Algarius's page

Someone mentioned it before, but your tone in the first couple of posts was pretty hostile, so a lot of the responses responded in kind.

As for something else other people have mentioned, absolutely nothing will get resolved if you or your players don't try communicating.

And saying this without knowing the players, if you go into a game thinking that they're going to try to undermine you then things that might not actually be undermining will seem like it. This is more of a perception thing, tho, kind of how having something hyped up can ruin what would have otherwise been a decent or good experience/product for people.

On a side note, how does one undermine the DM? My friends and I pretty much ignored a whole spy subplot that the DM had in favor of our plan (the spy had ruined the previous one, so this was a new secret one); would that be undermining the GM? Cause he didn't mind (he was actually amused, and dangled the fact that his punishment at the end was out of our hands).

True, but can't barbarian already do that with Greater Beast totem? I would say either keep them at 3/4 BAB and allow them to flurry (or some kind of reduced flurry) or give them full BAB and/or some kind of spring attack vital strike class feature.

Would making the monk full bab or making it so that they can flurry after moving make them overpowered?

I was going off of the original topic I guess (or maybe a tangent?). But it seemed to me that at least in that post that Dark Immortal was saying that the monks could put their AC to use for the benefit of the party, and I was simply expanding upon that.

And isn't the Zen Archer good at applying deadness to others?

I would sit down with them and let know what you expect in terms of preparation (and maybe have them repeat it back to you to make sure they understand), but more importantly let them know that if they're going to refuse your help, that better mean that they're going to play smartly (like that one person did).

@Dark Immortal I'm assuming what he meant that without the enemy feeling that the monk is a threat, it's logical for a creature to ignore them and go after the mage that's been harassing them or the archer that's been hurting them. Assuming that said creature isn't a humanoid or that this isn't early game, in which case a monk would control enough with combat maneuvers to irritate the person into attacking him.

It's isn't drawing aggro in an MMO sense either. Assuming a sentient intelligent adversary, taking out the biggest threats first only makes sense (it's what a party of PCs would do, after all). So after a couple of rounds, why would they attack your monk who not only is hard to hit, but isn't that big of a threat?

Also, I'm confused by the point you tried to make with your third sentence, since you basically described a paladin who's bad at attacking, who people would still find use for.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't play a monk. What they're saying is that you shouldn't play one and expect to be as effective as the other classes (if those other classes are built properly, and I'm gonna ignore archetypes since I'm sure there's a juicy, juicy combination there just waiting to be found for the monk, ignoring the Zen Archer who I believe is very effective just from looking).

You are the DM. You control the encounters. You can choose to either challenge them within their strengths or just attack their weaknesses.

Given how vehemently it seems you opposed their all wizard party, it seems that you already decided to play against them.

They do sound like s!~#ty players, but it's hard to render a judgment other than the one about you playing against them because of how strongly biased this is; it sounds like you're about ready to give up on them though.

Also, YOU might have felt that you explained everything satisfactorily to them, but humans are excellent at misunderstanding, so a lot of the grievances could have arose from everyone thinking they were on the same page only to find out they weren't.

GM_Solspiral wrote:

Define showing up? I mean its all rolls in the end there's a variety of spellcasters that allow for simultaneous spellcasting and showing up the party warrior, the druid is embarrassingly good at that.

Quote:

What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs".

You're making a ton of generalizations here. I like hack-n-slash video games and I like optimizing, that doesn't mean I carry over the hack-n-slash mentality to my tabletop games. In fact allot of sessions end up pure roleplaying.

There's nothing wrong with the standard summoner. Its a complicated class but so were psionics when they first came out. They are a great option for players that like monsters and tactical combat.

Showing up: When there's absolutely no reason to have a party (blank class) anymore because this other class can do it all AND still do something else to fulfill another role. If it fulfills more than one role at a time, AND completely negates the need for 2 roles simultaneously.

YOU might not have that attitude, but most of the posters on this website and even a lot of the players I've had over the years have this attitude. We are talking about people who complain and whine at the least little difficulty, constantly uber pump their characters while neglecting defenses and versatility. One trick munchkin ponies.

The standard summoner is simply broken. Too many ways to break the game, and far too easily at that. Gimme a conjurer any day over a summoner! Hell, as a DM I don't like Summon Monster because I have to keep looking up MORE...

Oddly enough, you responded to his comment about generalizing with another generalization.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't parry in real life (which you seem to try to emulate as close as possible) since that would damage the blade. So while that makes sense rules wise as represented by the weapon damage, in universe no one with a sword or bladed weapon would want to do that.

It's a very interesting rule set, but I feel that it won't appeal to most people.

Logically, no. Logically, there shouldn't be magic either and dragons shouldn't be able to fly.

And as long as raise dead and the like exist, PCs WILL be immortal. I can see a niche group enjoying this, but not a wide subset of people.

Also, wouldn't the parry rules just result in parry offs between intelligent creatures? While it might be logical, it doesn't sound that fun.

It seems to me that this would make for very short lived PCs.

But like any class, how useful they are will entirely depend on who else is in the party. Obviously, a spellcaster is supposed to be useful, no matter how many other spellcasters are in the same party, purely because magic is supposed to win, arbitrarily, at anything and everything. But that aside, in a arty of five, is the third bard a 5th wheel? How about the 4th barbarian or ranger? While you get some cool perks for stacking up, there's a point where bringing another optimized beat stick to the table doesn't really do anything for the group and you're just as useless because things are dead before it's your turn, or nobody is effective because there is too much of the same thing that you (and others in the party made just like you) are weak to.

Not sure if this one is Pun Pun level notoriety or not, but wasn't there this one all Barb party that did stupidly well in spite of being all the same class?

If your campaign allows guns and your character has either gunsmithing or craft(alchemy) you could use lots and lots of black powder.

If your DM allows more than one archetype, and is willing to let you choose which 20th lvl ability you want, a MoMS and MotFW monk would be pretty interesting.

Also, while I would say that a zen archer would probably out damage the archery ranger, the archery ranger gets access to spells, FE, and his AC can be a mount/flying mount, which is awesome for an archer.

As for the TWF thing, the TWF character has access to keen weapons, which can enable him to have two 15-20 crit weapons, which is crazy awesome when it works.

When a monk does Flurry of Blows they are treated as having a full BAB for all of there Flurry of Blows attacks. The only time a monk uses a 3/4 BAB is when they can not make a Flurry of Blows such as when they charge.

I can't figure out how no one recognizes the monk does have access to a Full BAB when they are using unarmed or a monk weapon in a Flurry.

A level 8 Monk and a level 8 Two Weapon Ranger have the same to hit bonus, and the same number of attacks and probably the same strength score to if I made a monk or a ranger my str would be 14 either way.

Monk
Flurry of Blows for a monk = +6 bab +2 str +2 amulet (which I don't believe it's a stretch to say a monk would have a +2 amulet at this level)

Ranger
Ranger Full Attack = +6 (since he's using 2 weapons it's not a +8) +2 str +2 weapons

they both equal +10 to hit, they both have 4 attacks

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry. The only time the monk gets 3/4 BAB is when they have to make a charge attack.

Actually, no, it's not quite full BAB. It's full BAB if the other char uses TWF and improved TWF, which while cool is not ideal. Most of the CR9 monsters have 20 AC or over, so you're looking at 2 55% chances to hit them and 2 30% chances to hit, assuming 20 AC. With a full BAB class, assuming the specifications you gave of +2 from a stat and a +2 from a weapon, it'd be only two attacks, but it'd be at +12/+7 which would give a 65% chance to hit and a 40% chance to hit respectively.

Now, not only do you have a better chance to hit, but having a fighter or barb with only 14-15 is somewhat ridiculous, so the chances to hit will go up.

A lvl 8 ranger with many shot and rapidshot can also do 4 attacks with a higher chance to hit than a monk with the same +2 from a stat and +2 from the weapon (which, once again is unrealistic statwise).

As a side note, 6 CR9 monsters have under 20 AC, 1 of which is flying while another is a multiplying gargantuan skeleton. The most common ACs were 21 and 23, which would lower the chance for the monk to hit even more.

So a monk isn't fully full BAB. Cool class, but not terribly effective without heavy tinkering.

It seems to me that a power attack made with two hands would be more powerful than with one hand.

Now what doesn't make sense (as mentioned in other threads) is that I can shove a gallon of arsenic down somebody's gullet and they can still have a chance to be completely unaffected by it.

For a wyvern, I'd say give it a 7th level advancement. Before it attains that advancement, give it +2 dex, lowered con and str, make it medium and take away it's poison. Make it large at 7th and pump it's str and con (although you might want to lower it for balance, maybe) back to normal limits and give it back the poison.

Other than that, make it follow the Animal companion thing for skills, hit die, saves, feats, and bab.

I would think that this would work out, but I'm no GM.