So you are suggesting that it's better for the Monk to be mercilessly killed off than simply ignored?
If possible, yes. If.
The thing is, while they're busy killing the mook, the good characters are not being attacked.
Precisely my point.
They also are not impressed with a BBEG who can slap around Monks. Anyone can do that, so it is not as if he is invoking the Worf Effect or anything of that nature.
Depends on the group, doesn't it? It's called roleplaying. You see your friend get his ass handed to him and a) you realize you're dealing with a threat and b) you get pissed because your friend just got his ass handed to him. Exactly what the "Worf Effect" is supposed to accomplish. Again, this is assuming that the big bad actually DOES curbstomp the monk.
And this is why your premises are invalid, because you also don't see much fiction where one side blows away the other in a matter of seconds unless it is a woefully mismatched battle. Yet, this happens all the time in D&D. With evenly matched foes, and even with quick defeats of forces stronger than yours.
I think this premise is the one that is invalid. If both sides are "evenly matched" then it's not going to be a quick battle. Or at least, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. That's not the kind of game I want to play.
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.
I think you should care about the DPR olympics because they show you what goes on in the build of a class, and how each one contributes in combat. If monks had some out of combat expertise that they could point to, such exceptional skills, healing ability, buffing powers, then combat would be less of an issue. But as it stands, monks only have combat, and tha fact that they have some immunities defenses, so they suck up less party resources. That is all.
For my part I am in the second camp after participating in this thread since page 1. Monks do alright, but they don't compete with other classes without optimizing them within an inch of their lives. Their main features don't synergize with there role because of their dependence on wisdom as driving stat. They need a little work. Not a lot, a little. But saying that they are not broken is just as bad as saying they are"the suxxorz". It isn't contributing to the conversation.
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.If it's a caster, they don't need to go around. They can cast their spells from right here. But assuming you go over to them, they roll a 2 or better, and save against it.
If it's a ranged attacker, most likely same deal except that they are less capable of killing Monks than casters are.
If it's a melee attacker, walking around costs them, at most 5 feet of movement. An AoO from a Monk, particularly a Monk that has greatly reduced its already lackluster damage for more defense is something to be laughed off.
So your wizards can easily cast spells while grappled? They are able to cast while stunned or staggered? They can cast spells with ease while taking damage in general? The monk (15 point buy, level 13) posted earlier can deal an average of 20 points of damage on an attack of opportunity, after he has tripped the wizard if he so chooses. That sets the Concentration check at DC at 30 + spell level. That's going to be tough for any 13th level wizard and certainly isn't "laughable." The save DC against the Stunning Fist is 23. The level 13 wizard has a base of +4. I'm not sure how you're getting +21 to your Fortitude save at level 13 without putting everything you've got into it. Again, not laughable.
Wizards are not unstoppable engines of destruction, contrary to what you want to assume. They have limitations just like all the other classes. If the DM does not have more than 1-2 encounters in a day and makes them single monster encounters, the casters will do extremely well. If the DM has multiple encounters per day, uses wandering monsters, enforces casting rules, etc, the casters will have as much a difficulty as everyone else.
So your wizards can easily cast spells while grappled? They are able to cast while stunned or staggered? They can cast spells with ease while taking damage in general? The monk (15 point buy, level 13) posted earlier can deal an average of 20 points of damage on an attack of opportunity, after he has tripped the wizard if he so chooses. That sets the Concentration check at DC at 30 + spell level. That's going to be tough for any 13th level wizard and certainly isn't "laughable." The save DC against the Stunning Fist is 23. The level 13 wizard has a base of +4. I'm not sure how you're getting +21 to your Fortitude save at level 13 without putting everything you've got into it. Again, not laughable.
Wizards are not unstoppable engines of destruction, contrary to what you want to assume. They have limitations just like all the other classes. If the DM does not have more than 1-2 encounters in a day and makes them single monster encounters, the casters will do extremely well. If the DM has multiple encounters per day, uses wandering monsters, enforces casting rules, etc, the...
I'll just throw this here. Mirror image. If the monk has to move he only gets one grapple attempt. is it a guaranteed escape? no. Bu its not like they are defenseless. All the wizard then needs is one spell grappled or no, to escape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: ToB
Tome of Battle "not being D&D" is silly and dumb. It's a nonesense argument. Because for me, ToB is D&D. It's what D&D has always been meant to be.
Fighters who have maneuvers and fight like, well, actual fighters. Combat being moving and dynamic rather then rock'em sock'em robots. Fighters, rangers, paladins, they always been described as masters at combat, but where was the game to back it up? Even in 2e fighters had things other classes couldn't get, be it additional attacks or better specialization. The idea was clear - "Fighters are good at fighting." THe mechanics, however, were not.
See, I'm 24. I didn't start in 1e or in the 70's. I started with 2e in the early 90's. By then, Conan was a guilty pleasure Ahnahld movie and nothing more. It wasn't until two or three years back I found where "Vancian" came from. What I had was saturday morning cartoons and the ninja turtles who jumped around and did all sorts of neat attacks. I had D&D arcade games where the fighter and thief both had a wide array of things they could do other then just smash with a sword. And there is nothing that makes this less "D&D" then any of your influences.
You do yourself no favors by claiming you don't need to explain it to us. It just makes you look condescending and smug. D&D is not any one particular thing. You have your D&D games, I have mine, others here have theirs. You claim it brought "non-D&Ders to the game," but it really didn't. Here's the catch - as soon as they play D&D, they're D&D gamers, and now ToB is a part of their D&D, too. But claiming "it's not D&D" just doesn't work, because quite frankly, your game, to me, isn't D&D.
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.Level 1 martial type: I run up and hit it.
Level 1 caster type: I cast Color Spray to take the encounter out.
What does your wizard do on encounter #2? Why didn't the fighter use some sort of tactic? If the fighter is only being built to swing his sword, he will be very good at that but he can do more.
Level 20 martial type: I run up and hit it, or I stand still and hit it FOUR TIMES.
Level 20 caster type: I have forgotten more knowledge of physics than you ever knew. I regularly tell the laws of the universe to shut up and sit down, and it listens and obeys. If I wake up tomorrow and decide I want to pursue a completely different avenue of attack, I need only will it and it is so. The world is my oyster. My only equals are those like myself. There is not a single thing in this plane or those beyond I cannot do if I will it.
Hmm, so you are limiting the fighter to 4 attacks per round? What about dual wielding? They can have 7. What about attacks of opportunity? What about combat maneuvers like Greater Trip, Greater Grapple, Greater Bull Rush, etc? These open up whole new options.
Your wizard simply does not have the staying power to do that all day. You can throw all the hyperbole out there but your wizard must stop to rest at some point as his spells become less and less useful after every encounter. Yes, the fighter will need to be healed but healing is so much easier to come by than 8 hours of rest.
I'm willing to bet that if you brought a caster into one of my games you'd be unpleasantly surprised at how difficult a time you will have. I highly doubt your wizard would survive through half the adventure. Overconfidence is a serious flaw in my games. And just so you know, I don't use any house rules at all right now. I have never seen any wizard pull that stuff off continuously in my games. I have seen it tried, but never succeed. I also don't target characters or make encounters specifically to stop certain characters.
...If you would not describe the martial type as unplayable, then what term would you use? Keep in mind that enemies are either going to be caster types themselves, or melee types with better stats than you.
That's the exact problem right there. Why assume 100% of the enemies are casters? Why assume that 100% of the enemies who aren't casters are better at melee? Just looking through the Bestiary is evidence enough to show that you are mistaken. This holds true for all levels of play.
Sounds like you don't like for Fighters to have nice things. Otherwise you wouldn't be selective about ToB. And dump stats are most likely to be employed by MAD characters, which means martial types.
First off, I think that every class has "nice things." I am selective about ToB just like I'm selective of every other book. ToB just took something that could have been simple and made it more complex than necessary. It gave some melee characters a feel of a caster, with the additional complexities.
As for dump stats, have you seen some of the things that people have proposed for casters? Someone actually suggested that a wizard with three, yes three, 7's in their stats was a good idea. That's what I'm talking about with dumping stats to functionally retarded levels. Oh, and if every character you build has a stat of 7, then it tells me you aren't building characters anymore. Instead you are only playing the numbers.
Then I question what sort of games you play in. I've regularly seen those classes be slaughtered. And I don't mean some new guy made a Fighter, and put all his points into Dex and Int because he thinks he's Zorro and then got killed by the first ECL = party level battle. I mean CO board quality builds for those classes.
Off the top of my head:
I run most of the games I am in. By most, I mean more than 95%. Even the ones that I have played in, I have not seen any of the problems that you think should be there. I have been running games since 1980. I am certainly no novice.
Optimized Paladin, killed by a pair of mooks 6 levels lower. They each full attacked her once, and she was down and out from full HP. This character died several more times, but not in humiliating ways.
I would need more information to comment on this. I don't know anything about either group of opponents. I can say that 6 full attacks coming at someone is going to be rather tough to handle. Many creatures in the books can have 3 attacks even at low levels. That could mean 18+ attacks at the paladin. That could be dangerous for any character.
The same optimized Fighter, on multiple occasions: Taken out by a Will based effect, killed because a dragon full attacked him once, killed because a pair of some melee monster full attacked him once. I don't remember which one it was.
Will saves are a fighter's biggest weakness. If he didn't do something to shore that up, I fail to see why that's a problem with the fighter. That sounds like a different issue altogether. As for the dragon full attacking the fighter and killing him, again I would need to know more but that's a lot of attacks and a lot of damage. If it was two creatures, that could have been even worse since now we've doubled the number of attacks.
Optimized Monk, on multiple occasions: Literally devoured by a monster. Made a new character who was practically a clone of the first. Then got killed by a Cleric punching him out. In one hit. Yup, beaten at his own game by CoDzilla (not me). It turns out you can deliver Harm via unarmed strikes, and when your punch has a base damage of 21-24 or so on top of that...
So the minimum 13th level cleric was able to deal 21-24 points of damage on a punch along with casting harm and could hit the monk who, as you said was optimized, so probably had an AC around 30? Sounds like the monk was not optimized in the slightest.
As for getting devoured by a monster, how would the cleric have done since being swallowed gives the grappled condition as well as continuous damage? Could the cleric have been casting spells at that time?
Classes like Beguiler, Crusader, Warblade, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer? They've all held up much better across various games. At the very least they avoid dying to the weak stuff.
Unless you are specifically softballing to keep from killing the weak classes, it will happen and it will happen often. The strong classes can take the heat though.
I don't softball. I play by the rules. I enforce the rules as they are written. There is no possible way that any caster can be invincible so long as the rules are followed. You are also making some seriously flawed assumptions if you think I softball. Maybe I throw entirely different types of encounters at the party than you are used to dealing with. Maybe I plan for battles to last 3-5 rounds. Maybe I plan for there to be 3+ encounters in the day. Maybe I like to use wandering monsters. Maybe I like to throw curve balls at the party once in a while. Just because your wizard knows that red dragons breathe fire doesn't mean that he knows that Jake the Red Dragon can also breathe cold because he is half white dragon. The dragon my party just fought was a black dragon with levels in alchemist. That's a bit of a game changer.
I think you should care about the DPR olympics because they show you what goes on in the build of a class, and how each one contributes in combat. If monks had some out of combat expertise that they could point to, such exceptional skills, healing ability, buffing powers, then combat would be less of an issue. But as it stands, monks only have combat, and tha fact that they have some immunities defenses, so they suck up less party resources. That is all.
The DPR Olympics don't take into account enough to make a difference. They show how much damage a character can deal and that's it. They don't show what other combat options the character has. As many people rightfully point out, casters are powerful not because they can deal damage but because they can stop the enemy without dealing damage. If we only used DPR Olympics to determine the value of a character in combat, then enchanters would not be viable.
For my part I am in the second camp after participating in this thread since page 1. Monks do alright, but they don't compete with other classes without optimizing them within an inch of their lives. Their main features don't synergize with there role because of their dependence on wisdom as driving stat. They need a little work. Not a lot, a little. But saying that they are not broken is just as bad as saying they are"the suxxorz". It isn't contributing to the conversation.
I'm only arguing against the monk sucking. I have my own position that I have not made evident because that it not what I want to discuss. I want to help dispel myths and misinformation about classes and their viability. I think that every class has its strengths and weaknesses and those can change from campaign to campaign.
|
See, I'm 24. I didn't start in 1e or in the 70's.
Which pretty much explains the conceptual dissonance between your views of a Fighter (which seem, at least to me, strongly influenced by the "demon warrior of 1000 hells with a 4m sword that fires meteors with evey swing" anime feel) and the old crowd.
I'll just throw this here. Mirror image. If the monk has to move he only gets one grapple attempt. is it a guaranteed escape? no. Bu its not like they are defenseless. All the wizard then needs is one spell grappled or no, to escape.
So the party didn't deal with that problem from the beginning? A simple magic missile spell can handle mirror image before any melee character gets up there. In fact, any area of effect damaging spell will address that problem. Heck, they can probably throw down the spell while the monk is there. Team work goes a long way.
|
Which pretty much explains the conceptual dissonance between your views of a Fighter (which seem, at least to me, strongly influenced by the "demon warrior of 1000 hells with a 4m sword that fires meteors with evey swing" anime feel) and the old crowd.
See, I'm 24. I didn't start in 1e or in the 70's.
Odd that you've missed his mention of Beowulf and other mythic heros in his influences.
This is D&D. Battles are quick. Either it's quick because you won quickly, or it's quick because they won quickly, but it is quick.
I think the last fight we had that went over 3 rounds was 2 years ago. And that was the campaign finale, ECL + 8 or so. A recent fight almost went to round 4, and was only about ECL + 4 or so but honestly? That fight was over after the first quarter of round 1. They just didn't know it yet.
If you don't like quick battles play 4th edition.
Actually, this is Pathfinder, and I play it just fine, thank you very much. The problem here is the same one that I stated way earlier in this thread, when someone else claimed that climb & swim checks never get used. Let's state this simply:
Not everyone plays an optimized game.
Not everyone plays the game like you do.
Not playing the game like you do is not playing it wrong.
It is possible to to play the game in a different fashion than you, and still have fun.
And in related news, it's possible to play a Monk, straight from the book, with other characters from the same book, with a DM running a standard AP... and everyone at the table has fun. Shocking, isn't it?
|
|
Odd that you've missed his mention of Beowulf and other mythic heros in his influences.Which pretty much explains the conceptual dissonance between your views of a Fighter (which seem, at least to me, strongly influenced by the "demon warrior of 1000 hells with a 4m sword that fires meteors with evey swing" anime feel) and the old crowd.
See, I'm 24. I didn't start in 1e or in the 70's.
Crino's mancrush on Beowulf isn't that hard to miss.
As is the fallacy of thinking that Beowulf was an ordinary run the mill level 10 Fighter who should serve as a baseline of class building.
And more to the point: I've noticed that many of the "old crowd" prefers the mundane sword-swinging Fighter, while younger players tend to view martial classes in a more "over the top" way. Most people who decry ToB as a betrayal of D&D spirit are from the old guard, most people who think of at as a great addition tend to be in the 20-30 age group.
|
|
Same as the fallacy of thinking a run of the mill level 10 Fighter is an ordinary human.
Ordinary humans wouldn't last longer than 6 seconds against a T-rex.
EDIT: Stupid forums.
By this virtue, everybody is not ordinary. But does it automatically mean that everybody should shoot laser beams out of their eyes ?
There are so many ways around a grapple at level 13 it's not even funny.
Level 13 is the level Wizards get to become outright immune to stunning. But let's ignore that.
No, let's not ignore that. It is a resource that needs to be accounted for so throw it out there.
You're level 13, and you're only doing 20 damage a hit. Was this the character you claimed was such a big threat? Because he's doing at most half the damage of the level 10 characters in my game, and they aren't trying all that hard. You also still have to hit, and good luck with that.
It's not only 20 damage per hit. It's average 20 damage on an attack of opportunity. That's important because your wizard would need a 30 + level of spell being cast to succeed on his concentration check. That's going to be a challenge, if not impossible. Your highest level spells at that point have a Concentration check of DC 37. Good luck.
If his save DC is 23, he has a 24 Wis, which means he has no Str/Dex/Con to speak of on a 15 PB.
So he can't use gear?
But ok. Level 13 Wizard with +21. Given that the level 10 Sorcerer in our party has +18 right now it's very easy to extrapolate.
+1 more base
+3 more resistance
+1 more Con
+1 more morale= +24. Plenty. There are other bonuses that are available, but this is just 1 6th level arcane spell every day, two divine spells of 3rd and 4th level that are always on the entire party and improving the Con item to +6. That's it. And 'the monk' had no factor in this planning. The arcane caster would have his saves at those points because he is concerned about other casters using nasty Fortitude based effects on them. The Monk just gets shut down as a matter of course.
So your party sorcerer started with a base +3 and now has a +18 all the time? I don't know what his stats are but I can see +3 cloak, +2 feat, and +3 Con bringing him to a grand total of +11. I would have to see more. But even if we assume that the math is 100% correct, will all wizards or sorcerers have the exact same build? If so, there is a problem with the game somewhere.
If the group spells aren't there, the party non casters start getting destroyed by save or lose spells.
The monk posted earlier has +13/+14/+16 saves. An NPC wizard's DCs are generally lower than a PCs so I don't see how this is even close to the issue you think it is.
Our encounters per day, if any range from 3-10, with 5-7 being most common. Single monsters don't happen unless they're very powerful (I think our next fight is a CR 15 dragon... we're 6 level 10s). There's so many ways around wandering monsters at this level it's not even funny, but we're playing nice and killing them all. We all know and understand all the rules, and have viable melee characters. There's still no question that the spellcasters are the stars of the show. Arcane or divine, doesn't matter.
6 level 10s should get decimated by a CR 15 dragon unless something very lucky happens or the DM is missing something. The defenses of these dragons are excellent. Their attacks are dangerous. Their special abilities are game changers. I wish your party the best of luck. If you easily win (note the word "easily"), you should be asking yourself where the DM failed. That encounter should end your group very quickly.
|
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!
Right, because desert wind magic flaming sword is a martial discipline! LOLcirno!
So the party didn't deal with that problem from the beginning? A simple magic missile spell can handle mirror image before any melee character gets up there. In fact, any area of effect damaging spell will address that problem. Heck, they can probably throw down the spell while the monk is there. Team work goes a long way.
I don't disagree about teamwork, what I am saying is its not cut and dry. Most wizards has spells and tactics to deal with any melee, because melee is where they die. Mirror image, dim door, teleport, confusion ... what monks DO have is nice caster defense, forcing the caster to try to get away rather than debilitate the monk, like he would a fighter.
|
|
I'm new here, but I learned very quickly to take anything Aux says with a grain of salt. You should do the same
Failden is calling roy!
Seriously, for all the smack you talk about pathfailure on your safe forums why do you repeatedly come here? Do you think that you are going to make any converts?
How many sockpuppet accounts are you going to make...or even, why do you make the effort to repeatedly do so? Are you that obsessed about PFRPG?
|
|
I'm new here, but I learned very quickly to take anything Aux says with a grain of salt. You should do the sameFailden is calling roy!
Seriously, for all the smack you talk about pathfailure on your safe forums why do you repeatedly come here? Do you think that you are going to make any converts?
How many sockpuppet accounts are you going to make...or even, why do you make the effort to repeatedly do so? Are you that obsessed about PFRPG?
Feeding him attention is not the very best tactic either.
|
|
Feeding him attention is not the very best tactic either.I'm new here, but I learned very quickly to take anything Aux says with a grain of salt. You should do the sameFailden is calling roy!
Seriously, for all the smack you talk about pathfailure on your safe forums why do you repeatedly come here? Do you think that you are going to make any converts?
How many sockpuppet accounts are you going to make...or even, why do you make the effort to repeatedly do so? Are you that obsessed about PFRPG?
It's calling him out on his logic (or lack thereof). He has repeatably made an effort to create new accounts to troll. Do people do the same thing to him where he frequently posts? Is that what he wants?
I understand he doesn't like PFRPG (though somehow he loves casters and 3.5), my question is why keep coming back after being outed?
All he does is draw even more negative views and attention to the den.
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.
Damage doesn't have to be important for tripping - rather after a trip the increase in effective +to hit is a big bonus to DPR.
Regardless Maneuver Training insures that the monk does use his full monk level for BAB whenever he does a maneuver. This includes AOO or maneuvers part of a standard attack.
Why hasn't anyone pointed this out?
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.
Sometimes you have to convert by example. A player once told me support spells were useless. I introduced him to black tentacles.
If the player thinks fighters are useless have a fighter manhandle his character.I don't think that wanting to win the game has anything to do with being wrong though. It just so happens that when you have both traits it stands out more.
@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.
I think the ignore thing was taken out of context, or at least I hope it was. I say ignore the monk also, but what I mean is "deal with him last". You take out the casters if possible. Then the remaining bad guys will gang up on him. Of course the particular fight determines how I go about doing this.
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.
What if the character is not a threat, and the bad guys know it?
I have seen MMA fights where one opponent basically toyed with the other guy despite him being a certified trained fighter, and then ended the fight when he got too bored. The same thing can apply in a game.For the sake of fun a DM can take a few swings at the monk, but if the group as a whole is very tactical, and they want logical decisions from the NPC's then the DM may not have failed. It really depends on what a group considers to be fun. Randomly attacking players(if the monster is intelligent), or not attacking player X because he is about to die does not go over well in my group.
CrusaderHow is it not D&D?If you have to ask, I can't explain it to **you**.
An opinion that can't be defended is invalid by default.
Optimized Paladin, killed by a pair of mooks 6 levels lower. They each full attacked her once, and she was down and out from full HP. This character died several more times, but not in humiliating ways.
The same optimized Fighter, on multiple occasions: Taken out by a Will based effect, killed because a dragon full attacked him once, killed because a pair of some melee monster full attacked him once. I don't remember which one it was.
You have a detailed version of one of these accounts. I can't see a -6 level mook taking out either class, not even a monk.
Well maybe a 14th level caster in certain situations, but not some stock monster from the bestiary or monster manual.
I'll just throw this here. Mirror image. If the monk has to move he only gets one grapple attempt. is it a guaranteed escape? no. Bu its not like they are defenseless. All the wizard then needs is one spell grappled or no, to escape.So the party didn't deal with that problem from the beginning? A simple magic missile spell can handle mirror image before any melee character gets up there. In fact, any area of effect damaging spell will address that problem. Heck, they can probably throw down the spell while the monk is there. Team work goes a long way.
I may have been ninja'd but magic missile has no affect on mirror image.
Before we go any farther can we assume the DM is not holding back and using the most lethal tactics. If this were not a fun activity and the combat was real the monsters would not hold back for the players/PC's enjoyment.
We should also assume this monk has replaced one of the classic 4. Which one is up to you guys.
Fill in more assumptions as needed so we can at least debate from a common point. Group playstyle should not be a factor.
I just don't really have the patience for most of this, but man - constant hand-waving away of the brass knuckeles (that work off of Unarmed by the way - so no feat-swapping or anything of the sort needed), is idiocy.
It's a simple +1 enchantment to the weapon, they're pretty cheap, and fully synchronize with all things "unarmed" in nature (except *maybe* enhancement bonuses, if any, from things like GMF and such - where only the greater value over-rides).
Build a monk with the same ability spread as a fighter, but put the high stat as Wis instead of Str. Now he's going to keep up with his ability-bonus on combat with the fighter type. He can't compete with the wpn training stuff, but otherwise, is only -5 behind in bab, and equaling the ability mod in to hit (something like +10-+12 range if I remember for the higher end of things).
This monk is NOT going to be "ineffective" in the slightest. His DC will match a frakkin' caster's best shot at that point. (10+10+another 10-12 = 30-32, assuming he's not done other things to bump the DC via feats or items, etc).
What's my point?
The wis-based monk using his wis-enhanced weapon (that can REMAIN forever cheap, mind you as he only needs it to be a +1 weapon and with GMF he can get the bonuses of enhancement to surpass the knuckles anyway and still use the knuckles). This is + in both to hit and damage, and it's a static, consistent bonus that adds to the following things:
*To Hit
*Damage
*AC
*Stunning Fist DC
*Quivering Palm DC
*any other monk-type DC's
*Skills
*Will Saves
*CMB (read close all things that affect "to hit" also affect maneuvers)
*CMD (again - read closely they'll be helped by the Wis addition as well here)
This is BY NO MEANS a small adjustment that makes a wis-based monk viable. It makes them outright DANGEROUS and you'd be out of your damn MIND to ignore them!!
Monk runs up and opens with a Stunning Fist - that's it. Even good Fort types have to respect a DC that crazy-high! It is GOING to become a factor.
Toss on Medusa, and that's +2 MORE attacks coming in at the freakin' target above and beyond a full attack routine ... note, the routine comes against a Stunned target (quick recap on why Stun sucks: No Dex bonuses, -2 AC penalty ON TOP OF the dex losses, drop any/all held items, can NOT act until your next turn).
So, team-wise: run up and stun is a DAMN good option for the monk because even on a standard action this wis-based monk will hit, do damage (even more if he goes Vital Strike line of feats - totally possible), and leave a target that CAN NOT ACT AT ALL until just before the monks next round (again, assuming the monk isn't rocking things like sickening stun that adds another round of incapacitating effects of Sickened condition on the target after 1 round of being stunned). This means lower AC and defenses to all things that go after this target once the monk's used his action.
Monk-wise, after burning 1 stun on the opening round, the stun wears off just before his own action - all well and good, but then he opens up his flurry attacks with the first one being a stun, and NOW the medusa junk comes into play ... again, against an opponent with much, MUCH lower defenses.
So ... point being - it's a DAMN EFFECTIVE BUILD!
Stop disregarding it - the math *will* carry this out.
Sigh, Bob_Loblaw, you should have known better. Every time a bunch of people learn that arguing with Roy's sock puppets only turns him on, and once we're almost in the zone somebody has the bright idea that he can win this argument.
You're right. I've been through this so many times on so many boards that I think I must have dumped my Wisdom to 7.
stuff about a wis-based monk with a wis-enhanced weaponThis is something I'm not familiar with. Could you explain where the wisdom-based attacks and damage is coming from?
It's one of the Adventure Paths that Paizo made. It's been introduced and explained a few pages back, though.
Go search for the Archives of Nethys to find it all in a nice bullet-like format, though.
Very simply, it's a +1 weapon enchantment that switches the way melee works when using the weapon: it goes from being a Str-based modifier for to hit and damage into being wis-derived (but it can't do anything like multiply wis mods or anything - that is still str-based and reserved for str-only).
It lets things work *just fine* for a monk while reducing his MAD issues.
They, if kitted out with that, do NOT need to obsess over str as Wis becomes something that ADDS to darn near everything under the sun that *could* matter for the monk on all fronts.
It *completely* validates a Wis-based monk. It's a Paizo resource, too, so fully valid, IMO.
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.
What if the character is not a threat, and the bad guys know it?
I have seen MMA fights where one opponent basically toyed with the other guy despite him being a certified trained fighter, and then ended the fight when he got too bored. The same thing can apply in a game.
For the sake of fun a DM can take a few swings at the monk, but if the group as a whole is very tactical, and they want logical decisions from the NPC's then the DM may not have failed. It really depends on what a group considers to be fun. Randomly attacking players(if the monster is intelligent), or not attacking player X because he is about to die does not go over well in my group.
I agree with you that non-threatening opponents can often be ignored. I just find it interesting that so many people assume that all monsters, regardless of their actual intelligence scores or skills, automatically know which characters are the most threatening at any given time. Just to make sure you know, I am not accusing you of that. I've seen you around long enough to know that is not how your games are run.
Here are some things that I do based on each creatures intelligence (these are just rules of thumb and not meant to restrict me as GM):
1) Mindless: attacks the closest target
2) 1-2: attacks the one that has dealt damage last unless there is another reason (favorite food, trained, etc)
3) 3-6: attacks the one who has dealt the most damage recently
4) 7-10: attacks the one perceived to be the most dangerous
5) 11-14: attacks the one most likely to be the most dangerous
6) 15+: more specialized tactics
These vary somewhat based on creature type and personality. For example, kobolds and goblins, even though they are of average intelligence, will tend to gang up on the easiest targets. I try to play the opponents as individuals. My players and I find that it makes for a much more interesting encounter.
I also tend to look at the opponents' alignments. This helps dictate tactics as well. A Chaotic Evil sorcerer with an Intelligence of 7 is more likely to throw a fireball at the party not caring what happens to his companions.
I have had my creatures perform a coup de grace against a party member in combat if the opportunity presented itself. I don't have any problems attacking the PCs with the intent on killing them if that's what the enemy would do. The only time I pull back is when it is appropriate for the enemy to do so.
answered my questions
I still think we(all members of this debate) need certain base assumptions before this discussion can go any farther. I have seen members talk about winning initiative, and grappling the bad guy in round 1. I never have such a clear path to a bad guy if it is a caster, and if it is not a caster the monk/fighter/etc might not want to take the open path.
I think such differences in playstyles is the issue. An earlier poster said monks were OP's, and he wisely did not post a build*, but it would have been nice to describe how they were dominating play.
*Nothing he posted would have been good unless it was highly min-maxed most likely.