat/exploration/social ratio of something like 40-30-30.

We've seen over and over in threads that the Monk is pretty limited in combat due to their accuracy lagging behind the expected numbers for a PC vs a CR appropriate foe. Stunning fist also tends to be pretty limited due to the difficulty in boosting the save vs average fort saves. CMB is also an issue.

There are mechanical fixes to this that range from simple (Full BAB, cheaper AoMF, etc) to almost complete rewrites.

In terms of exploration the Monk isn't horribad but it's still far from the utility of the Rogue or even the Ranger. It's got good saves which help durability but it's functionality as a solo scout is dramatically overrated simply because average perception scores tend to overwhelm the monks ability stealth. It's a great runner and can navigate pit traps like a pro but it tends to run into problems vs stuff like locked doors...

For social phases of the game poor skill selection and the extreme likelihood that Charisma will be a dump stat is a significant challenge. Unless the entire social phase is pure roleplay with no dice rolls needed the monk tends to be useless in the social phase.

For miscellaneous utility there are some okay abilities but the monk doesn't make the rest of the team better (the Bard is almost exclusively cooperative) as such it's kinda a solo class (although not good as a solo). It also is unlikely to help out in the form of crafting due to the lack of skill points for crafting and no magic crafting abilities.

Almost all the classes have one or more areas of the game that they really shine in. Personally I think some classes like the fighter are way too focused on combat to the point where they tend to be largely useless in exploration (other than carrying the gear) and social (intimidate isn't always a valid course of action). The monk doesn't really shine at any area and doesn't make anyone else better either. That's a real drawback to the class.

Few things I want to focus on. First off, a Monk's stealth is not bad at all. A Monk with a 12 Intelligence + 4 skill points per level does just fine in the Stealth and Perception departments since Dex and Wis are it's two main stats. There is nothing wrong with a Monk who is scouting side by side with a Ranger or a Rogue.

If you know you are going to be in a pure social game then you can make a very social type Monk but why would you? That would be like choosing the fighter to be in a purely non combat type of game. Now if you wanted to choose fighter because of all the feats then that's fine but there would be a whole lot of class abilities that see no use.

How about we talk team work for a moment and how it actually works in games? Now, it's nice and all to search for things that a class isn't good at and make up scenarios where they are purposefully at a disadvantage but remember that doesn't always happen and some classes aren't built for everything. If you know you have a Bard in the party then you know damn well who's going to be the face of the group so you don't have to go out of your way to make the other classes highly social able unless you just want to, hell some people would just dump it all together and rely on the Bard to talk for everyone since he is the best at it.

I think people get to wrapped up in basing builds on soloing adventures and forgetting that there are usually 4 or 5 other people at the table.

Silver Crusade

Aratrok wrote:

I've seen your monk. I wasn't impressed, and other posters have gone into great detail as to why it fails to meaningfully contribute (being melee focused with no ability to survive in melee being a major problem).

The problem here is that you claim that it can meaningfully contribute anyway, but don't define what contribution is to you (it certainly isn't hitting ACs more often than not or not dying). Perhaps the discussion can move on when you answer that question, and explain why you feel the monk is doing his job. Until then, we're stuck in this loop.

I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else for that matter. The purpose of the build wasn't to impress but to show that the class does and can contribute to a party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So SHOW what it can contribute. Stop saying it can and SHOW that it can.

It's infuriating when you quote something I've said and only respond to the first sentence without any regard for the message. Use your words, I promise we won't bite, just stop this circular logic nonsense and answer the questions that have been posed.


shallowsoul wrote:
How about we talk team work for a moment and how it actually works in games? Now, it's nice and all to search for things that a class isn't good at and make up scenarios where they are purposefully at a disadvantage but remember that doesn't always happen and some classes aren't built for everything. If you know you have a Bard in the party then you know damn well who's going to be the face of the group so you don't have to go out of your way to make the other classes highly social able unless you just want to, hell some people would just dump it all together and rely on the Bard to talk for everyone since he is the best at it.

Good luck with that in my game. The NPCs don't talk and interact with just one member of the party; they either interact with the entire party or with whatever party member they have a particularly strong affinity/hate for based on individual circumstances. You tank your charisma to a 5, it will come back and bite you, and the party, hard. A 7 you can get by with, but even then it'll cause some potentially uncomfortable scenes. That doesn't mean that the party face can't try to divert attention away from the lousy charisma character, just that it means that NPCs aren't going to automatically equate high charisma characters with the must talk to them. Some NPCs will even avoid the high charisma characters precisely because they are that good, and not everyone is comfortable talking to them.

Grand Lodge

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

I've seen your monk. I wasn't impressed, and other posters have gone into great detail as to why it fails to meaningfully contribute (being melee focused with no ability to survive in melee being a major problem).

The problem here is that you claim that it can meaningfully contribute anyway, but don't define what contribution is to you (it certainly isn't hitting ACs more often than not or not dying). Perhaps the discussion can move on when you answer that question, and explain why you feel the monk is doing his job. Until then, we're stuck in this loop.

I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else for that matter. The purpose of the build wasn't to impress but to show that the class does and can contribute to a party.

Except for the fact that it didn't. Your example has to show that it can work in a myrid of games...or at least for AP encounter...or at the VERY mininum against CR apporiate critters out of the beastie book. Your monk did NONE of those. Once again, works in your game != works in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
It's hard to take you seriously when you've been asked to show some evidence to back up your claims, yet all you do is make statements and declare yourself right while claiming everyone else is just doing it wrong, one way or another.
I've already shown evidence. The problem is some people around here don't seem to understand the meaning of the words useless and contribution. Apparently, in their reality, these words mean that unless you hit a target number, then you are considered useless and you don't contribute. Sorry but it's hard to take those people seriously.

This brings to mind an analogy that some of you won't like, but I think fits...

My ex wife thought se was contributing too.
Did she have a paying job? No.
Did she clean? No, but occasionally she would have her mom come over while I was at work and her mom would clean, so by default, she cleaned the house.
Did she cook? Occasionally she would microwave a pizza or reheat the leftovers from what I cooked the night before, so I guess you could say she cooked.
Also she had other skills that were usefull. I'll keep this family friendly and not go in to them.
The thing is, she wanted half my loot. Instead, I gave her a nice severance pay and kicked her out of my adventuring group. (it wasn't a group, I just put that there for the analogy).
Now I have a new party member that isn't a monk.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Opinions are things like "pizza is delicious" or "I think fighters are dumb." They are by their very nature subjective.

Funny you mention subjective materials. Yes weither somebody thinks the monk suck, is okay is overpowered is subjective to the individual and everyone has a right to said subjective view. However the issue with you and SS wasn't that you were going hey this is fine and cool for ME, you two are making a point about IN GENERAL. That means as applied to ALL our subjective views...and when you do that, you need a better argument then because I said so.

351 to 400 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.