Your 'four weapons readied' argument is not holding.
either he's ready to attack with his gauntlets (a weapon) or he is not. He is ready to attack with UA, or his held weapons, or he is not.
You cannot be readied to attack with all four weapons. Another interpretation of that would be for a fighter to add armor spikes, boot spikes, knee spikes and beard spike, and use defender on all of them. Silly and obviously wouldn't apply, except in your example.
No bonus except Dodge stacks with itself. Defender bonuses are thus automatically precluded from doing so.
You cannot attack with a weapon unless it is being actively wielded. For instance, you cannot gain a Defender benefit if you are spellcasting. For the same reason, you can't get bonuses from 4 weapons unless you have the skills to wield them all simultaneously, generally by having 4 arms. Holding a weapon in your gauntlets, you still have to make the choice of gauntlets or weapon, you can't attack with both, and thus you're holding one and wielding the other.
And Drizzt wields a +5 Defender and a +3 Frost Brand set of scimitars. The former being +3, +6 against fire using/dwelling creatures in 1E, and so one of the best weapons in the game against demons and devils and fire elems (the last book).
==Aelryinth
Fact. If you're wearing a gauntlet you can attack with it. Fact. If you're wielding a greatsword in two hands and someone runs past you in melee, you can choose to attack with the gauntlet. Fact. Can you attack with all of them during the same attack routine? Probably not, but you're still wielding them. Otherwise the ranger would only be "wielding" his scimitars when he was actually full-attacking, and the other is merely being held. By your definition, you cannot attack with a shield unless you're also attacking with it during your primary attack routine, because if you didn't, you're obviously not wielding it, right? I vote wrong.
I would agree with the defender weapon not stacking (it's definitely the most balanced interpretation, since when you get all those extra weapons accounted for it gets stupid; like you pointed out); but as written it does. "Defender" is not an effect on the character. It specifically says "A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
You are transferring the weapons enhancement bonus to your AC as an untyped bonus that stacks with all other bonuses. You could argue that does not include transferring from multiple weapons, but as written that seems to be the case. It's not buffing you, you're just choosing to apply the modifier to your AC instead, and it specifically stacks with all other modifiers. It's not that you're being targeted with "defender" or anything like that.
But believe me, I truly agree that your interpretation is far, far more balanced, and would be much, much better in a game. You'd still be able to have a +5 defending gauntlet, but that's ok by me.
Ashiel, I don't think you are wrong, but you should maybe take into consideration saves, skills and other features.
I do think, nevertheless, that monk needs equip to work properly. It's a great buff-sponge indeed.
OT: IMHO, best "naked" PC are Druids. Heals, a companion, the spell list is versatile (even if the least powerful among full casters perhaps).
The holy symbol of the Druid is a part of a plant. :D
Invulnerable rager with beast totem and elemental rage.
Ashiel, I don't think you are wrong, but you should maybe take into consideration saves, skills and other features.
I do think, nevertheless, that monk needs equip to work properly. It's a great buff-sponge indeed.
OT: IMHO, best "naked" PC are Druids. Heals, a companion, the spell list is versatile (even if the least powerful among full casters perhaps).
The holy symbol of the Druid is a part of a plant. :D
Thanks. I do keep the saves in mind as well. The Fighter's weakest save is Will (fighters are 30% weaker baseline in will saves compared to the monk, and likely won't have a wisdom modifier higher than about +3-4, meaning the Fighter's will save is probably sitting between 7-10 before resistance and Iron Will). However I'm banking on the Fighter being backed up on combat, resorting to immunities rather than flat modifiers.
In a group with a fighter/cleric/wizard/ranger (I like rogues, but I think ranger would support better in a no-magic scenario), we'll be relying on protection from evil to protect the Fighter from charms and compulsions, and freedom of movement for dealing with things like Solid Fog at the appropriate levels. Death Ward is a useful one as well for dealing with certain things like waves of exhaustion. I'm taking these considerations into account as well.
EDIT: Also at sufficiently higher games, protection from spells, and mind blank are good, but that's for 15+, so it's very much limited in its application, and isn't cost effective as an item effect with regular wealth; but if you have a 15th level wizard around who doesn't mind it, mind blank 24 hour duration is pretty nice; since if it's not dispelled, you can generally get 2 days worth of stuff done with it (8 hours day 1, 8 hour rest, 8 hours day 2).
In a game that has normal wealth, the same applies, but I'd recommend getting various permanent or duration-per-day enhancements on your armor. Through reverse engineering the pricing formula of effects such as energy resistance, we can see that a continuous protection from evil adds a +4000 gp cost onto your armor, which is a simple way to avoid getting dominated. I'm also fond of a few minutes of death ward or freedom of movement each day as well, for emergencies, since even if they require a command thought (standard action) to activate, it's a fair way to get out of a pickle, or survive being mobbed by CR 3 shadows.
The monk could do well with a sorcerer dip, but it would cost him a lot in his other areas, but mage armor can give him a fighting chance against a lot of stuff without extreme stats, and can actually make his AC look very sexy at low levels. Shield can't be made into a potion though, which is why I suggested the dip instead of relying on party buffs.
However, if I was very much worried about these things, I'd probably splash Fighter or Druid with 2 levels of monk, since that's a quick +3 to all saves, +1 BAB, +8 skill points, unarmed strike (which can qualify you for some other feats), stunning fist (usually a pain to qualify for otherwise), and 2 bonus feats that are useful (improved grapple and improved trip are both good options for a Fighter). The druid would even be able to enjoy Evasion, since being wild-shaped would mean she's not wearing armor, and the wisdom to AC means the druid just got a nice +2-6 bonus to her AC while wild-shaped, as the druid could easily support the party with lower level buff spells (2nd-3rd level spells especially), and would still end up with a 18th level animal companion and full spellcasting.
stuff
I tried holding out commenting further, I really did, but that last comment was too much. Completely ignoring and belittling my experience and comments just because it doesn't fit the "typical" build is rude and condescending, which is something that thankfully is quite rare on these boards. I pointed out several times that it was not an easy build to pull off, nor one that I would recommend to any random person, but with the right party support, in a no equipment, low equipment, or random equipment environment (which is the environment I played him in) it can do just fine with the right attitude.
He may not have been the heaviest hitter, but his spot and listen checks identified threats before most of the others could, he was able to take out secondary bosses quite effectively, as well as absorb attacks from mooks while the rest of the party dealt with the bigger threats. While he was vulnerable to direct attacks, he basically ignored any magic cast on him, and he didn't even have spell resistance yet. The healing, while comparatively minor, was still enough to get him through several tough battles until the cleric could get to him.
He may not have excelled at much aside from spot and listen, but he had what he needed to survive long enough to see the battle through and contribute in a small way. He was great for taking care of the little things going on at the edge of the fight that could have caused major headaches if left unmolested. All this with the 3.5 version of the monk, a +2 ring of protection, and only near the end of my playing him did he get a monk's belt and bracers of armor. You can pooh pooh the lack of damage or the lack of being useful all you want, but I know that I have had success playing a monk in the kind of environment suggested, with no casters in the group except a cleric who used most of her spells for healing at the end of battle and never for buffing, except for the occasional bless.
The role he played may not have been "heroic" or optimal, but it worked, he did survive, and the only real magic item he had for most of it gave a mere +2 to his AC, in a party where the average AC was at least 25. And the important thing is that I had fun playing him. At no point in time did I feel marginalized or subpar from the rest of the group; I found a role that was unfilled and did better than any of the other characters could have in filling it.
<personal anecdotes>
Just because your monk fared well in your game does not mean that monks can compete against the hard hitting classes. Being a big fish in a small pond will not make you a big fish in a vast ocean. Back when I played Magic the Gathering, too many times on the message boards I had to tell people whose decks mopped the floor with their friends quite frankly sucked.
When you start comparing classes on the message boards, you simply have to assume that each class will be built optimally to deal with most situations. Quite frankly I can tell simply by the small amount of description that at least the cleric wasn't played very well. Spending a round or two buffing will typically save a lot healing spells from being used, thereby giving more room for additional things. While I'm glad you had fun playing your monk, from a mechanical point of view, the monk just doesn't stack up.
stuffI tried holding out commenting further, I really did, but that last comment was too much. Completely ignoring and belittling my experience and comments just because it doesn't fit the "typical" build is rude and condescending, which is something that thankfully is quite rare on these boards. I pointed out several times that it was not an easy build to pull off, nor one that I would recommend to any random person, but with the right party support, in a no equipment, low equipment, or random equipment environment (which is the environment I played him in) it can do just fine with the right attitude.
You still haven't actually provided much to go on. You haven't specified level range, for example, the enemies you faced, your ability scores (did you have above average ability scores? Were they rolled?), and so forth.
I'm not being rude or condescending. I'm asking for you to provide details for why you think a monk is perfectly viable without magic items in a game where the GM is not playing on "easy mode". You still have not provided the build you say I dismissed.
However you've gotten a little more information out, so let's look at that information...
He may not have been the heaviest hitter, but his spot and listen checks identified threats before most of the others could, he was able to take out secondary bosses quite effectively, as well as absorb attacks from mooks while the rest of the party dealt with the bigger threats. While he was vulnerable to direct attacks, he basically ignored any magic cast on him, and he didn't even have spell resistance yet. The healing, while comparatively minor, was still enough to get him through several tough battles until the cleric could get to him.
Ok, so what kind of mooks is he absorbing hits from? Is the group about level 8, fighting a boss plus is 60 goblin minions, using your higher than average touch AC to tank the many flasks of acid that they are chucking? 'Cause that would be a good tactic. However, the problem I'm seeing is this - you're still not providing any information to evaluate.
You're making a claim based on anecdotes without any explaination for them. You say "mooks", but what is a mook? You say boss, but was the boss a 3rd level hobgoblin warrior with a group of 1st level goblin experts assisting him? You just say "mook + boss", which is vastly different depending on the level of the game. 1d6+1 is fair damage at pre-5th level for a non-offensive character, but not at 12th; see?
He may not have excelled at much aside from spot and listen, but he had what he needed to survive long enough to see the battle through and contribute in a small way.
Ok, so he tended to make his listen and spot checks. This can also be done just as effectively by any druid or ranger while still being effective. It's not that I have a problem with monks, but I have a problem with monks being advertised for something they're not good at doing. But at least you've explained something that your monk does to help.
He was great for taking care of the little things going on at the edge of the fight that could have caused major headaches if left unmolested.
Give some examples? I'm guessing perhaps you mean adepts or low-level magic users, but how was your GM playing them? Did they actually want to live or were they just standing around to get killed? If the party was 8th level, did they cast invisibility and then summon swarm and run around the battlefield holding their concentration, so that the spiders nipped at your heels while the fight was going on?
Please, what did your monk do that made him an ideal candidate for a low-treasure game over another class? So far, everything you've mentioned could have easily been done with a ranger more easily, while also providing the party with healing, the ability to pass without being tracked, the ability to track, the ability to melee and actually be very good at it, the ability to be ranged and actually be very good at it, and a pet that can tag-team with him when slaughtering "mooks".
All this with the 3.5 version of the monk, a +2 ring of protection, and only near the end of my playing him did he get a monk's belt and bracers of armor. You can pooh pooh the lack of damage or the lack of being useful all you want, but I know that I have had success playing a monk in the kind of environment suggested, with no casters in the group except a cleric who used most of her spells for healing at the end of battle and never for buffing, except for the occasional bless.
It sounds like your GM was very relaxed, and with players who probably don't understand tactics, or at least didn't know much about their options. You say the cleric never used her spells for buffing other than the occasional bless, and only for healing between combats, which is widely considered a very poor tactic, since actually buffing your party generally means taking less damage overall (prevention > healing).
It sounds to me, as a GM, that your GM was going exceptionally easy on your group, and not issuing challenges that the game comes anywhere near expecting, or your GM was playing NPCs in a "I'm gonna jump on the adventurers' swords!" sort of manner, or otherwise not covering their basic weaknesses.
The role he played may not have been "heroic" or optimal, but it worked, he did survive, and the only real magic item he had for most of it gave a mere +2 to his AC, in a party where the average AC was at least 25. And the important thing is that I had fun playing him. At no point in time did I feel marginalized or subpar from the rest of the group; I found a role that was unfilled and did better than any of the other characters could have in filling it.
Ok, so what was your role?
EDIT:
Just because your monk fared well in your game does not mean that monks can compete against the hard hitting classes. Being a big fish in a small pond will not make you a big fish in a vast ocean. Back when I played Magic the Gathering, too many times on the message boards I had to tell people whose decks mopped the floor with their friends quite frankly sucked.
When you start comparing classes on the message boards, you simply have to assume that each class will be built optimally to deal with most situations. Quite frankly I can tell simply by the small amount of description that at least the cleric wasn't played very well. Spending a round or two buffing will typically save a lot healing spells from being used, thereby giving more room for additional things. While I'm glad you had fun playing your monk, from a mechanical point of view, the monk just doesn't stack up.
Pretty much this.
<personal anecdotes>Just because your monk fared well in your game does not mean that monks can compete against the hard hitting classes. Being a big fish in a small pond will not make you a big fish in a vast ocean. Back when I played Magic the Gathering, too many times on the message boards I had to tell people whose decks mopped the floor with their friends quite frankly sucked.
When you start comparing classes on the message boards, you simply have to assume that each class will be built optimally to deal with most situations. Quite frankly I can tell simply by the small amount of description that at least the cleric wasn't played very well. Spending a round or two buffing will typically save a lot healing spells from being used, thereby giving more room for additional things. While I'm glad you had fun playing your monk, from a mechanical point of view, the monk just doesn't stack up.
Dunno. It's really a matter of gamestyle too. I'm not very fond with absolute statements either.
It's just the same when people say "blasting sucks" and "never heal in combat". It depends.
Ash, you're using a fringe example (attacks of opportunity) to defend your Defender bonus.
Defender bonuses are allocated at the beginning of your turn, before your attack routine. If you don't attack with your weapons, or have them explicitly stated to attack with, you simply cannot get the bonus. You could, for instance, prep your weapons and ready an action to attack someone, and if you never get hit, get a bonus. But you won't get it from every weapon. You can hit someone running by you just as a spellcaster can swat someone even if he casts a spell and has UA. That has nothing to do with Defender effects whatsoever. Because you weren't using it in an attack manner on your turn, you can't allocate the bonus.
Basically, if you can't attack with the weapon, and you can't attack with two gaunts and two weapons in those hands, you can't use the Defender bonuses thereon.
Stacking with 'all other bonuses' does not imply stacking with itself. Bonuses from Defender effects would still be considered same source bonuses.
===
Also like to point out, in a no magic game, the Paladin's saves ability is completely inferior to a monk's base saves because of MAD. The paladin is likely to have no more then a 16 Cha, which is +3, and less then good saves after level 3, on average.
Which doesn't make the monk good, it makes him everyone's less effective little brother.
===Aelryinth
I'd also like to point out that potentially letting two Defender bonuses stack while doing a full attack routine might not be imbalanced, but because of stacking problems would still be a House rule.
==Aelryinth
Perhaps, but I would not have traded him for a fighter for the world, especially not knowing when we would be able to upgrade gear. As far as optimized is concerned, that is already out the window in the scenario of no or very little and random magic. The better baseline for this thread is basic functionality, and the monk did just that both in and out of combat. A fighter may have done slightly better in battle, but lacks the key stealth and perception skills, as well as the speed, I used routinely with the monk. My ability to shrug off magic, and even poison, and having the speed, perception, and stealth to choose when and where I engaged in melee combat was not something that I could have replicated with the fighter with the small amount of gear I had. A fighter may have been able to do other things, and others would probably prefer the fighter, but for those who don't like straight up bashing, the monk is a very solid choice, especially when gear is an unknown factor. Ranged combat and DR would have been problems had we had to deal with them on a routine basis, but I could point out just as many, if not more, potential weaknesses for a fighter.
As for the cleric, she was a battle cleric who focused on melee damage. Buffing and healing weren't really required because even without it, the average AC was in the mid to high 20s and multiple characters were routinely taking advantage of great cleave. She did damage spells once she got flame strike and a few other fairly high level ones. Granted the party was 6 people, not 4, but spells simply weren't really needed. The others killed things before they could hit back, and the monk was able to survive to the end of the battle when he could get a couple of cure lights dropped on him; he occasionally needed a cure serious or a cure critical, but only after the really big fight scenes, even with being 2 levels, and the corresponding hit points, lower than everyone else.
Honestly, trying to use an optimized character as an example when the base equipment portion of the equation is already out of whack is going to screw over any melee character, and, to a lesser extent, casters. I think too many people got so caught up in trying to makes characters that are masters of their profession that they forget just how little it takes to make a character that can survive, especially with a class that has all the basics already built in.
The OP said least gear dependent, not naked.
I'd say a spellcaster, probably a Wizard.
<personal anecdotes>Just because your monk fared well in your game does not mean that monks can compete against the hard hitting classes. Being a big fish in a small pond will not make you a big fish in a vast ocean. Back when I played Magic the Gathering, too many times on the message boards I had to tell people whose decks mopped the floor with their friends quite frankly sucked.
When you start comparing classes on the message boards, you simply have to assume that each class will be built optimally to deal with most situations. Quite frankly I can tell simply by the small amount of description that at least the cleric wasn't played very well. Spending a round or two buffing will typically save a lot healing spells from being used, thereby giving more room for additional things. While I'm glad you had fun playing your monk, from a mechanical point of view, the monk just doesn't stack up.
Dunno. It's really a matter of gamestyle too. I'm not very fond with absolute statements either.
It's just the same when people say "blasting sucks" and "never heal in combat". It depends.
Blasting can be good, but the reason people say it sucks is because compared to alternatives it's a problem. HP is either on or off, no where in between. Damaging spells scale slower than hit points.
The average damage of a fireball is 3.5 per level. The average HP for most enemies is either 4.5 or 5.5 plus constitution modifier per level, and many common enemies have hit dice (levels) in excess of their challenge ratings (for example, a 20 HD skeleton is CR 8, and has 4.5 * 20 hp, or 90 hit points. The average damage for an 8th level wizard with fireball is 3.5 * 8 or 28 with a Reflex save for 14 instead). Combined with things like energy resistances or immunities (the skeleton in the example cannot be hurt by the wizard's cone of cold for example), blasting is really a waste, since the wizard could likely have contributed far, far more by casting haste, slow, or even grease and making it easier for his friends to beat up the skeleton, or harder for the skeleton to beat up his friends.
Psions in 3.5 were weaker than wizards and sorcerers in terms of battlefield control, but were a little bit better at blasting since they could change their energy type on the fly (round 1, hit with fire and see it doesn't hurt it, so round 2 try cold instead), and they either got +1 damage per die (fire or cold) or +2 on the save DC (electricity) or did -1 damage per die on a hard-to-resist energy (sonic). This helped them make for very good niche-blasters; even though they're weaker than core casters (they were also simpler to run too, since you didn't have to prepare/track your spellbook).
Core-casting blasting has troubles because of HP inflation, energy resistances are abound, and if blasting won't work then you don't have much else as an option (stinking cloud can provide concealment from archers, for example). This is why blasting is considered to be a bad idea 90% of the time.
Healing in combat is something I do from time to time (currently in one of my group's games I'm playing a 7 Con Paladin with an 18 charisma) for both myself (swift actions) and my friends (standard) as needed. This is mostly done to save them if they've been downed and need to get stabilized/brought back into the fight quickly. However, actively healing in combat would get my group killed, as it's much more effective to try and stop the enemy from hurting my friend at all.
It is better to prevent damage than heal it, most of the time. The reason these things are mentioned so often is because our favorite game has been around for about 11 years now; and many people have been playing it from the get-go. These are conclusions after hundreds of games, trial-and-error, and observation (mathematical and anecdotal).
Just recently, my little brother's 5th level wizard showed a great example of this logic in play. Yesterday my group got together for a game, and the group came across an encounter with a Rock Troll + Minions. One of the characters fell to the orc minions almost immediately (the orcs were CR 1/3, but a few lucky hits and the psychic warrior was on the dirt). My 12yo brother, realizing that he needed to shut down all the enemies quickly, opted for glitterdust instead of fireball. All of the orcs and the troll failed their will save and were blinded (since they were brutish, their will saves didn't work very well) and he saved is fireball for when he wouldn't accidentally BBQ the psychic warrior as well. While everyone was blinded, the party's egoist (psion) rescued the warrior and healed him with a potion of cure moderate wounds; 'causing him to get back up and then dive back into the fray (after the egoist used share pain to help him take further hits).
The battle turned with that single casting of glitterdust, and my brother's conjurer had 2 more of them prepared, if he needed to spam them in an emergency. But really, after they were blinded (even with attempting a save each round to recover), the fight pretty much went towards the party, and my brother hasted the group to get the point home (which was more than fine, since the rock troll alone was really dangerous for the group's level, and he had minions).
The psion mostly used acid or alchemist fires to end the orcs, or had their NPC warrior (CR 1 warrior they convinced to join with them for a while) to soot them to death while the party took down the debilitated rock troll. The combat lasted about 1.3 minutes in-game.
The thing I liked about the monk's healing was that it was just enough to get me through battle. I didn't have to rely on it all the time, but having that bit of spare hp available if needed made decisions a lot easier to make. I tend to reserve in combat healing for emergency situations regardless of what class I am playing, and the monk's healing fit into that paradigm beautifully. It's the little things like that that, if played to their fullest, give the monk the slight edge over a fighter in a low magic campaign, at least for me. Other people may be more comfortable figuring out how to master the fighter to make him survive.
Dunno Ashiel. My players use range as an advantage in blasting. You cannot use glitterdust on Grimlocks. Happens the wizard avoids using it to avoid include allies in the area.
You say 50 HP and 1 HP does not matter.. it depends again.
Maybe I'm lucky or my players unlucky, but SoL can be the same thing sometimes. If they pass the save you did nothing. Ans I see it happen lots of times.
Moreover, even if damage slightly the enemies, those could be the HP more needed to drop them 1 round earlier and save resources. The party just needs to know how to play and use tactics.
I have one of my players playing a batman mage another a blasting sorcerer (+ utilities and few illusions). I don't feel one is less useful of the other.
Neither I advocate evocation as "the PWNZ SCHOOL!!11!". I just say the game can be tweaked more than people say lots of times.
I can expect a monk beating a lot of weaker foes, if played smartly (NOT "i flurry this round, too") without magic items. I just don't expect him beating the Dragon without stats boosters and similar stuff.
At this regard, you bringed an example of a CR 8 skeleton losing 10-25% of his health with fireball. It's an equal level encounter, I can see it. The spell is far better against a lot of weaker foes. Sometimes the meleers just can deal with them, but resources, contingencies and terrain (including range but other things too) could make this not possible.
TO BE CLEAR: I see less "this is not efficient" and more "this is good for this range of situations: play accordingly".
Perhaps, but I would not have traded him for a fighter for the world, especially not knowing when we would be able to upgrade gear.
That's fine. I'm not telling you to trade him, nor have I. If you enjoy playing a monk, that's 100% A-OK, cool beans, great times, wine women and song for ya! I'm just interested in honesty, and honestly the monk is not gear dependent. The game you're describing sounds very, very different from the norm and it sounds like many inexperienced players (a combat cleric who doesn't buff but heals and casts flamestrike pretty much screams it).
As far as optimized is concerned, that is already out the window in the scenario of no or very little and random magic. The better baseline for this thread is basic functionality, and the monk did just that both in and out of combat.
I must disagree yet again. The fighter I showed has more hit points, better combat routines, and can cover his weaknesses fairly easily through his feats and spells from his allies, as mentioned. In a pure solo-game (such as 1 PC vs the World), druid is more versatile. Thanks to Pathfinder's skill system, the Fighter can indeed be Stealthy (1 rank per level, some masterwork or mithril armor, armor training), has Survival as a class skill, and Handle Animal, which gives him a good selection of options outside of combat as well.
Also, if you're not going to have access to any magic items, then being exceptionally good at what you do becomes even more of a requirement. While in a casual game where you can get magic items, having a Str 14 on your Fighter isn't much of an issue 'cause you can still get 30 by 20th level, and you can make up for it with potions and such during the low levels; but having an 18 at 1st is far more needed.
Also, exactly why is it that my generic example Fighter is so amazingly optimized, yet the monk you were originally describing would need at least an 18 and a 16 in two of his key stats?
A fighter may have done slightly better in battle, but lacks the key stealth and perception skills, as well as the speed, I used routinely with the monk.
Ok, good point. Then I'd say Ranger would be a better option. Actually, definitely better, since you can be almost as good at melee and ranged combat as a dedicated fighter, amazingly good at stealth (complete with abilities like camouflage and hide in plain sight), gets a pet (who can help him survive), has perfect fortitude and reflex saves, his will save isn't terrible generally, he can survive in the wild, heal himself, buff himself, track enemies, and has a variety of nice knowledge skills, and could even tank his Intelligence (Int 7, oh noes) and still have more skill points than a monk. And he can get speed too, as Longstrider is measured in hours if I recall.
My ability to shrug off magic, and even poison, and having the speed, perception, and stealth to choose when and where I engaged in melee combat was not something that I could have replicated with the fighter with the small amount of gear I had. A fighter may have been able to do other things, and others would probably prefer the fighter, but for those who don't like straight up bashing, the monk is a very solid choice, especially when gear is an unknown factor. Ranged combat and DR would have been problems had we had to deal with them on a routine basis, but I could point out just as many, if not more, potential weaknesses for a fighter.
I still don't understand how he shrugged off magic so easily, when there's so much magic you don't just "shrug off". What level were you playing at? You still didn't say. What kinds of magic were you shrugging off? Were they fireballs or stinking clouds or sleep or grease?
As for the cleric, she was a battle cleric who focused on melee damage. Buffing and healing weren't really required because even without it, the average AC was in the mid to high 20s and multiple characters were routinely taking advantage of great cleave. She did damage spells once she got flame strike and a few other fairly high level ones. Granted the party was 6 people, not 4, but spells simply weren't really needed. The others killed things before they could hit back, and the monk was able to survive to the end of the battle when he could get a couple of cure lights dropped on him; he occasionally needed a cure serious or a cure critical, but only after the really big fight scenes, even with being 2 levels, and the corresponding hit points, lower than everyone else.
You have pretty much sold me on the idea that you guys were playing a very easy game. I'm not sure if the GM was just using very below APL encounters, not using anything resembling fair tactics, or intentionally rigging the encounters in your favor (it sounds like all three actually).
Honestly, trying to use an optimized character as an example when the base equipment portion of the equation is already out of whack is going to screw over any melee character, and, to a lesser extent, casters. I think too many people got so caught up in trying to makes characters that are masters of their profession that they forget just how little it takes to make a character that can survive, especially with a class that has all the basics already built in.
What do you define as a master of your profession? You have stated at least once that because of your very high wisdom/dexterity that you don't need armor, etc. In your own post, you describe that your monk went down repeatedly and needed potions. What basics is it that the monk has built-in?
The only basics I can see is good saves. Their base attack isn't very good (offset slightly by FoB and maneuver training), their skills are mediocre, their abilities aren't conductive to a skill user so much as a melee warrior, their AC is low, and their HP is average.
The monk really only has the Fighter beat in skills and saves.
Paladin beats it in saves, speed, hp, out of combat utility, in-combat utility, party buffing, healing, and everything but skills.
Anything in medium armor (barbarian, cleric, ranger) have his AC beat again, and are waaaay more useful outside of combat, with good tracking skills, spells, pets, anti-trap capabilities, and both the cleric and ranger rival the monk in spells, and the barbarian and ranger trump his HP.
The bard is the only one with a comparable AC to the ranger for near the stat modifiers that your monk has to have to get the numbers you're describing, and yet the bard again has way more skills, more useful skills, spellcasting, party support, party healing, better combat ability (even if it's just a longspear or longsword and inspire courage).
I've covered every area I know to cover. Feel free to actually show us however. I'd love to see it.
EDIT:
The thing I liked about the monk's healing was that it was just enough to get me through battle. I didn't have to rely on it all the time, but having that bit of spare hp available if needed made decisions a lot easier to make. I tend to reserve in combat healing for emergency situations regardless of what class I am playing, and the monk's healing fit into that paradigm beautifully. It's the little things like that that, if played to their fullest, give the monk the slight edge over a fighter in a low magic campaign, at least for me. Other people may be more comfortable figuring out how to master the fighter to make him survive.
Hmmm, can you explain this? A fighter has enough feats to completely dominate as a two-handed warrior (it really only requires power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater focus, greater specialization before his class features), requiring only 5 feats out of about 20-21, so for his other feats I can pickup things like Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Skill Focus (Whatever I want), Step Up, Cleave, Nimble Moves (ignore some rough terrain), Dodge (+1 AC), Mobility (+4 while moving in for the kill), and maybe grab Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, and Manyshot, just for fun.
Glad to be of service. I'll throw together a 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th version as well; though it's worth noting that her key strength spots are the odd levels (new feats + spells); buuuut I think I know why you asked for these levels; because they are aren't key strength spots, so it is indeed a prudent question to wonder how they do without a level advantage. ^-^
I asked for those levels for two reasons: 1) They are not the strongest spots as you said. 2) They give enough points to look at to see how the character would do. I didn't want to see only 3 points. I think 6 is good.
I'm assuming that even during a challenge like this, the party would have the option to obtain some treasure (mundane equipment, gems, gold), just no magic items. The OP specified no magic items and/or poor crafting options, so I figure that selling weapons and armor off enemies - if only for scrap metal - would garner enough money to purchase additional pack animals and perhaps enough to get a few onyx gems to animate some undead pack animals (no need for training, hurray!).
Personally, I’m fine with this. I would like to see if anyone can do what Cartigan claimed: gear independent. Gear light, or minimal is what I think is more reasonable for a game. It would make things challenging but not impossible.
In such a challenge game, I would love to have Kamelguru's wizard alongside my sample druid. I think they would make a great team (also, hasted companions and summons would be nice).
I don’t consider his character to actually be a reasonable build. If he changes the stats so that he isn’t using three 7’s (or even two 7’s), then I would be willing to look at the wizard as part of the group.
About the Druid: Her ability score array is pretty simple, but some might find it odd; particularly her favoring strength over wisdom. I built her under the assumption that she would be using her wild shape abilities, and under the assumption that she was going to be going solo vs encounters, which meant I really needed her to prioritize and adapt to any situation. The high strength pays off at low levels, and since she will never be casting spells with saving throw negates (entangle has a secondary no-save effect), I figured she could make due with less spells, since most of her spells will be focused on buffing anyway; with emphasis on buffing spells.
Her high Strength and Constitution will serve her well as soon as she gets wild shape (basic wild shape gives +2 Strength and +2 natural armor, which would bring her to an 18 before buffs, or a 22 after bull's strength which would be a +6 to hit and +9 to damage if the form has a single natural attack, or +6 to hit +6 on every primary natural attack of a form (pretty much anything withe bite/claw/claw, such as a bear); which would make he a competent frontliner if she really needed to throw-down. Bigger wildshapes are better.
I like this and I think it will make for a more interesting druid as he levels. One thing I really like with your build is that you aren’t going with the “conventional wisdom.” You have a focus and I hope it works out for the build.
If you're going by the book (and not the weird errata), she would also use Handle Animal to train her companion to wear barding.
I never even noticed this. I don’t play characters that need to worry about this so I didn’t even see that there was a difference.
4th level druid coming in next post.
I look forward to it. I think it will be very interesting.
The OP said least gear dependent, not naked.
I'd say a spellcaster, probably a Wizard.
I think you are probably right, at least with the spell caster. As for wizard, maybe. I don't know. I am in full agreement that casters are very powerful even with little gear.
It's very hard to do low-magic/rare items.
The best game I've seen that did this was a friend of mine's game. It was in 3.5.
The PCs ended up teleported to a world where magic was quite literally physical. It congealed out of the ether, usually in magical beasts, but occasionally in natural points of power.
Magic items were quite literally made out of magic. You could use the material to cast spells (each color of 'magic' handled a different school of spells). If you wanted a magic sword, a wizard had to mold magic into a sword. To get higher bonuses, more magic had to be 'smushed' down into the sword.
So, it put the brakes on item hoarding, and you always had to think about whether you wanted to use the magic to power spells or make items with. A wizard with no mana was useless.
Dunno Ashiel. My players use range as an advantage in blasting. You cannot use glitterdust on Grimlocks. Happens the wizard avoids using it to avoid include allies in the area.
To be fair, you can use glitterdust on more things than you can fireball. A 5d6 fireball deals an average of 17.5 fire damage or 8.75 on a successful save. Red dragons, fire elementals, most evil outsiders, fiendish creatures, tieflings, and so forth at least have resistances. Evasion makes it save or nothing. A potion of resist energy negates most if not all of it, etc.
That's why he (my brother) has stuff like grease and summon monster III, 'cause grease slows down the area even if you make the save, makes an area rough terrain, and summon monster III can get him a big auroch to trample over enemies for 5-7 turns.
However, I agree. My brother does keep a smattering of damaging spells on hand, generally for battling other spellcasters (a wand of lightning bolt 5/day makes a good surprise for a good interrupt when an enemy wizard is casting, and lightning bolt[i] is often useful for punching a hole through a group without clipping your friends).
It's not that damage spells are useless, they're just highly situational, and against things with a lot of HP, it's generally better to either prevent the big monster from killing your friends, or help your friends kill the big monster.
Anytime you can cast a spell that targets your party, do that. [i]Haste doesn't need a saving throw, and you can hit your whole party with it (three companions + cohorts for example), and that gives your whole party a tactical advantage (+1 hit, +1 AC, +1 reflex saves, +1 attack, +30ft speed, 5 rounds at least), but if you're fighting some big bad meanie that's weak willed (knowledge skills for joy), he might drop a slow to prevent that Cave Troll from rending his friends to pieces (slow prevents full attacks, so it would prevent the troll from dealing rend damage).
It's all about situational, but when you're a caster, it generally pays to prepare for the most situations. As noted last time, stinking cloud might not be that great vs the enemies you do encounter (say undead), but at least it had a good chance of being effective against a lot of things, and could be used to provide concealment if your party needed to flee (since it functions like fog-cloud as well).
You say 50 HP and 1 HP does not matter.. it depends again.
Maybe I'm lucky or my players unlucky, but SoL can be the same thing sometimes. If they pass the save you did nothing. Ans I see it happen lots of times.
Oh please understand, I agree. Save or Suck effects are best when you're working in tandem with your team (the fighter feat allowing you to intimidate everything within 30 applies a -2 to all saves, while aura of despair is another -2, stuff like that). It's also better to throw into large groups of enemies, funnel enemies into an area (if you make it so that only those on your side of a room are out of a stinking cloud, it can be troublesome for your foes.
Moreover, even if damage slightly the enemies, those could be the HP more needed to drop them 1 round earlier and save resources. The party just needs to know how to play and use tactics.
Agreed. Everything has its uses.
I have one of my players playing a batman mage another a blasting sorcerer (+ utilities and few illusions). I don't feel one is less useful of the other.
They do generally make a great team. ^-^
Neither I advocate evocation as "the PWNZ SCHOOL!!11!". I just say the game can be tweaked more than people say lots of times.
Evocation is my #1 banned school, but it has a lot of really good spells in it, including the mighty contingency which pretty much laughs at antimagic field if you're wearing a pointy hat.
I can expect a monk beating a lot of weaker foes, if played smartly (NOT "i flurry this round, too") without magic items. I just don't expect him beating the Dragon without stats boosters and similar stuff.
Agreed. On a side note, monks + psionics make for a very playable class with a perfect feel to them.
At this regard, you bringed an example of a CR 8 skeleton losing 10-25% of his health with fireball. It's an equal level encounter, I can see it. The spell is far better against a lot of weaker foes. Sometimes the meleers just can deal with them, but resources, contingencies and terrain (including range but other things too) could make this not possible.
Probably should be more though. Equal CR encounters aren't supposed to be hard, just average. At 1st level a warrior can 1-shot a number of CR 1 enemies without a critical hit. An 8th level Ranger can whip out his beatstick of choice (let's say greatsword, 'cause Aragorn used one) and deal 2d6+6+9 points of damage, or 2d6+10 after damage reduction, which is a minimum of 11 damage and an average of 16.5 damage; no save, twice per round if full-attacking, and up to 2 targets if cleaving.
If the wizard had casted haste instead, the Ranger would instead be dealing 27 damage per round average with his first 2 (out of 3) attacks for the next 8 rounds, and this goes for rest of the party too; and the wizard even buffed their AC and reflex little bit (+1 dodge, woo!). The wizard used 1 spell, and made the whole party look good ('cause hey, look at how badly you guys beat down that huge undead dragon!).
It was around 11th level when he finally died in a fight due to story reasons, but it's not an easy campaign. I agree that the cleric is not fully using the spells, but again, she doesn't really need to. The one thing I will grant is that after trying to throw single monsters at our CR at us, and having them wasted in one round, we tend to face large groups of foes with a single boss and a handful of lieutenants, so finding things for a slightly lower level monk to fight was easier than if we had been facing single foes. Still, I don't think large groups are particularly that unusual, so while that is an important consideration, I think it's one that is likely to come up with most groups at some point. I had a +1 quarterstaff, a masterwork sling, enough AC bonuses from magic items to give me the equivalent of light armor, and a +1 vest of resistance, and by the time he died, he had gained a monk's belt for a grand total of 1 additional AC. If I tried doing that with a fighter or even a ranger, I would be hosed; with the monk, I still had really good saves, improved evasion, built in AC, immunity to poison and disease, additional resistance to enchantment effects, the speed, stealth, and perception to choose what I fought and when.
If I had been a fighter or a ranger, I still would have had at most a single +2 weapon, or 2 +1 weapons and +2 armor, with maybe a ring of protection, since I would have been completely reliant on gear I had started with 2 levels lower, since improving gear in that campaign comes in fits and starts, usually ever 3 levels or so. I could still have hit the edges, but without the speed, I could not have gotten away from a swarm of mooks if need be or gotten to the back of the swarm where the lieutenant was standing. I might have had heavy armor, but the extra AC would have been canceled out by the speed and stealth penalties.
Had the rest of the party not been able to finish things off quickly, I could have been in trouble, but that would have been true irregardless of what class I had been. Ultimately it comes down to the rest of the party as to whether the monk or the fighter is best; if the party can survive with the character taking a support role, a monk can get by on equipment technically meant for lower levels for a much longer period of time than any other melee class, an ideal situation when gaining new gear is extremely rare, random, and/or only occurs in sudden bursts spread far apart. A fighter is better able to stand on his own, which for smaller parties may be more important, but, in all the many groups I've been in over the last very chaotic decade, I have yet to play in a group so small that it that every single character has to be super focused.
Brushing off non melee or archery attacks really wasn't that hard; magic missile could still have it hit me, but the immunity to poison and disease made most fort saves, which were pretty decent when they were needed, unnecessary; Improved Evasion, combined with a good reflex backed by a good, but not great, dex made most area effect spells easy enough to deal with, the high wisdom made for a high will save, which was further enhanced by class bonuses to resist enchantment, which make up the bulk of will saves, made those close to auto succeeding as well. The touch AC being high was invaluable against ray and touch spells, and the good dex made for a high initiative most of the time, even without improved init, so getting caught flat footed was rarely an issue, and getting surprised was rare with high perception and stealth skills.
Going up against a CR appropriate dragon or other creature would have been tricky, but every build is going to have a weakness against something, and the rest of the party would have been there to cover it, and the ability to choose to not engage would have done a lot to save him, since the creature would have had others more worrisome than him to focus on.
|
If you're referring to me, then you should re-read the threads. I was arguing that the monk cannot do what he was saying the monk could do,
As in be a solid class to take while in a camapign that allows NO crafting, NO special/rare materials, NO PC wishlists. No. Sorry you were not. You came in 2 barrels blazing saying somehting about how you better make sure he was not mis-informing people about the monk.
He, and I , have stated that the monk is NOT the fighter. He will not easily replace the damage potential that a fighter can do. His AC will be slightly less, yet still comparable (touch is favored for monk while touch will be slightly less). The monk will be hovering at about 75% of the fighter's HP...All this is fine for he is NOT the fighter. If he could do fighter damage, have fighter AC AND take the punishment a fighter could then why need the fighter class.Hands down the fighter is the better of the two in these catagories. He should be. It is his bread and butter.
How many instances of +1 fortification t-shirt of fire resistance do you expect to come across in your travels, or loot off your enemies?
Why do I need that? Or to be more precise (and this is where you shift the posts) why am I worried about it. The exercise is about NOT getting what you want...not being able count on getting those items you need and NOT being able to commision them from friends and neighbours either.
Now if we talk about a normal game with out these limitations ask you...Why can I not just have it created for me? Nothing says that I cannot. So looting it off the bodies is irrelevant.If the monk focuses on his "prime stat", Wisdom, it's at the detriment of his ability to damage or actually contribute in his element (combat),
See here again is where you are getting it wrong, again. You are trying to jam the monk peg in the fighter hole (ummm not really sure i wanna use that analogy as it sounds really dirty...)
The monk's element is NOT combat. It is the fighter's. You are trying to equate monks and fighters. This does not work. The monk has features and abilities that are usable in combat, but combat is the fighter's strength. The monk is secondary to the fighter. Like the fighter is secondary when it comes to being mobile, scouting, resisting effects and conditions (ie saves)If you focus equally on Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom (in no particular order) then you'll find yourself spread then as you gain levels.
Why focus on Str at all...For me I concentrate on Wis/Dex, Con, Str, Int, Cha...
Dex/Wis is obvious...Con is HPsStr is(for a monk) bonus damage, if you can afford a good Str great but a 10 will do.
Monks have decent skills points so if you cannot afford a high Int, no issues...
Cha is just a Dump Stat...
Meanwhile, Fighter Mc'Warrior can begin with a mere 14 strength, 13 dexterity, and 15 Con, and sport a 30 strength, 24 dexterity, and 26 Con by 20th level; especially if he has help from his wizard buddy on getting some +5 inherent modifiers; and this is assuming he started with really bad stats for a Fighter. He could have started with a 18 strength, 13 Dexterity, and 15 Con, and a 13 wisdom, and sport a 34 strength at 20th level with no cost to him, while still having between 3-5 skill points per level.
Oooo stats...nice fighter stats...i see no issue with a monk with Wis/Dex (depending on how you wanna build, defense or attacking) of 30, with the other being 26 and leaving a 24 with the Con.
In the second case I see a 34 DEx or Wis , 26 for what ever is left, and 24 str and con...not bad...and skills....i figure he is looking 5-7 since you bring it up (and a much better class selection)For those paying attention, that's a +12 to hit from Strength, +18 to damage from strength, a very generous carrying capacity, and a very, very high combat maneuver bonus (32) and defense (49)
Nice. I think we can ignore the carry capacity by 20th level what with the ease of handy haversacks and portable holes and the such...Going by those stats you used the monk has: CMB: 27....I do not think that is too shabby for a flunkie...only 5 less...
CMD: 37+ either 49 or 45...hmmm equal or only slightly less...Again. Not bad for a secondary combatant.
It's actually about a +44 to hit before buffs, or +39/+39/+34/+29/+24 with haste + power attack, at 2d4+18+18+5+5+4 (54.5 average per hit)
My lord he hits to hurt....the monk ain't competing with that...I am not even sure where most of those numbers are coming from...+18 2 handed weapon stength....+18 power attack...+5 weapon...+5???...+4???...275 average with all 5 hits...Nice...I want him on my team...
I am not sure about all the attack bonuses either: +20Bab+12str+5weapon=37...weapon focus+1...the rest i dunno...I am not doubting the numbers, just dont know what they come from...The monk, from my base assessment here on full attack like you would have a 35 with a 34 dex, +5 enhancement and +18 bab...so with haste 3 @ 35, 2 @ 30, 2 @ 25 and 1 @ 20...all for 2d10+5+12 per hit minimum...28ish per hit...He's no fighter...but I have never said he was...still if all them hit he does 225ish HP average damage.
Oh, and his AC? +5 full plate of heavy fortificiation w/ Kilt (+15), +5 amulet of natural armor (+5), +5 ring of protection (+5), +5 buckler of arrow deflection (+6), +7 5Dexterity modifier, for a 48 AC without a good shield, or pulling out ioun stones or friendly buff spells
I did a strike out on effects that can apply to both a monk and fighter...I think your dex mod if 2 too high form what I read in Armor training the max dex will increase by +4 to +5, where you got +7 I am not sure...Buckler...if you attack your buckler does not add to your defence.
So..30 comparable AC? 25 FF, 15 touchMonk: +12 dex (or wis) +8 otherstat + +5 Monk AC bonus...as a swift he can add +4 dodge for a round....base 35 (swift 39)...@ worst 23 FF, 35 touch...
Also, in a no-gear game, the Fighter will come out ahead of the monk for almost every level of the game, but without magical assistance both will be auto-hit by enemies, but the Fighter can at least get all of his pure AC buffs from the party's cleric and wizard (magic vestment, inherent bonuses, cats grace, etc), and greater magic weapon and haste covers him offensively).
Every level? Really? You have not shown that every level the fighter cmoes out on top...just in areas he is a specilaist in. Those narrow (but VERY important) areas. but the monk excels in important areas also (saves being an important one, and touch AC, while not beong too far behind in the other defenses). The monk is worse at damage COMPARED to the fighter, then again everyone fails at that when compared to the fighter.
All those things you say that a fighter gets covered with form his caste friends a monk can get covered with also. He can be hasted, he can be the recipient of a Greater Magic Weapon (he is considered a manufactured weapon). Cat's Grace, Inherent bonuses, Magic Vestment all work as well on the monk as the fighter.Clothes are armor that provides no armor bonus.So ther is not all that much of an adventage going the fighters way in that.
However the Fighter can achieve up to a 23 with armor + 3 dexterity without a shield, a 27 with a shield, 28 with dodge, 30 with shield specialization feats, without magic. The monk, assuming he begins with an 18 in both Dexterity and Wisdom, and then pumps Wisdom every level (up to wisdom 23), that brings him to AC 25 at 20th level, or 26 with Dodge; and he cannot get the spell buffs that the cleric can provide to a shield, meaning that all things being equal, the fighter will have at least +5 on him. I also didn't include the fact the Fighter by 20th level will be able to support a +4-7 Dexterity modifier in full plate (depending on if it's normal or mithril), which means that he gains as much benefit from cats grace as the monk does.
+10 full plate w/kilt, +2 shield, +1 dex(13 dex)...23 AC base...no magic as per this thought exercise, no special materials (like mithril)...didn't add dodge as monks gets that also...no shield spec feats added either...this goes by the numbers you provided earlier, you bumped str not con or dex with level bumps.
+5wis(or dex) +4 other stat +5 monk ac bonus...24 base AC...huh, look at that...comparable, like i have said so many times before...Only the spell on a shield give the fighter an advantage...but then the monk has his Ki to swift a +4 dodge bonus, so he can bump his defense here and there.
I don't mind if you step in, but at least get your facts strait before you do.
Thank you for being so accomodating. It looks like I had it pretty straight. i will sum it up again for you once more to makee sure it was not lost.
Monks are not fighters. in a straight up combat scenario a fighter is #1.Monks are a secondary support character in combat.
Still...while the monk will NEVER deal as much punishment as a fighter he does have the defenses to stand in there about as well as a fighter.
In a thought exercise like this is is important to notice that the monk is just as viable as the fighter.
*his post*
Thanks Bob, I appreciate the confidence vote.
I guess the reason I don't really mind Kamelguru's wizard, and would happily have him along, is 'cause he seems like a fine wizard to me. He could even be believeably flavored as a low-strength nerd who was flighty but incredibly brilliant. Sounds perfect! Slaps some robes on him and stick him behind the fighter with a wand and a prayer! :P
He seems playable to me, and likely very useful to the rest of our hypothetical group. ^-^
Also, I'm not going to format it this time with all the pretty bolding, 'cause that takes forever without the ability to ctrl+b. Paizo's forums could really use a mechanical lift, just a tad.
Human Druid 4, 15 PB
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 7.
Hp 37.5 (4d8+8+4+4), Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +6;
AC 20 (+6 armor, +2 shield, +2 dex), Touch 12, Flat 16;
Melee Club +6 (1d6+3) and Staff +6 (1d6+4)
Ranged Sling +5 (1d4+3) and Club +5 (1d6+3)
Speed 20ft (30ft)
Skills (Ranks) Climb (1) +7, Fly (1) +6, Handle Animal (4) +7 (+13 Companion), Heal (1) +6, Knowledge: Nature (1) +4, Perception (4) +9, Survival (1) +8, Swim (1) +7; Check Penalty -3
Spells (Per day): Orisons (4), 1st Level (4), 2nd level (3); DC 12 + Level
Commonly Prepared Spells: 0 - Detect Poison, Create Water, Detect Magic, Light; 1st - Entangle, Cure Light Wounds, Longstrider, Faerie Fire; 2nd - Barkskin, Bull's Strength x2
Feats Toughness, Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augment Summoning
Gear (70 gp) masterwork green dragonhide breastplate (700 gp), heavy wooden shield (7 gp), ox (15 gp) x3, large splint mail barding (800) x3, breastplate barding (400), mistletoe x 30 (0 gp, weightless, stuffed in hair, underpants, pockets, shoes, sleeves, other odd locations), Club x 2 (0 gp), Masterwork Tools (Handle Animal) (50 gp), about 2350 gp left
Animal Companion (Boar, Medium)
Hp 34 (4d8+12+4), AC 24 (+8 natural, +6 armor), Touch 12, Flat 19; Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +2;
Speed 40ft; Senses low-light vision, scent;
Melee Gore +7 (1d8+4) or Power Attack +6 (1d8+4+3)
Skills (Ranks) Perception (2) +6, Survival (1) +5, Swim (1) +8; Check Penalty -4
Tricks Combat Training (Can attack unnatural creatures, armor proficiency)
Feats Toughness, Power Attack
Abilities Str 18, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 4;
Equipment breastplate barding
Ox (Auroch, Large) x 3
Hp 25 (3d8+9+3), AC 20 (+4 natural, +7 armor, -1 size), touch 8, flat 20; Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +1;
Speed 40ft; Senses low-light vision, scent;
Melee Gore +7 (1d8+9)
Special Attacks Trample (2d6+9, DC 19)
Skills (Ranks) Perception (1) +5, Swim (2) +11; Check Penalty -7;
Tricks Combat Training (armor proficiency)
Feats Toughness, Ability Focus (Trample)
Abilities Str 23, Dex 10, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 4
Equipment splint mail barding
Commentary Our druid has gained 4 levels and has invested her skill points primarily into Handle Animal and Perception, and smattered a few into some other class skills to get a quick +4 in those skills as well, giving her a bit more versatility. For her own gear we have chosen a dragonscale breastplate (700 gp) which is nonmagical and cheap, replacing her hide armor. She purchases 3 more oxen (assuming the 1st oxen has died sometime between 1st and 4th level) and trains them for combat once again, and then purchases banded mail for the oxen and breastplate barding for her boar who is now medium size, which counting her armor costs 3,500 gold pieces out of the 6,000 gp of her WBL, but no magic items. She stores the other 2,500 gp somewhere safe.
She can now wild-shape, and keeps bull's strength and barkskin prepared pretty much always so she can join the hunt with her boar and oxen. When she wildshapes she typically chooses to turn into a medium bear, granting her a 40 ft speed, an 18 strength and a +2 natural armor bonus, as well as three natural attacks (bite/claw/claw). Since longstrider is up most of the day this means her speed becomes 50ft. Her normal attack routine as a bear is bite +7 / 2 claw +7/+7 at 1d6+4/1d4+4/1d4+4 or an average of 20.5 damage if all hit, which is respectable. She however prefers to wait until she's casted bull's strength which lasts 40 rounds before wildshaping, increasing her strength to a whopping 22, giving her a +9/+9/+9 attack routine at 1d6+6/1d4+6/1d4+6 or 26.5 average damage.
Her boar is still holding his own as a pretty solid tank, and his damage isn't bad, especially if he can get flanking ant power attack. He now has ferocity so he keeps fighting until -16 Hp, but he's mostly a damage sponge, though his gore attack now can hit for an average of 11.5 with Power Attack.
Her oxen haven't changed much, honestly. Instead she simply got more of them and converted her hard earned gold against the orcs and kobolds into armor plating for them, giving them a respectable AC of 20, which makes them a little less squishy and helps keep them alive. Their feats are Toughness and Ability Focus (Trample) which makes them very scary on the battlefield, as enemies who decide to dive out of the way must make a Reflex DC 19 for 1/2 of 2d6+9 damage; every round, per ox.
Finally, when her party is confronted with something particularly nasty, she may cast summon nature's ally II to summon 1d3 ponies if everyone needs flanking buddies, or 1d3 stirges (3 stirges can drain up to 12 points of Constitution over 4 rounds if ignored). Alternatively, she can summon a single giant spider (medium) to shoot up to 8 webs (1 web per round) up to 50 ft as touch attacks, entangling up to large creatures.
The following are some encounters she may have to deal with at 4th level.
Encounter 1 - Advanced Shadow (CR 4: 1,200 XP): While wandering along with her party, she encounters an advanced shadow. If she is alone with her animals, she opts to flee, as she cannot fight this creature at all, and simply flees at top speed. She earns no XP.
Encounter 1 - Revisited with a Party: If she is in a party, she focuses on supporting her allies. If she knows that they may encounter shadows, she would prepare magic fang and fight it while wild shaped into a bear, (touch AC is the same either way) and hope to get her 50% hits in, as a few good 1d4+6 hits will kill the shadow.
However, she's very poor in this scenario, and would more happily rely on letting the party's arcane caster and others take care of this, most likely with applications of magic weapon and Power Attacks. Truly, it's very difficult for anyone in a no-magic game to deal with sufficiently advanced shadows due to lacking the option for ghost touch equipment.
If she was in hypothetical party mentioned in the previous post (cleric with the animal and death domain) the cleric could command the shadow and take it with the party, adding it to their arsenal.
Encounter 2 - Orcish Warparty (CR 4: 1,200 XP): Back on the move again, this time the druid encounters an orcish warparty, easily 10-12 orcs strong, including orc warriors and orc adepts. This encounter is easy for her as it's literally her brutes vs their brutes, with emphasis on taking down any adepts who are casting spells requiring more than 1 action (sleep) to cast; preferably by trampling them.
She could solo this encounter. Her biggest fear would be that the orcs could easily support 4 flasks of acid in their equipment per orc, which means they could focus fire for some harsh damage, so she'd best be careful.
Encounter 3 - Hydra (CR 4: 1,200 XP): Having saved a caravan from the orcish warparty, she takes a rest before heading on. She ends up traveling with the caravan, and then spots a hydra that decides to lurk up onto the caravan. Having noticed it coming 'cause it smells of fish and awesome, she springs into action.
This encounter is likewise easy for her to solo. She and her pets can literally destroy the hydra with brute force alone; forget it's fast healing. It's low AC means her boar will power attack each round, and since hydras were nerfed hardcore in Pathfinder (no more attacking with all its heads on an AoO), she can literally dive into melee in bear form with her bore and oxen and sucker-punch it down into the negatives before eating it. Alternatively, if the GM will let you tame it, she can train it with Handle Animal by taking a -5 penalty, since it has a 2 Int; netting her a fun new pet.
In such a challenge game, I would love to have Kamelguru's wizard alongside my sample druid. I think they would make a great team (also, hasted companions and summons would be nice).I don’t consider his character to actually be a reasonable build. If he changes the stats so that he isn’t using three 7’s (or even two 7’s), then I would be willing to look at the wizard as part of the group.
What is "not reasonable" here? This is a wizard.
- Strength does nothing, if anything WANTS to grapple/trip/bullrush me, they WILL, no matter what I put in strength. Let the mules (both actual ones and derogatory term for the strong characters) carry the loot.- Charisma does less, the wizard has NO charisma skills, NO charisma functions. If I were to try to talk to someone, having a 10 or gods forbid, higher, would do next to NOTHING, because no talky skills are class skills, and the only difference I would be able to make would be to make an NPC who is already friendly give me directions. If you are worried about the RP element, then see what I bolded in Ashiel's quote.
- Wisdom is the only one that might backfire in terms of will saves. Though if I make a diviner, I don't need perception, and the foretold subschool in the APG gives me the ability to proactively have a roll ready for hairy situations that might help. Again, no wis skills are class skills. As with charisma, I would not be able to beat any DCs, and would be shooting myself in the foot for putting more here.
And as Ashiel said: This is a "challenge" not an actual game. We usually play Paizo's Adventure Paths, which are very forgiving compared to most homebrews I have seen. If I optimize there, I just make it harder on those who doesn't. My current character started with a 16 as his highest stat. And he only had one penalized stat, which was his wis at 8.
And even if you look at this from an RP point; what is wrong with my wizard? He is as spectacularly weak, unsociable and flighty as a Str/Cha/Wis 13 is a pillar of likability, herculean strength and saintly patience. Arbitrarily painting a character with weaknesses as unplayable is nothing short of idiotic, earns my ire and makes it look like you COMPLETELY miss the point of this exercise.
I guess the reason I don't really mind Kamelguru's wizard, and would happily have him along, is 'cause he seems like a fine wizard to me. He could even be believeably flavored as a low-strength nerd who was flighty but incredibly brilliant. Sounds perfect! Slaps some robes on him and stick him behind the fighter with a wand and a prayer! :P
He seems playable to me, and likely very useful to the rest of our hypothetical group. ^-^
Thanks. Usefulness is all the wizard is about. He has less to contribute in the social game than any other class. Even the barbarian and fighter can intimidate someone, and the Druid can talk to animals. And he is designed to be the physically weakest class. Yet he needs to have a VERY high caster stat to make sure his spells actually have an effect on the opposition, and give him more spells to cast per day.
Focusing on your strengths and relying on teamwork to shield your weaknesses is what party play is all about.
As in be a solid class to take while in a camapign that allows NO crafting, NO special/rare materials, NO PC wishlists. No. Sorry you were not. You came in 2 barrels blazing saying somehting about how you better make sure he was not mis-informing people about the monk.
He, and I , have stated that the monk is NOT the fighter.
Check this dude, you still haven't said what the monk is. That's my problem. In a no-gear game, the monk is doomed vs anything near CR appropriate opponents. The topic was not no items ever, no crafting and no magic items. Actually, it didn't even say no crafting, it said impractical crafting (I'm guessing no time for crafting).
Even if you got nothing but 0 gp equipment, I'd still take a ranger over the monk, 'cause even naked you're going to get hit a lot, and the ranger can pickup a club or a quarterstaff (both 0 gp sticks) and make 'em look shiny (this gives me the idea to run a stone-age game :P).
But yes, please tell me what the monk is, 'cause it's not support. The monk has no "support". The monk does not have any "support" capabilities that it can do that others cannot, while probably also doing something else. In several cases, there were statements that were outright lies (saying the monk can do some of everything; when he cannot heal, buff, tank, summon, etc).
He will not easily replace the damage potential that a fighter can do. His AC will be slightly less, yet still comparable (touch is favored for monk while touch will be slightly less). The monk will be hovering at about 75% of the fighter's HP...All this is fine for he is NOT the fighter. If he could do fighter damage, have fighter AC AND take the punishment a fighter could then why need the fighter class.
Hands down the fighter is the better of the two in these catagories. He should be. It is his bread and butter.
Ok, so you say if he was a good fighter we wouldn't need the fighter class. Gotcha. Ok. I like monks, but let me ask you, why do we need a monk class?
How many instances of +1 fortification t-shirt of fire resistance do you expect to come across in your travels, or loot off your enemies?Why do I need that? Or to be more precise (and this is where you shift the posts) why am I worried about it. The exercise is about NOT getting what you want...not being able count on getting those items you need and NOT being able to commision them from friends and neighbours either.
Now if we talk about a normal game with out these limitations ask you...Why can I not just have it created for me? Nothing says that I cannot. So looting it off the bodies is irrelevant.
Hey, don't take my post out of context. I noted that in a "normal game" when I wrote that, which you didn't quote, so raspberries to you.
If the monk focuses on his "prime stat", Wisdom, it's at the detriment of his ability to damage or actually contribute in his element (combat)
See here again is where you are getting it wrong, again. You are trying to jam the monk peg in the fighter hole (ummm not really sure i wanna use that analogy as it sounds really dirty...)
The monk's element is NOT combat. It is the fighter's. You are trying to equate monks and fighters. This does not work. The monk has features and abilities that are usable in combat, but combat is the fighter's strength. The monk is secondary to the fighter. Like the fighter is secondary when it comes to being mobile, scouting, resisting effects and conditions (ie saves)
If you focus equally on Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom (in no particular order) then you'll find yourself spread then as you gain levels.
Why focus on Str at all...For me I concentrate on Wis/Dex, Con, Str, Int, Cha...
Dex/Wis is obvious...Con is HPs
Str is(for a monk) bonus damage, if you can afford a good Str great but a 10 will do.
Monks have decent skills points so if you cannot afford a high Int, no issues...
Cha is just a Dump Stat...
Strength is not just "bonus damage". It is the damage. At best a monk can achieve 2d10 damage with their unarmed strikes. That's only an average of 11 damage per hit, before damage reductions. A 1st level ranger (secondary fighter) is smoking that on a stick (2d6+6 is an average of 11.5 damage per hit) while beating your skills, having a better armor class, ranged combat, surprisingly good speed (especially at 4th level when he gets longstrider). That's on top of the fact that you need your Strength for Combat Maneuvers.
If you spend a feat on Weapon Finesse, well congratulations on spending a feat one something you'll never be good on anyway.
But ok, from here on out, I'll stop comparing to the Fighter. I'll compare to the ranger. Then I'll compare to the barbarian. Then I'll compare to the cleric. Then the druid. Then the bard. Then the rogue. Then I'll finally compare him to a wizard and sorcerer.
When all I really want you to tell me is what he's actually supposed to do. Because you say "he's not supposed to be a fighter, he's secondary!", but that's a lie too; because as you're describing him, he's not even secondary. Heck, he's not even 3rd, 4th, or 5th.
Oooo stats...nice fighter stats...i see no issue with a monk with Wis/Dex (depending on how you wanna build, defense or attacking) of 30, with the other being 26 and leaving a 24 with the Con.
In the second case I see a 34 DEx or Wis , 26 for what ever is left, and 24 str and con...not bad...and skills....i figure he is looking 5-7 since you bring it up (and a much better class selection)I think we can ignore the carry capacity by 20th level what with the ease of handy haversacks and portable holes and the such...Going by those stats you used the monk has: CMB: 27....I do not think that is too shabby for a flunkie...only 5 less...
CMD: 37+ either 49 or 45...hmmm equal or only slightly less...
Again. Not bad for a secondary combatant.
Except you're a noncombatant. You can't deal damage. You say your CMB is -5 below the Fighter, which is a 25% less chance to succeed vs something the fighter can hit on an AC 10, and unlike the Ranger, Barbarian, Cleric, or Druid, you can't actually fight ('cause 11 damage = horrible when you enemies have hundreds).
It's actually about a +44 to hit before buffs, or +39/+39/+34/+29/+24 with haste + power attack, at 2d4+18+18+5+5+4 (54.5 average per hit)My lord he hits to hurt....the monk ain't competing with that...I am not even sure where most of those numbers are coming from...+18 2 handed weapon stength....+18 power attack...+5 weapon...+5???...+4???...275 average with all 5 hits...Nice...I want him on my team...
I am not sure about all the attack bonuses either: +20Bab+12str+5weapon=37...weapon focus+1...the rest i dunno...I am not doubting the numbers, just dont know what they come from...
It's a Fighter with with a +5 weapon, +5 weapon training, +18 strength, +18 power attack, +4 greater weapon specialization. The purpose of the post was to show that the Fighter has bite even while maintaining a very high armor class, so instead of waiting for his opponent to kill him despite his large AC, he can contribute well. The only other thing the routine assumes is haste which is a trivial buff at that level.
You could, however, replace with ranger. It's pretty much the same except the routine/damage is +32/+32/+27/+22/+17 at 2d4+18+18+5 per hit (46 average). Ranger's a secondary combatant, right? Not as good/accurate as the Fighter, but he's also got 6 + Int modifier skills, a lot of stealth capabilities, spells, a pet, and can also support very strong archery at the same time.
I didn't include any extra buffs like enlarge person which would have improved his average weapon damage by +3 per hit, and doubled his reach to 20ft instead of 10ft, nor die I include any other very situational buffs from magic items or the like (such as with Use Magic Device + Giant Form). I just wanted to keep it simple.
The monk, from my base assessment here on full attack like you would have a 35 with a 34 dex, +5 enhancement and +18 bab...so with haste 3 @ 35, 2 @ 30, 2 @ 25 and 1 @ 20...all for 2d10+5+12 per hit minimum...28ish per hit...He's no fighter...but I have never said he was...still if all them hit he does 225ish HP average damage.
I'm still waiting to hear what he actually is. Also, assuming the +12 is from power attack, you are only allowed up to a +8. Sorry, but your base attack bonus is not +16, even if you can make attacks as if it is, you do not qualify for the damage buff because you actual BAB is only +15; so you can scratch off about 32 damage assuming you hit with all, bringing his damage with all to 193 damage.
The ranger would deal 230 damage if all hit. Or about the same damage really, if he missed on his last hit. The biggest difference is that the Fighter and Ranger both have a much, much larger burst damage, which means if they cannot get their full-attack on, they still deal 54.5 and 46 damage respectively. Also, their critical hits, if applicable, are far more devastating.
Also, this is assuming the ranger does not have his favored enemy bonus going on, 'cause then he'd probably pull ahead of the Fighter as well; but that's situational, so I didn't include it.
Oh, and his AC? +5 full plate of heavy fortificiation w/ Kilt (+15), +5 amulet of natural armor (+5), +5 ring of protection (+5), +5 buckler of arrow deflection (+6), +7 Dexterity modifier, for a 48 AC without a good shield, or pulling out ioun stones or friendly buff spells
I did a strike out on effects that can apply to both a monk and fighter...I think your dex mod if 2 too high form what I read in Armor training the max dex will increase by +4 to +5, where you got +7 I am not sure...Buckler...if you attack your buckler does not add to your defence.
So..30 comparable AC? 25 FF, 15 touch
Monk: +12 dex (or wis) +8 otherstat + +5 Monk AC bonus...as a swift he can add +4 dodge for a round....base 35 (swift 39)...@ worst 23 FF, 35 touch...
Sorry, it should have read +5 MITHRIL full plate. Sorry for the confusion.
Also, burning your ki pull to get a dodge bonus is a good strategy, and as Treantmonk says, you'll be using that a lot. However, please note that you will only have about 20 (little more or little less) ki points per day at that level, and you have to burn them to get in your extra hits, and you gotta burn 1 every round that you want a superior AC, meaning that after 20 rounds of combat your class abilities shut down.
You're still coming out behind, but your touch AC is very pretty (as it should be). However, I would like to note that you tend to have to worry about the former far more often than the latter; but monks do have a good touch AC, and that's a great boon.
Every level? Really? You have not shown that every level the fighter cmoes out on top...just in areas he is a specilaist in. Those narrow (but VERY important) areas. but the monk excels in important areas also (saves being an important one, and touch AC, while not beong too far behind in the other defenses). The monk is worse at damage COMPARED to the fighter, then again everyone fails at that when compared to the fighter.
All those things you say that a fighter gets covered with form his caste friends a monk can get covered with also. He can be hasted, he can be the recipient of a Greater Magic Weapon (he is considered a manufactured weapon). Cat's Grace, Inherent bonuses, Magic Vestment all work as well on the monk as the fighter.Clothes are armor that provides no armor bonus.
So ther is not all that much of an adventage going the fighters way in that.
Ok, at 1st level, the Fighter beats the monk's AC with chainmail and a +2 Dexterity, leaving 25 gp to purchase gear with (10 gp for a reach weapon, 5 gp for a spiked or slashing gauntlet, 0 gp for a sling, 0 gp for a quarterstaff, and 10 gp left to buy supplies or a 7gp heavy wooden shield). If he only has a +1 Dexterity, the monk needs a 16/18 to match him, and an 18/18 to beat him.
At 3rd level, he has banded mail (if Dex +1), chainmail (if Dex +2), or a breastplate (if Dex +3, such as an archer), prior to a shield. He also has teeth at this level too. He can also throw an armor kilt on it as well.
At 5th level, he has full plate w/kilt, bringing him to AC 21 with a +1 Dexterity and no shield. He can pull up a heavy shield for 23, or a tower for 25. If his Dex is +2, he can hit AC 22-24-26. The monk can now support an AC 21 if he has an 18 Dex, 18 Wisdom, and cat's grace for AC 21. With three buff spells, he can reach 23. Alternatively he can reach AC 23 for up to 6 rounds per day, if he has the 18 wisdom. However, for those at home, plug these numbers into this here Point Buy Calculator and do this comfortably with the standard 15 point buy.
At 8th level, the Fighter can support up to a +3 Dexterity modifier in his full plate, making his base AC 23-27. If he is buffed by the cleric, he gets 25-31 with magic vestment. The monk could have an 18/20, giving him a 23 with magic vestment. The monk cannot get magic vestment on a shield, but he can get cat's grace and owl's wisdom, which can bring him to 26. So the monk can catch up by burning Ki points.
At 12th level+, the monk's AC comes to 27 and the fighter gets a +1 bump from magic vestment again while wielding a shield. The monk competes while burning ki points.
So that's 12/20 levels, which is "most of them". At higher levels, the Fighter can support up to a +6 Dexterity in mithril full plate if he started with only a 13 Dexterity, assuming a +5 inherent gained from the wizard and cat's grace, which helps to offset the fact the monk could get a +5 inherent and buffs in both his Dex and Wisdom; so at higher levels they are about even.
If you can get to those higher levels. This rundown assumed the Fighter had relatively normal stats, while the monk is sporting a pair of 18s in both Dex/Wis, and also is using more buffs than the Fighter.
+10 full plate w/kilt, +2 shield, +1 dex(13 dex)...23 AC base...no magic as per this thought exercise, no special materials (like mithril)...didn't add dodge as monks gets that also...no shield spec feats added either...this goes by the numbers you provided earlier, you bumped str not con or dex with level bumps.
+5wis(or dex) +4 other stat +5 monk ac bonus...24 base AC...huh, look at that...comparable, like i have said so many times before...
Only the spell on a shield give the fighter an advantage...but then the monk has his Ki to swift a +4 dodge bonus, so he can bump his defense here and there.
Even at 20th level, the monk can only support about 20 rounds of +4 dodge per day, which means you're arguably quicker at running out of juice than a wizard that throws a spell every round of combat. It's also burning points from the same Ki pool you have to draw out of to get additional attacks, as well as to activate your abilities, which means you will be burning fuel very fast.
Perhaps I'm just used to combats lasting a while. I've heard on the internet that combats last about 3 rounds on average, but in games I play in and run they tend to last far longer than that, easily 10+ rounds; leading me to believe that the encounters must have been party vs 1 monster and beating them down quickly. So from a purely anecdotal standpoint, let me say your monk would have run out of juice by encounter #2 in most of the games I play in or run; assuming you were burning ki to keep up with the fighter's AC.
This is on top of the fact a Ranger or Fighter can also support ranged combat, even if they are primarily melee combatants (the Ranger is probably the best hybrid in the game), which is yet another buff that you will need if you want to fight something in the air.
But yeah...pretty much the same deal here. The monk isn't the "versatile secondary guy", he's the "I have a sweet touch-AC guy"; at least assuming you're focusing so heavily on Dex & Wisdom.
But seriously, check out Treatmonk's monk guide. It's good stuff. Monks are fun (hey, who doesn't like roundhouse kicking orcs? :D). I never said they were bad, I said they were magic item dependent in the extremes. They do best at higher levels, when they can begin merging all their stat modifiers + random AC buffs + higher class AC bonus; but actually getting to that level is a problem if you're not capable of helping the group it a noticeable way (you can't melee, can't ranged, can't protect people, can't buff people, can't blast people, can't debuff enemies, etc).
I've just ended up this deep in it because now people are shouting that I'm trying to put down the monk, and saying monks suck and such, and it's led to this. I like monks. I'm cool with monks. Monks have their problems, but they're fun to play. If you want someone who's a secondary fighter/party support, a ranger, bard, cleric, druid, or paladin is probably better.
Monks can kind of take over the fighting role, however, if they're built just right (like Treantmonk suggests).
It's good to know that you are absolutely close minded and oblivious to anything you disagree with. I will keep this in mind for future threads since it's too late to do anything about it this thread; I'm disappointed, the discussion started out half way decently. With all due respect to the guides you recommend, I've read some of his other class guides, and while not bad, definitely assumes a different play style than anything I would be likely to build. I guess it's just as well I don't do organized play, because my characters would not do well in most of those scenarios, and I wouldn't take well to random tables with strangers who think they have to somehow "win" in order to have fun.
It's good to know that you are absolutely close minded and oblivious to anything you disagree with. I will keep this in mind for future threads since it's too late to do anything about it this thread; I'm disappointed, the discussion started out half way decently. With all due respect to the guides you recommend, I've read some of his other class guides, and while not bad, definitely assumes a different play style than anything I would be likely to build. I guess it's just as well I don't do organized play, because my characters would not do well in most of those scenarios, and I wouldn't take well to random tables with strangers who think they have to somehow "win" in order to have fun.
It's good to know that you absolutely refuse to tell me what the monk's role is as well. I'm entirely willing to listen to you, but you have to say something first. Not pee on my shoe and tell me its raining. I ask you to explain, you tell me I'm close minded. Good job there sport.
I don't do organized play either. I've been playing this casual tabletop D&D since 3E was published. I'm not much for playing with random strangers set out to "win". I'm not even sure what that means. How do you "win" D&D? Not any way I know. Maybe you mean succeed at whatever you're trying to do; or help your party? I dunno.
I'll go on being close minded then, and you go on not telling me what the monk's role is, or why your previous statements have any validity. I'm cool with either.
Pot, meet kettle.
I laughed so hard when I hit the post button and read this ninja-post. Haha, thanks Tri, I appreciate the defense, and also the laugh. ^.^
I tried, multiple times with very specific examples. I also gave credit to you when you made valid points, but the general impression I got from your responses was that you were too busy refuting everything I said to actually read the words.
Edit: Just because you disagree with them does not make them completely invalid, which is how you are treating them.
|
I laughed so hard when I hit the post button and read this ninja-post. Haha, thanks Tri, I appreciate the defense, and also the laugh. ^.^
*tips hat*
Are you familiar with Kirth's houserules? You may enjoy the changes to the monk we've made. Along with everything else. :)
I will give them a read if I have time at work today.
It's good to know that you are absolutely close minded and oblivious to anything you disagree with. I will keep this in mind for future threads since it's too late to do anything about it this thread; I'm disappointed, the discussion started out half way decently. With all due respect to the guides you recommend, I've read some of his other class guides, and while not bad, definitely assumes a different play style than anything I would be likely to build. I guess it's just as well I don't do organized play, because my characters would not do well in most of those scenarios, and I wouldn't take well to random tables with strangers who think they have to somehow "win" in order to have fun.
So should we read this as "The monk is a terrible combat class but it is 'flavorful' and I like it so I'm going to pretend it doesn't suck."?
What would be, in your opinion, the class that is the least dependant on gear in its progression? That would do the best in a magic items deprived world? (Considering crafting is impossible, or at least very impractical?)Monk
No. No.
Also, No.
The great Monk defender using half a dozen magic items managed to end up worse off in both attack, defense, and damage than a Fighter "simply" with a +2 Fullplate and +1 Longsword.
So should we read this as "The monk is a terrible combat class but it is 'flavorful' and I like it so I'm going to pretend it doesn't suck."?
I gave my reasons why I believe this to be false, you can choose to ignore or read them at your pleasure.
|
Wall of text
Assuming no equipment (which is the point of the thread)
Unarmed strikes that become magic weapons at 4th. Doesn't need armor. All high saves. Stunning fist. 2nd in bonus feats to only the fighter. Can heal yourself. Immune to disease and poison. D8 hitpoints, 4 Skill points a level.
So, given the actual topic of the thread...
So should we read this as "The monk is a terrible combat class but it is 'flavorful' and I like it so I'm going to pretend it doesn't suck."?I gave my reasons why I believe this to be false, you can choose to ignore or read them at your pleasure.
It was around 11th level when he finally died in a fight due to story reasons, but it's not an easy campaign.
Just obviously RP oriented. I imagine you've been saved plenty.
enough AC bonuses from magic items to give me the equivalent of light armor,
So between 1 and 4...?
and a +1 vest of resistance, and by the time he died, he had gained a monk's belt for a grand total of 1 additional AC.
So you have roughly +4 to +7 AC + Dex + Wisdom bonuses?
If I tried doing that with a fighter or even a ranger, I would be hosed;
From having a +1 weapon, a magic item worth between a +3 and +4 armor, then some magic items that grant armor - bracers of armor or ring of protection? Both of which are far more expensive than armor enchantments, and a magic item that grants a bonus on saves?
If I had been a fighter or a ranger, I still would have had at most a single +2 weapon, or 2 +1 weapons and +2 armor, with maybe a ring of protection,
Prseumably because the DM is taking pity on you and giving you a WAY higher wealth by level. Nevermind a fact that a +2 Fullplate is going to be granting a Fighter +11 AC. Plus up to 4 Dex. And apparently you are unaware what anything costs because otherwise you would know weapons are way more expensive than armor, magic wise, so presumably items are being handed out for RP reasons so the DM is really favoring your monk by tossing items at it not being offered to other players.
I would definitely put divine casters first, but after them bards and monks are both solid choices, followed by the rest of the arcane casters, than fighters and barbarians, than rogues.
Wall of text
Assuming no equipment (which is the point of the thread)
Unarmed strikes that become magic weapons at 4th. Doesn't need armor. All high saves. Stunning fist. 2nd in bonus feats to only the fighter. Can heal yourself. Immune to disease and poison. D8 hitpoints, 4 Skill points a level.
So, given the actual topic of the thread...
I think you just proved Cleric and Paladin are the best characters in a no magic item game.
I would definitely put divine casters first, but after them bards and monks are both solid choices, followed by the rest of the arcane casters, than fighters and barbarians, than rogues.
Lolwhat.
Bards and Monks? Bards maybe as part of a full party in that they are NEVER going to do anything ANYWAY. Monks are just going to get their faces beat in even more in a no magic (for PCs) game.
So, given the actual topic of the thread...You mean the one about no magical equipment?
Which means a druid can have armor and weapons and beat out the monk?
Whose trying to compare the monk with the druid? I think most people agree that druid is easily the top choice, it's how the rest of the classes shake out that is the contention.
Whose trying to compare the monk with the druid? I think most people agree that druid is easily the top choice, it's how the rest of the classes shake out that is the contention.
So, given the actual topic of the thread...You mean the one about no magical equipment?
Which means a druid can have armor and weapons and beat out the monk?
Monk is last in the line because, as you inadvertently pointed out, they rely on Wondrous Items to provide armor bonuses.
|
|
Whose trying to compare the monk with the druid? I think most people agree that druid is easily the top choice, it's how the rest of the classes shake out that is the contention.
ciretose seems to think the monk would work better than the druid. I'm trying to make sure he realizes we're not talking about a no equipment game.
By level 11, having either a +1 bracers of armor or a +1 ring of protection is fairly reasonable except in an absolutely no magic period ever game. If I was starting out at level 1, than I would expect to be able to go for quite a while without the benefit of either, and even at 11, it's nice but honestly only comes into play if the monk insists on playing with the big boss instead of letting his party members do so. Most things that are going to hit routinely are going to hit regardless of whether or not you have the additional 1 or 2 AC or not.
|
|
What would be, in your opinion, the class that is the least dependant on gear in its progression? That would do the best in a magic items deprived world? (Considering crafting is impossible, or at least very impractical?)MonkNo. No.
Also, No.
The great Monk defender using half a dozen magic items managed to end up worse off in both attack, defense, and damage than a Fighter "simply" with a +2 Fullplate and +1 Longsword.
Your full plate is going to be AC 22 (9 full plate + 2), 11 touch (Max +1 Dex), with a -6 Armor check penalty.
With the 4000 on your enhancement I get bracers of armor +2. 18 Wisdom and 14 Dex (very normal) and I'm up to +8. At 4th it's +1 at 8th it's + 2 so I've got AC 20, touch 18 with 1500 to spare (cost of full plate) which I can put into some potions of owl wisdom that kicks me up to 22 AC 20 touch.
I can get your +1 from brass knuckles, at 4th unarmed is 1d8, at 8th 1d10.
I've got all high saves. By 4th I have double your movement (40 to 20) twice your skill points (4 to 2), still mind and one less bonus feat (1 at 1st and 2nd) and a ki pool. By 8th I am immune to all diseases and can heal myself, add my monk level to jump checks and I'm only 2 behind in feats since I get another bonus feat at 6th.
Sounds balanced to me.