What's your definition of "reliably"? A fighter can swing a sword, but whether he'll hit his target is unreliable (by the way I use that word). A wizard can cast a save or suck spell, but whether it will have an affect is unreliable (again, by the way I use that word).Not true.So what can they do? Anything in particular reliably?
Does it matter? I was asking for your measurement to be honest.
I'll give you a good definition.
80% or higher success rate on monsters with CR equal to level.
You see a lot of monk players talk about things like "OMG 3 bonus maneuvers from maneuver master, monks are great" without addressing that those three bonus maneuvers are all made at -12. There is no monk that can reliably land maneuvers (80% or better chance of landing) on any monster of CR equal to their level if they are taking a -12.
This reliability factor also relates to damage. If you hit with regularity but at level 10 only deal 10 damage per hit... you aren't being effective. As a good estimate, you should be able to deal about 9 to 10 times your level with a full attack (reliably). E.G. a level 11 fighter should be able to deal 99-110 damage with a full attack reliably.
Take a standard fighter (no Archtype). Should have 22 Str, a +3 weapon, Weapon Training 2, Weapon Spec, Weapon Focus, Imp. Crit and Power Attack at a minimum. That gives +30/+25/+20 to hit CR 11 monsters (avg AC of about 26) so he hits "reliably" at 95%/95%/75% (average of 88.3%). Each swing that has a 20% chance of critting using the same hit chances. We can extrapolate from this that the fighter will average 0.452 confirmed crits per round, And just using the good 'ol greatsword he will hit for 2d6+26 or 33 per swing on average. So total it all up and we have an average full attack that deals 102.4 damage.
So there is your benchmark... try to hit it.
"reliably" means "works 80% of the time"? Do you hold other classes to the same standard? Are a wizard's save or suck spells reliable only if they work 80% of the time?
They work more often than the monks if you have to compare. Monks have to hit someone with an attack and then they have to fail a save from a class that isn't so SAD and isn't dumping feats into it.
Still, waiting on a build that can do a variety of things for a variety of situations and has great mobility and battlefield control and can contribute in combat.
Maybe, maybe not. But, do save or suck spells work at least 80% of the time? Are they reliable?"reliably" means "works 80% of the time"? Do you hold other classes to the same standard? Are a wizard's save or suck spells reliable only if they work 80% of the time?They work more often than the monks if you have to compare.
Are they more reliable than a caster? Yes. There is no maybe, this is a yes. Monks are MAD and don't dump feats into them and have to make an attack and then the foe has to make a save. Casters tend to be SAD, may dump feats(especially if specializing), and probably only allows one save, maybe against multiple targets, which can be persisted among other things and probably will last longer than one turn...
"reliably" means "works 80% of the time"? Do you hold other classes to the same standard? Are a wizard's save or suck spells reliable only if they work 80% of the time?
Not precisely
Same example character. Level 11 caster with a 24 casting stat and a couple focus feats. That means their highest level spell (Lvl 6) is at DC 25, level 5s at DC 24. Any smart caster is going to target the weak save of whatever he or she is targeting, but even if we just use an average. Saves of CR 11 monsters average out at about +12. So an pure enchanter casting only save or suck spells will have the following distribution: 60%/55%/50% for his top three levels of spells.
Why is this different for casters? Because that same caster has a massive array of spells that deal half of their effect even on a successful save. So that same array on spells that are not all-or-nothing gambles will instead be 80%/77.5%/75% for effectiveness. And this is, of course, without metamagic rods or other abilties taken into account.
However, the effects of a SoS spell are generally crippling... so the gamble can be worth it. This is not an option available to martials, so I didn't feel the need to post it.
A Stunning Fist attack can be done multiple times per round and the attack has an effect even if the stunning fist, itself, doesn't work. Plus, when it does work, the effect can be crippling (enemy drops weapon, monk or ally picks it up).
By the standards you imply, Lord_Malkov, the monk's need for success for each roll should be lower than a caster's.
relevant clarification text on stunning fist.
/helpful!
'You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Stunning Fist attack can be done multiple times per round and the attack has an effect even if the stunning fist, itself, doesn't work. Plus, when it does work, the effect can be crippling (enemy drops weapon, monk or ally picks it up).
By the standards you imply, Lord_Malkov, the monk's need for success for each roll should be lower than a caster's.
You are really reaching at this point.
Are you really trying to compare stunning fist to the full array of spells available to a 9-level caster?Stunning fist does not have a secondary effect on save.
Let me further illustrate since this seems to be beyond you.
A wizard casts damage spell X.
If monster Y fails its save it takes 100% of the damage.
If monster Y Passes it still takes half.
If the chance for monster Y to save is 40%
Then the average effect will be:
[1 x (1-.40) + 0.5 x (.40)] x Effect
OR: 0.6 + 0.2
Which equals an average of 80% of the full effect getting through.
Attacks are binary, therefore the average effect depends on hits. So a fighter should hit with 80% of his attacks to match that same effectiveness since there is no half-effect if he misses.
Stunning fist DCs are low. The monk has to hit. There is no half effect on a passed save. There are no options for a monk to choose a different save if the monster has a high fort save. The monk cannot choose a different effect if the monster has immunities.
Does this factor in? Sure, stunning fist can be good. Hooray. Doesn't change the metric. What I am saying here isn't groundbreaking. If you are making a build and want to know if it is reliable or good, then use 80%. If you design a character around Trip and only average a 50% chance to actually trip an at CR monster, then the build is not good. Simple as that.
If you can't hit 80% with your bread and butter combat options against CR averages (not specific monsters that can create edge cases) then you aren't reliable.
Anyway, we are talking about monk builds... and you wanted some kind of benchmark to hit to be considered reliable. I gave them to you. Make builds.
I could build any other martial class and tell you what they were built around. What their standard go-to combat option would be, and I could build them to do that thing with 80% or better effectiveness, and I could ensure that they also hit the damage benchmark that I set forth. 80% is not that much to ask for whatever the focus of a build is, and as long as you are dishing out the damage or supplementing lower damage with equivalent control/hampering of enemies, then you are alright.
I already built a Tetori in this very thread that hit those benchmarks. Can it be done with a shirtless face-puncher monk? Well go ahead and do it! With enough system mastery its possible, I'm sure.
But this all circumvents the main point of all the dissenters in this thread. The Monk is not a good Core class. It needs some help and some buffs to be on a par with the other classes that fill the same sort of martial roll. I really don't know why that is so hard to believe. Can monks do things? Sure! Can they do them as well as they should? No!
A Stunning Fist attack can be done multiple times per round and the attack has an effect even if the stunning fist, itself, doesn't work. Plus, when it does work, the effect can be crippling (enemy drops weapon, monk or ally picks it up).
By the standards you imply, Lord_Malkov, the monk's need for success for each roll should be lower than a caster's.
As Rathender says, you are limited to ONE stunning fist attempt per round.
Furthermore, for stunning fist to work, you have to (a) hit the target, (b) inflict damage to the target (which means that if the target has sufficient DR to reduce you damage to zero, SF doesn't work), and (c) the target has to fail a Fortitude save (a success completely negates the stun).
Your DC for stunning fist is 10 plus one-half your level as a monk, plus your Wisdom modifier. For an 11th level character (as an example), that is 15 plus Wisdom modifier. NOT GOOD.
You need Strength to be effective in combat, plus you need Con and Dex and Wis (hence why monks are considered MAD). If you are concentrating on Str (so you can hit, deal damage, and attempt maneuvers), your Wisdom isn't going to be more than 18-20 (even after magic item enhancement bonuses) . . . so your total save DC is 19-20. Average good save of a CR11 critter is +12 . . . that means he will fail just 30-35% of the time.
A one-in-three chance at being stunned until the start of your next turn . . . IF you hit, IF you damage the critter, and IF he fails his save.
Not very reliable by anyone's definition.
MA
Can somebody provide a definition for "reliable" which isn't completely arbitrary and ridiculous?
If I give you one you'll abuse it. If I say more than 50% you'll give me 55% and say that's okay, if I give you 80% you'll claim casters aren't that good at it.
Also, your avoiding the actual problem.
Can somebody provide a definition for "reliable" which isn't completely arbitrary and ridiculous?
@Lord_Malkov, I went to grad school for Systems Architecture at a top 10 University. You don't need to explain things like "average" to me.
How about being successful against a CR-appropriate opponent more than half the time? Basically, if you can reliably hit with half of your attacks in a full attack, or have a 55% or better chance of success with a maneuver/special attack, it can be deemed as 'reliable'.
That puts the bar relatively (pun intended) low. So knock yourself out.
MA
|
Just going to throw out Champion of Irori build for comparison.
Str14(10Base+4Enhancement)
Dex16(15Base+1Level)
Con18(14Base+4Enhancement)
Int10
Wis22(14Base+2Race+2Levels+4Enhancement)
Cha19(13Base+2Race+4Enhancement)
Feats:
L1Channel Smite
C1Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
M1Improved Unarmed Strike (l2)
M1Stunning Fist
M1Dodge
M2Combat Reflexes(l3)
M2Toughness
L3Guided Hand
L5Cranes Style
L7Crane Wing
L9Crane Riposte
L11Critical Focus
Class Features
Channel Energy 7/day
Healing Domain
Rebuke Death 9/day
Flurry of Blows +8/+8/+4/+4
Iron Monk
Fast Movement
Still Mind
Maneuver Training
Detect Evil/Chaos
Smite Evil/Chaos 2/day
Ki Pool 11pts.
Pursuit of Knowledge +3
Sweeping Smite
Valiant Stand +3
Shield the Weak
Skill Mastery (Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth)
Perfect Opening
Gear:
Ring of Ki Mastery
Headband of Mental Prowess (+4Wis/Cha)
Belt of Physical Might (+4 Str/Con)
Monk's Robe
Amulet of Mighty Fists +3
Ring of Force Shield
Bracers of the Avenging Knight
Potions of Mage Armor (x10)
Handy Haversack
Bronze Gong (channel focus)
Wooden Holy Symbol
Monk's Kit
Monk's Outfit
Attacks
Unarmed Strike +17 (2d6+5)
Flurry of Blows +15/+15/+10/+10 (2d6+5 all)
Unarmed Strike+Smite +21 (2d6+17 (29v. Evil Outsiders, Chaotic Outsiders, Undead, Evil Dragons, Chaotic Abberations, and Fey)
Flurry of Blows+Smite +19/+19/+14/+14 (2d6+17(+29v. Evil Outsiders, Chaotic Outsiders, Undead, Evil Dragons, Chaotic Abberations, and Fey)
HP=127(64Levels+12Toughness+48Con+3FCB)
AC=26(10Base+4Dodge+1Nat. Armor+2Shield+6Wis+3Dex)
Buffed AC=41(10Base+11Dodge+1Nat. Armor+2Shield+6Wis+3Dex+4Armor+4Deflection)
CMD=36(10Base+11BaB+4Dodge+6Wis+3Dex+2Str)
Buffed CMD=47(10Base+11BaB+11Dodge+6Wis+3Dex+2Str+4Deflection)
Saves:
Will+17(11Base+6Wis)+2 v. Enhancements
Reflex+10(7Base+3Dex)
Fort+15(11Base+4Con)
Skills
Knowledge Religion+11(5ranks+3trained+3pursuit of knowledge)
Linguistics+8(5ranks+3trained)
Acrobatics+16(10ranks+3trained+3dex)
Perception+19(10Ranks+3trained+6wis)
Didn't select spells for him, but if he uses divine wrath/favor he gets a +1 to attack and damage. Also didn't select traits, but if there are traits, he'd have wisdom in the flesh(acrobatics) and Quian Martial Artist traits.
Against a CR12 in the bestiaries on the PRD, he can hit with at least his first 2 attacks fairly easily, and is sort of difficult to hit. The fight defensive penalties are factored in. I think I did some miscalculations in the attack bonuses or AC, but can't find them.
He can Smite all day long (with 2 from the actual ability, the ability to convert all 11 ki pool points into smite at a (with ring of ki mastery) 1:1 ratio, and the ability to convert all channels into ki. I think that if the party buffs him he can make a suitable tank. He can deflect 1 attack per round and make 1 of his 3 AoO's against the deflected attacks. If he gets critically hit, once per round he gets an AoO against the crit, that auto-threatens a crit, and he can deflect the crit still and make another AoO. I think that this could fair nicely
Also, he can help with knowledge monkey (at least outside of combat) and he can help with reflex saves in the party (though it is kind of suicide).
Can somebody provide a definition for "reliable" which isn't completely arbitrary and ridiculous?
@Lord_Malkov, I went to grad school for Systems Architecture at a top 10 University. You don't need to explain things like "average" to me.
How about being successful against a CR-appropriate opponent more than half the time? Basically, if you can reliably hit with half of your attacks in a full attack, or have a 55% or better chance of success with a maneuver/special attack, it can be deemed as 'reliable'.
That puts the bar relatively (pun intended) low. So knock yourself out.
MA
how will the test be done; Monte Carlo? Can you specify one -unbiased- person (someone both sides of this debate agree to) in charge of certifying the monk passed the test? Is the proposed encounter one-on-one? For clarity, all restrictions on the build and the test should be in one place. restriction 1.) Anything published by Paizo and on d20pfsrd is allowed. restriction 2.) The Monk is 12th level restriction 3 The Monk has full wealth for that level, full hit points, full ki, and every other resource available is full.
Once the monk is submitted, I'll ignore this thread for awhile so the certifying authority can make their decision based only on the submission. I'll be available by messaging to answer any questions.
Why? You haven't yet posted the build you promised pages ago. I don't think you are going to post a build; you just want to make assertions that don't hold water.
You asked for a definition of 'reliable' . . . I gave you one. Now you want more, while we are still waiting on that build of yours that will prove us all wrong.
Never mind that you don't seem to know the basic fundamentals of the monk (i.e., one stun attempt per attack, combining two archetypes that both replace the same feature, etc., etc., etc.).
Tell you what, grasshopper. Post your build. Then we will talk. Until that time, however, I am going to ignore you.
MA
Is this no longer a monk?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I petition that we just completely ignore Justin Rocket from now on. He is done nothing but make baseless claims for the past 4+ pages, constantly moves field goals, and plays stupid obtuseness when faced with HARD MATHMATICAL DATA.
Oh, and Justin Rocket, how about you tell us what school you supposedly went to? Because that "I went to a top 10 university" really sounds like the statement from a person who most certainly had not. If you actually went to any such school, you would most certainly worded your statement like "I went/amd currently attending (Insert School Name here) for (insert major here)." Its basic behavioral psychology...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
how about you tell us what school you supposedly went to?The University of Southern California which, as you can see here is ranked 9th.
Since you all have no interest in developing an unbiased test for the monk, there's no point in continuing. I wish you'd been more explicit about that a week ago. I'm quite interested in model testing on this subject.
You know Justin, you really are very egotistical. FOR YEARS, the Monk has been tested, taken apart, re-tested, changed, tested again, TWEAKED TESTED AND TESTED AND TESTED.
The Monk has NEVER passed any test AT ALL. Every month, some person comes on here claiming how the HUNDREDS of people that have done this testing, must all obviously be wrong. They claim the Monk is a really good class, capable of beating any test. Some even claim it's as good or better than any Fighter or Barbarian.
Sean K. Reynolds himself stated the Monk was broken and he wanted to fix it. He doesn't want to apply a band aid, he wants it fixed. So you have hundreds of posters who have tested the Monk and found it underpowered and broken. You have one of the lead developers for Paizo saying it's broken. You have thousands upon thousands of Monk threads re-hashing this same argument for dozens of pages again, and again, and again, and again.
But you, in your superiority have decided to come in, like so many before you, and claimed we were wrong. You claim you have builfs for monks Monks that are amazing. You start posting ideas for a Monk, only to be quickly shot down that it doesn't work because it wasn't even legally possible to do so. But you ignore it, why? Well you attended a top 10 college, obviously you're smarter than all of us and we must be wrong.
The Monk class is underpowered. That is a fact. A few of the archetypes are good, chief amongst them is the Zen Archer. But the archetypes are just band aids. The Zen Archer had to change a lot about the Monk, and toss in some mechanics that would be broken on just about any other class archetype, just to make it good.
Seriously, what makes you so much smarter than everyone else on the boards? What makes your tests better than the thousands that have come before you, including Sean K. Reynolds? What bit of knowledge makes you so confident that every one is wrong, except for yourself?
FOR YEARS, the Monk has been tested, taken apart, re-tested, changed, tested again, TWEAKED TESTED AND TESTED AND TESTED.All the rules that affect the Monk have not been out for years and years. So, most of those previous tests have been incomplete.
So obviously there's something wrong with the test?
2000 for 3rd, 2003 for 3.5, 2008 for pathfinder. It has been quiet a few.
|
|
A neutral test to prove the monk is UP? Pit it against 3 CR12 Monsters (in individual fights, with full resources), to determine the odds of hitting it, approximately how many hits it takes to kill them, then, how long it takes for the monster to kill the monk. Then, do so with a different character from a PC race that imitates a monk (brawler fighter, unarmed magus, inquisitor/cleric of irori, etc.), or multiclass build (like the CoI I included earlier, or a MoMS3/Brawler9) that imitates the monk.
|
|
What is the need to compare it to another class?
Because Underpowered is relative to the power of another class, therefor, comparing to another class that focuses on the same thing (for balance, as unarmed strikes are poor weapons in general), can show that a monk is clearly more or less* powerful at what it does.
*My prediction is the monk will be less powerful if both are equally optimized, which isn't to say I don't like monks (in fact, they are 1 of my favorite classes just for the cool stuff they do), but they are kinda weak mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
link?
Sean K. Reynolds himself stated the Monk was broken and he wanted to fix it.
Here is the link.
And on the subject of splat books: there are many people on this forum that tear apart the splat books to learn the new rules. These people are the ones that find and build things like AM Barbarian, or God Wizards or One Zen Archers.
These people know the rules, seemingly, a hell of a lot better than you do. They find all the best stuff, and make characters using them. They even make Monks.
People like myself, Dabbler, Master Arminas, Lord Wraithstrike, etc are outspoken advocates of the Monk. Dabbler and Master Arminas in particular, you will find, have posts in damned near every single monk thread that exists. Every time someones brings up the Monk, you will more than likely find those two in there, and others like Lord Wraithstrike are sure to show up too.
I stopped posting in the threads so much because of events in my life. I have now taken over custody of my sister's sons and can't devote my time to answering all the Monk questions. But I still lurk in them. I still build Monks, and some of them, admittedly, have been very powerful. They take a lot of system mastery and abusing certain aspects of the rules to do, but it's possible.
HOWEVER, there are only a few such possible builds. There are literally scores of ways to make a Barbarian, and make him all around useful. Same thing with a Fighter, a Paladin, a Ranger, etc. etc. etc.
Monks on the other hand, tend to go down some very narrow routes. Many people only dip the Monk for the Master of Many Styles, Flowing Monk, or Tetori benefits. The Master, Flowing and Tetori are also amongst the most commonly seen Monks, next to Zen and Sohei. Why? Because they are band aids that make the Monk, in some ways, a lot better than they were before.
Almost no one chooses to play a core monk anymore. At least, not that I've seen at PFS games, conventions or here on the forums. Almost everyone has an archetype, and I've asked why. Their answer? "Because it's hard to play a core Monk."
People play what is fun to play. Playing a Monk often times requires a lot of system mastery, lots of tactics, and more than a fair bit of luck. But they can be fun, extraordinarily large amounts of fun, to be honest. However, that fun is easier to have playing another class. Bards, Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians etc. can all be as much fun to play, with much less frustration.
I built a character that was a cross-classed Fighter/Barbarian and when I used it in a quick one off, people asked how I built my Monk. They were excited because they thought I had discovered the ONE TRUE Monk build and wanted to play too. They were sorely disappointed when they found out I had no levels of Monk and all. Some of them even remarked how sad it was that Fighters and Barbarians out Monk the Monk.
When it comes down to it, the best way to play a Monk, is either not play one, or disregard it's iconic class features and do something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. The claim is that the Monk is underpowered. Give me a reason that has nothing to do with rollplaying (i.e. optimization for its own sake) why the question of whether the Monk is underpowered need have anything to do with how it compares to other classes.
Man, if this is about roleplaying instead of rollplaying, I'm just going to have to assert that the commoner is OP and ya'll are doin' this wrong.
Really though, without mechanics you can't measure.
Except for optimization for its own sake, why does the question of "is the Monk UP?" have anything to do with how it compares to other classes?
I could name a few, not sure what particular one your looking for because its an awkward question.
Anyways, there's a 'narrative' balance which has a partial contribution from what our characters can achieve. There's also a roleplaying aspect to this, but that's highly dependent on your GM and much of that is equal for everyone. That measure that's controlled by your characters potential ability and contribution is derived from class features. Skill points, hit points, spells, class features, etc. Wizards are usually pointed at as being all powerful in this respect because they have an extremely high potential, they control space/time at a certain level and can use magic to bypass obstacles and they happen to have a high intelligence giving them a wealth of skill points to use. Fighters and monks are on a lower end of this, because they have a very low potential because they don't have many class features or skill points to contribute to this potential. You also have a closer equal potential with the tier 3/4 classes such as ranger.
Beyond that, your mechanical ability can affect your fun in the game. A commoner may not feel as helpful in a group with a wizard/cleric/druid. I mean you can, but if instead of a commoner you were equally capable and not overshadowed, it would likely increase your fun(ideally, its always possible to have fun without, but this is a personal thing.) Ideally you can have a balance game for this and still retain the narrative balance, which would be ideal for some people.
Again, beyond either of those two, its frustrating to not build the character you want or find it ineffective. This is the unfortunate case for some classes. Its sometimes difficult to build a character, and its an awful feeling to see the concept not live up to itself. There are a number of ways the system can contribute to this downfall, and success. In the monk's case building what I refer to as a 'shirtless, face puncher' (I use this because they have an emphasis on unarmed/unarmored and that's unique to the monk) it can be rather difficult, especially for a new player, to achieve this. More so even if you do build a very good monk he still may not be entirely up to par and getting him to excel is asking for something that may be beyond its potential.
So, all of those are things. Not sure if they're what your looking for but they are things related to balance.
|
|
No. The claim is that the Monk is underpowered. Give me a reason that has nothing to do with rollplaying (i.e. optimization for its own sake) why the question of whether the Monk is underpowered need have anything to do with how it compares to other classes.
A class being OP/UP is relative. The simplest, best, and possibly only fair way the relative power level of a class can fairly be measured is to compare it to another class at the same levels IMHO.
I FULLY agree with this statement. However, which numbers/mechanics are relevant and how do we determine objectively what is a success? Except for optimization for its own sake, why does the question of "is the Monk UP?" have anything to do with how it compares to other classes?
As for which numbers/mechanics are relevant, the AC, HP, Saves, Attack Bonuses, Damage bonuses, critical range, critical multiplier, Attack Ranges, Ability DCs (if any), CMD, CMB(only really for combat maneuver characters, like grapple monkey monks or fighters) and skills are all relevant mechanics* to determine a class's relative power level. Now, we will have to find a "base" class that is very well balanced for a fair comparison (because a 12th level nodachi fighter WILL most of the time do more damage than a 12th level monk (sub-optimal, and super-powered builds aside of course).
*I realize I am probably missing a few mechanics that are important.
MrSin, you just gave reasons why UP classes are a mark against the game (reasons I agree with), but they don't answer the question I posed. Why (other than optimization for its own sake) does the question of whether the Monk is UP have anything to do with how it compares to other classes?
Like I said, not quiet sure what your asking. You'll have to clarify if you want an answer from me in particular.
|
|
... yes next round i would need to burn 6 more, but as i said before as a drunken master you can "refill you ki pool" when you have nothing better to do.Except that he can't:
In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum.Drunken Monks are not immune to this. There's a limit on how much he can consume at any given time. So a 20 Con monk could rack up to 11 extra ki. That's a lot...if he has 20 Con. If he's got that much alcohol available. If his encounters are sufficiently spaced out.Yes, but haste lasts for the whole combat, and the wizard can teleport the whole group and at an earlier level than the monk...sorry, the combo is good, and it's fun, but once good move does not a buffermeister make.TheSideKick wrote:
so slow time>hastenot to mention that same monk can teleport the group, and give very very powerful dpr boosting and defensive buffs on top of that.
hey dabbler ive never got to make an "you're wrong" post for your counter arguments. you are usually spot on, but not in this case.
first
In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum.
now where does it say the character has to stop drinking? my character can consume 30 drinks and just be sickened for doing so. now all i need do i carry around a 50gp potion of Remove Sickness
second:
i would rather have 3 rounds of extra damage in one round, then 3 rounds of extra damage in 3. so yeah haste still sucks vrs slow time. also im not giving one good buff, im giving 10, up to a +9 ac, +20 to attack for EVERY party member, teleportation without FAILURE (at the same level as a mage (12)), extra movement speed, restoration (without material component), slow time, extra D6 to damage, swift action 5 foot steps( on top of normal one 5 foot you get for that round, no AOO), and more if you choose them for your qinggong abilities like shadow step ect...
oh and all of these abilities function on a 30 foot aoe with no limit to how many people can benefit. i honestly cant think of many buffs a cleric of wizard can use that are substantially better then those listed above. if you dip into ninja you can add to this list forgotton trick, which then lets everyone in the party choose which ninja buff they would like to use for that round. invisibility, mirror immage, smokebomb, high jump, feather fall, sudden disguise.
MrSin, you just gave reasons why UP classes are a mark against the game (reasons I agree with), but they don't answer the question I posed. Why (other than optimization for its own sake) does the question of whether the Monk is UP have anything to do with how it compares to other classes?
Is this really a question?
Why, does a comparative statement made about monks require that they be compared to something? That is what you are asking.
Under-powered must, by necessity, be a comparative statement. If Monk was the ONLY class in the game, no one would complain that they were underpowered. Similarly, if every other class had a lower HD, lower AC, lower BAB, lower damage etc. then everyone would argue that the Monk was overpowered.
You aren't making any sense. The average power-level of the classes in the game define the baseline. If you fall under that baseline, you are under-powered. If you rise above it, you are over-powered. If you fall on top of it, you are balanced.
This thread has become absurd. Any reasonable metric that you are asked to match, you eschew as unreasonable with NO explanation. Take note that you are the only one here refusing to provide any evidence in support of your arguments, and the only one making erroneous statements about what is even possible with a monk... often just ignoring the RAW outright.
|
|
The monk on the other hand has 1 job, hit things. All martials have 1 role in combat, to hit things. Why? Because that is all they can do. They can't lock down creatures with Hold X abilities. They cannot create giant pits of lava or freeze over the entire battlefied. They cannot completely drain their opponents until they become 1 HD creatures. All they can really do is HP damage.
actually this is wrong. the monk isnt about damage, its about tieing up the BBEG and having the defenses to mitigate damage and spells long enough for the fighter/casters to mop up the mobs and assist the monk in killing the target.
it is the BEST defensive class in the game, only slightly weaker then a paladin who focuses on self healing through layon hands. monks have higher ac, higher saves (unless the paladin is super opimized), and an incredible touch ac, which lets them move into a position to tie up casters and enemies with nasty SLA's and EX touch abilities. i never think of my monks as the tank, only the distraction to prevent my casters for being targeted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that the best defensive clas in the game is an invulnerable rager + superstition + beast totem + come and get me barbarian.
Well, it is not a class, but whatever.
By the way, if you are not a quinngon or dex focused monk is hard to have a high AC.
Don't forget to make him a Dwarf with Steel Soul. You know, just to top off that save shenanigans :P