argicida's page

Since the DC already scales directly with your BAB, it goes up pretty quicky on its own (when compared with most other special effect DCs that only scale by 1 per 2 levels, if ever), I don't think Paizo will see the need to provide an upgrade to the DCs.

You may, of course, ask your DM whether he allows to take the Ability Focus Feat (which would increase the DC by 2). Not exactly RAW, but I could see it happening.

Thank you, i will try!

I've searched a bit and i didn't find a way to increase the dc for the critical focus family DC(stunning, blinding, etc... critical)
Has Paizo published a way to increase that DC?
Thanks you

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Meophist wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Crit range of 15-20, four attacks a round = 120% chance of a critical that is automatically confirmed - ironically the fighter has a better chance of landing a critical than the monk has of landing the quivering palm blow (95%).

I'm a little late, but I don't quite think math works like that.

It would be more precise to say that, on average, the fighter will get 1.2 critical hits per round.

I'm a little rough on my math, but just thinking...

A crit range of 15-20 has a 6/20(or 3/10) chance of hitting that(15,16,17,18,19,20 is six numbers out of twenty sides of a dice). To put it in another way, the Fighter has a 14/20(or 7/10) chance of not getting a critical. Out of two attacks, the Fighter has a (7/10)^2, or 49/100 chance of not getting a critical. Out of four attacks, the Fighter has a (7/10)^4, or 2401/10000 or about 24/100 chance of not getting a critical. Get its reverse chance, and there's about a 3/4 chance of getting a critical at least once in a four-attack round.

...I think. I don't have much confidence in my calculations.

They are correct... If you accept the -4 penality for 2 rapiers and twf, you will have 1-0.7^7 ~ 92% crit in a round

I've checked 4th Edition when it came out... and then I came across Pathfinder and never looked back. I hate the 4th Edition for gimping just about everything I love about the 3.5, that Pathfinder got it right.

Most people hating 4e hasn't even tried once... I was a little suspicious too, but in fatcs it has the better combat sistem of all d&d i've played.(i missed only the 3°ed).

As far as DR everyone is aware of:

PRD wrote:

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.

DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine +4
alignment-based +5

Is there some reason an AoMF doesn't apply to this?

Because AoMF doesn't enchant e weapon, gives an enchantment bonus to attack made with natural weapons, all of them!

Now let's dig a little deeper into that CR 20 monster. Save DC for secondary attacks should be around 20. Fighter probably dumped his WIS, but let's pretend he left it at 10, that's a 6 WILL Save, what +4 Cloak of Resistance makes it a 10. You're going to fail that WILL save 50% of the time. A monk will make it 95% of the time (failing on a 1 assuming a 1 is an auto-fail on a save, and I'm not sure it is). But again, that's situational and doesn't count.

Not even the most beginner fighter dumps his wis, it is your weak point, you must do something (better dump the con). You bad dices, so 12 as a starter, +6 with an headband (bad dices need better equip), makes a +4, +6 of base +4 (the cloak) + iron will +2 by the half elf(i use to play half elf fighters) it a +16/+18 so 80-90% of passing , with improved iron will 96-99%. I don't see so many differences with the monk...

You've forgotten 2 of the monk's attacks (Monk gets 7 attacks at 20th level.

You're right. The new dpr is ~ 137

But here's what your (and by "your" I mean pretty much this entire thread) comparison doesn't include: A battle map, Movement, AoO, real opponents that have special abilites and spell like abilites.

If a fighter attacks a round every 3 of the monk, he has still a better dpr... Damage from AoO, or spell like abilities aren't so important(the healer is there for a reason), as a striker, you must hit hard and fast... and BTW stunning each round a foe(if he is so lucky to be still alive) reduces a lot the amount of damage you receive. The twf can make two attacks even if he had the full movement, pin down stops the monster to run, so it has also less round spent tracking down the bastard...

A fighter's job is DPR, you're acting like we should be surprised that a fighter can out DPR a monk.

what is the job of the monk? It should deal some sort of damage, but:

Is he a striker? NO!
other roles?
is he a healer? naaah
Is he a controller? mmmmhhhh... NO
Is he a tank? Not the best. (both pally and fighter are better)

I'm here to tell you, no one is surpised by that. No one has said it should be, or even could be the otheR way around. So what you're saying is that since a fighter can out DPS a Monk a fighter is better than a monk. What some of us are saying is that you have to look at more than DPR.

The monk hasn't ever worked in D&D. I tried so many builds(in 3.5 before(it sucked even with the Vow of PPoverty), in 4.0 then, in pathfinder now), and when even your cleric outruns the amount of damage you do, it means that there is not a chance... It's fantastic concept to play, has a lot of appeal, but in terms of efficiency it is terrible

P.S. with stunning critical you have the 0.9176% of stunning the BBeG each turn witha full attack(This is truly gamebreaking, not the stunning palm, trust me)

Quote:

Why compare it to a 1-handed weapon? Why not a 2-handed weapon?

Maybe becouse the monk is 2WF? tha monk is doing 3 extra attacks, as per 2WF. So the comparison is between 2WFighters. Your math is off. The monk has 20 BAB when flurring, not 18. The -2 is the penalty you pay for 2WF and having the 3 extra attacks. Stop comparing a monk to a 2H. I's just bad form. Aside from being factually wrong, it's counterproductive. No devs nor anyone who didn't dump the INT score will ever give any credit to this discussion untill you stop comparing apple and oranges.

The fighter with the TWF archetype hasn't a -2 to hit. Let's make an easy comparation:

(fighter is using a kukri, but also classic rapier works)
Monk vs Fighter with appropriate equip and both 30 in str(but figher use to have higher str due to his SAD)
to hit
monk
18(highest with flurry)+ 10 (str)+ 5 (AoMF)+ 1 (wf)= +34
fighter
20(base)+10(str)+5(weapon ench)+2(wf+gwf)+2(Gloves of Duelling)+4 (weapon training)=+43
so: monk attack is: +34+34+34+29+24
fighter attack is:+43+43+38+38+33+33+28.
No doubt which is the better...
Damage:
monk:
2d10+10(str)+5(AoMF)=26
fighter:
1d4+10(str)+4(ws+gws)+4(weapon training)+2 (gloves)+5 (weapon ench)=27.5 (which is close)
but when you compute the dpr vs a standard opponent (ca=lvl+14) you obtain a dpr of ~ 384 with a fighter, of ~ 125 with a monk for a full bab. This because of the poor crit range of the unarmed strike and the effective use of power in attack with the warrior, and 2 attacks more. without the full attack, the fighter can use 2 attack the monk only one, so again the monk is behind, without appropriate gear, the gap is even bigger. So math gives no doubt, in pure combat the monk hasn't a chance. (fighter ha also penetrating strike, which is a nice way of trepassing DR, figher can also use elemental damage with enchantment on the weapon)