Who would you rather have in your party?


Advice

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

This Monk or This Fighter


For a dungeon crawl or wilderness adventure the fighter. For intrigue in any but the most cosmopolitan of cities, though, he's too memorable.

Shadow Lodge

Your monk's lack of skills make him rather unappealing. All he can do is fight, your fighter at least has some knowledge and social skills.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the rest of the party.


The monk has much greater saves. Remember this when the random spellcaster dominate your martial guy.

gnoams wrote:
Your monk's lack of skills make him rather unappealing. All he can do is fight, your fighter at least has some knowledge and social skills.

He's right. If you can, drop Climb for Sense Motive.

Grand Lodge

Really, party synergy plays a big part.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Really, party synergy plays a big part.

How so? What are their synergistic differences?

Grand Lodge

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Really, party synergy plays a big part.
How so? What are their synergistic differences?

I mean, in general.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would almost always rather have a fighter than a monk in any party, simply because the fighter sucks less at what it is he's supposed to do.


Right now the fighter, but barely. If you can up his will save, even by 2, then he is definitely the 1st choice.


wraithstrike wrote:
Right now the fighter, but barely. If you can up his will save, even by 2, then he is definitely the 1st choice.

If this was a 25 point buy, the monk's str and int would go up by 1 and the fighter's wis would go up by 4. So that would be 2 higher on the will save


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Really, party synergy plays a big part.
How so? What are their synergistic differences?

One is a necessity, one is an enjoyable luxury.

You HAVE to have a fighter in the party to play tank, if you already have one or two of those you can spend a party slot on the guy who's only decent at fighting but has cute special abilities that are cool and occasionally really useful.

I mean, as a rule you need a tank (martial class) a caster (arcane class) a healer (divine class) and maybe (but only maybe) a Skill-monkey (rogue-ly-type). Now obviously some of you are already composing angry posts explaining how people can make ANY party work and your party of all wizards was the most fun you ever had and in fact, my party of all wizards was some of the most fun *I* ever had. But as a general power issue you gotta have one of each, that's how the system works. Any other party is using hacks and workarounds to shore up the gap left by not having at least 1 of each.

If you have more than 2 of any of those they start stepping on each other's lines and you would be better served branching out with the crossover and "extra" classes like bard, or one of those classes but with a strong RP focus in another direction (like the druid add to the party with a cleric or the archery specialist to the party with a melee tank monster). If you have 3 clerics all trying to buff the fighter they rapidly run out of spells that stack, and are suddenly looking for other things to do. Only 1 rogue can pick the lock on a door at a time. 3 melee fighters are great if the party's surrounded, but generally it's all 3 guys jockeying for a position to actually hit the enemy and wishing to heck there was another cleric because the monster's damage field is hurting them all and the party cleric can only heal 1 dude a round. Not to mention the glory dilution. "Hey you did a good job holding back that Abyssal Horror while the rogue and wizard cracked open the portal we could escape through, you're a great team member and a stalwart defender," seems a little less cool when it's spread out across 3 of you.

So you take Bard, which has buffs that other classes don't get. Or Druid, so even though you're another fighty-casty dude you're all about nature and the wisdom of the trees. Or you take Monk because you're not the Greatest Warrior but you're blazing fast, silent as a cat, and can break out of any evil villains evil gulag because taking away your sword makes you stronger.

And in this particular case, the question is, "do we have enough archers to shoot down flyers?"

Also, didn't we discover that a mutagen warrior can't actually fly because his caster level is effectively zero?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather take the monk, greater saves makes it less of a liability, and other class members can fill in the tank role. No tank? Have a druid or summoner in the party.


boring7 wrote:
Also, didn't we discover that a mutagen warrior can't actually fly because his caster level is effectively zero?

Eh that's a GM call. A Mutagen fighter uses his fighter level instead of alchemist level for the discoveries (unless mutagen also has a duration of 0). The alchemist also uses his level as his caster level for all effects, so if the fighter has an effective alchemist level, he would also have an effective caster level.

You can rule it the other way, but then the ability mechanically does nothing which is nonsensical and has no precedent outside of rogue talents and certain non-PRD feats.

Dark Archive

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Also, didn't we discover that a mutagen warrior can't actually fly because his caster level is effectively zero?

Eh that's a GM call. A Mutagen fighter uses his fighter level instead of alchemist level for the discoveries (unless mutagen also has a duration of 0). The alchemist also uses his level as his caster level for all effects, so if the fighter has an effective alchemist level, he would also have an effective caster level.

You can rule it the other way, but then the ability mechanically does nothing which is nonsensical and has no precedent outside of rogue talents and certain non-PRD feats.

And the totem warrior archetype


Jarred Henninger wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Also, didn't we discover that a mutagen warrior can't actually fly because his caster level is effectively zero?

Eh that's a GM call. A Mutagen fighter uses his fighter level instead of alchemist level for the discoveries (unless mutagen also has a duration of 0). The alchemist also uses his level as his caster level for all effects, so if the fighter has an effective alchemist level, he would also have an effective caster level.

You can rule it the other way, but then the ability mechanically does nothing which is nonsensical and has no precedent outside of rogue talents and certain non-PRD feats.

And the totem warrior archetype

What do you mean?

Dark Archive

Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.


Jarred Henninger wrote:
Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.

It allows you to grab totem powers. That is like saying Qinggong monk is an archetype that grants nothing.


There isn't really tanking in PF because there are neither good aggro nor good martial lockdown mechanics. For blocking round one charge lanes to the wizard the monk is as good as the fighter. For making oneself a priority target in spite of one's hardness neither will do. That's a job for a cleric or bard (or oracle or skald).


Atarlost wrote:
There isn't really tanking in PF because there are neither good aggro nor good martial lockdown mechanics. For blocking round one charge lanes to the wizard the monk is as good as the fighter. For making oneself a priority target in spite of one's hardness neither will do. That's a job for a cleric or bard (or oracle or skald).

Yes I was confused when people where saying one was a better tank than the other.

Well the fighter here can grab "In Harm's Way" to protect an ally, and already has pin down, so that once he is on someone, they have to take an AOO to get away.


The tanking role I presumed they were describing was exactly that, a battery of hitpoints bigger than the wizards that can get in the enemies face, and be the guy that gets whooped up on instead. Sure a smart guy can go around but not everyone is smart and going around isn't always easy if the party can help it. For this role an animal companion is as good as a fighter up to midlevels, and at high levels the wizard has nothing to worry about except other casters. The AC is better than the monk because it's usually more expendable than party members.

Dark Archive

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.
It allows you to grab totem powers. That is like saying Qinggong monk is an archetype that grants nothing.

Except you don't need the archetype to take totem rage powers.


Jarred Henninger wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.
It allows you to grab totem powers. That is like saying Qinggong monk is an archetype that grants nothing.

Except you don't need the archetype to take totem rage powers.

Yeah I don't think that's true. Just most people don't bother remembering they are that archetype.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.
It allows you to grab totem powers. That is like saying Qinggong monk is an archetype that grants nothing.

Except you don't need the archetype to take totem rage powers.

Yeah I don't think that's true. Just most people don't bother remembering they are that archetype.

No it really is true. The Totem Warrior Archetype was confirmed by Paizo to be a mistake in editing. It does nothing.


Scavion wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Jarred Henninger wrote:
Totem warrior is a barbarian archetype that grants nothing.
It allows you to grab totem powers. That is like saying Qinggong monk is an archetype that grants nothing.

Except you don't need the archetype to take totem rage powers.

Yeah I don't think that's true. Just most people don't bother remembering they are that archetype.
No it really is true. The Totem Warrior Archetype was confirmed by Paizo to be a mistake in editing. It does nothing.

OK. Regardless totem warrior also doesn't take anything away from a character, unlike broken rogue talents and feats.


KuntaSS wrote:
The tanking role I presumed they were describing was exactly that, a battery of hitpoints bigger than the wizards that can get in the enemies face, and be the guy that gets whooped up on instead. Sure a smart guy can go around but not everyone is smart and going around isn't always easy if the party can help it. For this role an animal companion is as good as a fighter up to midlevels, and at high levels the wizard has nothing to worry about except other casters. The AC is better than the monk because it's usually more expendable than party members.

It's also just HARD to go around. AoO's and threat radius always make you think twice about just charging the caster, and if there's a door or walls options for going around are even harder.

But I also mean "tank" as in a main battle tank dealing damage. Your best damage dealer is usually a martial class with buff spells. Oh sure disintegrate ends a fight instantly when it WORKS, but too often it doesn't work, or there are enough critters around or fights in a day that Greater Magic Weapon ends up dealing more damage than fireball.

But we're getting sidetracked. The fighter in question seems weak for a 12th level martial, but I assume that's because he traded some damage for the ability to fly. That's a tough call because flying for a few minutes a day is useless until the fly-by-attacking super-monster shows up to wreck your day and suddenly it is everything. A sidekick with a spell would be cheaper, but there's no denying that sometimes you just want to be able to do something yourself.

Looking again, you've got skill focus: fly, I respect wanting a decent skill in flying but there's better things to be spending your feats on. Not to mention with that kind of strength and power attack you should probably be two-handing, or even using a reach weapon to synergize with your "I flit around the battlefield dealing death and destruction" thing.

I mean I'm not martial optimizer, but it seems like there are better options. Unless it's a prerequisite or something.


Do you have ranged? What is your party like?

If you have ranged the monk. If you don't fighter. That's how I would go. Dragon Style allows charging through rough terrain, lots of mobility. But if you don't have an archer, the lack of abilities to do ranged damage is a big liability.

Or you could go with the dimensional savant chain of feats to do damage anywhere. Retrain can be an option if your GM allows it, and swap out many of the feats to get it at level 12.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
But we're getting sidetracked. The fighter in question seems weak for a 12th level martial

Unless the martial is a lower AC fighter with gloves of dueling, a +3 weapon, greater weapon focus and weapon specialization, then his damage should be just fine. Between martial flexibility and mutagen he can have +4 to hit and +3 to damage, or +3 to hit and damage and improved critical. A normal fighter only has +2 to hit and damage, +4 if he trades out some items here for gloves of dueling (which are not cheap). A weapon focus tree fighter could have +4 to hit, +6 to damage, and improved critical. But they are then locked to one weapon, so I would rarely play such a fighter.

A focused study human gets skill focus three times instead of the normal human bonus feat (skill focus at 1, 8, and 16). I thought fly was more important than extra intimidate at that level.

Idk if fly is ever useless. Every combat this fighter has a 40ft move speed before haste. Flight also allows the fighter to ignore rough terrain.


Mydrrin wrote:
Do you have ranged? What is your party like?

The question is who would you rather have as a party member. So in your ideal party, one of these two has to be in it. Who would you pick? Who would you pick if the party was less ideal(random)?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
The question is who would you rather have as a party member. So in your ideal party, one of these two has to be in it. Who would you pick? Who would you pick if the party was less ideal(random)?

Monk. Saves are everything 9th level past. All the fancy martial maneuvering/mutagen discoveries are utterly pointless if you fail a saving throw and are either incapacitated, dead, or POOF You're in Hell now!


Personally I like monks more because they have more options in the later parts of the game like after level 12. Monks have fewer weakness. Fighters can do a bit more damage depending on how they are made.


Can I take a third choice?

Ok then monk. Spell resistance though subpar is something the fighter won't get plus saves.


lvl 20 version of fighter

Do saves really need to be high enough to stop all effects or just high enough that the BBEG has to worry about wasting their action?


Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.


KuntaSS wrote:
Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.

That's what protection from evil is for.


KuntaSS wrote:
Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.

Well we got a LG fighter here with a +20 will save, if sent to attack the party he gets a +22 will save again.

So it's not like dominate person couldn't work, but the chance is pretty low.


I was hoping this would be more of a "Kate Beckinsdale or Vin Diesel" kind of a question.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I was hoping this would be more of a "Kate Beckinsdale or Vin Diesel" kind of a question.

I would have to go with Vin. Now if Anne Hathaway was an option...


Have intercourse with Kate, marry Vin, and kill the monk.


KuntaSS wrote:
Have intercourse with Kate, marry Vin, and kill the monk.

Agreed, especially since I hear Vin's in the hobby too.


The age old "kill, bang, marry" game.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:


I mean, as a rule you need a tank (martial class) a caster (arcane class) a healer (divine class) and maybe (but only maybe) a Skill-monkey (rogue-ly-type). Now obviously some of you are already composing angry posts explaining how people can make ANY party work and your party of all wizards was the most fun you ever had and in fact, my party of all wizards was some of the most fun *I* ever had. But as a general power issue you gotta have one of each, that's how the system works. Any other party is using hacks and workarounds to shore up the gap left by not having at least 1 of each.

This is completely out-dated. Tanks and healers are hindrances to party composition. Read Treantmonk's wizard guide for more information about how to play the game tactically, please.

The Exchange

KuntaSS wrote:
Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.

Or you can completely negate your argument for the cost of 4,000 gold.


Demoyn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.
Or you can completely negate your argument for the cost of 4,000 gold.

Only against Evil enemies.

The Exchange

Anzyr wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
Stop all effects, the 20 fighter with low saves is going to be a liability beyond just potentially dying, he could also get dominated and turn on the party.
Or you can completely negate your argument for the cost of 4,000 gold.
Only against Evil enemies.

Yeah, but there are plenty of defenses against those few pesky neutral mind controllers as well. Still, a vast majority of people trying to dominate you will be evil.


Said Fighter's saves

Fort: 28
Ref : 21
Will : 20

There are very few creatures that can reliably dominate this fighter. The only thing that I think can is an optimized PC caster. A caster that specialized in enchantment...

Idk, seems unlikely.

The Exchange

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Said Fighter's saves

Fort: 28
Ref : 21
Will : 20

There are very few creatures that can reliably dominate this fighter. The only thing that I think can is an optimized PC caster. A caster that specialized in enchantment...

Idk, seems unlikely.

If your saves are that high on a fighter, you're going to be really lacking in more important areas. There are other, much cheaper defenses to debilitating affects.


Demoyn wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Said Fighter's saves

Fort: 28
Ref : 21
Will : 20

There are very few creatures that can reliably dominate this fighter. The only thing that I think can is an optimized PC caster. A caster that specialized in enchantment...

Idk, seems unlikely.

If your saves are that high on a fighter, you're going to be really lacking in more important areas. There are other, much cheaper defenses to debilitating affects.

Why don't you look at the char and tell me where he is lacking?


Why is the greatsword adamantine, doesn't having a high enough enhancement bypass the need to use it for DR, or is it because of sunder paranoia?

Also he has too many feats, you will never have enough shoes for him.


Demoyn wrote:
boring7 wrote:


I mean, as a rule you need a tank (martial class) a caster (arcane class) a healer (divine class) and maybe (but only maybe) a Skill-monkey (rogue-ly-type). Now obviously some of you are already composing angry posts explaining how people can make ANY party work and your party of all wizards was the most fun you ever had and in fact, my party of all wizards was some of the most fun *I* ever had. But as a general power issue you gotta have one of each, that's how the system works. Any other party is using hacks and workarounds to shore up the gap left by not having at least 1 of each.
This is completely out-dated. Tanks and healers are hindrances to party composition. Read Treantmonk's wizard guide for more information about how to play the game tactically, please.

Already have, you're being very insulting.

But rather than contribute to topic drift, I'll stop there.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Who would you rather have in your party? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.