There are 5 of us when I chose this, and up till now we haven't posted back to back.
The game would actually benefit from the stat adder belts being cheaper when you add additional stats rather than x2 or x3. In general adding another ability to an item shouldn't receive a cost break and might even need to cost more but I think in regards to the stat booster it wouldn't be that bad to houserule them so that a two stat booster is x1.5 the cost of a single booster and the three stat booster is x2 the cost.
That way MAD classes can get the necessary boosts at the necessary time.
I also go with 2 stat increases every 4 levels as that provides a nice boost to everyone and enables the MAD classes more.
I don't really worry about the inherent boosters because honestly they show up pretty late in the game and I'm not really that worried about them because I cap DC boosts from stats ;)
Of course YMMV
Lucky for me there's belts that cover that along with DEX...?
... and get expensive fast.
Let's not pretend there's not an opportunity cost there. The difference between a +6 to one stat belt and a +6 to two stats belt is 54,000 gold. Make it a three stat belt and it's an extra 54,000 over even that.
How much does it cost the Sorc to buy a +6 CHA headband and a +6 CON belt? Or your Monk to buy same belt but with STR and CON instead of DEX and CON?
What point is there to this post?Sorcerer +6 Con item and +6 Cha item = 72k in total.
Monk +6 str, dex, con item and +6 Wis item = 180k in total.
Monk +4 str, dex, con item and +4 wis item = 80k in total.
Your argument is invalid.
I think the argument being "yeah cuz stat items are 'spensive" is invalid, but I tired to play along fer a bit.
Like I said I'm not sure if it would be too much a temptation for clerics and druids to bypass to have wisdom replace strength as a bonus to hit and damage without running the numbers.
I'm not opposed to multiclassing but I think that it shouldn't be done to cherry pick abilities from front-loaded classes.
Maybe structure it like smite in that part of it is good straight away but it really only gets great with multiple levels.
If it only applied to "monk" weapons and unarmed strikes perhaps it would mitigate that temptation.
To go a level route perhaps make it like the deuellist(sp) canny defense ability increase +1 per level in monk up to wis mod? Although if you go that route I could see it adding to str mod rather than replace
SOLD! That's a fabulous compromise. I was gonna check out the duelist to see they handle stuff, but alas, I had to go to work. Nice suggestion :)
Like I said I'm not sure if it would be too much a temptation for clerics and druids to bypass to have wisdom replace strength as a bonus to hit and damage without running the numbers.
I'm not opposed to multiclassing but I think that it shouldn't be done to cherry pick abilities from front-loaded classes.
Maybe structure it like smite in that part of it is good straight away but it really only gets great with multiple levels.
If it only applied to "monk" weapons and unarmed strikes perhaps it would mitigate that temptation.
To go a level route perhaps make it like the deuellist(sp) canny defense ability increase +1 per level in monk up to wis mod? Although if you go that route I could see it adding to str mod rather than replace
Adding to strength mod would probably be decent. It's not like monks typically get access to thf x1.5 multipliers (temple sword being a notable exception).
That way you could still have monks like the stereotypical elderly grandmaster who can do good damage without great strength stats.
Now this RIGHT THERE is a damn fine idea!
If the Wis bonus simply *adds* in very much the same way on a +1/level/pt of Wis mod, then it's going to be a very gradual sort of gain that will absolutely open up the potential for monks to be pretty darn impressive overall, EVEN WHILE maintaining the MAD problems they currently have.
I mean, you can still build the Bolo Young (str-prime) monk if you just want to be a combat beast regarding straight damage or something. This guy will have his damage mod enhanced by WIS a certain amount, but is still going to be lagging behind fighters and the like anyway (as he should be). This is good because it leaves the "conventional wisdom" (IE: Treantmonk's Guide) on the class in tact.
At the same time, it makes the Wis-based monk that much more effective and capable WHILE AT THE SAME TIME opening up that tip of the hat towards the source material with the Mr. Miagi, and Kwai Chang Kane (amongst others) sort of "wise old master" archetypes to be just *as* mechanically viable as the others. In fact, with age modifiers in play, it makes them MORE of a problem/threat on account of higher Stun DC's overall (and all the other mechanics the follow along with it). Another balancing factor can be to keep things as "finesse-based" sorts of damage and be limited by the same things as a rogues SA-type of target (ie: not that much basically - not since PF got a hold of it, but still along the same lines in that they're striking "vital" targets in some way).
I'm in favor of allowing both in (to hit AND damage) for helping monks in exactly the way it's been suggested so far with the whole "monk weapons and no armor" or "in monk-styles only" modes of combat/attack. It totally minimizes the dip-potential, and this is a good thing, IMO.
Currently, for ha-ha's, I'm undertaking some thought experiments in re-crafting the class outright to mimic/reflect many of the design elements of Rogues and Barbarian's, though. I'm looking to crack open the class wide in favor of providing more Wuxia/Esoteric/Mystic/Mythic/whatever options for the class to *choose* from rather than lay out very hard-coded PRESCRIBED abilities (that may or may not be attractive given a particular game or character concept).
In theory, so far, I'm making it have a few things consistent (like now, I'm going to add that Wise-Combat thing in some fashion to it), while making others simply choices that will appear in some form or another for monks to ACTIVELY pursue, or disregard given the concept - following much of the same by way of constructing a rogue or barbarian really. Many of the supernatural-type things I'm taking out and making them options (like the Diamond Body, Diamond Soul, etc).
Now, to compete mechanically, I'm also going with Ki-Point pools from level 1 and it'll probably be pretty much close to how the Barbarian spends Rage Rounds or what have you (maybe gains instead since the Ki-points are meant more to be spent as needed vs. simply maintaining a "round" of rage turned on, etc, etc).
I'm totally up for any suggestions on any of this, though. I'm mining all kinds of source material for this: anime (Ninja Scroll for instance), video games (Samurai Showdown lines), TV series (Kung Fu, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues), Wuxia flicks (Crouching Tiger, Hero, etc) and anything else that strikes me.
Go mine Jademan comics from the 90's, if you can find 'em;0 1001 monk/fighter UA variants.
3.5 rules, the Big Six don't add 50% when stacking. That's a Pathfinder thing (MIC modified 3.5). Huge sunk gold costs are an 'invisible cost' that most people balancing classes don't understand. For the fighter, it's 300k+ in armor and weapons. The monk has the same problem, but has 1 more MAD problem, adding wis to the Fighter's need for Con, Dex and Str.
Also, 3.5 rules actually made it cheaper to get the stat buffs, they just took up more slots. More slots is fine, since if you can't afford stuff in the other slots, they don't matter anyways.
===Aelryinth
I think the argument being "yeah cuz stat items are 'spensive" is invalid, but I tired to play along fer a bit.
It's invalid, why? Because you play in campaigns with infinite treasure?
Pick a level and stat out a monk for it with appropriate wealth-by-level treasure, and I'll stat you out a monk that's given up on his dex (for example) and has, I don't know, a Cube of Force you don't. Then we can argue about whether it's more important to have +2 AC when your enemies hit you on a 2 anyway or to have a defense that keeps out all things.
The game would actually benefit from the stat adder belts being cheaper when you add additional stats rather than x2 or x3. In general adding another ability to an item shouldn't receive a cost break and might even need to cost more but I think in regards to the stat booster it wouldn't be that bad to houserule them so that a two stat booster is x1.5 the cost of a single booster and the three stat booster is x2 the cost.
That way MAD classes can get the necessary boosts at the necessary time.
I think that's a pretty good idea, actually. I think this is one of those cases where the designers thought about what makes good/fair magic item creation rules in general and not what works with the classes as currently designed, some MAD some not.
Hell, I'd love to be in such a group. I have yet to find one where ToB gained traction. I can usually use it, but few other players do. Of course, my current and previous groups have been fifty percent new players.I've found that openness to Tome of Battle is directly proportional with the DM's experience with the game. The more experienced he is, the more likely he is to accept it. The reverse is also true.
If you're meeting a DM for the first time, a way of asking how comfortable they are with 3.x without being rude is to ask them if they accept Tome of Battle. If they say yes, or that they do not have that book but are willing to give it a fair shake you're fine. If they say anything else particularly a flat refusal, you should probably consider a different game or playing a full spellcaster as being the guy whose shtick is "I swing my sword really hard... more than once!" isn't going to get you anywhere with such a person.
Without knowing where you live, my recommendation for you if you want a game that accepts Tome of Battle is to check out play by post forums. Most of the games won't, but you'll have enough exposure to find one that does with little difficulty.
I have a little experience with DnD. I've been running games since 1980. I have a waiting list of people who want to join my games. I am generally the go-to guy in the area for game mechanics questions. I am not a fan of Tome of Battle. I have quite a few issues with the book. It is because of my experience that I have come to that conclusion. Too many of the people I have met who want to use ToB are very close minded players who feel Class X sucks and ToB "fixes" the problems. These are not the players I want in my game. There are players who do just fine with the book and just see it as another set of options. Those are the players I would love to see use the book. The ones who want it to fix problems are not the ones I need in my games.
I believe a monk's role is to use his mobility to force opponents to pay attention to him to take out lesser foes or melee mezz bigger ones while the fighter focuses on the bigger nasties until he can get to the ones the monk has. He can heal himself slightly, and has the mobility to get away if he's bit off more than he can chew. This screams "off-tank" to me. Lets focus on what the role of the Monk is, and how to help it do it's job better, instead of discussing how powerful wizards are.I said that I don't believe a monk is a primary damage dealer, not that he has no place in combat. Those 2 things aren't mutualy exclusive.
His mobility is the weapon, not his DPR. He moves around and "locks down" or occupy opponents that have gone after your cleric or other casters, and vs one opponent flanks with the rogue or the fighter to drop it quicker, trying to stun it to keep it out of play. He is an off-tank. He or she doesn't need to dish out tons of damage to be effective at this role, imho, but his speeed and avoidance instead.
This is going back to what was discussed before, where monk players have a tendency to augment their defense instead of their offense. Why would you raise your dex instead of your strength? They both add equally to combat maneuvers (though you have to spend a valuable feat to be so), so the only difference is strength adds damage, while dex adds AC. This is a -terrible- trade off, especially for the monk. You are making yourself a waste of space. You are no better at doing combat maneuvers, but now you can't be threatening with damage, which the monk was half good at. Moreover, you may feel that augmenting your defense makes you a good 'off tank'. This is also wrong, now that you have made yourself less of a threat, while also being harder to hit, you will be ignored. If you aren't your DM is just being nice to make you feel like your character is participating. This means your monk is now not being effective in combat, and is pushing his share of the attention from the monsters onto the rest of the party, as well as burdening them with doing the damage that he has given up.
By the way, this isn't a slam on monks specifically, but more on the idea that you can pretend to be on the front line with a low strength. Unless you are a rogue, you need strength, whether your a fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, bard, druid, etc. The game is not built for people with low strength to contribute meaningfully in a melee fashion.
This is getting to the essence of why there is monk hate. There are significant traps in this class. What you are talking about is one of the bigger ones.
Saying 'Well I had a monk and he was awesome' doesn't change this, as a DM I can and do make weaker players and characters feel like they are participating, but it doesn't change the fact that there are real problems with the class. It isn't even a class for advanced intelligent players either, because the pay offs aren't worth it. If a top tier player makes and plays a monk, he will be ok. Above standard melee players, but not good ones. Where is the reward for system mastery? Not being terrible? Such a player could do alot more for his party with another class.
I have a little experience with DnD. I've been running games since 1980. I have a waiting list of people who want to join my games. I am generally the go-to guy in the area for game mechanics questions. I am not a fan of Tome of Battle. I have quite a few issues with the book. It is because of my experience that I have come to that conclusion. Too many of the people I have met who want to use ToB are very close minded players who feel Class X sucks and ToB "fixes" the problems. These are not the players I want in my game. There are players who do just fine with the book and just see it as another set of options. Those are the players I would love to see use the book. The ones who want it to fix problems are not the ones I need in my games.Hell, I'd love to be in such a group. I have yet to find one where ToB gained traction. I can usually use it, but few other players do. Of course, my current and previous groups have been fifty percent new players.I've found that openness to Tome of Battle is directly proportional with the DM's experience with the game. The more experienced he is, the more likely he is to accept it. The reverse is also true.
If you're meeting a DM for the first time, a way of asking how comfortable they are with 3.x without being rude is to ask them if they accept Tome of Battle. If they say yes, or that they do not have that book but are willing to give it a fair shake you're fine. If they say anything else particularly a flat refusal, you should probably consider a different game or playing a full spellcaster as being the guy whose shtick is "I swing my sword really hard... more than once!" isn't going to get you anywhere with such a person.
Without knowing where you live, my recommendation for you if you want a game that accepts Tome of Battle is to check out play by post forums. Most of the games won't, but you'll have enough exposure to find one that does with little difficulty.
What is wrong with wanting to fix problems?
|
The ToB was a bandage to a hemorrhaging system.
Wotc R&D guy #1: Well we really screwed the non-casters in the game with our easily manipulated DC system for casters and all their over-powered abilities. How do we fix the problem for non-magic based characters - who got screwed in this edition?
Wotc R&D guy #2: I got it, make fighters have magical abilities so they are more like casters!
So no effort to fix the system, no effort to pull back or deal with the problems - just try to make all the classes more like casters until we fix the game with 4th edition.
Instead of Tome of Battle we should have gotten the Tome of Fixed Magic System - Limited DCs, spells with drawbacks, casters get to stand still as they cast all their spells as full actions as they free up fighters from full action attacks, more challenging yet robust crafting system, reassigned stat values and Point buy system to reflect the different impact each of the six stats had on the game, eliminate system manipulation beyond challenge level, etc, etc, etc.
The Tome of Battle was a cheap attempt fix problems that are at the core and foundation of the 3.5 game. Failure.
The ToB was a bandage to a hemorrhaging system.
Wotc R&D guy #1: Well we really screwed the non-casters in the game with our easily manipulated DC system for casters and all their over-powered abilities. How do we fix the problem for non-magic based characters - who got screwed in this edition?
Wotc R&D guy #2: I got it, make fighters have magical abilities so they are more like casters!
So no effort to fix the system, no effort to pull back or deal with the problems - just try to make all the classes more like casters until we fix the game with 4th edition.
Instead of Tome of Battle we should have gotten the Tome of Fixed Magic System - Limited DCs, spells with drawbacks, casters get to stand still as they cast all their spells as full actions as they free up fighters from full action attacks, more challenging yet robust crafting system, reassigned stat values and Point buy system to reflect the different impact each of the six stats had on the game, eliminate system manipulation beyond challenge level, etc, etc, etc.
The Tome of Battle was a cheap attempt fix problems that are at the core and foundation of the 3.5 game. Failure.
The only way to make things less one-sided without a system overhaul was to make the melee types stronger. Each spell a caster know is king of like a feat that can normally be changed out. The fighters get stuck with the same spells/feats all day long. The maneuvers helped fixed the gap between the casters and non-caster by providing versatility with day to day changes. The Warblade ability to apply all of its feats to a new weapon is also an example of that. A fighter finding the great weapon that he does not have feats for was often a problem.
PS:I see we are getting off-topic. Back to how to fix the monk.
No see they made fighters like casters because now fighters have difference stances and maneuvers and styles of attack just like real martial arts and real fighting techniques so clearly that must be magic. Don't you know? Real medieval knights never used any techniques at all, they just aimlessly bashed each other over the head!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ToB was a bandage to a hemorrhaging system.
Wotc R&D guy #1: Well we really screwed the non-casters in the game with our easily manipulated DC system for casters and all their over-powered abilities. How do we fix the problem for non-magic based characters - who got screwed in this edition?
Wotc R&D guy #2: I got it, make fighters have magical abilities so they are more like casters!
So no effort to fix the system, no effort to pull back or deal with the problems - just try to make all the classes more like casters until we fix the game with 4th edition.
Instead of Tome of Battle we should have gotten the Tome of Fixed Magic System - Limited DCs, spells with drawbacks, casters get to stand still as they cast all their spells as full actions as they free up fighters from full action attacks, more challenging yet robust crafting system, reassigned stat values and Point buy system to reflect the different impact each of the six stats had on the game, eliminate system manipulation beyond challenge level, etc, etc, etc.
The Tome of Battle was a cheap attempt fix problems that are at the core and foundation of the 3.5 game. Failure.
So ... in essence the solution is to make it more like 2e, right? ;-)
Seriously - all that stuff you discuss is WAY closer to 2e's take on just about everything vs. 3.x's take (or PF by way of legacy). I find those observations very interesting. Are you and old-timer like myself?
Honestly, I feel much the same way (for the record).
@Prof: as usual, snark to the max! Love it! ;-)
@Bigstupidfighter: Umm ... if you have characters ignore a monk that's attacking THEM, that is the height of meta-gaming. How the HELL can they *possibly* know they can't hit the guy? If he shows up and starts smacking the hell out of them, HE *IS* a threat. If he's that much harder to land a hit against, again, he's a threat - or something to throw spells at and let the casters at 'em (oh, wait - too bad he's a MONK w/all the best defenses in game against magic - save for Divine Grace).
I seriously can't take your criticism of a high defense making a monk irrelevant in combat. He will *always* be relevant by measure of who he attacks and where he puts his efforts to be located on the field of battle. He completely matters *at least* for his zone of control/AoO's he can make and the space he physically occupies. That he engages someone, and then that someone pointedly ignores his presence is meta-game in the most extreme case I can imagine.
I've been running games since 1988 or so, and I've never ONCE ignored a character with my NPC's that came up and challenged an NPC directly - they had the NPC's attention BECAUSE THEY ATTACKED THE FRAKKIN' NPC!!! If it's a wizard under attack, then typically the move is like a defensive move - teleport/blink away, etc. Point being, my characters *always* respond and react to the reality of what is in front of them - they don't look at the world like it's a freakin' system of #'s and game the "reality" of their immediate combat life. They act like they are in a freakin' combat with people trying to kill them - not like they are in some simulationist system that lets them know the enemies statistics out of hand. If they miss - they miss ... and that's all they really know. There *is* no potential for them to think, "well, his defenses are way too high for me to hit, so I'm going to move on to someone else" mostly because there *is* no moving on - that guy trying to beat them to death will STILL keep trying to beat them to death - so it's a good idea to pointedly NOT ignore them.
Sorry - but logic like that kills me. The class has problems, and there are traps - no argument there. It's very hard to make monks work "right" (thus this extended discussion).
I'll tell you what though, if I'm at a table where a GM *EVER* meta-games his critters to ignore "the things they can't hit" that's the moment I stand, protest, and leave the game. That's crap-tastic as far as GM skills go. There's nothing wrong with employing tactics that are sound in-game. But when that stuff crosses into meta-game knowledge and planning of things characters can not POSSIBLY be aware of, I draw a line. I never do this to my players, and I'll be damned if I'll sit at a table where the GM is trying to do that to me.
@Bigstupidfighter: Umm ... if you have characters ignore a monk that's attacking THEM, that is the height of meta-gaming. How the HELL can they *possibly* know they can't hit the guy? If he shows up and starts smacking the hell out of them, HE *IS* a threat. If he's that much harder to land a hit against, again, he's a threat - or something to throw spells at and let the casters at 'em (oh, wait - too bad he's a MONK w/all the best defenses in game against magic - save for Divine Grace).Attacking him and doing no real damage. Doesn't matter what his defense is, he's getting ignored.
A Sorcerer has comparable Fortitude saves, and same or better Will saves. Without even trying. If they do try, they demonstrate why Monks have average defense at best.
But this is a moot point, since he lacks the damage output to be a threat. Enemies fighting a party of Cleric, Wizard, Monk, Rogue will go after the first two, and ignore the last two.
I seriously can't take your criticism of a high defense making a monk irrelevant in combat. He will *always* be relevant by measure of who he attacks and where he puts his efforts to be located on the field of battle. He completely matters *at least* for his zone of control/AoO's he can make and the space he physically occupies. That he engages someone, and then that someone pointedly ignores his presence is meta-game in the most extreme case I can imagine.Monk unleashes his Flurry of Misses. He attacks a bunch of times, and maybe hits once or twice for tiny amounts of damage. The enemy is unamused, and unimpressed, and walks around.
This isn't WoW, you don't get aggro based solely on choosing a front liner class. If anything it works in reverse - spellcasters get all the attacks thrown at them, because they are the danger here.
It doesn't take metagaming to realize that he can't hurt you even before he attacks though. Because see, this is a pattern. Unarmed, unarmored guys are either Monks or Wizards. One...
Go back and read the thread - the whole thing before you say PF can't do it.
Weapon Quality - Guided is a +1 enchantment.
Brass Knuckles.
I rest my case.
.
..
...
....
......
SpeakerODreams: Hey hey! Curious, why you care what 'ole Coddy be thinking?
O_o
ENJOY :D
|
.
..
...
....
......SpeakerODreams: Hey hey! Curious, why you care what 'ole Coddy be thinking?
O_o
ENJOY :D
It seems our group is in the minority in this discussion, but having a Monk in 2 different campaigns and having both DOMINATE the party in combat situations we all feel they are too powerful and get to many abilities.
We have all agreed to allow them only 2 good saves (players choice at 1st level).
|
I said the following a ways back:
I believe a monk's role is to use his mobility to force opponents to pay attention to him to take out lesser foes or melee mezz bigger ones while the fighter focuses on the bigger nasties until he can get to the ones the monk has. He can heal himself slightly, and has the mobility to get away if he's bit off more than he can chew. This screams "off-tank" to me. Lets focus on what the role of the Monk is, and how to help it do it's job better, instead of discussing how powerful wizards are.I said that I don't believe a monk is a primary damage dealer, not that he has no place in combat. Those 2 things aren't mutualy exclusive.
His mobility is the weapon, not his DPR. He moves around and "locks down" or occupy opponents that have gone after your cleric or other casters, and vs one opponent flanks with the rogue or the fighter to drop it quicker, trying to stun it to keep it out of play. He is an off-tank. He or she doesn't need to dish out tons of damage to be effective at this role, imho, but his speeed and avoidance instead.Why would you, as the monk's opponent, pay attention to him if he isn't really doing damage or anything useful to you?
Because your GM is charitable and playing them stupid to make the monk feel better? I don't think this is a great answer to class balance.
Because the monk is between you and the rest of the party.
Cylerist
Would you please post your build and attribute determination method. I would love to see it.
Arrrrrr .. be careful o' acceptin' yer cans o' beer from a lad who always shakes his fist. At least opens it above the sink, yarrrrrrr....
|
|
And enemies are obligated to attack whoever is closest, instead of walking around the guy occupying a single 5 foot square?Because the monk is between you and the rest of the party.I said the following a ways back:
I believe a monk's role is to use his mobility to force opponents to pay attention to him to take out lesser foes or melee mezz bigger ones while the fighter focuses on the bigger nasties until he can get to the ones the monk has. He can heal himself slightly, and has the mobility to get away if he's bit off more than he can chew. This screams "off-tank" to me. Lets focus on what the role of the Monk is, and how to help it do it's job better, instead of discussing how powerful wizards are.I said that I don't believe a monk is a primary damage dealer, not that he has no place in combat. Those 2 things aren't mutualy exclusive.
His mobility is the weapon, not his DPR. He moves around and "locks down" or occupy opponents that have gone after your cleric or other casters, and vs one opponent flanks with the rogue or the fighter to drop it quicker, trying to stun it to keep it out of play. He is an off-tank. He or she doesn't need to dish out tons of damage to be effective at this role, imho, but his speeed and avoidance instead.Why would you, as the monk's opponent, pay attention to him if he isn't really doing damage or anything useful to you?
Because your GM is charitable and playing them stupid to make the monk feel better? I don't think this is a great answer to class balance.
If it is a caster that can go around, the monk is stunning. If it is a melee fighter, going around isn't easy if the monk is engaging you 60 feet away from the party, unless you just take the AoO from the monk as you go around and still don't have enough movement to get to the rest of the party and attack. If it is ranged, I'm making you move from cover or provoke AoO.
yarrrrr .... CoDzilla rises like a beast from the sea, and volleys us with a lightning bolt of assumptions! Take cover, lads! Hyperbole is indeed a breath weapon!
What's wrong with wanting to fix problems?
Nothing so long as the problems actually exist. Just because someone thinks that there is a problem in the game doesn't actually mean there is. Too often I see people whine and moan about something without actually looking at it in context. For example, most people claim that ToB fixed the fighter in 3.5. Too many of them make the erroneous claim that fighter was unplayable and that the class could never, under any circumstance whatsoever, contribute to the party regardless of the party make up or campaign. Those are often the same players who think that casters are invincible at all levels of play at all times. Those are not the players I want in my games. These are very often the players who want to win the game.
I agree that some classes are more powerful than others. There is no denying that. I just don't think that things are nearly as bad as many people around here and other boards claim. I have noticed that most of the perceived problems come from a fundamental lack of understanding of the system and poor DMing. That doesn't mean that some issues need to be addressed. It just means that people regurgitate what they hear and see without any real evaluation.
@Bigstupidfighter: Umm ... if you have characters ignore a monk that's attacking THEM, that is the height of meta-gaming.
+1
+2 even.
Even if we are talking about a "flurry of misses", even if the Monk in question is COMPLETELY ineffectual at dealing damage or stunning or whatever, he should still be dealt with. How many times in fiction (be it movies, tv or books) a character with no hope of defeating the big bad charge right in... and then be completely ignored and walked around? None that I can recall. What usually happens, what should happen, is that the "mook" gets slapped down, thrown out a window, knocked out in one punch, turned into a toad, whatever. The point is, in PF terms, he should at least have the attention of the bad guy for the action it takes for him to be taken down. And if monks really are as ineffectual as people seem intent to make them out to be, it should really only take one round.
Unless they're not that ineffectual.
ome of Battle has a very short list of problems.
It took our group under 15 minutes to:Rewrite Iron Heart Surge to be coherent about what it could and could not work on.
Rewrite Adaptive(?) weapons to be specific about what weapon feats they do and do not work with.
Fix Crusader stance progression.It would have taken half as long, but we did it over dinner.
Compare to any other book, particularly the core books.
And what's wrong with bug fix classes so people can play what they want and actually have it work for them? After all, plenty of people like Fighters, Monks, and Paladins. They just want those classes to actually work. If they have to call them Warblades, Swordsages, or Crusaders instead that's a small loss.
I dunno about you, but I want everyone to have a viable character they can be happy with.
I don't have a problem with wanting to fix bugs. I just don't think taking a simple system that really wasn't unplayable and making it far more complex with little to no payout was the answer. In fact, it made running games more difficult as the characters got more powerful. The problem was not corrected. It was made worse.
I want my players to be happy. I want them to play characters they like. For example, anyone who tries to join my games and starts with Class X sucks is not going to be welcome at my table. I don't care if someone likes or dislikes a class. I personally despise playing clerics or druids. I want my players to trust that I'm a good enough DM that they won't have unplayable characters. I also trust that my players don't come to the table with dump stats that would make them functionally retarded.
I have never seen a fighter, paladin, or monk not work. Never in all my years of gaming have I seen those classes fail. I have seen people not understand how to play them. I have seen people misunderstand how the casting classes are supposed to work. I have seen DMs coddle the casters while claiming that it's the non-casters being coddled.
Go back and read the thread - the whole thing before you say PF can't do it.
Weapon Quality - Guided is a +1 enchantment.
Brass Knuckles.
I rest my case.
These items grant you the ability to make enemies attack you?
You're going to have to explain how they do that.
This is exactly the problem. I posted a monk earlier that would be a serious threat in the game. It was 15 point buy and not something that should be ignored. If the DM is having opponents ignore a character, then the DM has failed at DMing.
.
..
...
....
.....
Arrrrrr .. be careful o' acceptin' yer cans o' beer from a lad who always shakes his fist. At least opens it above the sink, yarrrrrrr....
OBEY ME BEARDED RASCAL!1!
This is exactly the problem. I posted a monk earlier that would be a serious threat in the game. It was 15 point buy and not something that should be ignored. If the DM is having opponents ignore a character, then the DM has failed at DMing.Go back and read the thread - the whole thing before you say PF can't do it.
Weapon Quality - Guided is a +1 enchantment.
Brass Knuckles.
I rest my case.
These items grant you the ability to make enemies attack you?
You're going to have to explain how they do that.
Anybody here not read the DPR olympics thread?
Anecdotes are great but numbers don't lie (although they can be misrepresented ...). The DPR olympics aren't perfect but they give us a snap shot of the monks's potential damage, and what factors influence it. Everybody needs something to do in combat, and just being a target is not a viable job in of itself.
If you say that an ignored monk is danger (lets say a monk who has buffed his wisdom over strength), in what way is he dangerous? His stunning fist still has to land. Do you mean that he spends 4 stunning fist attempts, just to attempt a stun on an opponent once? He uses combat maneuvers to tie up the opponent? Well combat maneuvers really on strength for BOTH CMB and CMD, so that is not really his strongest suit.
In any case I believe the numbers show that monks have difficulty balancing strength and wisdom, offense and defense. If you look at the thread linked above, you will see that all of the monk builds with DPR in the rogue to fighter range have ACs under that of the average (24 for level 10). So they are working off the premise that offense is better than defense. And in doing so, they have less Ki points, less AC, less stunning fist DC, all of which are class features that define the monk.
these are the conclusions that we have drawn from actual builds. If there are conclusions that you think refute these statements, lets have them. And saying that DM can lowball the game isn't a viable answer, because anyone can make a suboptimal character. What we are attempting to resolve here is how a monk can be an OPTIMAL one.
edit - a little note on my definition of viable in this case. It gets bandied about a lot on optimization threads and in general whenever there is a thread "x-class suxxors". Viable as I am using means that the class as working within reason with relation to its fluff, and is offering a comparable contribution to the other classes in the group. An intelligence based rogue, for example, is viable outside of combat because of the massive amount of skills at his/her disposal along with the trapfinding/trap removal.
Outside of combat, monks have little to offer that stand ups to other classes. About the only thing they offer is that they have defenses which mean they absorb less of the traditional party resources (cure disease/poison, they don't take damage from blasts) and are always armed, both of which is still somewhat of a combat features. Thus we are only really left considering combat viability, the prime reason why there is so much monk hate.
I'm on the pro-monk side of the debate. It isn't difficult to build a monk-DPR powerhouse that can compete quite well with the traditional front-line bruisers; but it takes effort to understand why this is the case.
Statistically speaking the monk's advantage in combat is that he can have a seriously big number of attacks. The great number of attacks do not necessarily mean all that much; except for two considerations:
1. Any flat plus to hit/damage has a much greater impact on the monk's DPR than on other classes. Buying your wizard a pearl of power to cast GMW on you every day is a fantastic way to boost your monk DPR.
2. Any *other* action that can be done on all those attacks make a huge difference. Consider: your CMB is maybe enough to get that Trip 40% of the time. A level 11 fighter with 3 attacks can try for 40% / 15% / %5 to end up with about a 50% chance of success of tripping the target this round. A monk would do it as a 40% / 40% / 40% / 15% / 15%/ 5% - or about an 85% chance of successfully tripping the target this round.
...
Problems a monk has that make him appear weak early levels is that unless he goes with a Str-build, the options available to him are pretty slim to try and get better DPR. "Easy" melee types like a 2-handed barbarian can post vastly bigger damage numbers at that stage. But given time (and ki points) more options (and money) come available to round off the monk's abilities; and his growth in DPR is steeper than other classes.
|
|
Anybody here not read the DPR olympics thread?
The issue with the DPR Olympics comparison is in the description of the post itself. Specifically "I mainly just hit stuff"
It considers damage, it doesn't consider defense. It doesn't consider battlefield conditions, it doesn't consider utility.
It mainly is just about hitting stuff.
Bards also do badly, but no one would reasonably argue bards are a weak class.
Monk is a utility class, with a lot of focus on defensive abilities and mobility. It does a lot of things well, but other classes can do specific things it does better.
Bards also do badly, but no one would reasonably argue bards are a weak class.One should not make such statements so casually. :P
+1
;-)
Anybody here not read the DPR olympics thread?
The issue with the DPR Olympics comparison is in the description of the post itself. Specifically "I mainly just hit stuff"
It considers damage, it doesn't consider defense. It doesn't consider battlefield conditions, it doesn't consider utility.
It mainly is just about hitting stuff.
Bards also do badly, but no one would reasonably argue bards are a weak class.
Monk is a utility class, with a lot of focus on defensive abilities and mobility. It does a lot of things well, but other classes can do specific things it does better.
If you read the first post, it DOES take those things into account as much as it can. The post specifies that there have to be reasonable choices involved that do not directly translate to DPR. So there is an attempt there to make REAL builds that do what that class does. But yes, what is actually measured is "how well it hits stuff".
If a build is genuinely more optimal by sacrificing DPR for some other benefit, then the sacrifice will be made. For example, rogues will use Crippling Strike and not Bleeding Strike. With that in mind, feel free to nit-pick the build of any entrant. The idea is that each example is as optimal as possible.
Pray tell, what is the monks other job? Moving around the battlefield? Does that compare to a bards battlefield controls, spells like confusion? Believe me, if there was such a role of the monk, I would be first to be "DUDE, they aren't all about combat!". But the monk has the same out-of-combat role as a commoner. He dresses plainly, is usually unarmed, and has skill ranks.
Edit- mind you, the APG does approach giving monks more out of combat roles, such as had with the Ki mystic, who can toss out fortune cookie wisdom like a bards inspire competence.
I'm on the pro-monk side of the debate. It isn't difficult to build a monk-DPR powerhouse that can compete quite well with the traditional front-line bruisers; but it takes effort to understand why this is the case.
Statistically speaking the monk's advantage in combat is that he can have a seriously big number of attacks. The great number of attacks do not necessarily mean all that much; except for two considerations:
1. Any flat plus to hit/damage has a much greater impact on the monk's DPR than on other classes. Buying your wizard a pearl of power to cast GMW on you every day is a fantastic way to boost your monk DPR.
2. Any *other* action that can be done on all those attacks make a huge difference. Consider: your CMB is maybe enough to get that Trip 40% of the time. A level 11 fighter with 3 attacks can try for 40% / 15% / %5 to end up with about a 50% chance of success of tripping the target this round. A monk would do it as a 40% / 40% / 40% / 15% / 15%/ 5% - or about an 85% chance of successfully tripping the target this round.
...
Problems a monk has that make him appear weak early levels is that unless he goes with a Str-build, the options available to him are pretty slim to try and get better DPR. "Easy" melee types like a 2-handed barbarian can post vastly bigger damage numbers at that stage. But given time (and ki points) more options (and money) come available to round off the monk's abilities; and his growth in DPR is steeper than other classes.
Ahhh but a fighter will be able to qualify for with greater trip at level 6, and can trip with a full BAB as an AoO or as part of standard attack. Not so for the monk. His best chance is ONLY while flurrying. Also, while the monk is attempting trip after trip, no damage is taking place, no ever will it because greater trip requires them to toss points into Intelligence which restricts their points invested in STR/WIS/DEX/CON. The fighter OTOH has the points to spare.
|
|
Ahhh but a fighter will be able to qualify for with greater trip at level 6, and can trip with a full BAB as an AoO or as part of standard attack. Not so for the monk. His best chance is ONLY while flurrying. Also, while the monk is attempting trip after trip, no damage is taking place, no ever will it because greater trip requires them to toss points into Intelligence which restricts their points invested in STR/WIS/DEX/CON. The fighter OTOH has the points to spare.I'm on the pro-monk side of the debate. It isn't difficult to build a monk-DPR powerhouse that can compete quite well with the traditional front-line bruisers; but it takes effort to understand why this is the case.
Statistically speaking the monk's advantage in combat is that he can have a seriously big number of attacks. The great number of attacks do not necessarily mean all that much; except for two considerations:
1. Any flat plus to hit/damage has a much greater impact on the monk's DPR than on other classes. Buying your wizard a pearl of power to cast GMW on you every day is a fantastic way to boost your monk DPR.
2. Any *other* action that can be done on all those attacks make a huge difference. Consider: your CMB is maybe enough to get that Trip 40% of the time. A level 11 fighter with 3 attacks can try for 40% / 15% / %5 to end up with about a 50% chance of success of tripping the target this round. A monk would do it as a 40% / 40% / 40% / 15% / 15%/ 5% - or about an 85% chance of successfully tripping the target this round.
...
Problems a monk has that make him appear weak early levels is that unless he goes with a Str-build, the options available to him are pretty slim to try and get better DPR. "Easy" melee types like a 2-handed barbarian can post vastly bigger damage numbers at that stage. But given time (and ki points) more options (and money) come available to round off the monk's abilities; and his growth in DPR is steeper than other classes.
This was all addressed over 100 posts ago. You are coming to the thread late.
This was all addressed over 100 posts ago. You are coming to the thread late.Ahhh but a fighter will be able to qualify for with greater trip at level 6, and can trip with a full BAB as an AoO or as part of standard attack. Not so for the monk. His best chance is ONLY while flurrying. Also, while the monk is attempting trip after trip, no damage is taking place, no ever will it because greater trip requires them to toss points into Intelligence which restricts their points invested in STR/WIS/DEX/CON. The fighter OTOH has the points to spare.I'm on the pro-monk side of the debate. It isn't difficult to build a monk-DPR powerhouse that can compete quite well with the traditional front-line bruisers; but it takes effort to understand why this is the case.
Statistically speaking the monk's advantage in combat is that he can have a seriously big number of attacks. The great number of attacks do not necessarily mean all that much; except for two considerations:
1. Any flat plus to hit/damage has a much greater impact on the monk's DPR than on other classes. Buying your wizard a pearl of power to cast GMW on you every day is a fantastic way to boost your monk DPR.
2. Any *other* action that can be done on all those attacks make a huge difference. Consider: your CMB is maybe enough to get that Trip 40% of the time. A level 11 fighter with 3 attacks can try for 40% / 15% / %5 to end up with about a 50% chance of success of tripping the target this round. A monk would do it as a 40% / 40% / 40% / 15% / 15%/ 5% - or about an 85% chance of successfully tripping the target this round.
...
Problems a monk has that make him appear weak early levels is that unless he goes with a Str-build, the options available to him are pretty slim to try and get better DPR. "Easy" melee types like a 2-handed barbarian can post vastly bigger damage numbers at that stage. But given time (and ki points) more options (and money) come available to round off the monk's abilities; and his growth in DPR is steeper than other classes.
It certainly was. Do you have any more thoughts on the utility of monks that does not rely on their attack bonus?
I think the argument being "yeah cuz stat items are 'spensive" is invalid, but I tired to play along fer a bit.It's invalid, why? Because you play in campaigns with infinite treasure?
Pick a level and stat out a monk for it with appropriate wealth-by-level treasure, and I'll stat you out a monk that's given up on his dex (for example) and has, I don't know, a Cube of Force you don't. Then we can argue about whether it's more important to have +2 AC when your enemies hit you on a 2 anyway or to have a defense that keeps out all things.
It's invalid because it's another sidestep.
I stated what I thought the purpose of the monk was and was told badwrongfun, spend more in STR or you cant HIT anything.I said use Weapon Finese: US, then was told, then you won't do any damage.
I said 20 STR vs 14 STR is only a 3 point damage difference, then that was sidestepped with magical equipment.
Now I see we're right back to "flurry of misses" again.
Arguing in circles is a complete waste of my time.
This is exactly the problem. I posted a monk earlier that would be a serious threat in the game. It was 15 point buy and not something that should be ignored. If the DM is having opponents ignore a character, then the DM has failed at DMing.Go back and read the thread - the whole thing before you say PF can't do it.
Weapon Quality - Guided is a +1 enchantment.
Brass Knuckles.
I rest my case.
These items grant you the ability to make enemies attack you?
You're going to have to explain how they do that.
Anybody here not read the DPR olympics thread?
Anecdotes are great but numbers don't lie (although they can be misrepresented ...). The DPR olympics aren't perfect but they give us a snap shot of the monks's potential damage, and what factors influence it. Everybody needs something to do in combat, and just being a target is not a viable job in of itself.
If you say that an ignored monk is danger (lets say a monk who has buffed his wisdom over strength), in what way is he dangerous? His stunning fist still has to land. Do you mean that he spends 4 stunning fist attempts, just to attempt a stun on an opponent once? He uses combat maneuvers to tie up the opponent? Well combat maneuvers really on strength for BOTH CMB and CMD, so that is not really his strongest suit.
In any case I believe the numbers show that monks have difficulty balancing strength and wisdom, offense and defense. If you look at the thread linked above, you will see that all of the monk builds with DPR in the rogue to fighter range have ACs under that of the average (24 for level 10). So they are working off the premise that offense is better than defense. And in doing so, they have less Ki points, less AC, less stunning...
I don't really care about the DPR Olympics. Those are about optimizing characters and have very little to do with actual game play for casual players. Nothing there actually will show that the monk sucks, which is the premise that some people are taking. There are others who are making a claim that the monk needs work but is playable. There are others who feel the monk works fine the way it is. I'm only arguing against the first premise. The monk does not suck. He can fill a role in the party and be useful.
The monk cannot do everything and should not be able to do everything. I build characters that are fun to play, can survive, and can be useful to the party. I don't build characters to be better than someone else.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So....why not let the Crusader continue playing his Crusader as he was if he wasn't broken again? And why wait until level 14?
What about his feelings on the matter?
Because I wanted to run a D&D game, and we talked many levels before I made the change. It just wasn't until 14th level that I decided to make the house rule.
I said it before, I'll say it again.
Remove the full attack action. Just let characters do a full attack as a standard action.
I couldn't **disagree** more.
CrusaderHow is it not D&D?
If you have to ask, I can't explain it to **you**.
I've found that openness to Tome of Battle is directly proportional with the DM's experience with the game. The more experienced he is, the more likely he is to accept it. The reverse is also true.
Strange, from my experience those that have 27+ years playing and running the game are the opposite. I don't know a one that allows ToB that has played longer than around when ToB came out. It (ToB), from my perspective, attracted a large number of non-D&D players to the game.
Guided Brass Knuckles
Only fixed the atk/dmg problem, sadly since you are not "unarm striking" all your things like Weapon Focus Unarmed and other things need to be designed to work off Brass Knuckles. That means feats/items/abilities won't work if they can't be retooled (Belier's Bite, Amulet of Mighty Fists which is pointless but listed to illustrated the point.)