Karzoug the Claimer

Krigare's page

706 posts (717 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tenro wrote:


Looking at it more:
Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone (5k gp) + Wayfinder (250gp) gives a synergy of a +1 insight to CMB/CMD for 5250. This item uses the (bonus squared)x2500gp formula, and additionally gives you +1 insight to AC. Insight is a powerful bonus, but untyped is the most powerful type of bonus. so this is probably a little better of a place to work with.

===========================

an item of continuous Resinous Skin would be 45k. Not the best price, and there are ways to cheapen it like giving it uses per day rather.

an item of continual Lockjaw would be 48k. same as above in that it could be made more cheaply by doing uses per day or whatever.

the second spell does give a larger bonus, however, but it is untyped. the first spell gives some other side buffs.

The best comparision if you want to do it for untyped would be Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver. That is 4,000 gold for a +2 untyped bonus to CMB for a specific maneuver. Or basically bonus^2*1,000.

At most a circumstance bonus to a maneuver should cost that. Honestly if Voice is okay with it, the couple items I was looking at I can re-engineer using the cost of the gauntlets for the slotted ones, and double that for the slotless ones. I had completely forgotten about the gauntlets till a friend reminded me about them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

True, most of a monks ranged weapons are either close in or not a high rate of fire. I don't think that conflicts with the class design though. They are high mobility, so closing range isn't a huge issue, and if it comes down to having to stand and fire over multiple rounds, I don't think the extra shots would do much when using a crossbow vs a bow. The monk, aside from Zen Archers aren't ranged attackers. Give them access to bows and all of a sudden you open up a whole different playstyle and balancing issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

With the Barbrain at least you have a choice of more than one rage power. so I never get bored. Since you have so many choices. With a fighter it's imo so very limited espcially if you take the vanilla fighter. As much as some like to deny that other classes can replace the fighter they do. I think the problem imo is that fighter unlike other classes does not have a gimmick of his own. Yes a fighter gets a lot more feats yet everyone else gets them too. Unless one multiclass a fighter does not have access to mercy or rage powers. Imo the 3.5 dev should have given a fighter something unique that no one else could do unless a player muticlasses.

I'm not saying the fighter is useless or unplayable. Just that I find them uninteresting compared to other classes. I'm also not saying I would never play one. I do think their is room for improvement in the class. If it was up to me give fighters the leadership feat free after a certain level. That way Cha no longer becomes a dump stat mo.

Fighters do have a gimmick. It is sheer versatility and capability. Remove the morale bonuses, and barbarian rage is shut down. Not evil, paladin smite is no good. Rangers get a little love at higher levels on this by spending limited resources (spells) but no favored enemy no love. Fighter? Good 24/7 with any weapon he can lay hands on. Better with ones he likes.

If the feats seem boring, then they will seem that way for any feat you take. On the other hand, if you start looking at feat combos, it gets crazy what a fighter can do. The static boosts the fighter gets are on 24/7/365, to shut them down you have to kill him. They are not situational. All those feats build on those boosts, allowing the fighter to create situations or take advantage of situations for better effect. And he gets enough free combat feats that taking 2-4 non combat feats doesn't gimp him. Depending on the campaign, it is possible to spend all his non-fighter feat selections on non combat feats and still live up to doing his job.

I get what your saying Memorax, the feats are passive, they aren't as spectacular individually as a barbarians rage, or a paladins smite or lay on hands. And your right, they aren't. Collectively though, they add up in an impressive way. And that is something I know some people have a hard time seeing, because the fighter is so versatile. They don't come with a built in focus like the other martial classes, so it is easy to spread the class to thin or try to do to many things and have nothing but 20 levels of pure combat feats and be going "Well, that's a pretty narrow class." Not saying you are doing that, it could just be you prefer classes that have "special" abilities like rage, lay on hands, smite, or any of the other myriad activated abilities classes can get. And that is fine, it isn't badwrong or anything like that. But I hope maybe I gave you a different way to look at a fighter or at least something to think about =)

@Gnomezrule: Fighters do have a schtick, it is being able to fight in any style or manner they choose and be great at it. And still be able to switch to a different style and not be horrible at it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think the only thing stopping a fighter from being more than just a combat machine is people's perspective. You don't have to spend every last feat you get on combat ability with a fighter, that is part of the reason they get a slew of bonus combat feats. The whole idea of "if my character isn't perfectly optimized for DPR he is a handicap" is a mental handicap people put on themselves. As long as you are doing your part in combat, the campaign won't implode if you took feats to help outside of combat, or you bumped your int/cha some for some skill points or to be a little more sociable.

Meh. Fighters aren't replaceable with other martial classes. Paladins, rangers, barbarians and all have a place. They can substitute for a fighter, but they aren't a fighter. So saying "If I wanted to be more than a fighter I'd roll a <insert class here> " just tells me that pretty shinies distract you from the sheer versatility and potential a fighter represents. A paladin is always a paladin, smiting evil is his schtick, rangers will always be rangers, favored enemies and scouting is what they do, barbarians don't quit being barbarians, raging is what they do.

Fighters? They can be whatever your imagination and skills at building characters want them to be. That's what the fighter does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LoreKeeper wrote:
Quote:
2d10/19-20 dual wield able weapon that is light

Sure, but I'd rather it be 1d10/19-20 with a +5 to hit.

LoreKeeper, if monks used their unarmed damage with a cestus, they would have a weapon that did 2d10/19-20 base. Before enchantment. So it could end up 2d10/17-20 with a +5 enhancement bonus and another +5 in weapon properties. Oh, dual wield able and usable in flurries. So full str mod on damage for all attacks.

Just a little bit overpowered you think?

Well, ok, little bit isn't exactly the term I'd use but hey, I'm trying to be flexible with the definition of overpowered here, as up thread there is a good example of how different people opinions can be on power level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can't be the Blackstaff unless you defeat Ebenezar McCoy in a duel.

This. Totally awesome reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:

[

That's just my point though: What role? The only role I see for a Monk is a mobile fighter.
It is not at all statted for a Scout role (you can force it into one, but you can force any class into anything).
It is not an offensive caster.
It's not a buffer.
It's not a debuffer.
It's not a healer.
It's not a skill-monkey.
It has no support abilities at all (all of it's abilities only work on itself).

The only things the class knows how to do is Fight and Survive. Currently, it's only good at one of those two things, but if it becomes fixed and is suddenly good at both... How exactly does it suddenly become a hybrid 5th wheel? It's still only good at Fighting and Surviving.
That tells me it fills a "tank" spot.

The monk's role:

Quote:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.

You know, back in 1e, anything outside of the core 4 classes was put into a type. Fighter types, wizard types, cleric types, thief types. The classes under those types were good alternates to one of the four core classes for filling in those roles in the party.

Guess what type the monk fell under?

Nope, not fighter. Thief. It is kind of amusing really, all the other classes stayed true to the types they were originally. Except, apparently, the monk. I've been thinking about it, and I am starting to think that maybe instead of trying to turn the monk into a more martial class, a fighter type if you will, maybe the focus should be on making the monk more of a thief type, a good alternate choice for the rogue. And yeah, I know, it is a little more complex than that, but I really have been starting to wonder if maybe looking at it from a different role perspective might bring up some newer ideas instead of the same ones that always get tossed around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tels, I think is has more to do with Ashiels derailing of threads and attitude towards the derails. Just what it seems like from the other thread.

Not saying either one is right or wrong, just that it has some basis.

And yeah, I do think it seems like for someone to defend a point so vigorously it is either because they play that way (I'm guessing Ashiel doesn't though) or they just have a serious need to win and be right in an discussion/debate (my guess on why Ashiel defends it the way they do.) Either way can rub folks wrong, heck, I took a day off of even looking at the boards just to avoid seeing Ashiels name come up =)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Read your own quotes (or perhaps I should say my quotes misquoted?).

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

THESE ARE NOT UNARMED STRIKES.

Quote:
And before it gets said, yes, haste targets a creature. So does magic fang. The question is whether it interacts with the targets weapons, either natural or manufactured. And yes, it does, by granting an extra attack with them.

Magic fang says it affects a natural weapon OR unarmed strike of the creature. Specifically. Even Magic Fang notes these are not the same thing.

HASTE DOES NOT DO THAT. Haste does not affect your natural or manufactured weapon. It only allows the creature to take special options with them. It does not affect them. Capiche? Get it? Do you understand? Comprende? Does it compute? It does not at any point, anywhere, at any time, affect the natural or manufactured weapon of the creature.

Ashiel, read the quote right before that one. Then apply some basic logic. That is all I did.

It is like you only want to acknowledge the parts that support your claim and ignore the rest. And honestly, I just don't see the point anymore. Your not going to convince me, you keep saying the same thing over and over and ignoring most of anything I post. I keep trying to show you why and how the logic applies and honestly, there ain't anything more to say. So please, just hit the FAQ button and drop it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, at least it is in its own thread now.

Yes, haste grants a monk an extra attack. Even by RAW it works.

PRD wrote:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Note, both a monk and a character with Improved Unarmed Strike are specifically called out in the sentence there. So, the sentence tells us to go see natural attacks.

PRD wrote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Bolded the important part there. So, for the section talking about monks and characters who have Improved Unarmed Strike, it tells you to reference natural attacks. Natural attacks state that they are attacks made with natural weapons. So, for a monk or character with Improved Unarmed Strike, their unarmed strike is a natural weapon, which for characters who are not monks, and do not have Improved Unarmed Strike, they are not.

Which leads to haste. It has been posted before, but here it is again so you don't have to go look for it:

PRD wrote:

The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

So, two things here, since haste requires using a manufactured or natural weapon, characters who are monks and/or have Improved Unarmed Strike benefit, thanks to their unarmed strikes being counted as natural weapons.

The second, and the part bolded in the haste spell, is really interesting. Here is the monks Unarmed Strike Class ability:

PRD wrote:

Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.

Now, haste is a spell and it has several effects. One of those effects specifically calls out a benefit to attacks with manufactured or natural weapons. So, for the monks unarmed ability, it checks for two things.

1) Is this a spell or effect? Yes, haste is a spell.
2) Does this enhance or improve manufactured or natural weapons? Well, the ability to take an additional attack on a full attack is an improvement, as well as an enhancement. So, yes.

And before it gets said, yes, haste]/i] targets a creature. So does [i]magic fang. The question is whether it interacts with the targets weapons, either natural or manufactured. And yes, it does, by granting an extra attack with them.

Additionally, there is the stated intent of the devs that these two things are supposed to work together. That in and of itself counts for quite a lot.

Anyway...like someone up thread said: hit the FAQ button on the first post. Maybe all this silliness over it will get put to rest if there is yet another post by a dev, or better yet, an actual FAQ answer put in so we can just point to it and go "Old news"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh lord. Here...

CRB wrote:

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved

Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
...
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a
manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the
purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve
either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

From the section on a monks unarmed attack in the class description.

CRB wrote:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or

creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A
monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat,
a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature
with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
(see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and
defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity.

From page 182, combat section.

Now then, it may just be me, but reading both of those, it seems pretty bloody clear that either way, the monk is covered for being effected by haste. Now, I see nothing, nothing at all that says the monks unarmed strike is unaffected by things that normally enhance unarmed strikes. If there is, please, show me what I missed, and then we can get everyone either complaining or ignoring RAW even more because all of a sudden none of the feats that enhance improved unarmed strike work with the monk unless explicited stated to

Seriously. Can we now please drop the haste thing and get back to out discussion on monks and hitting things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

On a side note, this was brought up during the playtest for Pathfinder. I've seen the thread. Someone pointed out that efreeti were within planar binding limits and could be called for wishes. It was acknowledged by the devs and some discussion about it occurred. However, Pathfinder comes out and still efreeti are bind-able wish-makers, so I presume it might not be as unexpected as some would have us think.

Because if the Devs didn't specifically outlaw an exploit, they clearly fully endorse it.

Must. Not. Derail....

Some peoples exploit is another persons clever solution =) Although I do agree about not derailing the thread.

@Quinn:
A fighter is a combat generalist who can completely master one style of combat. In that style, competition doesn't exist outside of niche cases (paladin vs evil for example.)

A ranger is a skill monkey combat character. They get a good selection of skills, skill points to use them, with class abilities such as favored enemy and combat style to enhance the combat side and provide a different feel and style from the fighter.

A barbarian is a middle ground between a ranger and a fighter in some ways. More skill points, but not enough to be a skill monkey, and class abilities that focus towards a brute force approach to combat.

A paladin serves as the holy warrior, that high and mighty types whose strict adherence to his vows and ethos allows him to legitimately say "My god loves me, so I get perks." While he gets a host of class features, his feat selection is more limited than the fighter and ranger, and his class abilities require spreading stat points around more than a barbarian.

A reworked monk, if done well, wouldn't step on any toes. He would be an unarmed combat specialist focused on combat maneuvers and ki powers, in a way, a hybrid between a fighter and a non-spellcasting paladin. Between innate defenses and maneuvers to mitigate opponents ability to inflict harm, he can functionally fill any roll the other four classes mentioned can, just in a different way, with different flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Always remember this phrase.

A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often
called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma
17, and "can" grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only)
who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8.

Can is not the same as "always", or "has no choice", or "made to comply".

That's what the opposed charisma check in planar binding is for. :)
Well it's up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a "service".

Well, generally speaking a service in this use of term is regarded as" taking on and fulfilling a task for someone."

So if I call, and bind, a genie, and then set him to the task of granting me 3 wishes in succession, then if he fails that opposed charisma check he better get to granting. Now, if the DM doesn't want that done, that is a different story, but presumably the DM is not going to act like the Spanish Inquisition and go "Surprise!!!!" So you would know beforehand if the DM was OK with it or not.

But by RAW, yes, you call them, you bind them, they grant you wishes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

What's insulting is you are basically saying that all those people out there who do choose classes for role playing purposes are insulting because they choose to do so, that is what's insulting.

Tell me this then. Why should someone choose one class over the other? Is it that old "badwrongfun" again?

That isn't even close to what I said. People can choose a class for any number of reasons and none of those reasons are wrong.

What I did say is that you can role play any class in a variety of ways. But how you role play a character has nothing to do with the mechanics of the character. Considering all the monk threads I participate in have everything to do with the mechanics of the character, not the fluff/role playing aspect, I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm saying how anyone should play.

Honestly, it feels like your trying to tell me I'm badwrongfun because I want solid mechanics. I provide enough role playing on my own, I don't need class mechanics to do that for me.

Now, do you feel a need for me to explain the differences between mechanics and role playing from my point of view further or can we get back to the topic at hand?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


Shallowsoul, your entire "some people play the monk for *gasp* roleplaying" argument is an insulting one.

And I find your responses typical of someone who lacks experience.

I've been playing RPG's for over 27 years and I have seen almost everything you can think of when it comes to concepts but I can tell you for a fact that someone with the experience can create a concept out of any ability score no matter how low or how high.

I noticed you said that Bruce Lee didn't have a low CHA and INT. That's true but since when did all Monk's have to be Bruce Lee? The dwarf in my example actually has an above average INT but a very low Cha. This is justified easily with his backstory. Stoneknuckles spent many years of his life in the underdark as a loner trying to achieve the unity of the mind, body, and spirit so his people skills became rather crude, especially when a spent anywhere from 50 to 75 years alone.

So good sir before you start throwing around that you are insulted how about take a good look at yourself because the buck doesn't stop with you I'm afraid.

Whether you want to believe it or not, people "do" play classes for role playing purposes and not for just the numbers.

For 27+ years of experience you should know this but...

Role playing and mechanics have nothing to do with each other. I could play a fighter and role play him as a monk. Same with so many other 'classes' they are as much a role playing style as a class. So yes, Mikaze's statement is pretty accurate. As is trying to get on the grognard horse, your not the only one. It is insulting when you try and say that "that apple isn't and apple, its an orange!"

Saying the class is fine because some people pick it for role playing reasons is insulting. It is just an attempt to get around the fact that mechanically, the class has issues. The why or how a person picks the class isn't very relevant at that point. It is the mechanical functionality of the class we are discussing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know I've given my take on it before, but I'll go ahead and post it again since I like the option better than enchanting yourself...

Replace ki strike as it is written with a ki strike similar to the magus ability. 1 ki point at level 4 gives you a +1 enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes for 1 minute, increasing by +1 every 3 levels, stacking with an AoMF the same as a magus' ability will stack with a weapon. Allow weapon properties to be substituted as long as there is at least a +1 bonus (from this ability or an AoMF) with a selection of properties appropriate for a monk, so things like axiomatic, holy, unholy, ghost touch, speed, etc and there you go. Oh, and since monks have enough to spend swift actions on and it doesn't break their action economy or balance let them activate it as a free action.

Its simple, it is an actual functional version of an ability they already have and, IMO as someone who played monks back in 1e(which the 3.0/3.5/PF monk is based on) it fits in thematically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
Shallowsoul, you have multiple 'showing our work' by posting actual builds to support our arguments. Do you have a build that 'gets it right', and debunks our issues with the monk class?

I don't have to post any builds. What some of you have been doing is posting builds and then picking specific encounters that will give that particular build trouble.

Creating troublesome encounters shows nothing but how a class is in trouble versus that specific build.

We could do that for all classes and all builds and come to the same conclusion.

Of course you don't have to post any builds.

No one has to believe you either.

In a forum such as this one, it s helpful if you can support your claim with some form of proof besides "I say so." In fact, once you get past the grade school playground, proof to support claims can get pretty important.

So, please, either post up a build to show some proof, or go into more detail about how the monk contributes ( and not in that dice less "we RP through encounters" way please, we are talking RAW monks and rules) and actually, you know, contribute to the discussion.

Or be like the monk and don't contribute, but if that's your option, you realize that for some of us, that borders on trollish behavior?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Krigare wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.

Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.

OK, question, what are defining as good in combat? Surviving to the end of it? Taking a hit or two? Doing 40-50 points of damage when the sum total off all the opponents HP is up over 500? Providing flanking bonuses for the rest of the party?

People bring up specific points and you kinda ignore those points and try to refocus it to something extremely subjective.

Heck, here's a great case, at level 20, how well do you think a monk will do vs a CR 17 marilith,or a CR 19 ancient red dragon, or at CR 20, a pit fiend or balor?

It isn't even about soloing them, the question is how effective is the monk against them at all, how does he contribute to the party instead of being carried? Between DR and the AC involved, or the mobility of the opponent, the monk just ends up lackluster next to the rest of the party, more dead weight than not.

And I'm talking about basic Paizo books here for making the monk, not some weird feat/item buried in an old AP or 3pp product, using pure RAW rules.

I'm ignoring corner cases and other things that aren't relevant. A 20th level Monk is going to be great, along with the rest of the party, when it comes to fighting these guys. Let's take the dragon for instance. Well his breath weapon is essentially useless against the Monk because of Improved Evasion, even if he fails his save that's still half damage. A Monk could easily get weapons that have Cold Iron and Good when fighting against the Marilith or the Balor or he could just accept the 10 damage off each hit, hell it's still 1d10 plus whatever else he has.

At 20th level the monk can't reliably hit the dragon, so his ability to bypass the DR is irrelevant, if he boosts his strength up high enough to have a chance to hit, his defenses suffer to the point he dies extremely fast to the dragon saying "ohhh, lunch" and full attacking (seriously, you think the breath weapon from a dragon is a threat at level 20? Spells, physical attacks, flight, so so many things. Not the breath weapon.)

Likewise, versus the marilith, an encounter a full 3 CR's beneath him, the monk should win. Without breaking a sweat. But he doesn't. His being forced to go through the DR the hard way or eat up +1 of his total allowable +5 enhancement bonus (not even the whole +10 other characters get, but hey, this shrodingers monk of yours is so awesome if they gave him the full +10 he's be op) with holy. If he has gone that route, then even bypassing DR he still has the hit issue, which he has hurt by sacrificing a +1 to hit.

The balor is an even worse case for the monk, so is the pit fiend, the monks ability to actually do anything meaningful besides provide a flank bonus (that more than likely isn't needed) to a fighter/barbarian/ranger(who doesn't have evil outsiders as a favored enemy) would be limited to...harsh language. Hardly contribution.

I get that you think the monk is fine. I'd really like a better explanation of why you think that, but you don't (or can't) want to do that, its cool. But it seems that no matter what gets shown to you, or said, you feel no need to show any math, provide a decent example, or even do more than say "Nah, that is just a corner case." Well, if the game session for the monk consists of moving from one 'corner case' situation to the next it isn't a corner case anymore.

And the funny thing is, the monk is worse off at 20 than he is at lower levels. And at the levels where most folks run games (low to mid levels, 1-14ish) the monk starts contributing less after 4th, by 6-7th when most other classes are hitting their stride and starting to shine, the monk is left to trying to play catch up and not hinder his party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
So what is the rest of the party doing?
Saving the monk's bacon, apparently. Do you have something to show he doesn't need that help?

Dangit, you made me snort my coke through my nose...good caffeine and sugar source but painful that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.

Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.

OK, question, what are defining as good in combat? Surviving to the end of it? Taking a hit or two? Doing 40-50 points of damage when the sum total off all the opponents HP is up over 500? Providing flanking bonuses for the rest of the party?

People bring up specific points and you kinda ignore those points and try to refocus it to something extremely subjective.

Heck, here's a great case, at level 20, how well do you think a monk will do vs a CR 17 marilith,or a CR 19 ancient red dragon, or at CR 20, a pit fiend or balor?

It isn't even about soloing them, the question is how effective is the monk against them at all, how does he contribute to the party instead of being carried? Between DR and the AC involved, or the mobility of the opponent, the monk just ends up lackluster next to the rest of the party, more dead weight than not.

And I'm talking about basic Paizo books here for making the monk, not some weird feat/item buried in an old AP or 3pp product, using pure RAW rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Folks, please be respectful to one another.

And if nothing else, this is a good example of why I spend gaming dollars with Paizo. Whether I agree with them all the time, it is nice to see that even on a Saturday the proverbial powers that be look in and respond to customers.

I know my gaming dollars to TSR/WoTC/GW never got me that.

There are intangibles that get hard to put a price tag on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.

I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?

As long as the Monk is contributing to the game and it plays different from other classes then I honestly don't see what the problem is.

Which actually is the problem. While the definition of contribute varies from person to person and table to table, more often than not, the monks contribution is being a warm body. Yes, DM's who fudge or set up or rework encounters to make the monk useful can skew that, but in certain settings (organized play for example) that isn't viable, and to do that, the DM has to set thing up so the fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/insert melee character here doesn't just show up the monk anyway. Everyone deserves a chance to shine, a player shouldn't require a degree in systems mastery and optimization just to have a chance to do so, and then only if the DM is setting up situations for him to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.

The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.

Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.

Yes, groups who don't have a dedicated healer interesting enough don't take as much damage.

They also tend to avoid the mental and tactical pitfall of "Ha, who cares if I provoke 3 AoO's from the giants, let me charge both of them, I'll live and the cleric can patch me up"

Sorry, but I've DMed to many groups, played in to many groups, and been the healer in to many groups to fall into that logic trap. People get cautious when they don't have a healer on tap. It is similar to a MMORPG, the party may keep going when the healer goes AFK, but the tank pulls smaller groups, and they aren't blitzing through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What exactly is the hang up on comparing a 10th level monks Stunning Fist to a CR 13 critter?

I mean, even for a party of 4, CR 13 is supposed to be a challenge. Of course the monks Stunning Fist isn't going to be reliable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Texicutioner wrote:

I think the problem is, and it is stated many times in this and other threads, is what is the monks role. Numerous responses say I couldn't create the monk I wanted to play, I have never had that problem. In the standard four people with complaints want the Monk to have the role of fighter, I've always veiwed it replacing the rogue, situationally good at combat but able to do many other things for the party. I rmember my enlarged monk in CoTCT keeping a swarm of Grey Maidens tied up by tripping/combat reflexes allowing the rest of the party to kill them off. If the developers want to redo the monk that is fine but I think a consensus of what people want the monk to do before changing. I think people may be just as unhappy with full BAB, magical enhancements for unarmed strikes but loose a sve a two and a bunch of immunities. IMHO

Way back when, that was actually what the monk was classed as. In AD&D 1e, the monk was a thief subclass alternative. They stayed that way up until in 2e when for, whatever reason, they got shifted over to being a cleric subclass (archetype might be the better term.)

And then 3e came along and...well...they tried to go back to the ideas of the 1e monk. They tried. And ever since then it has been an issue of try, and try, and try. But in a system where the traditional 4 person adventuring party has had its composition switched (used to be fighter, cleric, wizard, thief, now its much, much more flexible) means the monk needs refocusing. As it is, they are 3rd string melee, 3rd string scout, with archetypes and good system mastery, you can compete for the 2nd string slots.

That is where many, many forum members issues comes in, at least from what I've noticed/read/inferred.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that Stunning Fist is worthless or useless. It is a very handy tool, and if you specialize in it, it will turn into a very frightening thing.

But right out of the box with no feat investment in booster feats for Stunning Fist, the DC isn't going to be something you can reliably count on an opponent to fail. Which honestly, I'm ok with. I look at it as akin to a fighters weapon proficencies, just because he can use almost every weapon in the game doesn't mean he gets crazy good bonuses with them. Most melee fighters won't have more than (at most) 2-3 feats into archery feats, and vice versa, and even then it isn't that common.

*shrug* bedtime for me either way, I'll come back to this in the morning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You've got that wrong...

Quote:

PC Wealth By Level (page 399): If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.

—Sean K Reynolds, 01/13/12

Thats from the FAQ here if your wanting to go read it from the source.

So...yes, at level 10, with a WBL of 62,000, assuming I had access to all the craft feats I could, in theory, have 124,000 g.p. worth of magic items, paying cost to craft, not price to buy. Of course, mundane non-crafted gear doesn't get that discount, but that is normal.

Now, a character with that many craft feats at that level isn't very feasible, but using one feat slot for that benefit? If it can be spared, it's worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Actually you can't craft the cloak either, at least not at +4 (creator’s caster level must be at least three times the cloak’s bonus). Or the Amulet of Natural Armor, since Barkskin isn't a wizard spell.

But I guess your adopted human who was raised by elves, has unlimited time to craft items at the exact level needed to be optimal, who has two dump stats of 7, and rides a Dinosaur can get to a 12 fort save by 10th level to combat the stunning fist of a monk with only a 20 wisdom.

But at least it isn't Schrodinger, so I'll give you credit for that.

I've actually played a wizard very similar to this one in a game. Not every campaign is an AP.

And actually, he can craft the cloak and the amulet, it just boosts the DC by 5. And the trait is from half elves by the way. In all honesty, the adopted trait and the dino were there for giggles and to illustrate the ludicrousness of your demanding a full build just because you made an offhand comment that wasn't entirely true.

I'm sorry if you deciding to be demanding brought out my inner munchkin, maybe next time when soft math shows something can be done, don't try forcing the issue further and irritating folks. It is a bad debating tactic. Maybe you should try posting this level 10 mage slayer monk of yours who is going to do so well killing casters if only he had better to hit.

*Edit: Ok, so, that guy is from a bit ago and monks have had some errata go against them and some newer items and such have come out. Plus the wizard was built to PFS standard (well, actually almost entirely CRB). So not an exactly fair comparison. But at least you posted something ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:

I agree with ciretose that fixing enhancement (to hit at least) is a big step, but I think the answer is a little more complicated. The monk will still be down on hitting, thanks to MAD, or else will have sacrificed his damage or AC in order to keep up with hitting. The monk's lower damage output than the rogue or indeed many other classes like the magus or even the bard (bardic performance works on the bard himself, remember) and the nature of unarmed strike means that despite ki-strike he can't bypass or over top DR as often as other classes, so a good DR will still shut him down even if he hits. Ergo, he needs a means of bypassing DR once you have fixed MAD and enhancement.

Some of the monk's other abilities need a good hard look too, as they are hardly inspiring or in most circumstances even useful.

This is probably the best summary of the monk issues I have read. It also illustrates something I've been trying to say.

Any fix for the monk isn't going to be one little buff. They need several abilities tweak to work better together so the class has more synergy with itself. Ideally it gets done so the class has better synergy with existing magic items already out there for it(not naming names on that one.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruggs wrote:
Not always, but playing an evil PC can be more of a want to feel "badass" than actually being "evil."

Sadly, this is true all to often.

Being badass has nothing to do with alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Nepherti wrote:

The party is me CG, a N fighter with good leanings, a NG dwarf ranger, and a CN sorcerer with good leanings. This guy has played thus far a LG teifling paladin, a CN tengu, a CE orc, and now this LE gnome sorcerer.

He claims he can't play anything good, which is a major bummer for me. I don't like feeling a party member could turn on me at any moment. .

That last part is the real issue. A player should not HAVE to play Evil.

In general D&D is a heroic Good aligned, cooperative game. It sounds like he's OK about the coopertaive part, but he's too immature to play a range of alignments.

Before next game, ask for time to discuss this issue. Dont make it accusatory saying "YOU" to him, tell them how this makes "me" feel.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a mature, experienced group doing a "all evil" game once in a while.

The real problem is in a extreme mix of alignments, so that PC's start to act against each other and against the party weal.

By the same token, they shouldn't have to play Good. I tend to play evil characters, not good ones. Doesn't make them less heroic, just differently motivated. Alignment isn't a straitjacket or suicide pact, it is just a simple 2 word description of base inclinations that gives you vague overview of how a character feels, in general, about the weighty issues called life and freedom.

In other words, unless your a paladin or anti-paladin or similar with more restricted ethos, its a guideline.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why ban a topic...if you don't want to read about it, skip the thread...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know, there has been a few of these. Anyway, here is version 1.0 of what I was thinking might do OK for a revised monk to kinda boost his power up to be on par with the other melee classes.

Comments and constructive criticism appreciated.

Krigare's Monk Revision


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I assume knees and elbows are falling under the "one NA per limb" limit 'rule'/assumption that I've seen mentioned a few times.

So a monk could use elbows or fists (or one of each), but not use 2 elbows and 2 fists in the same attack sequence.

If I were actually thinking this through as a serious Monk change rather than just looking at this, "We must treat unarmed strikes as separate natural weapons, except for when we don't," line of reasoning then I'd suggest some sort of scaling system. Let Mr. Monk pick 2 natural attacks at level 1, add a 3rd at level 6, a 4th at 11, and a 5th at 16th to represent his ongoing training.

I would assume so on the natural attack feats.

In general monk improvement theory I think the Monks scaling unarmed damage should be done away with (keep at 1d6), and replaced with a Weapon Training type ability, this would remove the size stacking and great fear of high numbered dice being tossed around that seems to be at the heart of a lot of the issues/misunderstandings that people have about Monk effectiveness ("A monk can do 2d10 damage!? That's more than a GREAT SWORD!!!"). If you did this, then INA wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue either way.

Yes, but part of the scaling is a legacy issue. Back in 1ed AD&D, monks damage went from paltry, and scaled up to rolling more dice than anyone. This was balanced by a lower THAC0 (BAB for the newer folks) than front liners. But they also had a frightening number of attacks. Essentially, they were originally the undisputed masters of hitting things a lot and very hard with their fists. Along with many of the neat bag of tricks kind of things we see them still doing today.

The problem is that as the system changed, the sort of balancing act that worked for monks in 1ed AD&D doesn't work anymore. Heck, they were originally a 17 level class in a 20 level game, and for ~1/2 of those levels had to fight to prove themselves and earn the level, with less and less folks allowed to be at the higher levels. Plus the high entry requirements reflected in their current MAD.

Which is what makes monks so complicated in so many ways. You have the folks who remember the monks of "ye olde days" and want that back (even though some have the "back in the day it was better" glasses on when it wasn't) and you have folks that haven't seen anything other than new 3.0+ monk and just want the class to have a defined role and be good at it. And all in between.

Personally, I don't think any solution anyone comes up with will please anyone. But, doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joegoat wrote:
Krigare wrote:
Don't plan on the wishes doing much, the will saves at 20 are going to be high. Maybe do it with disjunction, I've used disjunction traps as a DM to pretty good effect, especially if the lair has a layered style of defense, which I think a dragon that old would have and put to deadly use. The point is less a 1 shot hose them than gradual attrition in that case.
Well I just looked at the spell contingency and you can only use a spell 1/3rd your character level with it so any 9th level spell is out

Yep, but thats why I said trap =) Nothing stops you from making a disjunction trap at all. And if things get layered right, detect magic may or may not pick them up, and oddly enough, the whole trapfinder thing gets swapped out by a lot of rogues. So even if they do see it, runs up the odds of them expedning resources before the fight. Even if they do have a trapfinder and disabler, use the environment to force penalties to the check.

Quote:


Krigare wrote:


As far as the demiplane, dead magic is a double edged sword. It will remove anything of the dragons that an antimagic field would, so you probably want to think hard about that one.
And yes the dead magic would work against the dragon as well but he is still looking at being able to fly, use breath weapons, be colossal and have his damage reduction, all against pc's that would at best be completely mundane with no ability to cast a including spell like abilities

Yep, but if they have innate flight, or have prepared for such a thing, it can get worked around. Also be aware that if you do the dead magic demiplane, he gets no magic items either. Its a good idea, just was trying to make sure you were aware of all the costs. Personally, I think limited magic to limit the amount of caster stuff able to be done will hurt them more. It allows the dragon to be prepped for such an environment, while really, really limiting the party, especially if they have had to burn through resources, been suffering disjunctions etc the whole way through.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. A player is using resources of some form, be it items, feats, multiclassing or whatnot, to gain an ability. I'm not sure how a barbarian rage cycling is any worse than a pearl of power, ring of wizardry, the spont caster runes or any other of the myriad ways a caster can recharge their limited use abilities. Which are, a lot of times, have a much larger potential to either trivialize encounters, simplify the parties life etc. So, how exactly is rage cycling worse?

And as someone said, there is still action economy, just because the barbarian can recharge his 1/rage powers doesn't mean he automatically gets enough actions to use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few things I've found handy over the years I've played

Bandoleers - handy for keeping potions/flasks/spare knives handy for during combat. If your DM is amiable to using older versions of stuff, 3.0/3.5 had a masterwork version that made retrieving an item faster.
Fishing kit - good for more then just fishing some times, keeping the hook and twine or at least some of it in a pocket or concealed in a boot can be a lifesaver when something is just out of reach.
Magnet - can get used like a more reliable fish hook for metal things...just be on the same page as your DM with metallurgy, it can be...interesting when you have to know what's ferrous and what's not. With some other stuff, its possible to jury rig a compass with a magnet as well.
Marbles - besides the obvious, they are somewhat handy for determining slight inclines, throwing at breakable glass, and in a pinch can be used to leave a trail that isn't edible by most things.
Sewing needle - besides sewing, these can make emergency fish hooks, get used to pin together cloth quickly, and if need be, they are something easily concealable that can be used as an improvised lock pick.
String/twine - so much focus on rope, just plain old string comes in real handy for so many things its insane. From getting used for fishing, to tying a bunch of scrolls together rapidly, to marking a trail, and even in a pinch making quick and dirty tripwire alarms, possibly one of the more versatile mundane adventuring/survival tools.

Yeah, none of its magical, but a lot of this is affordable at low levels, good for low magic campaigns, or even as a backup at higher levels just in case, because while its nice when everything goes the players way, there will be days when bad dice/choices can mean needing plan CF.