No one is ignoring parts of the spell, bud. You just have a different understanding of those words than literally everyone else you are speaking too about this topic in this thread. I do not understand why you have that different view, nor what understanding I can impart upon you through words to correct your misunderstanding at this point. So I am just going to try to walk through this with you piece by piece and see what comes.
I posted to show support for Marthkus and his interpretation of the Simulacrum spell. I did this to stop the "Everyone but you believe this" nonsense and to point out the arrogance of assuming that he, and by extension I, need our "misunderstanding" corrected.
Now if someone from Paizo wants to post support for one side or the other, then I will absolutely take that into account, but as I see it currently there are two ways to read the Simulacrum spell. One way is that it is instructing the GM to modify the creature's special abilities according to his best judgement. The second way is that only the DCs of special abilities are adjusted, even though the spell doesn't mention DCs at all.
I can assure you that there was no hostility intended in my previous post, and there is none in this one. Although there is now some frustration that hostility was read into my previous post when it was meant to be a serious statement of opinion with maybe a little humor at the end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understand why people try to argue that simulacrum isn't broken, instead of recpgnizing iy is and then house ruling it back to sanity.
The spell does not give you a spell-less version of a djinn. It doesn't even bring you a younger version of a dragon. It rings you a half hd *copy* of said dragon/djinn. If you copy a great wyrm, it brings you a "shade" clone of said great wyrm, with half hd. It has half the hp, half the hd, half caster level, and half the DC against his SLA and breath. It *does not* bring a younger version. He is not huge instead of colossal, his claw and breath damage remains the same and he has the abilities of a great wyrm (including auras, new sla, etc). The efreet will have his CL reduced for SLA, but keep those sla. Same goes with copies of the tarrasque. Should it be so? Probably not so go and house rule it. But it is how it works.
More importantly, if you copy a creature with class levels, class levels are lost first. This is raw and shown in a NPC in Rise of Runelords. So copying a 10hd dji with 10 levels of fighter (or aristocrat for tbat matter) make the point moot.
Yes, no GM with a sane mind will allow it. I know I wouldnt. The Spell is houseruled by default in every game, nobody allow simulacrum factories. But that doesnt change that the spell, as in core, is broken. Specially since PF removed the necesity to have a part of the Tarrasque's body to copy it. Nobody clames that it *should* work that way, or that they'll allow sim-factories in their games or ask for one in yours. But the spell, as written, IS broken
Let's use an example.
This guy is Bob Nine-Fingers. Bob is an 8th level fighter. He is a middle aged veteran (with age penalties to STR), a gray beard, and a nice bald. He has some nice scars, and lack a finger too.
Bob started his adventuring days as a young, red headed brash guy, who went to fight goblins as soon as the age of 16. He fought hard against those goblins, with an adventuring group. He leveled quite fast. At the age of 17, he was already 4th level. He then went to the Watch, and his adventuring days were off for a while. He grew up a few inches, got a lot fatter too. In the watch, he was leveling slowly. Somewhen, at the age of 22, he lost a finger in a battle. He keep leveling, until he reached 8th level at the age of 42.
Bill the wizard wants to make a simulacrum of Bob Nine-Fingers. He got a few good ranks in disguise, and he roll high in his check, so his simulacrum looks quite similar to Bob.
My question is:
Does he gets a 4hd version of a 42 years old guy with STR penalties, a grey beard, bald, 6'2'' tall guy with a big belly and only 9 fingers?
Or does he gets a 17 years old red-head teenager with higher STR, 5'11'' tall and slim guy with 10 fingers?
If the answer is the second one, how do you balance that with the fact he rolled 36 in his disguise check, and the young, athletic
Now let's go with Bill trying to clone Akenathopoulus the Mighty, a Red Great Wyrm, a colossal beast with a claw as big as a mid sized car.
Does he gets a 1/2 HD copy of a colossal great wyrm with STR 43 and claws as big as a car?
Or does he gets a young adult huge-sized dragon with STR 29 and claws of the size of a mid sized water melon?
If the answer if B, how do you balance that with the fact that Bill got a 36 in Disguise, and both the colossal, huge-building sized real Akenathopoulus and his virtually identical copy have almost 50 feet diference in height?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Only (and in your opinion, not everyone's) to the monk, and this is a social game - to the rest of the party, the fighter's stronger offence is worth way more, because that protects not just him but everyone else as well.
If a monk can kill a Balor in 3 full-attacks, that is more than enough damage.
And if the enemy don't let you get in full attacks? If the balor plays tag the monk takes ten rounds to win, and is exposed (along with the rest of the party) to more danger.
The fighter needs 2 full-attacks to do the job.
Or three rounds if the balor plays tag. That's the real big difference.
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.
Does he? I am not so sure as a lot of creatures at that level can self-buff. Take a dragon for example, that can self-buff with shield and mage armour, maybe the suite of stat boosters as well, and then just laughs at the monk as he rips him apart, because the monk IS vulnerable to direct damage and the dragon's attacks are pretty awesome even if he doesn't self-buff his offences (and he can). If the monk proves hard to hit, just scull back and forth (the monk cannot catch your speed) using true strike to bite chunks out of him while the monk flails back at his 3/4 BAB.
The fighter is a tougher foe, because the fighter can use ranged weapons. The "obvious" tactic of making passes with his breath weapon is easily foiled by a potion of fire resistance and the fighter's bow with a dozen dragon-bane arrows. His greater chances to hit mean he's more likely to score damage. If the dragon melee's, the fighters greater chances to hit stand him in better stead.
Again, the monk's defences give him personally better chances of survival by escaping, but the fighter is worth more to the party, with just as good a chance of survival thanks to his better weapons, accuracy and damage output.
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)
Actually my fighter had only a 10% chance to crit, because he was using a reach weapon with a low threat range (but a great threat multiplier). A fighter with a falcatta wielded two-handed is the cheesemonger here, 20% chance to crit, x4 multiplier at 20th level fighter.
Proper etiquette demands that monsters RSVP wizards before each encounter.
Yeah, good job they don't have divination spells! No, wait...
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.
Bewildering Koan
You can pose unanswerable questions that leave creatures momentarily dumbfounded as they dwell on their significance.
Prerequisites: Bluff 1 rank, ki pool class feature, gnome.
Benefit: As a swift action, spend 1 point from your ki pool and make a Bluff check by asking a creature one of the impossible questions you ponder when meditating.
If the creature fails its check*, you choose whether it loses its next action or you gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make against that creature for 1 round.
So, the balor appears and attacks, and you sit down in lotus position and close your eyes...
You generally find that such completely OP abilities have a clause that makes them a lot less useful than they first appear. You have to be meditating, and I don't think using flurry of blows counts as meditating in ANYONE'S game. Your Bluff, well you likely have a skill of (assuming a class skill) +29+Cha bonus (monks are MAD, remember, so sure you can be good at this at the expense of other abilities), so I'm seeing around a 50/50 chance of success every round - good, but not guaranteed. So you have to effectively stand sit out the fight if you plan on losing the enemy all his actions - you are still contributing, I will grant you, but you aren't going to solo a fight this way.
Your WBL doesn't go up in any sane game. Now this is not RAW, but by RAW the designers themselves have called item crafting unbalanced.
Would this be the same game designers who have declared that the monk is a weak class and needs improving? :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted to show support for Marthkus and his interpretation of the Simulacrum spell. I did this to stop the "Everyone but you believe this" nonsense and to point out the arrogance of assuming that he, and by extension I, need our "misunderstanding" corrected.
Now if someone from Paizo wants to post support for one side or the other, then I will absolutely take that into account, but as I see it currently there are two ways to read the Simulacrum spell. One way is that it is instructing the GM to modify the creature's special abilities according to his best judgement. The second way is that only the DCs of special abilities are adjusted, even though the spell doesn't mention DCs at all.
I can assure you that there was no hostility intended in my previous post, and there is none in this one. Although there is now some frustration that hostility was read into my previous post when it was meant to be a serious statement of opinion with maybe a little humor at the end.
I apologize if you took offense to any of my words, Lord Twig. No insult was intended towards anyone.
I understand why this spell can be confusing to some individuals. At this point, I have explained to the best of my ability those elements that are and are not affected by hit dice increase and decrease, and we will each just have to measure this spell's function as we may. I have little other insight to offer past that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You generally find that such completely OP abilities have a clause that makes them a lot less useful than they first appear. You have to be meditating, and I don't think using flurry of blows counts as meditating in ANYONE'S game. Your Bluff, well you likely have a skill of (assuming a class skill) +29+Cha bonus (monks are MAD, remember, so sure you can be good at this at the expense of other abilities), so I'm seeing around a 50/50 chance of success every round - good, but not guaranteed. So you have to effectively stand sit out the fight if you plan on losing the enemy all his actions - you are still contributing, I will grant you, but you aren't going to solo a fight this way.
I believe you have misread that feat slightly, Dabbler.
It says you may ask a create one of the impossible questions you ponder while meditating.
It does not say while meditating, you may ask a creature one of the impossible questions you ponder.
Sentence structure is important there. The difference is:
Wording A means that during times your meditate, you ponder impossible questions.
Wording B means that you must be meditating to use this feat.
Make sense?
I believe you have misread that feat slightly, Dabbler.
It says you may ask a create one of the impossible questions you ponder while meditating.
It does not say while meditating, you may ask a creature one of the impossible questions you ponder.
Sentence structure is important there. The difference is:
Wording A means that during times your meditate, you ponder impossible questions.
Wording B means that you must be meditating to use this feat.
Make sense?
Makes sense, yes. However, given the odds of success (you're opposing a +30 sense motive here, even with class skill and Skill Focus, your base is +29, and if you pumped Charisma as a monk you seriously lost out elsewhere (damage, AC and special abilities). Hence it's still a likely 50/50 chance of success, which is great for round one. Round #2? Well he knows you are trying to distract him, so why should he listen? At the very least he's going to start getting bonuses to his rolls.
I don't see this as an "I win" ability so much as an "I can compensate for my shortcomings" ability.
|
|
Even dumping cha (after magic items), I am seeing +38 bluff with core only.
20 ranks
3 class
1 cha (7 base +6 item)
1 trait
6 skill focus
4 persuasive
3 circlet of persuasion
Dipping past core, hitting near +50 probably wouldn't be too hard if you had not dumped cha.
4 morale (greater heroism)
2 competence (exchange circles for mulberry pentacle ioun stone)
3 cha (base 12 instead of 7 with +6 item)
+47 right there.
Wizards aren't that hard to keep in check as long as
1.) Perfect information isn't that easy to acquire. Yes, there are defenses against scrying
2.) Time is of the essence. There is no reason why, once the party has invaded a lair and is known to be in the lair, the enemy isn't going to aggressively hunt them down.
3.) Not all battles happen on the party's terms. Some enemy survivors of earlier battles will hunt the party down when the party least expects it
4.) WBL isn't just optional
5.) The wizard's spellbook is a vulnerability which can be damaged or stolen unless the wizard takes steps to protect it (more powerful enemies means more powerful, and expensive, protections)
6.) Spells are power. Just as the US Government doesn't sell "how to build a nuke" to just anyone, wizards don't sell their spells to just anyone. So, most spells in a wizard's spellbook were transcribed from scrolls the wizard had to acquire.
1, 2, 3, and 4 are limits imposed by all parties.
5 can be done. But by that level the wizard has multiple spell books.
6 is not much of a limitiation considering you get two spells per level. You trade them with other wizards to gain what they know. Wizards trade back and forth gaining power.
You never mentioned spell research. An extremely powerful option available to casters.
Wizards aren't that easy to limit. It takes special care as a DM to do so. Each new book that comes out with new spells requires a DM continue to keep his research up or he might get blind-sided by some spell he wasn't ready for.
Wizards aren't that easy to keep in check. It requires a lot of extra work by a DM to do so, work that you don't need to spend when planning for martials. Martials are pretty easy to plan for, casters not so much.
Even dumping cha (after magic items), I am seeing +38 bluff with core only.
20 ranks
3 class
1 cha (7 base +6 item)
1 trait
6 skill focus
4 persuasive
3 circlet of persuasionDipping past core, hitting near +50 probably wouldn't be too hard if you had not dumped cha.
4 morale (greater heroism)
2 competence (exchange circles for mulberry pentacle ioun stone)
3 cha (base 12 instead of 7 with +6 item)+47 right there.
With a +6 HB of Charisma you'd be losing out on the headband of wisdom, though, which is more valuable than charisma to a monk. Also, skill focus isn't all that great for a monk either, so you're basically wasting a feat on it for something that could be useful to you. And why would you go higher on base charisma out of core? You'd have to dump something else to get that
Also, totally thought headbands took up the head slot. Discovered they take a headband slot. I need to stop DMing for a while...
With a +6 HB of Charisma you'd be losing out on the headband of wisdom, though, which is more valuable than charisma to a monk. Also, skill focus isn't all that great for a monk either, so you're basically wasting a feat on it for something that could be useful to you. And why would you go higher on base charisma out of core? You'd have to dump something else to get that
Also, totally thought headbands took up the head slot. Discovered they take a headband slot. I need to stop DMing for a while...
You can get headbands with bonuses to multiple mental stats right in the core rules. So a +6 Int, Wis, Cha headband is not out of the question. Little expensive though...
Demiplanes aren't subject to attack unless you leave a gate up.
I'm not sure why you say this? I might be missing something, but I have never seen anything about this spell that makes it safe.
Creatures can only enter the plane by the use of planar travel magic such as astral projection, etherealness, or plane shift.
Leaving your clones behind in your demi-plane while you go off adventuring eh? Heh, that sounds like an easy mark. Just go to the wizard's plane when he's not there and destroy his work.
Also, Permanency can be dispelled. It requires a higher caster level, but considering all factors (are we ONLY talking level 20, what level did you cast it at, does your enemy have access to epic caster levels) it is not unlikely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
don't you need to know where your going? I thought finding a demi plane that you don't know about would be super hard.
Demiplanes aren't subject to attack unless you leave a gate up.I'm not sure why you say this? I might be missing something, but I have never seen anything about this spell that makes it safe.
From looking at Create Demiplane, it seems you are correct. However finding the plane would be a pretty good trick first.
Creatures can only enter the plane by the use of planar travel magic such as astral projection, etherealness, or plane shift.Leaving your clones behind in your demi-plane while you go off adventuring eh? Heh, that sounds like an easy mark. Just go to the wizard's plane when he's not there and destroy his work.
Also, Permanency can be dispelled. It requires a higher caster level, but considering all factors (are we ONLY talking level 20, what level did you cast it at, does your enemy have access to epic caster levels) it is not unlikely.
This sounds an awful lot like metagaming on the part of a GM who was just mentioning how easy it was to ward against divination?
To be clear:
1) I think magic power is considerably stronger (in most cases) than martial power in a vacuum. I'm pretty sure most (though not all) people agree that in the majority of situations, it is.
2) I recognize magic's inherent weaknesses and difficulties in actual game-play. Home games tend to be run differently. House rules (even unintentional house rules) and personal readings of RAW that differentiate from others' come into play. This varies magic's power quite a bit.
3) There are plenty of situations and methods one could utilize to gain the information above. HOWEVER. IF it is difficult for a <given individual, PC or NPC> to gain information for <mechanical reason>, THEN it is difficult for any other <given individual, PC or NPC> to gain information for <mechanical reason>, UNLESS the first <given individual, PC or NPC> plays exceptionally un-intelligently, which, given the level of optimization mentioned, is unlikely, OR the GM just cheats and metagames.
3a) Given the level of descriptive thought on both parts in this, you seem to be a) presuming the player just plain made a mistake, or b) are arbitrating that someone beat them. You may not be. Regardless of whether or not you are, this part of the post kind of comes off, "Oh, yeah, well, I've got BIGGER guns!" which is kinda "eeeeehhhh...," and never ends well in thread debates. This does apply to both groups to a point.
4) Please, all of you, agree to disagree agreeably. Please.
5) Goal-posts (from both sides) they are-a changin'... or at least they seem to be. Partially it's because I think you guys are talking about slightly different presumptions. Partially it happens without trying to (as opinions become more refined over time and with more talking). I mention to try and help both sides get more perspective when posting.
|
don't you need to know where your going? I thought finding a demi plane that you don't know about would be super hard.
Easy actually. All it would take is a Knowledge Planes roll. (Through your many dealings with various denizens of the planes, you find out about a new demiplane that has popped up in the cosmos).
Especially if you are talking about 18th, 19th and 20th level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a big difference between
a.) one guy trying to use divination magic on every target he comes across
and
b.) a bunch of guys trying to use divination magic, independently, on a specific targetthe former is like the PC wizard trying to use divination magic on every dungeon he comes across
the later is like the bunch of enemies who independently try to use divination magic on the PC's demiplane
Just wondering aside from the social contract, why WOULDN'T you scry every dungeon/situation you're about to go into? Considering it's generally life or death, it'd be kind of crazy not to be prepared. Eventually these aren't even your highest spell level, so there's even less reason not to scan everything you can. Even if it's guarded against, it's better to try than not and get killed because you didn't expect X hazard.
Of course there are solutions to every thing I listed, _expensive_ solutions (multiple spell books, spell research, etc.). I have no interest in crippling the Wizard, merely putting him on the same level as other classes by playing up to his inherent vulnerabilities.
1, 2, 3, and 4 are limits imposed by all parties.5 can be done. But by that level the wizard has multiple spell books.
6 is not much of a limitiation considering you get two spells per level. You trade them with other wizards to gain what they know. Wizards trade back and forth gaining power.
You never mentioned spell research. An extremely powerful option available to casters.
Wizards aren't that easy to limit. It takes special care as a DM to do so. Each new book that comes out with new spells requires a DM continue to keep his research up or he might get blind-sided by some spell he wasn't ready for.
Wizards aren't that easy to keep in check. It requires a lot of extra work by a DM to do so, work that you don't need to spend when planning for martials. Martials are pretty easy to plan for, casters not so much.
Multiple spellbooks are part of the character. You can't fit all of a wizard's spells in one spellbook at that level. Spellbooks are only 15 gold. Scribing a few with key spells isn't very expensive.
You will never bring wizards to the same level as other classes. All you can do is pump up encounters to challenge wizards. It doesn't change the inherent fact you have to go out of your way to challenge them in a way you don't with martials.
I wasn't in any way saying that you can't challenge them as a DM. I was saying that they are far more difficult to challenge than martials because they are more powerful at higher level. The mere fact that the discussion on how to limit them is open-ended is a testament to how difficult it is.
I hear talk of anti-scrying magic and the like. Thus you are saying that to challenge a caster you need other casters. Because standard monsters and martials can't use anti-scrying magic or any other powerful magic for dealing with casters. They pretty much have to rely on other casters to fight wizards. Whereas wizards don't have to rely on other martials to battle martials or monsters.
That's the part I don't see people acknowledging. A wizard has at his means at high level the capacity to fight everything without a martial anywhere around. The same cannot be said the other way.
I've experienced this often as a DM. It takes a lot of work to make an encounter that gives the martial something to do while at the same time challenging a caster. The only areas where martials excel is single target physical damage, AC, and taking hit point damage. That becomes less of a factor at high levels.
Demiplanes aren't subject to attack unless you leave a gate up.I'm not sure why you say this? I might be missing something, but I have never seen anything about this spell that makes it safe.
Creatures can only enter the plane by the use of planar travel magic such as astral projection, etherealness, or plane shift.Leaving your clones behind in your demi-plane while you go off adventuring eh? Heh, that sounds like an easy mark. Just go to the wizard's plane when he's not there and destroy his work.
Also, Permanency can be dispelled. It requires a higher caster level, but considering all factors (are we ONLY talking level 20, what level did you cast it at, does your enemy have access to epic caster levels) it is not unlikely.
So now you're using a caster to fight a caster? The point of the discussion is to show how a non-caster can go against a caster without his own caster to help him. As in show that casters and martials are equal in ability.
But you can't fight a caster with a non-caster can you? They won't win unless they get very lucky. It doesn't work the opposite way. You definitely can send a caster after a martial and he won't have much of a problem taking him out. The martial will have to go find his own caster to stand a chance. Which is what they do.
It's why casters travel with martials. They use each other at different levels. Low levels the casters need the martials to build up power. High level the martials need the casters to maintain their power. They've been together so long, they keep traveling together even if the caster doesn't necessarily need the martial any longer to get things done.
If we are talking demiplanes a barbarian or dwarf fighter could sunder the plane with spell sunder and find it with knowledge planes. Martial characters don't need casters they need magic and once you reach a certain level acquiring whatever magic you need is relatively cheap. If UMD wasn't a part of the game and you couldn't use items and abilities to replicate spell effects I could agree with the martial caster disparity argument, as it stands casters might have an edge because they have access to more magic but they don't have a monopoly on it.
If we are talking demiplanes a barbarian or dwarf fighter could sunder the plane with spell sunder and find it with knowledge planes.
... how do they get there?
This isn't a bait. I'm genuinely asking.
Martial characters don't need casters they need magic and once you reach a certain level acquiring whatever magic you need is relatively cheap. If UMD wasn't a part of the game and you couldn't use items and abilities to replicate spell effects I could agree with the martial caster disparity argument, as it stands casters might have an edge because they have access to more magic but they don't have a monopoly on it.
Actually, nevermind! It looks like the answer is implied. (And is a very good point.) It's also a departure from previous editions, which is interesting.
Okay, so, if I may: you are suggesting (if I understand correctly) that either a) a martial character can use their own skill and feats to craft items or b) can purchase magic, b-1) from a caster or b-2) from a martial with a specific set of skills and feats.
I can accept that. On the other hand, again, casters can acquire those things on their own (and thus are more powerful in a vacuum). In a living campaign, however, you have an excellent point that a martial with sub-optimal choices (the requirements to make magic items) or use someone else's choices.
(I'm a very big proponent of Community Trumps Individuality.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Casters in a vacuum are more powerful and generally have an easier time of things. But with the new spell like ability counts as caster level requirement for crafting feats ruling the crafting advantage of casters has been almost taken away. Plus most of the good spells are still good even if cast from a scroll and there are some tricks the non spell casting classes can pull off casters can't. I just disagree with the idea that it is impossible for non casters to affect the game meaningfully at later levels, it only really plays out that way if you bar them from using magic which does indeed trump mundane more often than not.
Tacticslion you are right about my points on all accounts yes.
Cool! Thanks. :)
|
|
Just wondering aside from the social contract, why WOULDN'T you scry every dungeon/situation you're about to go into? Considering it's generally life or death, it'd be kind of crazy not to be prepared. Eventually these aren't even your highest spell level, so there's even less reason not to scan everything you can. Even if it's guarded against, it's better to try than not and get killed because you didn't expect X hazard.There's a big difference between
a.) one guy trying to use divination magic on every target he comes across
and
b.) a bunch of guys trying to use divination magic, independently, on a specific targetthe former is like the PC wizard trying to use divination magic on every dungeon he comes across
the later is like the bunch of enemies who independently try to use divination magic on the PC's demiplane
Well for one thing, (I Scry dungeon) doesnt work. You have to specifically scry a creature so unless you know of a specific creature residing in that dungeon you wont be scrying anything.
3a) Given the level of descriptive thought on both parts in this, you seem to be a) presuming the player just plain made a mistake, or b) are arbitrating that someone beat them. You may not be. Regardless of whether or not you are, this part of the post kind of comes off, "Oh, yeah, well, I've got BIGGER guns!" which is kinda "eeeeehhhh...," and never ends well in thread debates. This does apply to both groups to a point.
Yeah, I fully agree with you. My post that said this exact thing was deleted unfortunately and I didn't feel like re-iterating. I tried to point out that bringing up examples and anecdotal evidence was meaningless, because every situation can be countered, which is what I was demonstrating.
The point of the discussion is to show how a non-caster can go against a caster without his own caster to help him.
I never viewed this as the point of the discussion. I simply stated that casters are not more powerful than martials. This is a very broad range of situations, including full party dynamics at high level play.
Every single one of those spells can be used by a martial using items.
I never once said magic is pointless, but that casters are not simply better. Martials can use magic too, but that's barely the point. High level play involves a mixed party and I don't know why this solo 1v1 situation is even relevant (though we can continue to do pointer/counter-point if you insist, I just don't see a reason).
As in show that casters and martials are equal in ability.
They are not EQUAL per se. They operate differently. A caster has more options and potential. To get this, he becomes more vulnerable and variable in effectiveness. Consistently pointing out his strengths with his range of capability does not help. His weaknesses are still being ignored.
A simple midnight ambush in a party situation usually pulls this out fairly well. Let's say the watch was late in alarming his allies; the character who is most screwed is the wizard who didn't get to sleep, followed immediately by the martials who rely on donning armor and don't have the feats to sleep in it.
These are actually situations in which the monk shines, by the way. All he needs to do is stand up and he's at full fighting capacity.
Anytime bud. Hopefully more people will gain some enjoyment from them.Those goalposts sure are moving around here.
In any case, that's a fine build Lormyr, thanks for showing me it.
Just want to point that I'm loving your builds so far.
Monks are Better than Fighters at high levels.
Monks are Better than Fighters at high levels.
At what? In general or in specific cases? Offensively the fighter is always the better option. Defensively the monk is. Which is more valuable? Alone, defences; in a party, offence.
Again... just look to Lormyr's builds... enough said...
an imaginative monk can completely change the tide of battle without doing a single point of damage. can a straight class fighter do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an imaginative monk can completely change the tide of battle without doing a single point of damage. can a straight class fighter do that?
*sigh*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy Necro!
KILL THIS THREAD! KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT SPREADS!!!
I am loving my mid level monk. So many abilities, it feels a little too much, but I am trying to use them all every game.
As a fighter, I can have a solid build, and I have my feats, and that's about it mechanically.
Monks are Better than Fighters at high levels.At what? In general or in specific cases? Offensively the fighter is always the better option. Defensively the monk is. Which is more valuable? Alone, defences; in a party, offence.
My boar style monk can unleash some wonderful bleed with his bare hands. No need for an item. Against foes without healing, I am tempted to see how long I can bleed them and how much hp I can leach by just landing 2 attacks (yes I am kind of a bleed addict, but I blame dark souls).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how this thread keeps going.
0_0
The prophecy has come true!
So Marthkus, what's your view of monks and fighters since you started this thread last year?
Necromancy is never holy.Holy Necro!
KILL THIS THREAD! KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT SPREADS!!!
While TECHNICALLY conjuration, one can say that Bringing the Dead back to life is a sort of necromancy in practice...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While TECHNICALLY conjuration, one can say that Bringing the Dead back to life is a sort of necromancy in practice...Necromancy is never holy.Holy Necro!
KILL THIS THREAD! KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT SPREADS!!!
Well all healing spells were Necromancy until 3.0 when they changed healing spells it to Conjuration because __________.
So Marthkus, what's your view of monks and fighters since you started this thread last year?
At the moment, I'd rather play a fighter. So take that as you will.
Mechanically, I would say the two are about equivalent.