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.
Thank you for doing the actual math; I don't do specific math comparisons like that well, and wasn't about to try and keep up with people who do apparently do it all the time.
|
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?
No magic, 1st level 18 wis, 14 dex AC is 16 going up one every 4 levels, not needing a round to cast and buff.
Unarmed starts at 1d6 and goes up every 4 levels. Stunning fist will be a 14 fort save going up 1 every other level, meaning even with a high fort save you have maybe a 50/50 to start that gets worse as it levels.
Pick a level and lets compare (I'm going to work shortly, so reply may be delayed.)
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.
Owls Wisdom. Temporary enchantment. That you would get from a caster. That you put the Monk ahead of.
Or you could buy a finite number of potions.Great. Let's say it's 25 pt buy. You can put 16 in Wisdom and get a +Wisdom race, so you have 18 at first level. Which you increase twice. And you have 14 in Dex. I presume that's straight. If you dump Charisma and take a penalty to Int, you can get 16 Str and 14 Con. That's not bad. I guess. So at 8th level you are doing 1d8+3 damage. 1d10+3 at 8th.
I'll take a Fighter with a 16 Str (+2 racial to 18), 14 Dex, 14 Wis, 16 Con, and the same dump to Int and Charisma. And I'll take a longsword. I "only" do 1d8, never increasing. I'll take that +2 Full-plate for an AC of 23. And I can move my normal speed at 8th level, and only have a -3 armor check. I'll use a shield too, because why not. A heavy steel shield will increase my AC penalty to -5 (while wielded) and my AC to 25 (unenchanted shield). My attacks are doing 1d8+6 damage (an avg of 2 more damage than you per round). Except I will also take Power Attack. That's -3 to my +14 to hit (+15 with my longsword). So I'm getting +12 1d8+12 damage. Where you are doing +9 to hit for 1d10+3 damage. I also have 10+7d10+24 HP.
Have fun with your monk.
|
|
Owls Wisdom. Temporary enchantment. That you would get from a caster. That you put the Monk ahead of.
Great. Let's say it's 25 pt buy. You can put 16 in Wisdom and get a +Wisdom race, so you have 18 at first level. Which you increase twice. And you have 14 in Dex. I presume that's straight. If you dump Charisma and take a penalty to Int, you can get 16 Str and 14 Con. That's not bad. I guess. So at 8th level you are doing 1d8+3 damage. 1d10+3 at 8th.
I'll take a Fighter with a 16 Str (+2 racial to 18), 14 Dex, 14 Wis, 16 Con, and the same dump to Int and Charisma. And I'll take a longsword. I "only" do 1d8, never increasing. I'll take that +2 Full-plate for an AC of 23. And I can move my normal speed at 8th level, and only have a -3 armor check. I'll use a shield too, because why not. A heavy steel shield will increase my AC penalty to -5 (while wielded) and my AC to 25 (unenchanted shield). My attacks are doing 1d8+6 damage (an avg of 2 more damage than you per round). Except I will also take Power Attack. That's -3 to my +14 to hit (+15 with my longsword). So I'm getting +12 1d8+12 damage. Where you are doing +9 to hit for 1d10+3 damage. I also have 10+7d10+24 HP.
(Correction, you are right, ac 23, I forgot Armor mastery)
Your movement is 30 at 8th, mine is 50.
At 8th, if I put my ability points into wisdom my ac is now 21, touch 19, one behind you for regular, 8 better than you for touch. Also my stunning fist is a 19 save (10 +5 wisdom + 1/2 level) and I have 9 in my ki pool, which is good since I can spend one as a swift to get a +4 to AC.
My average damage is 9.5 (1d10 5.5 +3 str + 1 from brass knuckles), yours is 10.5. But I can flurry for more attacks, and while yes you can add power attack, so can I (we both have lots of feats.)
Your fort save is +9 so you have a 50/50 to fail the save.
As to why not shield, two-handed does a lot more damage, which is the way to do. Then you can blow away my damage output, particularly with power attack or vital strike. That is what fighters do well, and why a monk would be unwise to try to out fighter a fighter.
Which is why the dance is stun, flurry, heal. With 2 Ki points at 8th I can heal 8 points of damage, with one ki point I can take an additional attack, increase my movement 20, or my AC by 4.
For the purposes of this thread, I can do all of those things above without any equipment, only I would have 2 less to my AC by dropping the 4000 bracers of armor.
Your movement is 30 at 8th, mine is 50.
And you propose to do what, exactly, with that?
My average damage is 9.5 (1d10 5.5 +3 str + 1 from brass knuckles), yours is 10.5.
Without a magic weapon. Without power attacking. Also add 4 more because I forgot the "feat chain for all fighters always"
But I can flurry for more attacks, and while yes you can add power attack, so can I (we both have lots of feats.)
Good, flurry of blows gives you two chances to overcome that 25% chance to hit me at your highest BAB.
Your fort save is +9 so you have a 50/50 to fail the save.
See 25% chance to hit me.
As to why not shield, two-handed does a lot more damage, which is the way to do. Then you can blow away my damage output, particularly with power attack or vital strike. That is what fighters do well, and why a monk would be unwise to try to out fighter a fighter.
I can outfight-er that example monk sword and board. That was without adding the obvious WF/WS/GWF/GWS chain. So let's add +2 to the attack and +4 to damage.
Which is why the dance is stun, flurry, heal. With 2 Ki points at 8th I can heal 8 points of damage,
Sadly, I would be doing at least 17 a turn. And I'm not a CR appropriate encounter.
with one ki point I can take an additional attack, increase my movement 20, or my AC by 4.
So how long do you plan to keep this up with 9 in your ki pool?
For the purposes of this thread, I can do all of those things above without any equipment, only I would have 2 less to my AC by dropping the 4000 bracers of armor.
No one runs D&D with "no" equipment.
Thanks Bob, I appreciate the confidence vote.
I tend to favor those who put their money where their mouths are. You have stepped up and I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you’re doing. So far, you certainly are showing it. As someone who hates playing druids, I like to see what those who enjoy them can accomplish.
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.
I can understand that. I use Hero Lab so when I post builds, it’s already set up for me. I do plan on showcasing a fighter for all 20 levels. He will meet the criteria set out in the only two posts I can find from the original poster. He will have no magic items. I think he will do fine in a party. I know he will do well for lower levels. It’s the upper levels I’m concerned with. Once he's done, maybe I will look at the monk just to see how well he can do. Between work, now two characters people are posting, and my crazy life, it may be a couple days.
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.
This is one thing I wish the OP had addressed. How much WBL do we have to work with since we aren’t using it to purchase/craft magic items? At a certain point, being wealthy is nice but useless to the adventurer.
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.
Can you control all three oxen at the same time? As GM, I’m willing to accept that you could so long as they all attacked the same opponent since they are herd/pack animals. If you wanted to have them attack different creatures, I would think that it would be 3 separate move actions. If there is something I am missing in the rules, please let me know. I have a player who is playing a druid and he may want some new options.
The following are some encounters she may have to deal with at 4th level.
Thanks for adding in something that would be difficult, if not impossible, for your character. It’s easy to show how strong a build is when put up against things it’s meant to handle. Unfortunately, adventuring doesn’t always work out that way.
Oh, and this Gm would probably not let you tame a hydra as a pet but I can’t say all GMs wouldn’t.
No, but it is the point of this thread.
No one runs D&D with "no" equipment.
No, no it's not.
** spoiler omitted **...
I didn't expect two people to step up and throw out builds. I certainly didn't expect you to throw out all the levels I had asked for at once. I have to head out to work so I won't be able to comment on it right now. The only concern I have is the two 7's as dump stats. I know that these are theoretical builds, but there should be a level of reasonable playability. It's one thing to min/max, it's another to stop looking at the character as a character and only focus on the numbers. It's easy to have a 6 in a dump stat, but I would not be impressed with the player who build his character like he was playing a video game.
I do like the fact that you mention which other characters you are adventuring with. I don't recall seeing a fighter build thrown out there yet but it is reasonable to assume that you could have one in your party.
Since I'm working on a fighter, is anyone willing to showcase a skill-based character? Then we could end up with a party of 4 that is close to what the game assumes and we can see how the party can fare against the enemies.
Reasonable playability? Define "reasonable playability."
No one runs D&D with "no" equipment.
No, but it is the point of this thread. If you want to thread jack more, create yet another "monks are lame" thread.
If you don't know what to do with a 20 movement advantage, ki points, etc...that is your issue not mine, and certainly not on topic.
The point of the thread is to have little to no magic items. Mundane gear is acceptable. I think that you may have gotten lost when I was arguing with Cartigan because he claims that certain classes are gear independent and I take that to mean that they do not need any gear whatsoever (other than what their class provides such as a spellbook).
Reasonable playability? Define "reasonable playability."
Not bringing a cripple to the game. Three 7s (or even two) is not building a reasonable character. Let me ask you this, honestly, if you were looking to add an adventurer to your group and you know how dangerous it is out there, who would you want the guy who can barely lift anything and is a total jackass or the guy who you can get along with and can at least carry some of the loot home?
No, no it's not.No, but it is the point of this thread.
No one runs D&D with "no" equipment.
You are arguing that the thread "keast gear dependent class isn't about the class that is most effective without gear...
Ok...
This is your standard "Who works in a low-magic setting game" not a "Well we found some naked barbie dolls, let's play D&D with them"
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?)
Thank you please com again.
Reasonable playability? Define "reasonable playability."Not bringing a cripple to the game. Three 7s (or even two) is not building a reasonable character.
Are you expecting the Sorcerer to sword fight? Throw javelins? Carry around the fancy kitchen table you guys found in a dungeon? What?
Wisdom is dumped? I guess his Will saves aren't very good and he isn't going to be spotting the ambush. But was he ever going to do that anyway? And really, isn't the Sorcerer the safest person to have dominated? Why wouldn't a Sorcerer have low Will? The class is all about inherent magic, doesn't spell "common sense" to me.
Let me ask you this, honestly, if you were looking to add an adventurer to your group and you know how dangerous it is out there, who would you want the guy who can barely lift anything and is a total jackass or the guy who you can get along with and can at least carry some of the loot home?
If I expected the Wizard or Sorcerer to be lifting anything, I would consider rerolling my intelligence. What do you think mules are for? So people didn't have to carry crap around. Plus the jackass Fighter has like 20 Strength. He may be gruff, but he can carry the whole party on his back.
|
|
No, no it's not.No, but it is the point of this thread.
No one runs D&D with "no" equipment.
You are arguing that the thread "keast gear dependent class isn't about the class that is most effective without gear...
Ok...
This is your standard "Who works in a low-magic setting game" not a "Well we found some naked barbie dolls, let's play D&D with them"
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?)Thank you please com again.
Yes.
"What would be, in your opinion, the class that is the least dependant on gear in its progression? "
You are adding magic items, not me.
The fact remains without magic the monk can have weapons that are magic by their nature, can get to a respectable armor class, and use all the class features.
So my computer is officially in pieces and I'm having to post with my phone. All my notes and work are on the computer. Hopefully I will be up and running in the next day or so. I will be back then to continue the conversation if it's still going.
Reasonable playability? Define "reasonable playability."Not bringing a cripple to the game. Three 7s (or even two) is not building a reasonable character. Let me ask you this, honestly, if you were looking to add an adventurer to your group and you know how dangerous it is out there, who would you want the guy who can barely lift anything and is a total jackass or the guy who you can get along with and can at least carry some of the loot home?
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaa~
*inhales*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
"Your wizard is crap because he can't do any heavy lifting!"
"Your wizard is crap because he is not sociable!"
Let me counter:
Your arguments hold less water than a sphere.
If there were two brain-surgeons lining up for a job involving saving the president from a deadly neurological disease, which one would likely get the job:
- The Perfect A honor student prodigy that defines perfection in his trade, but acts and has the same athletic ability as Dr House...
or
- The sociable but lacking B student who spent his nights clubbing and the day hitting the gym instead of cramming every waking moment.
A wizard is defined by what he does; Magic. And let's for the sake of this stupid argument say that I put 10s in his other stats, leaving him with a lower Int/Dex (because a low con is suicide) and he sucks at his craft:
S 10
D 12
C 14
I 17
W 10
Ch 10
Is he now a BETTER character? He will STILL be grappled, he can carry 10 more pounds before being encumbered, he still can't social skill his way out of a wet paper bag, and he still won't be doing any wis related stuff, because none of them are class skills. Net gain: +2 on will saves. +2 on a range of skills he will still fail in. 10 lbs more loot.
On the other hand, his DCs are two lower, he gains one bonus spell per level until he hits lv12 instead of 2, he gets less AND lower knowledge skills (which is one of his main contributions both in and out of battle) and he is easier to hit, he acts slower, and his ranged touch attacks doesn't hit as easily. Net loss: -2 skill points, 1 spell slot, 1 to AC, hit with range (his one viable non-casting contribution to combat), initiative, reflex saves, 2 points lost in all knowledge skills, spellcraft and so forth,
GREAT CHARACTER!
inb4 Ross deletes me for bile.
*wizard stuff*
I'm inclined to agree.
They don't keep the bedridden guy with 'em for nothing. There's a reason most adventurers don't mind dragging around an old wrinkly wizard.Also, love the House reference. It was most watched show of 2008, with good reason. ^-^
|
They don't keep the bedridden guy with 'em for nothing.
I feel foolish for never having used this reference before.
They don't keep the bedridden guy with 'em for nothing.I feel foolish for never having used this reference before.
Hahaha! Glad you like it. ^-^
It fits great doesn't it? You got this decrepit guy who's physically useless, and yet has enough power to project his mind from his body, float around a city, blowing up everything and everyone in it with his mind; but can't take a hit 'cause his HP is crappy.Sounds like a wizard to me. XD
Isn't that why the tank is protecting the wizard, after all? 'Cause the wizard is a frail yet convenient doomsday device to have around? :P
|
|
They don't keep the bedridden guy with 'em for nothing.I feel foolish for never having used this reference before.Hahaha! Glad you like it. ^-^
It fits great doesn't it? You got this decrepit guy who's physically useless, and yet has enough power to project his mind from his body, float around a city, blowing up everything and everyone in it with his mind; but can't take a hit 'cause his HP is crappy.Sounds like a wizard to me. XD
Isn't that why the tank is protecting the wizard, after all? 'Cause the wizard is a frail yet convenient doomsday device to have around? :P
Agree completely. This is why diverse parties work better. You can carry the glass cannon around because he is stilll a cannon and having a cannon is very useful. Just like you bring the bard to be the party face/magic cheerleader and the tanks to remove hit points and soak damage.
Role playing includes filling roles. Teamwork has always been the key to the game since no character or class can do all things.
They don't keep the bedridden guy with 'em for nothing.I feel foolish for never having used this reference before.Hahaha! Glad you like it. ^-^
It fits great doesn't it? You got this decrepit guy who's physically useless, and yet has enough power to project his mind from his body, float around a city, blowing up everything and everyone in it with his mind; but can't take a hit 'cause his HP is crappy.Sounds like a wizard to me. XD
Isn't that why the tank is protecting the wizard, after all? 'Cause the wizard is a frail yet convenient doomsday device to have around? :P
Agree completely. This is why diverse parties work better. You can carry the glass cannon around because he is stilll a cannon and having a cannon is very useful. Just like you bring the bard to be the party face/magic cheerleader and the tanks to remove hit points and soak damage.
Role playing includes filling roles. Teamwork has always been the key to the game since no character or class can do all things.
I don't disagree with this, but there does come a point where having to worry about that cannon taking even a single jostle or having to keep him bound and gagged when not in use so that he doesn't hurt the rest of the party is more trouble than it is worth. I don't think 7s or 8s are that severe, but dropping anything to a 5 or less is going to start being a major hindrance. I can understand why everyone drops charisma and why fighters and wizard dump the majority of their stats, and as long as they don't dump too many of them too low, I don't really care. It's the characters with 4 7's that makes me cringe, because someone with that many low stats is not going to adventure willingly, and there are only so many variations on the "forced to adventure because of x" background that can reasonably be used, and those can only reasonably be used a handful of times. Thus my biggest issue is the frequency of the dumping of stats, simply because while the statistics of adventurers are, by their job description, going to be skewed from normal, they aren't going to be skewed that much.
I don't disagree with this, but there does come a point where having to worry about that cannon taking even a single jostle or having to keep him bound and gagged when not in use so that he doesn't hurt the rest of the party is more trouble than it is worth. I don't think 7s or 8s are that severe, but dropping anything to a 5 or less is going to start being a major hindrance. I can understand why everyone drops charisma and why fighters and wizard dump the majority of their stats, and as long as they don't dump too many of them too low, I don't really care. It's the characters with 4 7's that makes me cringe, because someone with that many low stats is not going to adventure willingly, and there are only so many variations on the "forced to adventure because of x" background that can reasonably be used, and those can only reasonably be used a handful of times. Thus my biggest issue is the frequency of the dumping of stats, simply because while the statistics of adventurers are, by their job description, going to be skewed from normal, they aren't going to be skewed that much.
The problem with casters versus more martially inclined characters is that you need ONE primary stat, and that one needs to be as high as possible, damn everything else. A fighter can do plenty well with an 18 in strength (10 points before racial mods) but a wizard has little to no use for anything but the save-stats, and Int decides completely how good he is at his job. DCs do not increase like BAB, and if you manage to squeeze out a 20 at lv1, you have DOUBLE the bonus spells. Meaning he ideally put a 20 in INT (17 points before racial mods), and then needs a viable defense in form of Dex and Con. No room for the useless stats. I sure don't make a wizard with anything lower than 19 at lv1.
Most any other characters I make, not so. I am playing a paladin that had 16 as his highest score at lv1, did fine. I made a summoner recently, and set a 19 in Cha (13 points before racial mods), because I wanted decent int so I can do skills I need to function. Still want it as high as possible to make my debuffs relevant, and be able to succeed in my concentration rolls.
Just how the game works. Some need several somewhat high stats, others need one peaked.
The problem with casters versus more martially inclined characters is that you need ONE primary stat, and that one needs to be as high as possible, damn everything else. A fighter can do plenty well with an 18 in strength (10 points before racial mods) but a wizard has little to no use for anything but the save-stats, and Int decides completely how good he is at his job. DCs do not increase like BAB, and if you manage to squeeze out a 20 at lv1, you have DOUBLE the bonus spells. Meaning he ideally put a 20 in INT (17 points before racial mods), and then needs a viable defense in form of Dex and Con. No room for the useless stats. I sure don't make a wizard with anything lower than 19 at lv1.
Depends on what spells you use. I like to play casters, but tend to prefer using spells that don't directly hit the opponent so DCs, while not completely ignored, don't have the same emphasis for me that they would for someone else. The bonus spells from the really high stats are nice, but unless you push the stat up to 20, which is not something that is really doable at level 1 without a lot of twinking, you still only get one bonus spell per level anyway. I typically start with the primary casting stat in the 16-18 range; still high enough that I can do everything I need to do while building up to the 20ish range without the need for resorting to magic items, but not so high that I have to sacrifice every other stat, allowing him to be half way effective with his non spell options. It might be different with a spontaneous caster that knows only a limited amount of spells, but for the cleric, druid, and wizard, a 20 is far from absolutely required.
|
The problem with casters versus more martially inclined characters is that you need ONE primary stat, and that one needs to be as high as possible, damn everything else. A fighter can do plenty well with an 18 in strength (10 points before racial mods) but a wizard has little to no use for anything but the save-stats, and Int decides completely how good he is at his job. DCs do not increase like BAB, and if you manage to squeeze out a 20 at lv1, you have DOUBLE the bonus spells. Meaning he ideally put a 20 in INT (17 points before racial mods), and then needs a viable defense in form of Dex and Con. No room for the useless stats. I sure don't make a wizard with anything lower than 19 at lv1.Depends on what spells you use. I like to play casters, but tend to prefer using spells that don't directly hit the opponent so DCs, while not completely ignored, don't have the same emphasis for me that they would for someone else. The bonus spells from the really high stats are nice, but unless you push the stat up to 20, which is not something that is really doable at level 1 without a lot of twinking, you still only get one bonus spell per level anyway. I typically start with the primary casting stat in the 16-18 range; still high enough that I can do everything I need to do while building up to the 20ish range without the need for resorting to magic items, but not so high that I have to sacrifice every other stat, allowing him to be half way effective with his non spell options. It might be different with a spontaneous caster that knows only a limited amount of spells, but for the cleric, druid, and wizard, a 20 is far from absolutely required.
I like my wizards with a 23 intelligence at lvl 1..... don't hate me
I like my wizards with a 23 intelligence at lvl 1..... don't hate me
If that is how you like them, great; I am just pointing out that not everybody does.
I like my wizards with a 23 intelligence at lvl 1..... don't hate me
Using point buy and core races, how is that even possible? Is there some non-core race that gives a +5 Int racial bonus?
I like my wizards with a 23 intelligence at lvl 1..... don't hate meThe problem with casters versus more martially inclined characters is that you need ONE primary stat, and that one needs to be as high as possible, damn everything else. A fighter can do plenty well with an 18 in strength (10 points before racial mods) but a wizard has little to no use for anything but the save-stats, and Int decides completely how good he is at his job. DCs do not increase like BAB, and if you manage to squeeze out a 20 at lv1, you have DOUBLE the bonus spells. Meaning he ideally put a 20 in INT (17 points before racial mods), and then needs a viable defense in form of Dex and Con. No room for the useless stats. I sure don't make a wizard with anything lower than 19 at lv1.Depends on what spells you use. I like to play casters, but tend to prefer using spells that don't directly hit the opponent so DCs, while not completely ignored, don't have the same emphasis for me that they would for someone else. The bonus spells from the really high stats are nice, but unless you push the stat up to 20, which is not something that is really doable at level 1 without a lot of twinking, you still only get one bonus spell per level anyway. I typically start with the primary casting stat in the 16-18 range; still high enough that I can do everything I need to do while building up to the 20ish range without the need for resorting to magic items, but not so high that I have to sacrifice every other stat, allowing him to be half way effective with his non spell options. It might be different with a spontaneous caster that knows only a limited amount of spells, but for the cleric, druid, and wizard, a 20 is far from absolutely required.
I'm guessing old aged wizards? :D
|
The Monk thing is interesting. Essentially a Monk is the class which requires the least mundane gear to do what it does. All classes get some Weapon Proficiencies, but Fighters (for example) have five of the Feats which come bundled free with their first level (the three Armour and two Shield Proficiencies) which are completely equipment dependant and (although one can build a Fighter specialized at punching people it's far from common) the class works best with a hefty amount of mundane gear. Sorcerers in particular also have low equipment needs (no Armour or Shield use and the free Eschew Materials). In essence, the classes which need the least mundane gear to do what they do are those who generally get the least amount of starting ca$h at level 1. However (thread title wording aside...) that's not what the OP asked about... but one can see how confusion can easily have arisen.
Comparing a Monk to a Fighter in terms of combat ability is strange... the Fighter is better at fighting - there shouldn't be any dispute about that. If you need a comparison, the Rogue is a better choice, as the Rogue and Monk tend towards similar combat tactics - that is to say, sneak up and do your stuff, and make sure you're paired with a melee damage dealer. Where the Rogue is all about the Sneak Attack damage, any Monk player who even bothers with his character's DPR is onto a loser from the start - that's not really what they're designed to do. Your Monk is all about hindering the enemy - trips, disarms, grapples, Scorpion Style slow-downs, Stunning Fists (and all those better options from the APG) - he has the mobility to move around the battlefield with relative ease (especially once his uber-jumping starts to kick-in), then tie up the bad guys with his non-damage-based tactics. Alone, he has problems (just like a battlefield controller mage who has nothing to help him actually finish the job), but paired with a melee damage-dealer he does all that stuff which makes the bad guys easier to hit, and gets his partner more AoO in order to inflict more pain. Plus he tends to help eliminate the other guy's AoO as well (via disarm, trip, slowing him down so he can't take 5ft steps, etc.), which helps his whole team's combat mobility. Flurry of Blows for damage is just sad... Flurry of Blows to trip all the (conviently bunched together) bad guys is a potential game changer.
In a 'no magic except random stuff' campaign the Monk, however, is going to suffer - by the nature of the random tables, if nothing else. Enchanted Monk weapons are rare items to find (so no bonuses above Masterwork are likely), whereas the Pathfinder Fighter can retrain Feats once he's found a halfway decent weapon of any type. Randomly rolled protective Rings and Wonderous Items are generally going to be less common than randomly rolled Shields and Armour. Pretty much any Ability Score boosting item is going to be great for a Monk... but he'll be fighting over them with the other party members who also need that extra Strength / Dexterity / Constitution / Wisdom... Not being a spellcaser or particularly suited to Use Magic Device, Wands and the like are little use to him. So he's looking at maybe a couple of Rings and Wonderous Items... depending on what's randomly rolled. The kicker is, of course, that the situation doesn't mean the guy's less magic gear dependent, just that he can't use as much of the magic gear that the group do happen to find.
So, if you're looking for a guy who won't be competing with others for a lot of the magic gear found, then it could be the Monk. If you're looking for a guy who doesn't suffer because of the lack of magic items, then you're probably not...
IMHO, natch. ;)
If you need a comparison, the Rogue is a better choice, as the Rogue and Monk tend towards similar combat tactics - that is to say, sneak up and do your stuff, and make sure you're paired with a melee damage dealer. Where the Rogue is all about the Sneak Attack damage, any Monk player who even bothers with his character's DPR is onto a loser from the start - that's not really what they're designed to do. Your Monk is all about hindering the enemy - trips, disarms, grapples, Scorpion Style slow-downs, Stunning Fists (and all those better options from the APG) - he has the mobility to move around the battlefield with relative ease (especially once his uber-jumping starts to kick-in), then tie up the bad guys with his non-damage-based tactics. Alone, he has problems (just like a battlefield controller mage who has nothing to help him actually finish the job), but paired with a melee damage-dealer he does all that stuff which makes the bad guys...
Trips, disarms, grapples - you have to hit the enemy and overcome their CMD. You are as bad off trying to pull this off as you are trying to run a DPR monk - by which I mean, you still NEED strength. A Fighter is far better at all of these than the Monk.
Stunning Fist related abilities - you have to hit the enemy. I suppose you can at least not focus on Strength to pull this off.The Rogue and the Monk is a bad comparison, the Rogue IS a DPR class in combat - it just does it in a roundabout way. Plus it has out of combat abilities - primarily breaking into things and disabling traps. The only class the Monk compares to is the Monk. It's a combat class that can't figure out how to be good in combat.
|
|
Trips, disarms, grapples - you have to hit the enemy and overcome their CMD. You are as bad off trying to pull this off as you are trying to run a DPR monk - by which I mean, you still NEED strength...
Unless you take Weapon Finesse and don't... but that's not really the point...
... A Fighter is far better at all of these than the Monk...
How so? By level 3 the Monk effectively matches the Fighter's BAB for Combat Maneuvers... he effectively matches it from level 1 when McFlurrying... Are you simply suggesting that a Fighter will always pump his 'attack' Ability Score (be it Strength or Dexterity) higher than a Monk? Or that a Fighter will be dropping lots more Feats in being good at this stuff? Scorpion Style and Improved Grapple are juicey Monk bonus Feat options at level 1 - they're guided to doing this stuff, whereas a Fighter could drop Feats in it, but isn't likely to.
... Stunning Fist related abilities - you have to hit the enemy. I suppose you can at least not focus on Strength to pull this off...
True... and you could equally say that a Fighter can be designed to be better at these than a Monk as well... but it's hardly likely to ever be the case in a game. Fighters are good at fighting... that's no surprise to anyone. With appropriate Feat choice they can be good at specific types of fighting. The Monk is guided towards being good at specific types of fighting not so that he can be a better fighter than the Fighter, but because that's the flavour of the class.
The Rogue and the Monk is a bad comparison, the Rogue IS a DPR class in combat - it just does it in a roundabout way....
Which I'm pretty sure I mentioned... but the comparison still stands when it comes to the basic tactics - don't make yourself a target (work that Stealth skill!), and pair with a damage-dealer. A Fighter / Rogue combat pair hopes to inflict such a crazy level of damage that the enemy drops before they can hit back. A Fighter / Monk combat pair hopes to lock-down the enemy so that they can be hit easier, and with less chance of hitting back.
... Plus it has out of combat abilities - primarily breaking into things and disabling traps...
While not a 'skill monkey', the Monk's standard-issue Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, and Perception combo make them good scouts and explorers. Their mobility starts to get crazy-good as they level, with the jumping and wall-running and the like (and without burning magical resources to do so... with magic you could just as easily take a few spells and say the Rogue's job's covered as well). Rogues are excellent at this too, but the Monk's hardly without use outside of combat.
... The only class the Monk compares to is the Monk. It's a combat class that can't figure out how to be good in combat...
Playing a non-full BAB class (even with two 'BAB equivalent' abilities, like the Monk has) with a mere d8 Hit Die as a 'combat class' is, IMHO, a mistake. They have their role to play in combat (like all the classes do), but if combat's all you're interested in then generally you'll be wanting to play one of the Fighter related classes.
I'd suggest that your Pathfinder adventuring Monk is more like a 'Tomb Raider' or 'Prince of Persia' style character - crazy good acrobatics, with a little fight in them when they have to.
To be honest I'm not a huge fan of the Monk class, more because I tend to be a little 'old school' in terms of what I think is 'setting appropriate' (despite the fact that, for example, Golarion is obviously designed to allow all classes anywhere) than because of any issues with the Class Abilities... but I still don't buy the idea that they're useless...
I think the biggest problem the monk has is they have a very, very difficult time finding a role to fit into. They're not combat machines, not skill monkeys, not that great at disabling foes, etc. Generally everything they can do, another class can do better while doing something else. I feel this is a pretty hard on the monk, and makes it difficult to find them a good place to be in.
For example, a ranger pretty much trumps the monk at all that stuff. He can melee, preform combat maneuvers as well as the monk, engage in ranged combat, act as a skillmonkey (even if he tanks Intelligence like a he failed an IQ test), and even preform exceptionally well as a mobile skirmisher without running into the problems of the monk.
Really, the only thing that a monk does have that could be seen as more appealing than the Ranger is the monk can jump like a grasshopper, and eventually gets dimension door a few times per day (which is equivalent to having a moderate magic item).
KaeYoss makes a monk sound good; but the way most people recommend monks generally makes them weak at what they do best; which is probably the #1 reason monks have such a hard time.
No one can figure out what they actually do. :P
Trips, disarms, grapples - you have to hit the enemy and overcome their CMD. You are as bad off trying to pull this off as you are trying to run a DPR monk - by which I mean, you still NEED strength...Unless you take Weapon Finesse and don't... but that's not really the point...
Unless there is a FAQ or errata somewhere I don't know about, it doesn't.
... A Fighter is far better at all of these than the Monk...How so? By level 3 the Monk effectively matches the Fighter's BAB for Combat Maneuvers...
Um, seriously?
Fighter has access to a larger number of trip and disarm specific weapons, they have a full BAB, they are strength based class that doesn't have to split their ability scores, they have a ton of feats to pour into improving their combat maneuvers, etc. I mean, really how is this not obvious?he effectively matches it from level 1 when McFlurrying... Are you simply suggesting that a Fighter will always pump his 'attack' Ability Score (be it Strength or Dexterity) higher than a Monk? Or that a Fighter will be dropping lots more Feats in being good at this stuff? Scorpion Style and Improved Grapple are juicey Monk bonus Feat options at level 1 - they're guided to doing this stuff, whereas a Fighter could drop Feats in it, but isn't likely to.
Uh, duh? If ANY class is going to do it, the Fighter is far better than the Monk.
While not a 'skill monkey', the Monk's standard-issue Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, and Perception combo make them good scouts and explorers.
Which means they can not give away the sneak rogue when the party is sneaking.
Their mobility starts to get crazy-good as they level, with the jumping and wall-running and the like (and without burning magical resources to do so... with magic you could just as easily take a few spells and say the Rogue's job's covered as well). Rogues are excellent at this too, but the Monk's hardly without use outside of combat.
Wow, he can run. I think I can just buy a horse... Or get a class with a mount.
Playing a non-full BAB class (even with two 'BAB equivalent' abilities, like the Monk has) with a mere d8 Hit Die as a 'combat class' is, IMHO, a mistake. They have their role to play in combat (like all the classes do), but if combat's all you're interested in then generally you'll be wanting to play one of the Fighter related classes.
I don't care HOW you play it. The class is OBVIOUSLY a combat class - 90% of its abilities are geared towards direct melee combat. It IS a combat class, but it sucks at it.
|
|
LOL! Well, I'm glad it's all OBVIOUS! :)
Any bonuses on attacks rolls due to Feats... or whatever... go to CMB equally, 'Combat maneuvers are attack rolls' and all that - so if you get a bigger bonus with Weapon Finesse and Dexterity than you do with Strength, then you use the bigger bonus. Unless there's an errata or FAQ that I'm missing... which is completely possible...
Anyhow... the whole 'Monks are crap' bit is probably a bit off topic for the thread - I was just trying to examine the sort of thing they do and then take a look at how that relates to the no mundane equipment Vs no (relevant) magical equipment bit...
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
This what you mean?
|
|
LOL! Well, I'm glad it's all OBVIOUS! :)
Any bonuses on attacks rolls due to Feats... or whatever... go to CMB equally, 'Combat maneuvers are attack rolls' and all that - so if you get a bigger bonus with Weapon Finesse and Dexterity than you do with Strength, then you use the bigger bonus. Unless there's an errata or FAQ that I'm missing... which is completely possible...
Anyhow... the whole 'Monks are crap' bit is probably a bit off topic for the thread - I was just trying to examine the sort of thing they do and then take a look at how that relates to the no mundane equipment Vs no (relevant) magical equipment bit...
Some people can only visualize a class doing one thing. Versatility is a scary concept.
The value of adaptability is lessened when you do the same thing all the time, regardless of effectiveness.
I find this is where most "(insert class) sucks" and "(insert class) is overpowered" discussions come from. If your DM is predictable/lazy and you do the same thing over and over, the value of being to do many things is neutralized by the fact you never have to.
Fighter 11 - Str14
No. Just no. No way, no how.
No actual fighter ever will have that abysmal a strength. This is not a comparison, this is silliness.
14 is enough to milk another +1 to damage out of a 2 handed weapon, and if the Fighter can keep up with to-hit modifiers without the strength he gets the majority of his damage from Power Attack and statics such as weapon specialization. It's not the most damaging Fighter, but I think a point was trying to be made.
Even with a low strength, the Fighter can out-preform the monk, even with putting Dexterity and Wisdom in a higher priority than Strength and Constitution. A very striking point, no less. Despite this handicap, he's still capable of out-damaging the monk while also being a Combat Maneuver monkey; which is quite telling.
In a normal game, Slow Fall, Speed Increase, and Ki Strike merely replicate cheap magic items that can be obtained relatively easily and relatively early in a standard D&D game; such as with a ring of feather falling (2,200 gp), boots of striding and springing (5,500 gp) or a continuous spell of longstrider or expeditious retreat (lonstrider boots are just boots of striding without the extras and costs 2,500 gp less; while expeditious retreat boots would be priced at 4,000 gp); and the Ki Strike is basically just a +1 magic weapon without the +1, which makes it less useful than an oil of magic weapon in many situations, and cannot overcome unusual damage reductions (like you can by carrying a cheap silver or cold-iron weapon).
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.This what you mean?
That still isn't clearly saying Weapon Finesse replaces the Strength requirement. Your normal attack roll is a +Dex roll that the CMB, with the Str requirement, is replacing. Weapon Finesse isn't a bonus to an attack roll, it's a replacement.
No actual fighter ever will have that abysmal a strength.Yes, they will. None of YOURS maybe, but 14 Str fighters have and do exist.
None that are (a) melee fighters and (b) TRYING to be effective. Sure, "role-players" might have a Fighter with 14 Str as a primary melee combatant, but that's their and their party's heads.
|
Fighter 11 - Str14No. Just no. No way, no how.
No actual fighter ever will have that abysmal a strength. This is not a comparison, this is silliness.
I agree...except that I think that trying to build a monk to compete with the fighter in terms of damage by topping his Str is the silliness.
I do not understand the numbers after the spoilers...
DPR Average 18.43 11.55
Attack +1 2.31 1.16
Damage +1 0.88 0.55
Extra Attack: 11.55
Explain?
No actual fighter ever will have that abysmal a strength.Yes, they will. None of YOURS maybe, but 14 Str fighters have and do exist.
Maybe at lv1 if you are planning on being an archer or multiclassing, focusing on another stat. Or as has been mentioned, being one of those builds where people equate "roleplaying" with being bad at your primary role. The lowest I have ever started with as a combatant is 16, when I knew I was playing in a party with characters that would buff mine.
That build is also flat ridiculous.
- Why not set a 14 in the stat and save 2 points by putting the racial bump on one of the "high" stats?
- Why would a fighter put 16 wis when a MONK is apparently OK with a 14?
- Feat allocation is off the wall, there is no pattern, no sense.
This is like comparing an archery based ranger with dex14 to an archery based rogue with dex24 and saying the classes are virtually the same.