What if we gave Monks the Master of Many Styles archetype for free? That is, they would get all the benefits without losing any class features. It would fit the class fluff rather nicely.
Would that make them good combatants without having to resort to temple swords?
It would have made them better at styles, I guess. It wouldn't have resolved some of their main issues though.
It would have made them better at styles, I guess. It wouldn't have resolved some of their main issues though.
Well, yeah, obviously...
Bypassing DR would still be problematic, but Dragon Style is a great damage boosters, and Crane and Snake styles add an unorthodox, but effective way to help with AC problems.
MADness would still be there. And Diamond Soul would still be self-nerfing.
Let's see...
- Free MoMS archetype.
- The move-as-a-swift-action thing for 1 Ki.
- Get at least one decent ranged weapon. Shortbows, perhaps? I dunno.
- Maybe get the Dimensional Dervish feat chain for free, scaling based on Monk level.
Now, add Qinggong archetype (mostly to get rid of Diamond Soul) and Mr.Monk should be pretty effective.
Bonus points:
- Allow monks to deal different types of damage with unarmed strikes, even if they don't have style feats.
- Change Feather Fall so it doesn't need walls to work and, to make it simpler, it simply reduces fall damage by 1d6 per Monk level.
- Tongue of the Sun and Moon should come earlier and scale into what it currently is. Maybe talk to other humanoids at 5th level, any intelligent creature at 11th and any living creature at 17th?
Nice, but not necessary, though. It's a bit random and rather useless, but not detrimental.
- Cap unarmed strike damage die at 1d10 and instead increase its critical threat range or multiplier.
DR isn't as hard as far as I can tell. They now get to by-pass most of them. And for what little DR/Piercing there is they can pick up a Cestus. Which based on what I have seen allows Bludgeoning or Piercing Damage with UAS. IIRC
So far my Monk Player just picked up some Short Spears to chuck till he can get his Shuriken Magic Item. Thankfully we can design that during our Hiatus while we play ASoI&F RPG.
I agree that bypassing DR became a lot easier after the errata (especially for those who, like me, tend to buy the +3 AoMF a bit later than usual)
That said, they still struggle with other types of DR, like most TWFers.
The errata did help a great deal, IMO, but the core problems are still there.
What DR Type? Maybe just update the Zen Stones from 3.5? They are priced almost perfect for PFRPG. They could be used by Monks to effect their Unarmed Strikes. Each Zen Stone can be used by meditating with them for an Hour. You could use a number of Zen Stones equal to your WIS Modifier though some cost more of your allotment. They ranged from giving you Magical Properties to giving you the ability to literally make a Ranged Attack with your Unarmed Strike as a Thrown Weapon with a 25 Foot Ranged Increment & the addition of having 10 Increments. That Zen Stone is a good example of the increased costs as it cost 2 Points of WIS Mod to Attune to it.
I can't find the book right now...
It is in one of the smaller side book... I think one of the Complete Books.
EDIT: Ah! It was a type of Ioun Stone with special Restrictions. The version I stated was a 3.0 Item.
It was from one of the small supplement books... I hate getting second handbooks from friends... This one is so worn I can't tell what the title is. I want to say it is Eberron Based given the content.
What DR Type?
I was refering to how TWF generally suffers more against DR, since their attacks aren't as damaging.
Then again, FoB can be used with a single weapon now and Dragon Style makes unarmed strike a lot more damaging...
Yeah, in retrospect, DR is not that big of a deal anymore...
Considering the Monk can get a slightly higher Damage on each Fist than most TWF Characters and the fact that they can spend more feats on Damage. Really they are one of the better TWF classes...
Also a Barbarian doesn't rage until his turn, so if the caster goes first and casts a buff he's not losing out on anything, meanwhile the Monk isn't benefiting from that first round Haste half the time.
False.
Arcane magic isn’t a problem at this level since most arcane caster got both spell penetration and greater spell penetration and as pointed out before most buffs are cast before battle. Also, self buffs, like boost of haste, isn’t affected at all by the monk’s SR.When it comes to healing there are easy ways of dealing with Superstition and Diamond Soul. Shield other is the answer.
And you can pick an archetype that don’t get SR or an archetype that can swap it out like the Qinggong Monk.
Pretty much. I mean the monk has good saves, but the paladin has better ones and better AC. You can buff the monk with mage armour, but you can buff any class the same way with effects that work better for them - they just don't need it as bad.I think Dabblers point is that if you do manage to match DPR the problem switches from subpar offense to subpar defence. All those class abilities being all over the place isn't versatility its random.mage armor, wand or from caster = +2 ac.
Boost wisdom is bad? I never complain when I boost my Paladins charisma.
One protective feat?
The fighter has three protective feats, Dodge, Iron Will, Improved Iron Will. With the exception of step up all remaining feats are picked to boost damage. This means the Monk is far more versatile. Also more skills, better skills and as pointed out by AMIB
Class Abilities:
Flurry of blows
Unarmed Strike
Improved Evasion
Many others, monks get a lot of random stuffThe monk also has good saves and great CMD, it can fight even if he is disarmed and if I’m not mistaken the thread was created before UC was out.
And as pointed out before, Good AC is not the point of the thread.
False, since armor bonus does not stack.
The Fighter in the fullplate or the Ranger or the barbarian in medium armor would not benefit “the same way with effects that work better for them”. The Monk would get +2 AC the others wouldn’t.
Look at the ranger, for example, and compared to the monk he's ahead everywhere except his Will save. He can even self-buff with his own spells without any extra investment.
The ranger is ahead everywhere? False.
Think of the WIS bonus as a sort of "sixth sense" going into their reflexive actions.
Kinda like Spider-sense. ;)
I think it's meant to be a bit like Uncanny Dodge...unfortunately, having been caught flat-footed as a monk a couple of times, I have to say it hurts. Your FF AC sucks, and you don't have the hit points to soak the damage from a sneak attack.
The monk's abilities have a lot of issues, quite aside from MAD, lack of enhancement, and a lot of others:
Mad true. So are the Cleric, Bard and Rogue. Although the cleric can actually dump her Charisma.
Lack of enhancement also true, but it’s not the only class that suffers from that problem.
Wholeness of body - not fit for purpose. In combat it's no better than drinking a potion, out of combat it's same, and it burns valuable ki in the process.
Eh, you know it’s purpose? I agree it can’t be used in battle, and that is rather weak, but it still offers options.
Diamond soul - more harm than good, really.
It’s a matter of taste. If you play it smart it can be an access. But I agree I would rather want to play a monk without it.
Abundant step - how many classes have a class ability they have to take a feat to use for purpose? One, the monk.
You’ve been inside the head of Jason B and know its purpose? You don’t have to take a feat to use it.
The monk is one of the few classes that is granted the option to teleport as a swift action and then full attack with a flurry and getting a free +2 to attack because the monk can flank with itself.
Tongue of the Sun and the Moon - gosh, like the tongues spell, only you get it late in the game.
It’s a flavor thing. I too think it should come earlier, but it isn’t a great problem. It’s a bit like the bard. Lot of abilities that doesn’t do much.
The monk and the bard actually have lots of things in common. They both get a lot of abilities, but many of them are just fluff and some of them are actually rather bad. A lot of the abilities are too little and too late. They both get good class skills and enough skill points to get by. Sadly skills aren't very good.
Also, the monk and bard both suffer from weak core versions. Both the core bard and the core monk are far weaker, or should I say, less appealing, than some of their archetypes. Both classes start to lag at higher levels. Both classes doesn’t really deliver what they seem to promise. The Bard is the skill monkey but “Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).” Also Versatile performance is dysfunctional ability.
-------------------------------------
The monk is the unarmed fighter with great move and many attacks and he is a maneuver master.
Too bad the unarmed combat option isn’t really that great and too bad that movement and flurry is mutually exclusive until you get Dimensional Dervish and too bad that maneuver usually aren’t a good option at higher levels. And finally too bad the Vanilla Monk is less appealing than the Qinggong monk.
I think the monk as a class is good. Not great, not awful, but good. At least if you stay away for the vanilla monk and don’t specialize in unarmed combat. To me, the monk archetype that fixed the most annoying thing with the monk (Diamond soul) was the Qinggong monk. Temple sword, Dimensional Dervish, some of the archetypes and the FAQ fix has made the monk a good glass. It still need some fixes but is playable.
-------------------------------------
I think the monk, fighter, rogue and some of the other martial classes (Not the Paladin and Magus) needs to be able to move more than 5 ft and attack more than once. Ponce would be a real bad solution, but something like Dance of Fury would be cool and more useful. I also think all mundane classes should get at least 4 skills per level and that they should be able to use these skills in a more fantastic way than now. Finally I think the rogue and possibly even the monk needs to be redone.
Edit:
The fighter (4 skills), Cavalier/Samurai (4 skills +1 free ride or handle animal skill or 6 skills) only needs some minor corrections and some more unique options (fighter talents?) and perhaps a boost to will saves, but the monk and the rogue probably need to be re built. I actually don’t think the monk is a big problem. I think the rogue is the real challenge.
Also, I wouldn’t mind seeing the ranger redone. Not because it’s a weak class, but because I don’t like it’s mechanics. Most agree that when it fights it’s FE it’s fantastic and when it’s not it far from good. So we got instant enemy and now it’s the default spell everyone uses/abuses (FE undead +6, FE gnome or other highly unlikely enemy+2, FE hafling other highly unlikely enemy +2).
So just as I feared, this thread mutated to one more “the monk suck” thread. I hope the devs are sober enough to see true some of the hyperboles and false claims and yet can pick some of the good suggestions offered.
I’m done here for now.
Considering the Monk can get a slightly higher Damage on each Fist than most TWF Characters and the fact that they can spend more feats on Damage. Really they are one of the better TWF classes...
Actually they don't get higher damage. Higher damage DICE, but the real damage is in static bonuses and threat range, and the monk lags badly in them. Not many feats improve damage, a few styles and of course Power Attack, but the former take a LOT of feats, and the latter often loses you more than you gain.
You can buff the monk with mage armour, but you can buff any class the same way with effects that work better for them - they just don't need it as bad.False, since armor bonus does not stack.
The Fighter in the fullplate or the Ranger or the barbarian in medium armor would not benefit “the same way with effects that work better for them”. The Monk would get +2 AC the others wouldn’t.
Well I presumed that you would know that I would know that armour doesn't stack, and that what I was referring to were, you know, OTHER BUFFS.
Look at the ranger, for example, and compared to the monk he's ahead everywhere except his Will save. He can even self-buff with his own spells without any extra investment.The ranger is ahead everywhere? False.
Sorry, I forgot - the ranger cannot run away quite as fast. He's got the monk matched in combat (and he's a full BAB class and as we have seen he can match the monk's AC), beaten in skills, beaten in action economy (animal companion), beaten in special abilities (he gets spells).
The monk's abilities have a lot of issues, quite aside from MAD, lack of enhancement, and a lot of others:Mad true. So are the Cleric, Bard and Rogue. Although the cleric can actually dump her Charisma.
Lack of enhancement also true, but it’s not the only class that suffers from that problem.
Monk's MADness is that he needs two good scores (wisdom for abilities and AC, either strength or dexterity (with Weapon Finesse) for hitting), and two or three moderate ones (the remaining physical stats, and intelligence too if you plan on getting Greater Maneuvers).
Cleric needs one good score (wisdom) and one moderate one (usually charisma, though I agree they can dump it if they want a cleric that can fight better), in order to function as a cleric. Better scores elsewhere are gravy. That's less than the monk.
Bard needs one good score (charisma) and two moderate ones (dexterity and intelligence to make the most of those skills, usually). That's less than the monk.
Rogue needs one good score (dexterity) and a few moderate ones (intelligence, maybe charisma for a 'face' or strength and constitution for a 'thug'). That's less than the monk.
As for enhancement, who else NEEDS enhancement that doesn't use a magic weapon, or cast spells that can provide said enhancement?
Magic weapons have full enhancement and cost half the AoMF, so even a TWFer can have half their attacks enhanced, while for the monk it's all-or-nothing.
Wholeness of body - not fit for purpose. In combat it's no better than drinking a potion, out of combat it's same, and it burns valuable ki in the process.Eh, you know it’s purpose? I agree it can’t be used in battle, and that is rather weak, but it still offers options.
Not very good or essential ones, though, are they? It's not like any other class has problems with healing up at the end of the adventuring day, is it?
Abundant step - how many classes have a class ability they have to take a feat to use for purpose? One, the monk.You’ve been inside the head of Jason B and know its purpose? You don’t have to take a feat to use it.
It helps you run away faster?
Or does it mean you can use your Abundant Step to bypass obstacles, just a liek a wizard can do levels earlier (and take the rest of the party with him).
The monk is one of the few classes that is granted the option to teleport as a swift action and then full attack with a flurry and getting a free +2 to attack because the monk can flank with itself.
Now work out what level the monk has to be to achieve this feat, then compare it with the other classes that can do it. Underwhelming, isn't it?
The monk and the bard actually have lots of things in common. They both get a lot of abilities, but many of them are just fluff and some of them are actually rather bad. A lot of the abilities are too little and too late. They both get good class skills and enough skill points to get by. Sadly skills aren't very good.
Also, the monk and bard both suffer from weak core versions. Both the core bard and the core monk are far weaker, or should I say, less appealing, than some of their archetypes. Both classes start to lag at higher levels. Both classes doesn’t really deliver what they seem to promise. The Bard is the skill monkey but “Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).” Also Versatile performance is dysfunctional ability.
I disagree - the core bard has no problem doing what bards do: he can buff the rest of the party, he can rule any social encounter, he can even fight as well as the monk with the right build (bardic song self-buffs, after all).
The monk is the unarmed fighter with great move and many attacks and he is a maneuver master.
Too bad the unarmed combat option isn’t really that great and too bad that movement and flurry is mutually exclusive until you get Dimensional Dervish and too bad that maneuver usually aren’t a good option at higher levels. And finally too bad the Vanilla Monk is less appealing than the Qinggong monk.
Exactly, you get to suck until what, 15th level, where more APs have already ended.
But unarmed combat is good - for a FIGHTER with the unarmed archetype. Jiust not for the iconic unarmed class.
I think the monk as a class is good. Not great, not awful, but good. At least if you stay away for the vanilla monk and don’t specialize in unarmed combat.
Yes, as long as you don't expect to play a monk when playing a monk, it's great...
See, some of us think that THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
To me, the monk archetype that fixed the most annoying thing with the monk (Diamond soul) was the Qinggong monk. Temple sword, Dimensional Dervish, some of the archetypes and the FAQ fix has made the monk a good glass. It still need some fixes but is playable.
I agree it needs more fixes, and I do not disagree that if you really work it you can make it playable, but that's just the point: the monk shouldn't need a master to make it 'OK' it should be OK for an amateur. It needs more fixes, and that's what I'm after.
They just need to change the wording on Diamond Soul to HOSTILE magic. That would make the ability worthwhile.
Or change it to a bonus on saving throws vs magic.
They just need to change the wording on Diamond Soul to HOSTILE magic. That would make the ability worthwhile.Or change it to a bonus on saving throws vs magic.
Monks already have great saves and touch AC, Diamong Soul might as well be removed or changed into something completely different... Maybe some kind of limited Dispell Magic SLA? Or immunity to some reasonably common magic spells, like death effects... I dunno.
|
Would be cool if it was only a select few, like Dagger, Hand Crossbow, Sap, and maybe Rapier. Mostly the more Rogueishy weapons rather than the Finesse ones. In my opinion, a lot of the issue with the Rogue comes not from the class itself, but a mixture of what people think is "the one and only true" acceptible playstyle (usually involves DPR and spreadsheets and arguements about I'm right and your wrong and I've got half thoughtout evidence that blows all actual experience out of the water, :) just 'cause) and trying to play Rogues like Fighters but better.
I had thought about adding a ability to rogues that allows them to add their dex mod to damage when they use a weapon that works with weapon finesse.
I don't think it'd be too powerful, but Dex is a rather loaded stat already.
One idea was change Sneak Attack to allow Rogues to add their Int modifier as precision damage to their attacks. The numbers would be lower, but it would be a much less situational ability.A 2nd good save is really necessary IMO. Low Fort and Low Will make Rogues almost as MAD as Monks. Seriously they can't dump any stat without crippling themselves... Well, maybe Int, since they have lots of skills already, but who wants to play a dumb Rogue?
IMO, one of the few things 4E did right was basing each save on the higher of two different stats. This would reduce the MADness problem of many classes, and give us a lot of character variety too. We'd finally see Fighters and Barbarians with high Charisma.
|
Since peopleis houseruling here I would say
That's actually what I came up with myself, although for simplicity I've just said 'you can automatically have your SR overcome by voluntarily failing your saving throw against the spell'.
I would give all classes two good saves.
I think that was Trailblazer's solution too.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The power and versatility of any class is only limited by the imagination of the player and in some cases the GM. At higher levels I can purchase many items that will aid me in bringing down a caster. Any class can purchase items that will help shore up his weaknesses. Which items you purchase, how you use them and how you plan is all up to the player.
As far as fighters go, they get a feat at every level and 2 at first (3 if human). No other class can come close to that kind of versatility at the lower levels. A fighter can also spec toward defeating casters with his feat selection. And he does not have to waste feats to do this because he can switch out older feats for newer feats that assist him at later levels. Cleave and Great Cleave aren't very good against casters so I could change those out for Disruptive, Spellbreaker, any of the Critical specializations, Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple, Lunge, Quick Draw, Step Up, etc. These are all from the Core book. If you add some of the other books, you have even more options. You can spec as melee or ranged, weapon, unarmed or brawler... Any of these have enough options to not be outclassed.
The power and versatility of any class is only limited by the imagination of the player and in some cases the GM.
Yeah... It's not like we have mechanical limitations!
Oh, wait...
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
RE: Rogue
I agree with the BS BAB being based on Level. I think the multiplyer for BS should be based on Intelligence or Wisdom and the Dmg Die should be progressive. IE: 16Int x3 multiplyer.
1st-2nd D4
3rd-4th D6
5th-6th D8
7th-8th D10
9th-12th D12 (or 2d6)
13th-16th D20 (or 2d10)
17th-20th D30 (or 3d10)
RE: Rogue
I agree with the BS BAB being based on Level. I think the multiplyer for BS should be based on Intelligence or Wisdom and the Dmg Die should be progressive. IE: 16Int x3 multiplyer.
1st-2nd D4
3rd-4th D6
5th-6th D8
7th-8th D10
9th-12th D12 (or 2d6)
13th-16th D20 (or 2d10)
17th-20th D30 (or 3d10)
[Epic Feat]
Requirements: Rogue 20Benefit: Your Sneak attack dice become d100's
I think you could give rogues the option to trade 1 dice of sneak attack for +1 to hit, even in situations where they can't sneak attack
Also a Barbarian doesn't rage until his turn, so if the caster goes first and casts a buff he's not losing out on anything, meanwhile the Monk isn't benefiting from that first round Haste half the time.False.
Arcane magic isn’t a problem at this level since most arcane caster got both spell penetration and greater spell penetration and as pointed out before most buffs are cast before battle. Also, self buffs, like boost of haste, isn’t affected at all by the monk’s SR.When it comes to healing there are easy ways of dealing with Superstition and Diamond Soul. Shield other is the answer.
And you can pick an archetype that don’t get SR or an archetype that can swap it out like the Qinggong Monk.
Uh, no, it's not false. Every caster doesn't spec for overcoming SR, especially ones who are primarily focused on buffing and/or summoning.
And Shield Other? I guess if you have a convenient martyr Cleric in the party.
Monks already have great saves and touch AC, Diamong Soul might as well be removed or changed into something completely different... Maybe some kind of limited Dispell Magic SLA? Or immunity to some reasonably common magic spells, like death effects... I dunno.They just need to change the wording on Diamond Soul to HOSTILE magic. That would make the ability worthwhile.Or change it to a bonus on saving throws vs magic.
Immunity to level drain effects? Second save vs Death effects?
Better yet, when using any light weapon, or weapon that you use with weapon finesse, you can use your dex mod instead of str for damage. You gain this around third level.
Agile weapon property covers this, and dexterity is already a heavily loaded stat.
Whenever a rogue uses Sneak Attack, he uses his Rogue level as his BAB for attacks.
I don't think the rogue sneak attacking has problems - he has problems when he is NOT sneak attacking, that's the issue. How about "for every 1d6 of sneak attack the rogue has, he can inflict +1 damage in normal combat with a finesse weapon"?
Incidentally, I agree with fighters and rogues getting a boost to one of their weak saves. For example, change Bravery to Discipline, a bonus to the fighter's Will save. Give the rogue a 'Resilience' bonus on a similar level to their Fort save.
The power and versatility of any class is only limited by the imagination of the player and in some cases the GM. At higher levels I can purchase many items that will aid me in bringing down a caster.
Either every class has differing power and versatility, so it's not limited by imagination, or, everyone has equivalent power and versatility, in which case you don't specialise to kill casters because it would stunt your character.
Never mind that casters can buy items as well. You don't close gaps with money because everyone gets it and in the same, limited, amount.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Complaining about how the mechanics of one class allow abuse more than another's doesn't change the fact that the intelligence, imagination, ingenuity and creativity of the GM and players should be able to trump the supposed deficiencies of certain classes. And as far as the same amount of money being available, you are correct, except in addition to purchasing items, casters also have to use money when studying, writing, creating and casting spells, leaving less disposable income for items. I am not saying there are no disparities between classes. There certainly are some blatant disparities! My opinion is that the majority can be overcome or compensated with through smart and creative play.
Every class does have versatility and every class benefits from imagination. How are the two exclusive of each other? They are not. You know all wizards have the same options yet there are many differing versions of wizards, some more powerful than others. Is that because of game mechanics or imagination. Some would argue both. I have heard one type of caster is stronger than another, ie. Conjurer over transmuter say (this is only an example and is not using a specific source). Yet I am 100% positive I could create a transmuter that is just as powerful as a conjurer. I am sure most classes have the ability to overcome just about any situation.
If you want to argue about certain abilities being underpowered or useless, I can get behind that argument. I just don't buy into the argument that casters are infinitely better and more powerful than martials. As far as specializing your character to kill casters, why would some fighters not want to do that? I wasn't suggesting that all fighters would do that. I was merely making the point that if a fighter wanted to, he has the ability to mitigate some of the supposed superiorities possessed by casters, especially at later levels.
I would rather see monks get an automatic + 1 to hit and damage when using their fists, very much like the fighter's Weapon Training. I think there needs to be more emphasis on fighting unarmed.
If you pegged that at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels, it would nicely counterbalance the monk's inexplicable 3/4 BAB.
There certainly are some blatant disparities! My opinion is that the majority can be overcome or compensated with through smart and creative play.
I sort of have the opinion that, if I'm going to shell out $40 for a rulebook, I want rules that I can play as-is, instead of having all the players have to spend 90% of their effort ameliorating built-in imbalances. All that intelligence and creativity can then go into the actual game, instead of being expended on simply making the rules usable.
I would rather see monks get an automatic + 1 to hit and damage when using their fists, very much like the fighter's Weapon Training. I think there needs to be more emphasis on fighting unarmed.If you pegged that at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels, it would nicely counterbalance the monk's inexplicable 3/4 BAB.
I did something like this with a monk re-write I did a while back - it also meant I could dump the pseudo-full BAB, just leave the monk at 3/4 BAB and give them something they could really use.
Complaining about how the mechanics of one class allow abuse more than another's doesn't change the fact that the intelligence, imagination, ingenuity and creativity of the GM and players should be able to trump the supposed deficiencies of certain classes.
O_o What. I wasn't complaining... *ahem*
Hard-lined mechanical limitations > Imagination. If your GM lets you get away with things because you're being creative and your character wouldn't otherwise be able to do it then you've entered the land of homebrew and houserules. Otherwise you're working within the confines of your character (mechanical limitations) to accomplish tasks, with the GM maybe giving you a helping hand of numbers along the way. Alternatively, the GM enables you because your mechanical limitations are such that your character is unable to accomplish the task.And as far as the same amount of money being available, you are correct, except in addition to purchasing items, casters also have to use money when studying, writing, creating and casting spells, leaving less disposable income for items.
They spend money when studying...? Care to explain, I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can quite easily go through a campaign as a caster and never cast a spell that requires a costly material component, I'll give you focuses but you only really splurge for something you want to cast repeatedly. Besides, they can pay for it all with the money they don't spend on weapons.
I am not saying there are no disparities between classes. There certainly are some blatant disparities! My opinion is that the majority can be overcome or compensated with through smart and creative play.
I would say that that is because the majority of disparities are very minor, Pathfinder's classes are all very close on the tier system. With the exception of the full casters and the fighter who are noticeably further apart.
Every class does have versatility and every class benefits from imagination. How are the two exclusive of each other? They are not.
Ah, I forgot to use your exact phrasing and left out the word 'only'. My point was that you can't say that classes are equivalent because imagination allows you to overcome differences and then put casters on a pedestal as something to aim for.
You know all wizards have the same options yet there are many differing versions of wizards, some more powerful than others. Is that because of game mechanics or imagination. Some would argue both. I have heard one type of caster is stronger than another, ie. Conjurer over transmuter say (this is only an example and is not using a specific source).
Well, yes. Because they are.
Yet I am 100% positive I could create a transmuter that is just as powerful as a conjurer.I don't think you understand why a conjurer is significantly more powerful than a transmuter. A conjuration focused caster has a vastly superior action economy to a transmuter, as well as abilities that are normally outside of the purview of their class from the creatures they summon. Conjuration lets you soak damage and control the battlefield, has some of the best damage spells in the game, and has teleport and healing. Transmutation doesn't get you anywhere near as much.
I am sure most classes have the ability to overcome just about any situation.
I agree.
If you want to argue about certain abilities being underpowered or useless, I can get behind that argument. I just don't buy into the argument that casters are infinitely better and more powerful than martials.
Are casters more versatile? Yes. Can they kill things more easily? No. At no point does the fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger class ever get the ability to stop time, teleport, planeshift, block divinations, fly, or any of a number of abilities resulting from spells. They buy items and sometimes pick non-class based options to simulate these effects. They compensate their innate lack of (these) class options with non-class options.
To use a metaphor, characters are a toolbox and spells are a very large set of very precise and unique tools with martials can only get some of and they cost a lot of money. (Actually, I think Kirth Gersen used a chess piece/game analogy earlier)
What I don't like is that some classes are lighter toolboxes than others.
As far as specializing your character to kill casters, why would some fighters not want to do that? I wasn't suggesting that all fighters would do that. I was merely making the point that if a fighter wanted to, he has the ability to mitigate some of the supposed superiorities possessed by casters, especially at later levels.
I didn't say they wouldn't want to or that all fighters did or didn't do it, I said there's no point (ignoring flavour) if imagination is the limiting factor. I'm not even sure how you could specialise if mechanics were secondary to imagination.
But mechanics are for more important than imagination, in terms of what a character can do, because they set the limits.
You can specialise to mitigate the abilities of a caster but you still can't compete with their broad range of abilities. I don't think there's much point in a lot of the 'anti-caster' feats anyway, they've generally lost if you can get to melee range or consistently shoot them with arrows.
EDIT: I am the derpiest of derp with formatting sometimes.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Bah on formatting!
After reading your post I believe we are generally in agreement and are merely quibbling over minutiae. I must admit though, I do disagree with your statement that mechanics are more important than imagination. Of course you probably did not mean that literally. I mean we are talking about a role playing game! I believe we must work within the mechanics of the game. I agree that it is easier for casters to accomplish a variety of tasks, especially at higher levels. I also agree that the mechanics of the game have created this disparity. And if we were talking 2E or 3E that disparity was too wide for even the most imaginative people I know. I am really impressed with the changes Paizo made in making it mechanically plausible to play any core class and have a relatively even playing field.
When I discussed imagination, it wasn't meant to be taken as imagination in lieu of mechanics. I believe imagination and creativity can be used within the confines of the mechanics to solve problems, battles, and class disparities. I know as a GM I I have been surprised by the course of action my players have taken to deal with challenges. I am a firm believer in the old adage,"There's more than one way to skin a cat." And I think a lot of people that complain about the classes forget about that saying. Of course I still think Bravery is a PoS ability and should be replaced with something worthwhile.
I am well aware of what a conjuror can do. I play one in a 3.5 game. So as far as the Transmuter vs. Conjuror... I accept your challenge and will start a new thread for that epic confrontation!