Is this even a debate anymore?
I *thought* we covered *all* the junk the new comers are bringing up now like in the first 10+ pages ... apparently they can't be bothered to read or something.
The *serious* debaters so far have been in a sort of agreement - it needs help.
I just pointed out some solid mechanics that back up the monk with Wis as it's key ability being something effective and, likely, worthwhile in revision/house rules/whatever - it's really a fine way to make them effective, AND synergize their abilities big-time by consolidating a LOT into the Wis score for them.
I think its sort of moving backwards to go into stuff we already covered earlier on because some yahoo's come in here and refuse to read the dang thread.
If they are NOT going to be bothered looking at "the debate" that's been ongoing (more discussion, really, though - until those nuts showed up), then I'm not going to be bothered to humor back-pedaling towards things already covered in the first rounds of exchanges.
My only frame of reference build-wise has been to loosely play with the #'s I've seen tossed around in various other threads about the DPR match-ups and their threads. So ... I don't know ... "high level play" may be where I'm coming from? I can only assume those +10-+12 stat mods are coming from being THAT frakkin' high in level, no?
I can *almost* do the same in low levels, but the idea of slowly, and deliberately making a build w/kit and gear at all levels I find distasteful. I mean, *why* bother to fully stat a character when the full build isn't really what's under fire so much as the little specifics of damage, or what have you? To *me* it's more efficient use of time to discuss what does matter, and not be bogged down with a full build - lots of labor for little return, and I've NO interest in such an undertaking. HOWEVER, if anyone would like to stat up a monk with a simple +1 guided enchantment in play and twink out said monk's Wis score like a crazy-person - I'd love to see the results (mostly because it'll prove the relevant points I've made anyway - in fact, it'll likely be even better on account of putting hard feat-choices into play that bring in a LOT of bang to the class in terms of options and advantages, etc).
@Kyrt: No problem ... I've done a LOT of searching to make monks "work" since 3.5 really. I just like the concept a lot, but the mechanics are lack-luster. PF does a LOT to make them cooler, but man ... compared to the treatments of other classes, Monks are *still* underwhelming to me.
So ... I share what I know and have found with everyone to try and encourage more players of monks to "build it effective" (for lack of a better expression) as I know it can be pretty frustrating. However, with some very, very simple equipment tweaks - ok'd by the GM make it all much better to function as a monk.
I agree that speaker brought a good idea to the table and many of us have tried to find ways to incorporate this (and other ideas) into finding a monk that while not all things to all folks (nor should any class be that good) is seen more positively.
Along those lines I made a new thread to discuss fixes here: linky
We should also assume this monk has replaced one of the classic 4. Which one is up to you guys.
*raises hand* I might wish to point out that your statement right there sounds like you're testing theories. In recent experience (and especially in the forum PbPs), I cannot remember any game that has four players maximum. Most that I've seen are 5 to 7 players.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but as it seems to be becoming standard (once again, at least in terms of this board), might it be possible that the "classic 4" could be an outdated basis?
*raises hand* I might wish to point out that your statement right there sounds like you're testing theories. In recent experience (and especially in the forum PbPs), I cannot remember any game that has four players maximum. Most that I've seen are 5 to 7 players.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but as it seems to be becoming standard (once again, at least in terms of this board), might it be possible that the "classic 4" could be an outdated basis?
I'd agree with you that a 4 player party is less common. However, it is still very important as I believe that's what measuring CR is based on.
Moving back to the monk hate topic, I'd have to agree with Amburaid that the numbers suggest that the monk in general, is weak sauce. However, just as the conjurer is considered by many the "leetest" wizard choice from an optimization point of view, there is a class archetype for the monk that is powerful provided you can acquire a guided weapon as mentioned by The Speaker in Dreams.
The archetype is the Zen Archer who has an amazing choice of bonus feats that help optimize his ranged attacks. With a guided longbow in his hands and a high Wisdom score, he is going to do massive amounts of ranged damage and contribute the party's success. This means he can dump Strength and suffer less from MAD. And ofcourse I know this strays from the standard image people have of a monk but it is a choice nonetheless showing that you CAN play a monk as a powerful character that contributes even if most of the other monk options are poor from an optimization point of view.
So other than the Zen archer, which does look interesting what about melee?
@Me'mori: Well I chose 4 because of game design reasons. I do personally prefer 4 to 6 players, but sometimes that is not an option, and some people don't like to run two characters.
That is pretty sweet. Especially since you could buy it on an amulet of mighty fists, and then use a brass knuckles (or whatever that APG item is) for your Enhancement bonuses.It took a while, but some Paizo material is starting to come together to help the monk. (I'll admit I would have preferred this wisdom switch be a feat though, so it couldn't be dispelled and would function in an AMF, but this is a good step in the right direction.)
Thanks for the heads up Speaker.
A guided amulet is fantastic for a monk - BUT - it doesn't help if you fight with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles allow you to use the monk-unarmed damage (say 2d6), not his unarmed damage output (say 2d6 + 10). All the flat plusses are still derived as normal but use the brass knuckles as platform. In the same way that a +1 amulet doesn't help when you fight with brass knuckles, so does a guided amulet not help.
I like guided, but it is perhaps too much of a powerhouse in itself. The feat Ki Diversity (faction guide) is too weak again. Personally I would like to see Paizo address this again in a format that is sanctioned for Society play. (That is my usual criteria for "out there" feats, items, spells - if it is legal for society play, there should be no argument about using it for play in my playgroups.)
Ultimate Magic promises new ki-based powers, so maybe I'll be lucky there. Or I have to wait for Tian Xia and Ultimate Warrior.
A guided amulet is fantastic for a monk
Can you put guided on an amulet? If you can, does its ability then apply to all weapons you choose to wield? This is important as weapons progress from 2000gp to 8000gp in cost for +1 and +2 bonuses respectively and guided is equivalent to a +1 bonus. An amulet on the other hand may well be cheaper. Clarification on this would be appreciated.
CR is a balance of party vs the encounter, not one on one combat.
This is wrong, you know it, everyone knows it, I'm not sure why the heck I'm forced to repeat that rules, including CR adjustment for being without a party, work as they work. The monk isn't a preparation caster, and doesn't have abilities that can make him more powerful if he knows in what sort of campaign he is otherwise, so there is no reason not to apply it to him.
And in a party vs the encounter situation the monk's job is only harder, because the battle of equals will include four CR 13 mobs, and unless monk cannot match one of them without buffs dedicated specifically to him, he sucks ass. Period. No matter what he can do out of combat, although he can't do much at all.
If that were the cast all CR equal monsters would be 50/50 when fighting each other, but in one on one combat some monsters would flat out trounce another one most of the time.A level 10 warrior is a CR 8, but a level 9 fighter which is also a CR 8 is more likely to win most of the time. Even a level 10 commoner is a CR 8, and it has almost no chance of winning in combat against either class.
That's why we compare with the whole range of monsters within a certain CR, not with one of them. Now, at high levels the whole system falls apart, because there are too few comparison points, but at CR 12 it still works.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.
If you think that 12=12 is a "silly premise", there is nothing to be gained from conversation with you, as you logic is not the one of this universe.
See ... I'm not even entirely convinced that the fast movement even belongs in the first place. It's weird.
Monk does not have fast movement. Everyone else gets to be weirdly slow on land, but does not care, because land movement generally no longer matters at mid levels.
And you are wrong, thinking that "high levels=super". Level 6-7=super. And even before that you are an action hero, who routinely does things that aren't possible for humans strictly bound by realism.
FatR: read the whole thread and context. [*sigh*]
Re - Knuckles and Amulet of Mighty Fists: AoMF is fully capable of swapping a +1 of to hit/damage for a +1 enhancement of another sort - very easy. Instead of having a AoMF +2, you have a +1 Guided AoMF - simple.
Knuckles *can* and *do* alter your unarmed weapon damage, and monks can apply it with knuckles. Here's the hi-lights of making this work:
*Knuckles of different material types - only 1 of each. (silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc). Swap 'em as needed to by-pass DR as you encounter it - they're just brass knuckles, so pretty cheap.
*Enchant to a +2 level and stop there - essentially, what you is a +1 Brass Knuckles with a +1 Guided enhancement - and that's IT! You *can* enchant further if you want, but it's a lot of $ for little return, IMO.
The best option for monks is going to be potions of Greater Magic Fang - why? Because the duration is 1 hour/caster level. To get a +5 GMF, you're talking about a bare minimum caster level of 20. So you'll get a +5/+5 on your natural weapons (that monks AND Brass Knuckles qualify as) for 20 hours a pop at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced investment cost. The cost to the monk? 1 potion swallowed. If I'm working the #'s right, that's a 3000 gp pay out to get a +5/+5 for 20 hours (50 gp x spell level [3rd] x caster level [20th] = 3000 gp total). Consider this cost vs. a just *base* cost of a +5 enchantment to a weapon - 50,000 gp on it's own! That's like 16 potions that will last for 20 hours each ... certainly the more economical fix and approach, IMO.
This is the same type of bonus that would come from brass knuckles anyway (enhancement on a "natural" attack), so with the effect NOT combining, the greater enhancement takes precedence and you're swinging with a +5/+5 Guided Natural attack using your monk damage to make it happen. (note: that +5/+5 is also adding in to a maxed out Wis score if built correctly for another +10 - +12 or whatever. So it's a +15-+17 overall modification you're looking at before rolling die on damage.)
|
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.
As I said many times to someone you remind me a great deal of, post the build where your caster can roll a two to make your fort save, or go away.
|
|
That is pretty sweet. Especially since you could buy it on an amulet of mighty fists, and then use a brass knuckles (or whatever that APG item is) for your Enhancement bonuses.It took a while, but some Paizo material is starting to come together to help the monk. (I'll admit I would have preferred this wisdom switch be a feat though, so it couldn't be dispelled and would function in an AMF, but this is a good step in the right direction.)
Thanks for the heads up Speaker.
A guided amulet is fantastic for a monk - BUT - it doesn't help if you fight with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles allow you to use the monk-unarmed damage (say 2d6), not his unarmed damage output (say 2d6 + 10). All the flat plusses are still derived as normal but use the brass knuckles as platform. In the same way that a +1 amulet doesn't help when you fight with brass knuckles, so does a guided amulet not help.
I like guided, but it is perhaps too much of a powerhouse in itself. The feat Ki Diversity (faction guide) is too weak again. Personally I would like to see Paizo address this again in a format that is sanctioned for Society play. (That is my usual criteria for "out there" feats, items, spells - if it is legal for society play, there should be no argument about using it for play in my playgroups.)
Ultimate Magic promises new ki-based powers, so maybe I'll be lucky there. Or I have to wait for Tian Xia and Ultimate Warrior.
Guided is a +1 enhancement. You would use it to enhance the brass knuckles.
The +1 makes it expensive later, and is doesn't stack with STR, only replaces it.
Regarding amulets and knuckles and guided property:
Brass knuckles have the special property that they damage dice may count as your monk damage dice. In other ways it functions as a weapon.
So, you can have a +1 guided brass knuckles. Is good. 8000gp - and you can use the weapon just fine.
Or you can have a guided amulet (no +1 required first). 5000gp - this does NOT stack with any brass knuckles that you chose to wield.
Knuckles and amulets do not stack in their effects; you cannot have a fiery amulet of mighty fists and attack using your brass knuckles and get a fiery knuckle attack. It doesn't work that way. Once you wield the knuckles, the amulet has NO effect on your attacks with the knuckles (but you can still make regular unarmed strikes with parts of your body that DO benefit from the amulet).
But, as I said, I don't like to rely on the guided property - it is not core, APG or Society-play approved.
You do not need guided to make a high impact monk; just teamwork. Allied casters can easily buff up the monk (and the monk in return shells out for a level 3 pearl of power or something). Also, any buff tends to have the greatest impact on a monk compared to the other classes due to the high number of attacks the monk gets to make. It is not hard to be within about 10% of an optimized fighter's DPR. That is good enough.
|
|
Regarding amulets and knuckles and guided property:
Brass knuckles have the special property that they damage dice may count as your monk damage dice. In other ways it functions as a weapon.
So, you can have a +1 guided brass knuckles. Is good. 8000gp - and you can use the weapon just fine.
Or you can have a guided amulet (no +1 required first). 5000gp - this does NOT stack with any brass knuckles that you chose to wield.
Knuckles and amulets do not stack in their effects; you cannot have a fiery amulet of mighty fists and attack using your brass knuckles and get a fiery knuckle attack. It doesn't work that way. Once you wield the knuckles, the amulet has NO effect on your attacks with the knuckles (but you can still make regular unarmed strikes with parts of your body that DO benefit from the amulet).
But, as I said, I don't like to rely on the guided property - it is not core, APG or Society-play approved.
You do not need guided to make a high impact monk; just teamwork. Allied casters can easily buff up the monk (and the monk in return shells out for a level 3 pearl of power or something). Also, any buff tends to have the greatest impact on a monk compared to the other classes due to the high number of attacks the monk gets to make. It is not hard to be within about 10% of an optimized fighter's DPR. That is good enough.
Oh I agree with you that monks are not underpowered.
CR is a balance of party vs the encounter, not one on one combat.This is wrong, you know it, everyone knows it, ......
Monster of equal CR have different tactics. Different classes have different abilities, not all combat related. Expecting to be able to mix and match them in combat and get the same results is nonsense at best. Expecting a party of 4 to have at least one member that can deal with them is not.
Repeating and explaining in more detail:
If each class of a level was equal to a CR then the classes would be equal in combat just by having the same CR, but some classes are just flat out better in combat than others, so expecting them to do equally well against all monsters is nonsense. If it is nonsense then one on one battles have no merit. If it is not nonsense then you should be able to pull a class of level X and a monster of level X out of a hat and get similar results. I am betting it won't happen. A CR 10 melee character won't be giving a party as much trouble as a CR 10 caster as an example.
|
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.
It sounded like he was playing in a D&D game.
Again, what about his feelings on the matter? Does only one person at the table get to decide what is or is not D&D?
If you think that 12=12 is a "silly premise", there is nothing to be gained from conversation with you, as you logic is not the one of this universe.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.
If you have not realized by now that a monster's individual abilities matter more than some number assigned to it then the logical error is on your side. There is a thread going about most dangerous monsters for their level. Shadows are CR 3, and they are more dangerous than a lot of other CR 3 monsters. In math 12=12 works, but for CR and such things when each 12 has additional things going for it the abilities mean more than the numbers
PS: Mephits are CR 3. I am sure most people would rather deal with a mephit than a shadow.
|
If you think that 12=12 is a "silly premise", there is nothing to be gained from conversation with you, as you logic is not the one of this universe.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.
What, you mean a 12th level Monk is equal in power to a 12th level Wizard? :)
You do not need guided to make a high impact monk; just teamwork. Allied casters can easily buff up the monk (and the monk in return shells out for a level 3 pearl of power or something). Also, any buff tends to have the greatest impact on a monk compared to the other classes due to the high number of attacks the monk gets to make. It is not hard to be within about 10% of an optimized fighter's DPR. That is good enough.
Can you please make a 6th level monk and fighter and do the math to show that they can be within 10% (remember to apply party buffs equally to both if you wish to use them)?
We have heard a lot of discussion but no theorycraft, the math, to see where the monk is. Are we all misguided in the monks DPR
If you think that 12=12 is a "silly premise", there is nothing to be gained from conversation with you, as you logic is not the one of this universe.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.
You failed to read my post which is a very common issue on these boards. The Challenge Rating system is not meant for 1 on 1 combat. Nowhere does it even suggest such a thing. You can't tell me that all CR 12 creatures are equal to each other 100% of the time. The idea is that every character can contribute to the challenge. Do you think that an Adult Green Dragon is equal to a Poisoned Pit Trap which is equal to an advanced vampire aboleth with is equal to a 13th level PC bard which is equal to a 13th level NPC wizard which is equal to an advanced bat swarm? Honestly, the challenge rating system is not meant to be an exact science. It is meant to balance an encounter against a party of 4 to 5 characters. The party is assumed to have a variety of character options.
It is a silly premise to assume that any character should be able to handle an equal challenge rating 50% of the time.
If you think that 12=12 is a "silly premise", there is nothing to be gained from conversation with you, as you logic is not the one of this universe.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.This is coming from the guy who thinks classes like Fighters and Monks are completely viable without houserules, pity artifacts, and other such help.
He also thinks that it's badwrongfun to pick an obvious bug fix class because it is an obvious bug fix class. Because apparently if someone wants to play a Fighter, they have to have the name Fighter on their sheet. They can't just be a Warblade, so they can actually do the things that they are supposed to do.
I love when people put words in my mouth and make zero attempt to understand what is being said. I also like when flat out lies are presented to prove someone is wrong.
|
|
As I said many times to someone you remind me a great deal of, post the build where your caster can roll a two to make your fort save, or go away.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.
Posted it many times. Be rude to me again and on the Greasemonkey list you go.
Anything else?
Aww...that would break my heart. Where is that script and does it work when you change aliases again?
Also, just checked your 68 posts, and not one of them was a full build. Maybe it was under one of your Aliases?
Posted it many times. Be rude to me again and on the Greasemonkey list you go.
Anything else?
Not posted once under any of your names. If you can't post a full build that can do everything, then we will just have to assume that you are trolling. What am I saying? You're trolling anyway. I just want to see this uber build. So far we've had a lot of hyperbole but that's about it. It's time to put up or shut up.
|
|
Not posted once under any of your names. If you can't post a full build that can do everything, then we will just have to assume that you are trolling. What am I saying? You're trolling anyway. I just want to see this uber build. So far we've had a lot of hyperbole but that's about it. It's time to put up or shut up.Posted it many times. Be rude to me again and on the Greasemonkey list you go.
Anything else?
+1
It must be some transmuter variant, considering how the stats move around as needed at the time.
Regarding amulets and knuckles and guided property:
Brass knuckles have the special property that they damage dice may count as your monk damage dice. In other ways it functions as a weapon.
So, you can have a +1 guided brass knuckles. Is good. 8000gp - and you can use the weapon just fine.
Or you can have a guided amulet (no +1 required first). 5000gp - this does NOT stack with any brass knuckles that you chose to wield.
Knuckles and amulets do not stack in their effects; you cannot have a fiery amulet of mighty fists and attack using your brass knuckles and get a fiery knuckle attack. It doesn't work that way. Once you wield the knuckles, the amulet has NO effect on your attacks with the knuckles (but you can still make regular unarmed strikes with parts of your body that DO benefit from the amulet).
But, as I said, I don't like to rely on the guided property - it is not core, APG or Society-play approved.
You do not need guided to make a high impact monk; just teamwork. Allied casters can easily buff up the monk (and the monk in return shells out for a level 3 pearl of power or something). Also, any buff tends to have the greatest impact on a monk compared to the other classes due to the high number of attacks the monk gets to make. It is not hard to be within about 10% of an optimized fighter's DPR. That is good enough.
Even easier, then - don't bother w/the BK's unless it's for exotic weapon materials to by-pass DR.
So, Amulet (w/NO bonus) of MF and just Guided - period.
All the rest is done via Potions of Greater Magic Fang! ;-)
If you *want*, start throwing stuff like Flaming, Holy, etc into the Amulet as well (NO basic + mods, though), and go to town, too!
;-)
It got awfully quiet in this thread once the people that could not add 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 3 were silenced.
That's your full build? Consider me convinced of your uber wizard.
As I said many times to someone you remind me a great deal of, post the build where your caster can roll a two to make your fort save, or go away.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.
Posted it many times. Be rude to me again and on the Greasemonkey list you go.
Anything else?
If I'm not on there already I'd like to be. The thought of you never responding to any of my posts is win/win with extra win sauce.
|
|
It got awfully quiet in this thread once the people that could not add 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 3 were silenced.That's your full build? Consider me convinced of your uber wizard.
Well history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
Go Go CoDzilla!
Oh no, there goes Tokyo
Go Go CoDzilla!
It got awfully quiet in this thread once the people that could not add 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 3 were silenced.
Herp derp is usually not worth responing too, I guess.
|
|
If I'm not on there already I'd like to be. The thought of you never responding to any of my posts is win/win with extra win sauce.As I said many times to someone you remind me a great deal of, post the build where your caster can roll a two to make your fort save, or go away.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.
Posted it many times. Be rude to me again and on the Greasemonkey list you go.
Anything else?
Great point. I'm sure I am on there now, but now we all know how to get him to leave us alone.
You sir are a genius.
What, you mean a 12th level Monk is equal in power to a 12th level Wizard? :)
I mean, such equality is a beautiful goal to strive for :).
What, you mean a 12th level Monk is equal in power to a 12th level Wizard? :)I mean, such equality is a beautiful goal to strive for :).
Noble intent - one should pay attention to not lose to much in uniqueness and flavour and all the things that make a class special in the attempt.
I AM NOT referring to the criticism addressed in this thread, regardless the fact that I could agree or not with one or another.
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 two most laughable ideas here is the assumption that it ever was or is possible to fix 3.X by generally nerfing the casters (if you try, the monsters will just eat the party at two-digit levels - at the latest, in my Paizo AP games melee types were unable to fight undebuffed enemies without dying alot by level 6-7 - unless you rewrite them too, at which point you have a new g$$@%$n edition), and the bizzare thought that 4E made everyone like casters (instead of trying to make everyone like big stupid fighters).
|
The two most laughable ideas here is the assumption that it ever was or is possible to fix 3.X by generally nerfing the casters (if you try, the monsters will just eat the party at two-digit levels - at the latest, in my Paizo AP games melee types were unable to fight undebuffed enemies without dying alot by level 6-7 - unless you rewrite them too, at which point you have a new g$$!&~n edition), and the bizzare thought that 4E made everyone like casters (instead of trying to make everyone like big stupid fighters).
Nerfing casters/spells = fix the game
Letting casters stand still to cast most spells (not all obviously) as a full action is not going to break the game, just make it more balanced. Better than any solutions offered by Tome Edition.Same thing with capping DCs for spells.
Wotc actually made a half-assed effort limiting spell power by level, the just failed on the follow through (MM vs the open ended Hold/Charm Person). They were not consistent with their own philosophy of limiting the maximum effectiveness by spell level.
Changing stat values via point buy doesn't break the game, it just addresses the reality that all stats (STR VS WIS) are not equal in power, value and impact on play. Again, all this would do is lower caster stats.
I don't know what game you're playing, my group can move through fights against MAX hp foes using the dirtiest tactics against them with the rare need for an "I win" or buff/debuff spell.
All PCs classes in PFRPG were up-powered, I'm not concerned if den trolls will accept that as reality but that is the case. Didn't change the imbalance issue of caster vs. non-caster, but all classes got improvements, extra feats, hp, abilities, while most creatures didn't really change or increase in power.
The ToB was a piss-poor attempt to give fighters caster-like abilities or SLAs. It didn't do squat to fix the game, be it from a fighter perspective or from balancing out casters vs. every other class. Utter garbage.
And I never said 4e made everyone like casters, just that the ToB was a supposed fix for fighters till balanced edition (4e) came out.
And 4e made everyone like casters (with powerz), unfortunately in 4e casters are flavorless and uninspired.
Tangent (kinda)
I thought monks were for gestalt games!
End tangent
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.
I've played and GMed since early AD&D 2E. The only thing I do not allow on principle is psionics, solely because I cannot be bothered to learn such a big subsystem that, according to most reviewers, totally sucks anyway. Everything else is fair game, although stuff I haven't read or don't remember requires aprroval before bringing it to the table. Don't remember not approving anything (maybe except on the ground of being a horrible trap option), though. There are actually relatively few non-TO ways to actually break the game, so that the campaign stops being fun. They are not hard to remember. And most of the are and always were in the core anyway.
EDIT: And forgot to add - if some stuff does not fit current fluff of the setting it is allowed nevertheless. Right now one of the PCs in my current campaign is the first artificer in the world. Because PCs are special.
And, continuing generalizations based on personal experiences here, all good GMs I've met allowed every source accessible to them. And all those with extensive banlist clearly mistrusted the players and feared losing their precious control.
I've played and GMed since early AD&D 2E. The only thing I do not allow on principle is psionics, solely because I cannot be bothered to learn such a big subsystem that, according to most reviewers, totally sucks anyway.
Actually, for most part, a lot of spells considered problematic have not the psionic counterpart. Psionics is LESS problematic than core magic in 3.X.
The system is intuitive because works like a "mana based" source management (like Wow or Diablo). You spend the Power Points (PP)if you manifest the power and subtract from a total.
The only things to keep in mind are psionic focus and do not make the common error of fogetting that a manifesters cannot spend for a single "casting" of the power a number of PP greater than his manifester level.
Most of other things are like magic.
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.
The difference between what you call "anime feel" fighter and the old crowd's image of fighter is that the latter sucks. No, I'm not joking or exaggerating in the slightest. Players of Conan or Fafhrd&Grey Mouser were basically forced to suck their respective GMs' cocks for McGuffins allowing them to actually resolve the current plot about half the time. Players of Moorcock's non-casters often needed major artifacts for their characters to survive the plot at all. Players of non-casters on Vance's Dying Earth mostly just resigned to being buttmonkeys from the beginning. In all of these verses magic users and magical beings tended to be superior to fighters, with only the plot allowing the latter to overcome the odds.
And mind you, in the anime/manga people who can just stab people really well tend to fall far below the casters, or their local equivalents, too. Even One Piece finally surrendered and made outright magic accessible to every high-end physical combatant, just so that they can compete at all with high-end superpower users.