Monks are Better than Fighters at high levels.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 976 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Im seeing a good bit of armchair gaming here because of some of the comments with regardsto players playing it wrong if their wizard doesnt dominate the game. I have never everseen a wizard, or any other spellcaster succeed alone. Also, cherry picking abilities from multiple books is one thing when building a character to post on a forum, but doing that during an actual game can be different.

You've never seen a wizard trivialize an encounter? I've seen it quite a few times. I've had my sorcerer go on solo adventures wiping out a series of game developer designed encounters alone.

The main the reason you don't see this is because most people don't play alone. If you allowed a higher level wizard to adventure alone and have all the gold, you would see their power even moreso than you do.

The only thing that holds casters back from adventuring alone at higher level is wanting to play with other players and dividing up gold resources. A high level caster could summon or mind-control martials to act as his meat shields while decimating opponents with spells. All martials do at higher level is lower the risk in adventuring. But they also become somewhat of a nuisance taking up shares of treasure to buy their magic weapons and armor that aren't particularly necessary for success to a caster.


Raith Shadar wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Im seeing a good bit of armchair gaming here because of some of the comments with regardsto players playing it wrong if their wizard doesnt dominate the game. I have never everseen a wizard, or any other spellcaster succeed alone. Also, cherry picking abilities from multiple books is one thing when building a character to post on a forum, but doing that during an actual game can be different.

You've never seen a wizard trivialize an encounter? I've seen it quite a few times. I've had my sorcerer go on solo adventures wiping out a series of game developer designed encounters alone.

The main the reason you don't see this is because most people don't play alone. If you allowed a higher level wizard to adventure alone and have all the gold, you would see their power even moreso than you do.

The only thing that holds casters back from adventuring alone at higher level is wanting to play with other players and dividing up gold resources. A high level caster could summon or mind-control martials to act as his meat shields while decimating opponents with spells. All martials do at higher level is lower the risk in adventuring. But they also become somewhat of a nuisance taking up shares of treasure to buy their magic weapons and armor that aren't particularly necessary for success to a caster.

Plus, most caster-players in a group that makes it up to high level play with enough system mastery to break the game generally try to avoid actually doing so, because breaking the game and trivializing all encounters isn't fun for anyone at the table.

Lantern Lodge

Terraneaux wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
On the reverse end, 3.5 had no protection from antimagic field, where as Pathfinder does.
Pathfinder has a protection against antimagic field? What/where?

Granted it is very late game, but this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Though this is getting WAY off topic, I'm going to have to say that I, for once, agree with shallowsoul. I've never seen Schrödinger God Wizard in my many years of playing. I can only imagine a summoning specialist for adventuring alone, the rest would be ripped to shreds.

Not only is it possible that you did not prepare the very specific spells that would help you in an encounter, most of the time it is likely unless you know precisely what's coming.

Mind control some meat shields and decimate with spells? Well, that kinda' falls apart in high level undead or construct dungeons. The GM doesn't even have to do this on purpose, it just happens that way in real play.

Wizards are far from weak, FAR from it, but I've yet to see how they are SO much better than martials. I can actually imagine Lorymyr's monk beating the crap out of most people's wizards.


Marthkus wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
the monk's poor offence (in most builds, I know you can make some that do pretty well under some circumstances)
You know every class can be poorly built right? Statement like "well most builds X" are ridiculous points that say nothing about the class.

Yes indeed. It's just a lot easier to make a bad monk without trying hard than just about any other class. Any fool can tell a cleric needs wisdom, after all. Try and build a wisdom-focussed monk, and you got a BIG problem with hitting anything.

You can accidentally make a class suck by bad options, but only the monk has such a long list of things that look good only to be bad.

drbuzzard wrote:
I think you need to define in terms of DPR, not per hit for it to be meaningful. Otherwise you are taking out very high end builds by using an odd criteria. Monks rely on flurry for example with more hits of less damage (as do archers).

Actually, to-hit matters a LOT. It really has a big influence on DPR, especially for the monk because his accuracy is usually less than any combat-oriented class. All the other combat classes can boost their accuracy in some way, while the monk can't, and starts with a penalty to boot, then has MAD and more expensive/limited enhancement to contend with.

Hence DPR really only matters when you make clear that AC your DPR is against. The problem with the monk's DPR is that because to hit is so dependent on flurry, and on a poor to hit, against high-AC targets the monk's DPR drops precipitously. This is what I discovered about playing a monk, that in the boss-fights I was practically irrelevant - especially when denied the ability to cherry-pick the best items to use.

shallowsoul wrote:
In all honesty, why does it matter which class is better? I know tons of people who choose a class because it either fits their concept or they just want to play that class, not to try and beat the game numerically. People continue to play monks and fighters so why not discuss them working together.

It's not about being "better" but about being able to contribute to the party dynamic. Monks have few vulnerabilities, but can't reliably contribute as much as other characters with more vulnerabilities. Damage is lack-lustre, special abilities are few, and they do have some pretty bad blind-spots (like lack of a ranged option, save for a few archetypes).

Avh wrote:
Quote:
I recanted to that they are about equal. The fighters DPR advantage is not something to be ignored. Where myself and others disagree is whether or not monk DPR is enough.
It's enough to manage to kill most monsters before they kill you. But is it enough to kill a monster before it kills someone else in the group ?

This is the crux of it. Added to that, if you kill the enemy fast they have less time to do anything to you as well as the party. This is why in any combat attack counts more than defence.

Going back to that balor, if the balor decided to play flying-tag the monk took ten rounds or more to win (as opposed to four), the fighter took three rounds (as opposed to 2 or 3).

Zombie Ninja wrote:
Just to throw gas on the fire, I think cavalier is better then both the fighter and monk. A few bonus feats, 4 skill points, nifty order abilities, the tactician and master tactician abilities adding cool teamwork feats without paying for them, banners giving modestly useful buffs to the rest of the party. There's a lot of cool stuff in that class, it surprises me more people don't think so. I guess the mount is what keeps people away.

Agreed. The fighter is ironically the "weakest" martial in terms of versatility, yet the thing he can do he does well. The monk is more versatile, but struggles to be relevant at anything they do. The rogue is good at what he does, has some versatility, but too many other classes do it well enough with a lot more versatility.

Lormyr wrote:
I personally like extensive character options because it allows you to come up with really fun combinations of character capabilities. I too am not a fan of mythic rules at all, though. I did not enjoy 3rd edition epic nonsense either. With the current amount of books we have access too, 20 character levels is more than enough option for me.

I agree, I like a lot of options as well. That's why the monk so frustrates me - I LOVE the flavour of the class, I love the concept, but the mechanics leave it dead in the water unless you follow specific builds that kill off a huge number of options for making a monk with original character. That's what I want Paizo to change about the monk, to make it more effective at the baseline so that it can fulfil it's potential without a PhD in system mastery and with more flexibility and fun.

Lantern Lodge

Just wait until we see the 10 new base classes next year, Dabbler. I am honestly scared of what it is going to do to the balance of the previous classes.

Alchemist, Gunslinger, and Magus are well ahead of their competitors on any even ground situation it's almost laughable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GrenMeera wrote:
Though this is getting WAY off topic, I'm going to have to say that I, for once, agree with shallowsoul. I've never seen Schrödinger God Wizard in my many years of playing.

Not Wizard, but I am surprised at how many people don't do this.

Last campaign I played a full caster in, I was a shaman arch druid. I had 4 spell lists, and I pulled them up and out based on his description of the areas we were in.

I had an 'overland travel' spell list, that had some generally useful spells like Eagle Eye (or whatever..the eye in the sky) and Plant Growth (I left soooo many square miles of lush terrain and farmland behind), and Ant Haul.

I had an 'underground travel' spell list that popped up whenever we started travelling in caves. If I rested underground, I swapped lists.

I had an 'I expect trouble' list, which popped up whenever I felt like we were heading for a specific destination that I felt might need more of a combat focus.

I had a 'wow, this forest looks REALLY diseased' spell list that I made up on the fly when we were travelling one time and ended up doing one of the little encounters Paizo sells, because the DM gave us 2 days warning before we actually found the diseased grove.

There was no Schrödinger Druid, but more often than not I could burn an entire spell list in a useful fashion. From the DM's standpoint though, I'm sure I did seem that way. But it was just a matter of forethought.


Lormyr wrote:

Just wait until we see the 10 new base classes next year, Dabbler. I am honestly scared of what it is going to do to the balance of the previous classes.

Alchemist, Gunslinger, and Magus are well ahead of their competitors on any even ground situation it's almost laughable.

I have to wonder if these will be "new" base classes or improved old ones. What else is there to be done?


Dabbler wrote:
Lormyr wrote:

Just wait until we see the 10 new base classes next year, Dabbler. I am honestly scared of what it is going to do to the balance of the previous classes.

Alchemist, Gunslinger, and Magus are well ahead of their competitors on any even ground situation it's almost laughable.

I have to wonder if these will be "new" base classes or improved old ones. What else is there to be done?

If there is a Bardbarian paizo will see more of my money.


Whether monks are weak or not is getting to be a boring topic because no one ever provides any actual evidence, just arguments.

Choose your CR.
Then we can build a monk of an appropriate level.
Then, we can randomly generate a monster of that CR.
Then, we'll randomly generate an environment

1.) dense, virgin forest (very limited flying)
2.) underground (no flying, low light)
3.) urban noon (limited flying)
4.) rocky mountain side, noon (full flying)
5.) wide open plain (full flying)
6.) river side (full flying)

and see how good of a chance the monk has against that creature.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Whether monks are weak or not is getting to be a boring topic because no one ever provides any actual evidence, just arguments.

I'm sorry, have you not been following this thread? We've shown multiple builds, compared to various foes, and compared potential party contributions. Short of running an actual adventure what more should we do?

Marthkus wrote:
If there is a Bardbarian paizo will see more of my money.

That was a good gestalt in 3.5 actually...


Dabbler wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Whether monks are weak or not is getting to be a boring topic because no one ever provides any actual evidence, just arguments.

I'm sorry, have you not been following this thread? We've shown multiple builds, compared to various foes, and compared potential party contributions. Short of running an actual adventure what more should we do?

Marthkus wrote:
If there is a Bardbarian paizo will see more of my money.

That was a good gestalt in 3.5 actually...

I've seen Marthkus show that a monk of appropriate level is functional against a Balor.

Other than that, I've just seen a bunch of blather.

Arguing (or even proving if there were any of that) that an optimized Fighter does more X than an optimized Monk means nothing. The entirety of a character should be compared against the entirety of another character in a given context against a common foe*. The only way to do that is a real simulation. Have them both match off, individually or part of a party, against the same benchmark (a random Paizo monster in a random environment). Ideally, this type of comparison should be done repeatedly.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Im seeing a good bit of armchair gaming here because of some of the comments with regardsto players playing it wrong if their wizard doesnt dominate the game. I have never everseen a wizard, or any other spellcaster succeed alone. Also, cherry picking abilities from multiple books is one thing when building a character to post on a forum, but doing that during an actual game can be different.

You've never seen a wizard trivialize an encounter? I've seen it quite a few times. I've had my sorcerer go on solo adventures wiping out a series of game developer designed encounters alone.

The main the reason you don't see this is because most people don't play alone. If you allowed a higher level wizard to adventure alone and have all the gold, you would see their power even moreso than you do.

The only thing that holds casters back from adventuring alone at higher level is wanting to play with other players and dividing up gold resources. A high level caster could summon or mind-control martials to act as his meat shields while decimating opponents with spells. All martials do at higher level is lower the risk in adventuring. But they also become somewhat of a nuisance taking up shares of treasure to buy their magic weapons and armor that aren't particularly necessary for success to a caster.

Plus, most caster-players in a group that makes it up to high level play with enough system mastery to break the game generally try to avoid actually doing so, because breaking the game and trivializing all encounters isn't fun for anyone at the table.

You're saying player choice stops this from happening rather than any sort of balanced game mechanics. Pretty much what this means.

Quote:
The main the reason you don't see this is because most people don't play alone.


GrenMeera wrote:

Though this is getting WAY off topic, I'm going to have to say that I, for once, agree with shallowsoul. I've never seen Schrödinger God Wizard in my many years of playing. I can only imagine a summoning specialist for adventuring alone, the rest would be ripped to shreds.

Not only is it possible that you did not prepare the very specific spells that would help you in an encounter, most of the time it is likely unless you know precisely what's coming.

Mind control some meat shields and decimate with spells? Well, that kinda' falls apart in high level undead or construct dungeons. The GM doesn't even have to do this on purpose, it just happens that way in real play.

Wizards are far from weak, FAR from it, but I've yet to see how they are SO much better than martials. I can actually imagine Lorymyr's monk beating the crap out of most people's wizards.

Unless the DM is trying to kill you by setting up very specific encounters to do so, this isn't the case.

As a wizard player that is planning to take on a dungeon, you have a ton of options for handling intelligence gathering. With nearly unlimited gold, you can prepare an entire party worth of power.

1. Call creatures using Planar Ally until you succeed. Even a non-summoning wizard can do this.

2. Make a few golems. Call them to you when you need them.

3. Dominate some meat shields. If they are undead, then buy a Threnodic Metamagic Rod or use control undead. You can even make your own undead with spells.

4. Make a nuker supreme. Use hit and run tactics to wipe out your opponents resources until he is alone.

5. Cast a high level plague on his minions and watch them all slowly die if they are living.

6. Breakout the sunburst and sunbeam spells. Go to town.

You have so many options for defeating enemies. You certainly don't need to waste your time trudging around a dungeon. The only reason a wizard trudges around a dungeon is because that is the only way a martials get around.

A wizard by himself might go into a dungeon and scout it polymorphed into a bug or one of the minions of the place. Or he might travel around the place ethereally or in gaseous form. Or he might turn invisible with mind blank on so he can't be seen. Or he might take over the mind of a minion and have him tell him everything he needs to know. Or he might choose a few scry targets. The options for destroying a dungeon are nearly limitless for a wizard.

Even if he dies, he most likely has a clone ready, so he will live again. Or a contingency up to transport him from danger if he should need it. Life is very different as an arcane caster. At high level martials often slow down casters because they have to take care of them. Caster players do so because to do otherwise would disrupt the game and ruin other people's fun.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally prefer flood your enemies holdings with simulacrums of yourself made with blood money (i.e, costing you nothing). Ahhh good times. . .


Raith Shadar wrote:
Unless the DM is trying to kill you by setting up very specific encounters to do so, this isn't the case.

In my experiences, this is not remotely true. I've played a great deal (and GMed) of pre-made campaigns. Random dungeon themes that the wizard didn't prepare for is basically the most common thing.

I notice that your Schrödinger's wizard has an odd metamagic rod (I bet he also has the expensive Quicken and Maximize ones too because of course he can afford all gear), lots of dominate spells including the control undead spells, polymorph, plagues, he's a good blaster, very specific sun based spells, can summon like crazy, and has contingency setup?

Yeah... you're out of spell slots there big guy. You can't have all that, and if you DID you are aiming for versatility and cannot keep up a consistent slew to be effective.

You'll only convince me if you can show me a full build with all spells. The only real way to manage a wizard is to do what Justin Rocket said and create a series of spell-sets... which of course are ONLY useful if you knew where you'd be and your assumptions about encounters are correct (which they're not).

I have a working theory that holds true fairly often in life (particularly with politics). When somebody tells you that solving a problem is easy, they're often the worst person to try.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GrenMeera wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Unless the DM is trying to kill you by setting up very specific encounters to do so, this isn't the case.

In my experiences, this is not remotely true. I've played a great deal (and GMed) of pre-made campaigns. Random dungeon themes that the wizard didn't prepare for is basically the most common thing.

I notice that your Schrödinger's wizard has an odd metamagic rod (I bet he also has the expensive Quicken and Maximize ones too because of course he can afford all gear), lots of dominate spells including the control undead spells, polymorph, plagues, he's a good blaster, very specific sun based spells, can summon like crazy, and has contingency setup?

Yeah... you're out of spell slots there big guy. You can't have all that, and if you DID you are aiming for versatility and cannot keep up a consistent slew to be effective.

You'll only convince me if you can show me a full build with all spells. The only real way to manage a wizard is to do what Justin Rocket said and create a series of spell-sets... which of course are ONLY useful if you knew where you'd be and your assumptions about encounters are correct (which they're not).

I have a working theory that holds true fairly often in life (particularly with politics). When somebody tells you that solving a problem is easy, they're often the worst person to try.

He didn't list everything he could do in a single day, but what he could come up with to handle a single dungeon.

He could use the summon thing. OR he could use the ultra-dominate-master theme of spells. OR he could be the teleport-in => Blast => Teleport out type of caster.

And he could do it with the same character, only on different days each.
The simple fact that those things are possible for a caster and impossible for a non-caster (and difficult to handle for a whole party instead of a lone wizard) makes his point.

You should also remember that if the wizard does the dungeon by himself, he will win four times more XP than if he does so with a party, and 4 times more gold too.


Avh wrote:
only on different days each.

Yes, that was what I said in the beginning. A caster who can prepare can do a great deal, which is why I don't think a Wizard is weak.

However, this is like saying that there's never a sense of urgency. I've certainly seen a LOT of stories in which going away to rest is not an option.

In pre-made campaigns, there's a sense of urgency like 80% of the time.


If a Wizard tries that, then why can't an enemy wizard stop him? Or chase him? Why does the PC Wizard have perfect knowledge, but the enemy Wizard doesn't


Justin Rocket wrote:
I've seen Marthkus show that a monk of appropriate level is functional against a Balor.

Depends on what you mean by "functional" - the balor's various other powers mean he's likely to avoid the encounter if he cannot win, and he can do a lot more than just stand and exchange blows or spam powers. If played to his intelligence, the balor can probably tip the odds in his favour against either. If, on the other hand, you assume a summoned or confined balor, it's a matter of numbers, which is what we concerned ourselves with.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Other than that, I've just seen a bunch of blather.

Against the balor the monk has around a 65% chance of success over four rounds (that's the chance the balor does not get a confirmed crit and remove his head before the balor dies). The fighter has a 47% chance of winning in only two rounds (based on one crit making a huge difference, and 47% being the chance of at least one crit) with a greater survival rate, and if it runs to three rounds he has roughly equal survival rates as the monk, should the balor choose to stand still and assuming being dominated has the same result of being dead (which it doesn't, actually, in fact it's most likely just going to extend the fight by a round).

If the balor plays to a running fight, the monk takes ten rounds to win with about the same odds of survival, while the fighter also kills the balor with almost the same odds as before - the odds of the balor dying in the first two rounds are less, but he's still dead by three.

This was demonstrated with maths, not blather. The fact that the fighter can kill his enemies faster means he's actually exposed to less danger, so the monk's increased defences are not as big as an advantage as they appear to be on paper. Added to this, the effect that the fighter falls to is not one that kills him, but one that he gets still further saves against should he be forced to act "against his nature." That includes attacking his friends, laying down his arms, etc.

However, this does not equate to the monk not being "functional" because functional can just mean "gets into a fight and lives". What is more of a relevant question is all things being equal, which character offers more to a party? In that case, the fighter wins hands down: his greater damage is always useful, while his poorer defences may cause a problem. The monk, while his defences make him less of a potential liability, has a DPR such that he's not offering as much, which is always a problem because the longer a foe is alive the greater the threat they are against the whole party.

In other words, either can hold their own, but the fighter is on the whole better at protecting his friends and demanding the enemy's attention. That makes him the better choice for the majority of parties.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Arguing (or even proving if there were any of that)

You can crunch the numbers though, they are solid and give you an indication of the relative odds.

Justin Rocket wrote:
that an optimized Fighter does more X than an optimized Monk means nothing. The entirety of a character should be compared against the entirety of another character in a given context against a common foe*. The only way to do that is a real simulation. Have them both match off, individually or part of a party, against the same benchmark (a random Paizo monster in a random environment). Ideally, this type of comparison should be done repeatedly.

Actually this has been done, in another thread, comparing monk and barbarian builds at 13th level and what they could contribute to a party. Barbarian came out on top in most encounters, there were a few that the monk could survive for longer against, but those beat all the builds put up against them. However introducing the party context made the barbarian more desirable even against the foes the monk lasted longer against, because the barbarian did more significant damage to the target creature that a party could then exploit.


Dabbler wrote:
The fighter has a 47% chance of winning in only two rounds

What's the odds of the fighter being dominated before he closes into melee?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The fighter has a 47% chance of winning in only two rounds
What's the odds of the fighter being dominated before he closes into melee?

With Improved Iron Will, and a shot of protection from evil (get the circle in a potion, it'll last ages), very good unless the balor opens with a greater dispel (in which case the fighter closes anyway), and even without these he has better odds of making the save than not - his will save isn't stellar, but with an extra save in the event of failure, it's good enough (about an 80% success rate against the balor's DC). Even if he is dominated, what then?

* Attack his friends? Gets another save at +2 - even better odds of success. Also, if he has friends, they may well have either pre-cast a mind blank on him or some other foil to mind control (even a 1st level spell can block it!), or else can dispel the effect.
* Lay down your arms? Ditto, because fighters ARE their arms.
* Stand and do nothing? Well, how many heros stand and do nothing while their friends get killed? so ditto again.
* Let the balor coup-de-grace him? Ditto, and even if a success it simply doesn't make a big enough dent in the fighter's hit points (he's got 280), after which he is going to get ANOTHER save at +2 because he just got attacked, and that's a better than 85% chance of making one of those, then were back to whack-a-balor.
There's stuff the balor can make the fighter do that do not incur a save depending on circumstances, but they are limited and don't kill the fighter. Bottom line, dominate is not save-or-die, it's save-or-things-get-complicated.

On the flip side, the monk's odds of losing were of losing his head, literally. Not much you can do about that, and only true resurrection can remedy it. So against the fighter, the balor's odds are not so much of winning than they are of buying time (and we've already established that if it could flee, it would anyway) and causing inconvenience...against the monk, they are win.

Oh, and for the record none of the other SLAs the balor can bring to bear achieve much against the fighter - blasphemy just dazes him for one round, and power word stun can't effect him unless he loses ~130hp first, which the balor won't achieve if the fighter is fighting back.


Dabbler wrote:


With Improved Iron Will, and a shot of protection from evil (get the circle in a potion, it'll last ages), very good

Is there an example character that supports your assertion?

Dabbler wrote:
unless the balor opens with a greater dispel (in which case the fighter closes anyway)

The balor can cast greater dispel from several hundred feet away. What's the fighter's move?

Dabbler wrote:


, and even without these he has better odds of making the save than not - his will save isn't stellar, but with an extra save in the event of failure, it's good enough (about an 80% success rate against the balor's DC).

Example character?

Dabbler wrote:


Even if he is dominated, what then?
* Attack his friends? Gets another save at +2 - even better odds of success. Also, if he has friends, they may well have either pre-cast a mind blank on him or some other foil to mind control (even a 1st level spell can block it!), or else can dispel the effect.
* Lay down your arms? Ditto, because fighters ARE their arms.
* Stand and do nothing? Well, how many heros stand and do nothing while their friends get killed? so ditto again.
* Let the balor coup-de-grace him? Ditto, and even if a success it simply doesn't make a big enough dent in the fighter's hit points (he's got 280), after which he is going to get ANOTHER save at +2 because he just got attacked, and that's a better than 85% chance of making one of those, then were back to whack-a-balor.
There's stuff the balor can make the fighter do that do not incur a save depending on circumstances, but they are limited and don't kill the fighter. Bottom line, dominate is not save-or-die, it's save-or-things-get-complicated.

Balor, Dominate:"Come to hell with me so that we can destroy <insert name of greater demon lord here> and [save the world|gain great fame|take over|etc.]". (Balor drops fighter off in worst part of hell imaginable, comes back a day or two later after the fighter has been fighting CR 24 nasties for 24 to 48 hours straight with no rest or healing, and kills the fighter)


Justin:

1) The sample character was, I believe, given a few pages back. (I may look that up if no one else does. I could be wrong.)

2) That's a great idea for the balor. However:
a) What is the rest of the party doing while the Balor is making the command?
- a1) Or during the rounds bringing the fighter to hell and (presumably) coming back later?
b) How is the Balor getting them to Hell?
- b2) Or the Abyss, for that matter?
- b3) Are we presuming the fight is in the Abyss?
- - b3-a) In which case, why is the Balor alone?

It's actually a valid idea, and there are ways, but again, if you're saying "specific tactic needs a build" (as in the case of the improved iron will) than, in order for the Balor's tactic to function, you, too, need a specific build.

But ultimately, all of that is what Dabbler means about "things get complicated".

(I'm still holding out on making my own comments on stuff as I watch this thread play out, but I thought I'd point that out in this case.)


GrenMeera wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Unless the DM is trying to kill you by setting up very specific encounters to do so, this isn't the case.

In my experiences, this is not remotely true. I've played a great deal (and GMed) of pre-made campaigns. Random dungeon themes that the wizard didn't prepare for is basically the most common thing.

I notice that your Schrödinger's wizard has an odd metamagic rod (I bet he also has the expensive Quicken and Maximize ones too because of course he can afford all gear), lots of dominate spells including the control undead spells, polymorph, plagues, he's a good blaster, very specific sun based spells, can summon like crazy, and has contingency setup?

Yeah... you're out of spell slots there big guy. You can't have all that, and if you DID you are aiming for versatility and cannot keep up a consistent slew to be effective.

You'll only convince me if you can show me a full build with all spells. The only real way to manage a wizard is to do what Justin Rocket said and create a series of spell-sets... which of course are ONLY useful if you knew where you'd be and your assumptions about encounters are correct (which they're not).

I have a working theory that holds true fairly often in life (particularly with politics). When somebody tells you that solving a problem is easy, they're often the worst person to try.

This has nothing to do with Schrodinger's Wizard.

Yes I can have all that. The gold from encounters is not spread around with martials taking their share to buy their swords and armor.

Why do you keep assuming I'm going to show up to an encounter unprepared for what is there. Why do you keep insisting on thinking I'm going to operate like a regular dungeon party wandering around the place meeting the encounters head on? Why are you making this assumption?

I have played casters for a long, long time. I have talked my DM a few times into allowing me to decimate an adventure by myself and take all the treasure. But not many DMs are willing to run these encounters because wizards increase in power exponentially with treasure and coin, whereas martials increase in power in a linear fashion with coin. Literally the only thing holding a wizard back from doing things on his own is the gp limit. That's pretty much it.

I'll give you one example of my wizard freelancing. I found out about the existence of an orc tribe in the area. Not a horde, but a tribe. I hired out for the cost they would have paid an entire party to decimate this orc tribe. I charmed an orc and discerned who their leadership was and what their caster power was. I then started to use hit and run tactics to take them out waiting to draw their leaders out. I did this while flying around from hundreds of feet away.

I hired a small band of porters to collect their weapons and gear in wagons. Took the choice magic items from leadership. Sold all the common goods to a local town. I accumulated the gold all to myself. No divisions, very little time wasted. An easy few days of work. If my DM felt like running more encounters, I could have continued to pick targets to decimate without the assistance of additional martials accumulating gold at a far quicker pace than slogging around a dungeon with martials.

Casters have far more options than martials. Martials have a tiny bar of options. Casters have a giant bar of options. I listed some of the options. I don't have all those options. I have access to them all and I know how to use them.

I build all types of different casters from blasters to mind controllers to summoners to necromancers to transmuters who deal with things in different fashions. For example, a recent character design of mine is a necromancer specializing in necromancy spells who uses Greater Planar Ally, gate, and True Name (wizard discovery) to have three Astradaemons at his beck and call. They will use enervate rays every round to drain 3d4 negative levels against anything that is not immune. I have control undead and Thanatopic Spell (metamagic feat) to crush undead if they would pose a problem.

All martials do when I'm employing this strategy is lower the risk by making themselves easy targets while I pick and choose the choice targets to take out. I don't actually need them against the majority of opponents once my machine of destruction is up and running.

I don't see why you have trouble accepting that this is the current reality of 3rd edition/Pathfinder at high level. The complaints that the game isn't balanced caster versus martial are very true at high level. Now martials still have fun. But they pale in comparison to caster power at higher level. Some of us like it that way, myself included. I feel wizards and casters should have supreme power at the upper levels because that is the way most books are. I like my fantasy to feel like a book. No one was matched Merlin's power in The Arthurian Legends as good as Arthur and Lancelot were. No one matched Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, didn't mean the other guys weren't useful. No one matches Raistlin in Dragonlance. Doesn't mean the other guys weren't important. I don't see a problem with it. Others don't agree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Justin, I've listed the character twice now, if you cannot be bothered to read the thread, don't get involved in the debate. Greater dispel may have a huge range, but at range the fighter can keep getting buffed, quaffing potions and take pot-shots with his bow. Sooner or later the balor has to get within charge range to try and use his dominate and that's when it can all go south for the balor because every round spent at range is a round the fighter can be riddling him with arrows and eroding his hit points which buys the fighter a head-start on killing the balor as much as the balor has a head-start on dominating the fighter. Tacticslion has the right of it that this is very situational, and I'll add that few dungeons have 500' of clear space along with visibility to that extent.

Marthkus, decapitation kills, period. Dominate doesn't, it allows multiple saves depending on circumstances. It's hard to use it on someone in a way that doesn't allow a second save, especially in the context of an adventuring party, so it's not save-or-die. It's not even necessarily save-or-lose if you have allies immediately on hand. Besides, we've already demonstrated that the monk and the fighter have roughly similar odds of success or failure (assuming one failure to the dominate IS failure) - the fighter just succeeds or fails faster.

The bottom line is that the monk's stronger defences are not of the same value as the fighter's stronger offence.


I would also point out to those who are arguing about the wizard having alot of wealth... Guess who tends to be one with a stupid wall of item creation feats AND consequentially being one of the best item crafters? Wizards (and sorcerers but we are currently talking about wizards) So if a Wizard went and grabbed Craft Wounderous Item and Craft magic Arms and Armor early, he has effectively doubled his WBL and also created a rather reliable means to make ALOT of money (where do you think all the good things the fighter and monk are playing with comes from? Trees?). Add in the sheer rediculousness that a wizard could pull off with the Sno-Cone Wish Factory (the only real thing stopping the wizard from doing is 1) Cheese, 2) Not wanting to piss off a DM, and 3 )Not wanting to piss off all the other players) he could very easily run around with near infinite wealth.


Noireve wrote:
I would also point out to those who are arguing about the wizard having alot of wealth... Guess who tends to be one with a stupid wall of item creation feats AND consequentially being one of the best item crafters? Wizards (and sorcerers but we are currently talking about wizards) So if a Wizard went and grabbed Craft Wounderous Item and Craft magic Arms and Armor early, he has effectively doubled his WBL and also created a rather reliable means to make ALOT of money (where do you think all the good things the fighter and monk are playing with comes from? Trees?). Add in the sheer rediculousness that a wizard could pull off with the Sno-Cone Wish Factory (the only real thing stopping the wizard from doing is 1) Cheese, 2) Not wanting to piss off a DM, and 3 )Not wanting to piss off all the other players) he could very easily run around with near infinite wealth.

1) Wizard does not get double WBL from crafting feats. Any GM worth his salt doesn't allow that. The one sorcerer I posted in this thread didn't pull BS like that. I know that certain Paizo designers say that you should double WBL with craft feats, but those same designers say crafting is broken.

2) By RAW Sno-Cone Wish Factory only work if your GM fiats into thinking that a creature with half HD having wish is 'appropriate'. If he doesn't feel that way then by RAW Sno-Cone Wish Factory doesn't work. Only a poor GM with weird feelings of appropriate can allow Sno-Cone Wish factory if running the game RAW. Otherwise a GM has to rule-0 into allowing it.


Dabbler wrote:
The bottom line is that the monk's stronger defences are not of the same value as the fighter's stronger offence.

Correct. The monks defenses are worth more.

If a monk can kill a Balor in 3 full-attacks, that is more than enough damage.

The fighter needs 2 full-attacks to do the job.

Even with Vorpal the advantage goes to the monk by being resistant to every other tactic. Outside of vorpal (every other CR 20 or high mob) the monks wins more often than the fighter no question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Noireve wrote:
I would also point out to those who are arguing about the wizard having alot of wealth... Guess who tends to be one with a stupid wall of item creation feats AND consequentially being one of the best item crafters? Wizards (and sorcerers but we are currently talking about wizards) So if a Wizard went and grabbed Craft Wounderous Item and Craft magic Arms and Armor early, he has effectively doubled his WBL and also created a rather reliable means to make ALOT of money (where do you think all the good things the fighter and monk are playing with comes from? Trees?). Add in the sheer rediculousness that a wizard could pull off with the Sno-Cone Wish Factory (the only real thing stopping the wizard from doing is 1) Cheese, 2) Not wanting to piss off a DM, and 3 )Not wanting to piss off all the other players) he could very easily run around with near infinite wealth.

1) Wizard does not get double WBL from crafting feats. Any GM worth his salt doesn't allow that. The one sorcerer I posted in this thread didn't pull BS like that. I know that certain Paizo designers say that you should double WBL with craft feats, but those same designers say crafting is broken.

2) By RAW Sno-Cone Wish Factory only work if your GM fiats into thinking that a creature with half HD having wish is 'appropriate'. If he doesn't feel that way then by RAW Sno-Cone Wish Factory doesn't work. Only a poor GM with weird feelings of appropriate can allow Sno-Cone Wish factory if running the game RAW. Otherwise a GM has to rule-0 into allowing it.

1) No, he does not have a metric crap ton of gold at character creation. But if we are talking about a Wizard that went through a game and is now lvl 20, then he woudl have ALOT more gold from the fact he can (and probably did) craft everything himself.

2) By RAW actually Sno-Cone Wish factory actually does work. No where does it say that the Efreeti's Wish ability is dependent on it's HD. It is a innate spell-like ability of the Efreeti. It is a trait unto them that they have by the virtue of being an Efreeti. How does it make any more sense that a 10 HD creature can cast wish than a 5 HD creature? It doesn't. And nowhere in the the Description does it say it loses it's spell-like abilities. So, in fact by RAW you could actually use Sno-Cone Wish Factory. Granted, no GM would ever allow it because it obviously breaks the game, but it can be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noireve wrote:

1) No, he does not have a metric crap ton of gold at character creation. But if we are talking about a Wizard that went through a game and is now lvl 20, then he woudl have ALOT more gold from the fact he can (and probably did) craft everything himself.

2) By RAW actually Sno-Cone Wish factory actually does work. No where does it say that the Efreeti's Wish ability is dependent on it's HD. It is a innate spell-like ability of the Efreeti. It is a trait unto them that they have by the virtue of being an Efreeti. How does it make any more sense that a 10 HD creature can cast wish than a 5 HD creature? It doesn't. And nowhere in the the Description does it say it loses it's spell-like abilities. So, in fact by RAW you could actually use Sno-Cone Wish Factory. Granted, no GM would ever allow it because it obviously breaks the game, but it can be done.

1) Time to craft is a very real factor. Also, he is probably making gear for the whole party, not just himself. All the GM has to do is lower party gold and everyone is back to WBL.

2) " only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

Wish doesn't have to say that it is HD dependent for a GM to not feel that it is appropriate. Half HD genies do not exist outside of using that one spell. Therefore there is no reason to talk about the HD or lack of HD restrictions to wish. It is up to the GM what he feels is appropriate by RAW.

Sno-Cone tactics are so BS, because for the spell to do anything with creatures that only have racial HD is completely up to what the GM feels is appropriate. The GM can easily say no special abilities are appropriate and that is a RAW interpretation of the spell.

Both Planar Binding and Sno-Cone tactics require GM fiat to work or not work. (Planar Binding has it's own fun non-rules related problems)

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Marthkus, while a GM would be well within their right to say "Look, this is bad for game balance, so I am going to ask you not to do that" or "I'll let that fly, but without the wish spell-like ability", ran strictly by the book, there is nothing in simulacrum that prevents this from working because it's wording does not take into account all possible scenarios.

For example, while that efreeti would have only 5 hit dice, it still maintains all of it's spell-like abilities at their original caster level.

Thems just the breaks. Vito it every day of the week, but there is no RAW argument that can be made to make it any less correct in it's function.


Lormyr wrote:

For example, while that efreeti would have only 5 hit dice, it still maintains all of it's spell-like abilities at their original caster level.

The spell does not say that. Those are special abilities and subject to change as to what the GM feels is appropriate.

You're right. The GM can allow it, if he feels it is appropriate. Of course when your party is wished out of existence by every other BBEG using the same tactic to "wish heroes were dead", then the whole campaign falls apart.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is my point. Neither a given creature's spell-like abilities nor it's caster level for them is directly tied to it's hit dice unless specifically stated as such (such as PC aasimar and tiefling S-LAs). It varies wildly across the spectrum.

Just look up the varies genies: djinn = HD +2 CL, efreeti = HD +1 CL, janni = HD +2 CL, marid = HD CL, shaitain = HD CL. There is no discernible formula at all, and that is even specifically staying only within the genie family.

While the GM *can* change things as they see fit, there is no game-mechanic precedent for such a change in the very specific case of efreeti simulacrum.

Your position is, infact, the GM fiat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:
Your position is, infact, the GM fiat.

So is yours.

Simulacrum is a spell that requires fiat to run. Because it calls the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate.


The monster description for Efeeti states that they can cast up to 3 wishes.
Which is to say that some Efreeti can cast Wish once a day. Some can cast it twice a day. Others can cast it three times a day. There are some who can't cast it at all.
Is there a FAQ entry which states that, when the simulated creature has a range of times they can cast a spell-like ability, the caster can control how many times the artificial being can cast that ability?


Marthkus wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The bottom line is that the monk's stronger defences are not of the same value as the fighter's stronger offence.

Correct. The monks defenses are worth more.

If a monk can kill a Balor in 3 full-attacks, that is more than enough damage.

The fighter needs 2 full-attacks to do the job.

Even with Vorpal the advantage goes to the monk by being resistant to every other tactic. Outside of vorpal (every other CR 20 or high mob) the monks wins more often than the fighter no question.

I think you didn't understand anything here, so I will make it very easy to understand.

A monk need 3 to 5 (if not moving) to 10 (if moving) rounds to kill a balor.
A fighter need 2 (if not moving) to 3 (if moving) rounds to kill a balor.

Let's suppose a party fight against a balor :

If the balor is stupid, and does nothing but hit the monk/the fighter and don't move, the difference is minimal. The fighter will kill it fast enough to have minimal damage, but the monk will be likely to win the combat with minimal damage thanks to his superior defenses.

If the balor is smart, he teleport away if he thinks things go badly, and bye bye both. Again, no differences between the two.

If the balor is smart, but, WITH HELP from the group, he cannot teleport (dimensional anchor for example), or can't move because he needs to protect/guard something :
If it is a monk in the group, he will have A LOT of time to do damage to the party (and by damage, I don't mean HP, but death of party members, which can be the resurrect-person, or the one that brought the group where the balor is).

If it is a fighter, he will have much less time to do so.

So yeah, the monk is resilient enough to endure a fight with a balor.
The fighter is strong enough to make a fight with a balor easier FOR THE GROUP. His superior offense makes it a better defense for the group.

That's why having good personal defenses is not an asset for a group : having "good enough" is all it takes. The fighter can have "good enough" defenses, AND his offense is wonderful enough to save the group.


Marthkus wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The bottom line is that the monk's stronger defences are not of the same value as the fighter's stronger offence.

Correct. The monks defenses are worth more.

If a monk can kill a Balor in 3 full-attacks, that is more than enough damage.

The fighter needs 2 full-attacks to do the job.

Even with Vorpal the advantage goes to the monk by being resistant to every other tactic. Outside of vorpal (every other CR 20 or high mob) the monks wins more often than the fighter no question.

Actually as posted back a while ago neither of you wins solo against an intelligently played Balor. It takes the Balor longer to kill the monk because he has to fill up the rod of absorption that wasn't in the build, but later became part of it. Once your magic items stop working so do both classes. The fighter can also kill the balor in 1 round if he crits it only requires 2 if none of his attacks crit(and he has a like a 25% chance to do so on each hit)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Raith Shadar wrote:
Why do you keep assuming I'm going to show up to an encounter unprepared for what is there. Why do you keep insisting on thinking I'm going to operate like a regular dungeon party wandering around the place meeting the encounters head on? Why are you making this assumption?

I haven't made those assumptions, my assertion is that there is no proof, not that I can prove otherwise.

Why are you making assumption that you CAN prepare for an encounter? When you do these campaigns, your GM has every enemy you come across simply let you leave/rest/prepare all the time? Your enemies are fools, which is fine sometimes because some enemies are fools, but to treat it like you have "the solution" is simply wrong.

I think Wizards/casters HAVE strength and can shine, but the assertion that they are BETTER is so extraordinarily circumstantial and anecdotal that I find it dismissable.

My point is that it's random. That's what casters are. They forgo consistency for power and options, but the inconsistency and reliance on preparation is a weakness and it seems that it is often overlooked.

Raith Shadar wrote:
I don't see why you have trouble accepting that this is the current reality of 3rd edition/Pathfinder at high level.

Because it's not. It's subjective. I can guarantee that these factors change drastically from table to table, just like the monk versus fighter experiences.

Also I don't ~see~ it because I have been tabletop role-playing for a very long time and have seen no evidence aside from online anecdotes that I can always work out a way that they got lucky.

Lantern Lodge

Marthkus wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Your position is, infact, the GM fiat.

So is yours.

Simulacrum is a spell that requires fiat to run. Because it calls the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate.

I am uncertain how to further address our differing understanding in a manner that is constructive.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:

The monster description for Efeeti states that they can cast up to 3 wishes.

Which is to say that some Efreeti can cast Wish once a day. Some can cast it twice a day. Others can cast it three times a day. There are some who can't cast it at all.
Is there a FAQ entry which states that, when the simulated creature has a range of times they can cast a spell-like ability, the caster can control how many times the artificial being can cast that ability?

That is not quite what that entry means. It means all efreeti have the option to grant up to 3 wishes, but may choose to grant less depending on the situation.

All efreeti have the same three wish potential unless specifically indicated otherwise.


GrenMeera wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:
Why do you keep assuming I'm going to show up to an encounter unprepared for what is there. Why do you keep insisting on thinking I'm going to operate like a regular dungeon party wandering around the place meeting the encounters head on? Why are you making this assumption?

I haven't made those assumptions, my assertion is that there is no proof, not that I can prove otherwise.

Why are you making assumption that you CAN prepare for an encounter? When you do these campaigns, your GM has every enemy you come across simply let you leave/rest/prepare all the time? Your enemies are fools, which is fine sometimes because some enemies are fools, but to treat it like you have "the solution" is simply wrong.

I think Wizards/casters HAVE strength and can shine, but the assertion that they are BETTER is so extraordinarily circumstantial and anecdotal that I find it dismissable.

My point is that it's random. That's what casters are. They forgo consistency for power and options, but the inconsistency and reliance on preparation is a weakness and it seems that it is often overlooked.

Raith Shadar wrote:
I don't see why you have trouble accepting that this is the current reality of 3rd edition/Pathfinder at high level.

Because it's not. It's subjective. I can guarantee that these factors change drastically from table to table, just like the monk versus fighter experiences.

Also I don't ~see~ it because I have been tabletop role-playing for a very long time and have seen no evidence aside from online anecdotes that I can always work out a way that they got lucky.

Proper etiquette demands that monsters RSVP wizards before each encounter.


Lormyr wrote:
It means all efreeti have the option to grant up to 3 wishes

source please*

*(and note that there is a big difference between saying that an efreeti you encounter can cast wish up to three times each and saying that all efreeti can cast wish up to 3 times each)


You guys arguing that a monk can't do anything to support the party do know there are builds to support the party right?

Two off the top of my head:
1) Automatically shut down an intelligent foe a round. If properly built, same, it is effectively no save. That means said Balor won't be able to act at all during the three rounds the monk takes to kill it.

2) Automatically allow party to take 20 on initiative. You just won "rocket tag" for your party.

The first one might not be done as often because of player etiquette, but its still there.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
It means all efreeti have the option to grant up to 3 wishes

source please*

*(and note that there is a big difference between saying that an efreeti you encounter can cast wish up to three times each and saying that all efreeti can cast wish up to 3 times each)

Honestly, if this stack block alone does not answer this for you then I am not really sure what further say Efreeti

The PRD entry on spell-like abilities

What you suggest is the equivalent to saying only some dwarves possess darkvision, or that only some humans possess a racial bonus feat.*

*Granted, with the alternate racial traits, some of these things are now possible. Efreeti have no such alternate racial trait options however, and I would hope the point is understood despite the newish PC options. That said, replace the above statement with "What you suggest is the equivalent to saying only some deep delver dwarves possess darkvision" for any who may wish to bust balls about wording.


Lotion wrote:

You guys arguing that a monk can't do anything to support the party do know there are builds to support the party right?

Two off the top of my head:
1) Automatically shut down an intelligent foe a round. If properly built, same, it is effectively no save. That means said Balor won't be able to act at all during the three rounds the monk takes to kill it.

2) Automatically allow party to take 20 on initiative. You just won "rocket tag" for your party.

The first one might not be done as often because of player etiquette, but its still there.

about number 1, you know that gets an opposed sense motive check right? the balor has 30 in sense motive. The monk is unlikely to have amazing bluff, although that tactic is amazing for a ninja.


On the infinite Snow Cone Wish factory thing. I believe it requires the Blood Money spell to be effective. The Blood Money spell is so horribly broken that any argument that requires it is automatically invalid.

Why don't you just give every class the ability to produce 500gp per Strength damage as a class ability at 1st level and see how it works out?

Blood Money is just so horribly, mind-numbingly bad everyone should just pretend that it doesn't exist until it is officially removed. Then everyone can pretend that it never happened in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

2) " only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

The flaw in your argument is this here. You seem to think the usage of the word "appropriate" means "whatever the GM feels is appropriate," rather than, "Use the math provided by the game to determine appropriate numbers."

It is appropriate, for example, for a 5HD Outsider to have a +5 BAB and 5d10 Hit Dice, while it is appropriate for a 10HD Outsider to have +10 and 10d10. It's not a judgement call, the word appropriate is an appropriate stylistic choice here for "follow the rules."


mplindustries wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

2) " only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

The flaw in your argument is this here. You seem to think the usage of the word "appropriate" means "whatever the GM feels is appropriate," rather than, "Use the math provided by the game to determine appropriate numbers."

It is appropriate, for example, for a 5HD Outsider to have a +5 BAB and 5d10 Hit Dice, while it is appropriate for a 10HD Outsider to have +10 and 10d10. It's not a judgement call, the word appropriate is an appropriate stylistic choice here for "follow the rules."

Fine then. Cite the rules outlining proper guidelines to reducing monster HD and determining how that effects their special abilities.

751 to 800 of 976 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks are Better than Fighters at high levels. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.