Okay I went back and really looked over your monk, my first question is what is his intimidate bonus? I assume full ranks plus 6 STR so 17? If it isn't an undead or construct that gives you a 75%-55% chance to demoralize, of course demoralizing takes a standard action unless you use a feat that is in a supplement and was originally against the rules, if I give you the benefit of the doubt anyway the build appears to work. Although if the demoralize fails you have to have popped a ki point to keep up sufficient damage.
So given the feat you have at best a 75% chance to do sufficient damage without popping a ki point every round. Without the feat you pretty much have to pop a ki point every round because you will have no reliable way to hinder your opponent for MW.
That sounds about correct in terms of numbers. I'm not sure if supplements are against the rules for the DPR Olympics, but I do know that it's PFS legal. If your DM doesn't allow the feat, then the build falls apart. Though that point might be mute given some of the information bellow
Not sure how I feel about this.
That's a play-style preference. I'm OK with burning through Ki every round on a full attack if that full attack is able to deal a reasonable amount of damage as a result. Also, if I under stand correctly you can take that extra attack at any point in the flurry, doesn't have to be immediately at the beginning. (Though that could be misread RAW)
After just looking back I realize you can't get MW off with this build anyway because your only attacking with brass knuckles and MW requires at least one unarmed attack to be made to activate it (brass knuckles use unarmed damage but are not themselves and unarmed strike). Without your knuckles you are at -5 to hit which pretty much kills you. Which leaves you having to pop a Ki point every round to be effective. Your thoughts?
Just went to reread Medusa's Wrath, and started hating myself. It's like there's a whole slew of cool monk things sprinkled everywhere, but they either don't work with things that aren't unarmed strikes, or are just flat out bad to begin with.
Like seriously, why don't things like Medusa's Wrath work with with monk weapons, and why can't I flurry with a Short Sword or Handaxe? Both of these seem to be things that should at least work together.
GAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
I would suggest the minimum effectiveness for any character is the ability to contribute to the success of any encounter for as many rounds as possible while allowing the player to feel valued.
That's really vague. And things that make a player feel valued vary from person to person.
I also don't think Monks/Bards/Rouges are interchangeable, but that's a different discussion to be had.
And I'm not saying that things like CMB and positioning (which only matters if terrain is a thing, and flanking) aren't good. In fact the reason they're good is because they're able to one way or another increase the overall amount of damage done (or decrease the damage needed) to succeed in an encounter.
In fact, all I'm asking for is numbers. What's the minimum CMB needed to reliably pull off a maneuver? Flanking adds a +2 to hit for two characters, which increases both characters DPR accordingly. What other aspects of positioning can also contribute?
And furthermore, what is the minimum DPR needed to contribute and feel valued.
Just went to reread Medusa's...
This is what I mean when I say that a little bit more care and attention could have gone a long way with the monk.
- Add greater version of maneuvers.
- Add greater trip in the qinjong options in UM.
- Medusa wrath.
- Don't ragenerf INA.
- Slightly change abundant step for more awesome.
- Make the SR act as a firewall (I think the most common houserule ever).
- Lower that BAB required for additional special attack feats in APG.
- Make wisdom or half wisdom add to something more through levels.
- The Errata-not-so-errata of cockatrice strike.
- Int 13 for staff feats in UM
And so on.
All this stuff would have needed 2 lines more in the book. Sometimes even less.
@Ciretose: It appears you are going for a damage build because your stunning fist is nowhere near requirements (50% chance to...
No I am going for viable build.
You built your strawman, I don't need to fight it.
Are the builds I have posted helpful team mates and viable builds.
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
@jeranimus: Many players don't own every little book with every option in them, and some only play with the core hardcover books. Most of the supplement stuff is built to be setting specific and not meant to be used interchangeably. I was hoping to do this without delving into every option past the hardcovers. But as I said I'll let you have it anyway.
I am okay with burning Ki every round too, until you inevitably run out in the first or second encounter of the day and cant do your job afterword. So not really a playstyle difference so much as a mechanical limit, you may be okay with it, but when the pool hits zero you just aren't allowed.
And yes the MW thing is definitely a build killer, don't know how to fix it honestly.
My take on minimum effectiveness I have already stated, if you rely on DC abilities they should always have more then a coins flip chance of working, and if you want to be a damage-er I consider effectiveness being able to reliably (more then half the time, if you hadn't noticed I hate flipping coins in a dice rolling game) kill a threat before it kills you. If you disagree I'd be happy to hear what you propose and why.
Just went to reread Medusa's...
This is what I mean when I say that a little bit more care and attention could have gone a long way with the monk.
- Add greater version of maneuvers.
- Add greater trip in the qinjong options in UM.
- Medusa wrath.
- Don't ragenerf INA.
- Slightly change abundant step for more awesome.
- Make the SR act as a firewall (I think the most common houserule ever).
- Lower that BAB required for additional special attack feats in APG.
- Make wisdom or half wisdom add to something more through levels.
- The Errata-not-so-errata of cockatrice strike.
- Int 13 for staff feats in UMAnd so on.
All this stuff would have needed 2 lines more in the book. Sometimes even less.
Woot! +1
Although I dont know what you mean by the BAB one, and I don't even acknowledge the existence of cockatrice strike >.> that was the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
Perfect Strike or Touch of serenity. Stuff like that. Stunning Fist included.
Either a monk gets it as a level 1 ability, or has to wait a long time. The problem is that one would need both SF and ToS before BAB +8 (level 11).
|
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
Post your build and we will compare, with the same restrictions I used (20 point build, nothing below 10, following WBL)
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
Post your build and we will compare, with the same restrictions I used (20 point build, nothing below 10, following WBL)
Well being one arguing against the monk I dont know why you think I could build one that is viable. If i could I would be on your side.
When I build monks it is usually focused around some shtick that could easily be done without but is kind of amusing. I only do this in mess around campaigns where everyone expects to die the first or second session. Never anything serious, at least they still dont live long in the serious ones.
|
|
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
Post your build and we will compare, with the same restrictions I used (20 point build, nothing below 10, following WBL)
Well being one arguing against the monk I dont know why you think I could build one that is viable. If i could I would be on your side.
When I build monks it is usually focused around some shtick that could easily be done without but is kind of amusing. I only do this in mess around campaigns where everyone expects to die the first or second session. Never anything serious, at least they still dont live long in the serious ones.
No, of another class.
You are comparing them to other classes, post a build, 1-6 of another class for comparison.
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
Post your build and we will compare, with the same restrictions I used (20 point build, nothing below 10, following WBL)
Well being one arguing against the monk I dont know why you think I could build one that is viable. If i could I would be on your side.
When I build monks it is usually focused around some shtick that could easily be done without but is kind of amusing. I only do this in mess around campaigns where everyone expects to die the first or second session. Never anything serious, at least they still dont live long in the serious ones.
No, of another class.
You are comparing them to other classes, post a build, 1-6 of another class for comparison.
Okay, what do you want me to build toward? Dc based, maneuver based, buffing based or damage based?
Ill have it up by late tomorrow
|
|
In that case no, you can't reliably hurt, stun, or maneuver your enemy. So I don't see any contribution in social or battlefield circumstances. Id rather replace your character with a number of commoners that would equal your CR, they could at least surround the enemy for a turn.
Post your build and we will compare, with the same restrictions I used (20 point build, nothing below 10, following WBL)
Well being one arguing against the monk I dont know why you think I could build one that is viable. If i could I would be on your side.
When I build monks it is usually focused around some shtick that could easily be done without but is kind of amusing. I only do this in mess around campaigns where everyone expects to die the first or second session. Never anything serious, at least they still dont live long in the serious ones.
No, of another class.
You are comparing them to other classes, post a build, 1-6 of another class for comparison.
Okay, what do you want me to build toward? Dc based, maneuver based, buffing based or damage based?
Ill have it up by late tomorrow
I want you to build whatever you like, and then we will compare as to which one everyone would like to have as, say a 5th along with the generic 4 person party (Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard)
which one everyone would like to have as, say a 5th along with the generic 4 person party (Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard)
Assuming those fantastic four have their standard array of skills covered, I'd probably want a CHA based character class that invested in social skills so as to be the party face. Bard and Summoner come to mind, though Sorcerers are nice as a back up CCer as well.
@Shadow of Death: I actually got Curnogeon Smash from the Pathfinder SRD, which is free and on the internet. All mechanical aspects of the game are OGL and free to use. I do understand restrictions on what's available though, so next time I'll do what I can to restrict myself to Core, APG, and Beastiary 1&2
I'll go back to the drawing board on this one. The first six or so levels of feats seems ok, it's the next 4 that I gotta work out now. Survivability also seems like a goal here, so I'll see how this monk fairs against @CR enemies by himself.
curious question but. why is the fighter being used as the benchmark for damage? why not say twf rangers vs their non favored enemy?using fighters as the benchmark seems as silly as using a paladin fighting team evil.
Because they're a class that always has its class features more or less "ON" against all enemies.
Why should we compare a monk (who have no conditional combat features)to a class that cannot have full access to all of its combat features unless it meets certain conditions not entirely in that character's control (The ability to get favored enemy bonuses, smite bonuses, or even sneak attack bonuses all depend on what creatures you're fighting, and that's up to the GM)
Though I do agree on the following: The kind of Fighter we've been comparing the monk to is unfair. Monks primarily work of getting the most out of flurry of blows, it makes more sense for use to compare a monk to a TWF Fighter as opposed to a more traditional 2-Handed Chopper.
Why should we compare a monk (who have no conditional combat features)to a class that cannot have full access to all of its combat features unless it meets certain conditions not entirely in that character's control (The ability to get favored enemy bonuses, smite bonuses, or even sneak attack bonuses all depend on what creatures you're fighting, and that's up to the GM)
But a monk does generally have conditional combat features, they're just sneakier about it. This is part of why accounts of the monk's effectiveness or lack thereof vary so wildly.
Your monk with stunning fist runs into an enemy that can't be stunned? Conditional.
Your grappling monk runs into someone with freedom of movement? Conditional.
Your maneuver monk runs into a monster with CMD around 20 higher than his CMB? Conditional.
You got deflect arrows as a bonus feat and no one's firing arrows at you? Conditional.
Your monk doesn't run into area spells and his evasion is useless? Conditional. Ditto poison and disease immunity. Ditto SR.
Etc. etc. etc. Most of the class are abilities that sometimes are applicable and sometimes aren't, but unlike smite evil, favored enemy, sneak attack, etc., this isn't as immediately apparent. If someone posted that they played in a game with only orcs and their favored enemy orc ranger seemed overpowered it'd be obvious why, but if someone posts that the monk is great and someone else posts that the monk is terrible, it's less immediately obvious that campaign/enemy/GM specifics are an enormous part of why.
@jeranimus: I actually use the srd all the time, but if other groups are anything like mine then we have to have the book for it. They wont use online resources. About the revisions dont forget you can use ultimate magic and good luck.
I actually plan on making a character that will do what people are saying the monk does when "played correctly" except you know with a good success rate.
about the fighter thing, there is no reason to restrict the fighter just because flurry is the monks only form of damage.
What-if scenarios that show how certain monk features are conditional
Ok, but that applies to a fighter too.
Your melee butcher faces a flying Wizard, your sundering machine encounters a magic item he cannot break, your ponderous meat-shield doesn't have enough dex to max out his armor training bonus, your heavily invested in weapon gets sundered and you don't have unarmed strike. Etc.
But that's neither here nor there. Things outside the players control can only be taken into so much account. In fact, for the purpose of comparison, I'm going to check out Valeros (PF Iconic Fighter) and see what his numbers are at each pre-made level.
Using him should give me a good idea on what constitutes a benchmark for the purpose of discussion.
@Shadow of Death: Besides their inherent limitations, I looked into the numbers I could potentially get for combat maneuvers, and while an untrained maneuver is kinda meh (16 at level 10), getting the greater version bumps it to 20. I don't know if that' good enough or not. Also, if a monk is ever able to take Grater Trip (which benefits from weapon enhancement, and weapon focus like things) then the modifier becomes 24, and since you can trip during a flurry, the increased accuracy could mean for some nifty damage. I'm still crunching away though.
|
|
But a monk does generally have conditional combat features, they're just sneakier about it. This is part of why accounts of the monk's effectiveness or lack thereof vary so wildly.
Your monk with stunning fist runs into an enemy that can't be stunned? Conditional.
Your grappling monk runs into someone with freedom of movement? Conditional.
Your maneuver monk runs into a monster with CMD around 20 higher than his CMB? Conditional.
You got deflect arrows as a bonus feat and no one's firing arrows at you? Conditional.
Your monk doesn't run into area spells and his evasion is useless? Conditional. Ditto poison and disease immunity. Ditto SR.
Etc. etc. etc. Most of the class are abilities that sometimes are applicable and sometimes aren't, but unlike smite evil, favored enemy, sneak attack, etc., this isn't as immediately apparent. If someone posted that they played in a game with only orcs and their favored enemy orc ranger seemed overpowered it'd be obvious why, but if someone posts that the monk is great and someone else posts that the monk is terrible, it's less immediately obvious that campaign/enemy/GM specifics are an enormous part of why.
However as your post shows, there are a great number of conditionals that monks can take advantage of in a given combat.
If they can't be stunned, maybe a combat manuever? If they have freedom of movement, maybe a stun? Etc...
The monk has options. The bar set earlier of "If they can't stun 50% of the time" is a ridiculous one.
If the monk stuns, then next round they get a flurry with no attack in between. If they need to up damage to take something out, they can add an extra attack with Ki, meaning 4 attacks at 6th of which three are at the highest base attack.
If they are vulnerable they can add 4 extra AC with Ki as well as now having access to barkskin in place of slow fall.
And you again are overlooking the advantage of having all good saves. Not some, not most, all good saves. On top of immunity to poison and disease. And on top of evasion. And on top of later getting spell resistance.
Yes these are conditional, but they are always available depending on the condition that presents itself.
If a Wizard/Cleric/Druid memorizes the wrong spells for the days combat? Conditional.
If a Sorcerer/Oracle/Bard just plain don't know the right spells. Conditional.
If the monster has spell resistance? Conditional.
The marker you are using is arbitrary.
The question is, at each level is the monk competitive with an equal level counterpart.
Because I'm tired and need to work a 14h shift in the morning, posting mostly finished build.. main skills are Acrobatics/Stealth with some bonuses to other skills when the stats go up and here and there for class skills.. General concept is there though..
Halfling 15 Monk/5 Barbarian (Brutal Pugilist)
I'm rather surprised nobody shot this down right here. You don't need to go any further.
From the PRD:
Monk
Alignment: Any lawful
Barbarian
Alignment: Any non-lawful
So much for that build. A Monk/Barbarian is not legal using RAW.
Because I'm tired and need to work a 14h shift in the morning, posting mostly finished build.. main skills are Acrobatics/Stealth with some bonuses to other skills when the stats go up and here and there for class skills.. General concept is there though..
Halfling 15 Monk/5 Barbarian (Brutal Pugilist)
I'm rather surprised nobody shot this down right here. You don't need to go any further.
From the PRD:
Monk
Alignment: Any lawfulBarbarian
Alignment: Any non-lawfulSo much for that build. A Monk/Barbarian is not legal using RAW.
It was mentioned earlier but the build is actually legal. So long as the character changes alignment with no intention on going back to the other class, it is fine. There are some problems with class abilities though. Ex-barbarians can no longer rage. Ex monks retain all their abilities. Neither class can progress if it no longer meets the alignment requirements.
My issue with the build is that it isn't showcasing the monk. It is showing how a multi-class monk can function. That's a different argument. I'm a fan of single class builds in these discussions so that we can look at the abilities of the class as they were meant to be used. Sure, we can pump the Stun DC if we take 3 levels of wizard and take Owl's Wisdom. We can get the AC up by casting Shield and Mage Armor. We can even improve the movement if we cast Expeditious Retreat. None of this tells us how the monk class works as written though. It doesn't tell us that the monk class needs it, just that it doesn't hurt by adding it.
It was mentioned earlier but the build is actually legal. So long as the character changes alignment with no intention on going back to the other class, it is fine. There are some problems with class abilities though. Ex-barbarians can no longer rage. Ex monks retain all their abilities. Neither class can progress if it no longer meets the alignment requirements.
Given the 25 point buy and ridiculous WBL abuse, I should have expected a work around. I know such a thing wouldn't fly in campaign I ran.
My issue with the build is that it isn't showcasing the monk. It is showing how a multi-class monk can function. That's a different argument. I'm a fan of single class builds in these discussions so that we can look at the abilities of the class as they were meant to be used. Sure, we can pump the Stun DC if we take 3 levels of wizard and take Owl's Wisdom. We can get the AC up by casting Shield and Mage Armor. We can even improve the movement if we cast Expeditious Retreat. None of this tells us how the monk class works as written though. It doesn't tell us that the monk class needs it, just that it doesn't hurt by adding it.This is certainly valid. You cannot make claims about a class when you mix it with others. I don't know how good the mix and match classes are in PF compared to 3.5, but I knew some incredibly over the top mixed back from those days (didn't have a knack for it myself though).
The question is, at each level is the monk competitive with an equal level counterpart.
And before that question can be answered one must determine metrics for competitiveness.
Why is it unreasonable for someone to want their DC based skills to function more than %50 of the time? Especially when there are other class features that can potentially replace it and be more effective.
Same goes for damage (though I'm still crunching away to try to answer that question as best I can). The current baseline is 2RKO, which should hopefully down an @CR dude before he's able to splat you. If that' unreasonable, then we can change the metric to better represent a more average sample size.
However, proper metrics must be determined before we can begin accurate character comparisons. Otherwise everyone is blowing hot air.
There are no bad classes, only people who play them badly. ;)
That's why I always play a Commoner. In high-level adventures, an intelligently-played Commoner is FAR more usesful than a wizard or cleric. Anyone who doesn't agree is obviously a stupid "roll-playing" powergamer with no grasp of tactics.
I once saw a Commoner played to expertly that the DM was forced to ban it in future play-sessions.
Back on Topic:
Since Math is fun I averaged all of the CMDs of all of the currently printed CR 10 monsters that exist in the beastiary posted up at the SRD.
The lowest CMD for a CR10 monster is The Kalavacus Demon with a paltry CMD of 27.
The highest CMD is the whale, with a Massive 37. A whale cannot be tripped....
The average base CMD is around 30
For the purposes of Trip CMD (since many had special entry on that) the Kalavacus is still a chump, and the highest trip-able CMD a medium sized character must deal with is 36 from a White Dragon.
The average trip CMD is 32
So a CMB of 20, (reachable by lvl 10 w/ full BAB with only 22 STR and taking both the improved and greater line of feats) will help you CMB a dude about half the time. Using a trip weapon can help increase your chances to about 60%
Outside of class features, I don't know how else to buff CMBs
Back on Topic:
Since Math is fun I averaged all of the CMDs of all of the currently printed CR 10 monsters that exist in the beastiary posted up at the SRD.
The lowest CMD for a CR10 monster is The Kalavacus Demon with a paltry CMD of 27.
The highest CMD is the whale, with a Massive 37. A whale cannot be tripped....
The average base CMD is around 30
For the purposes of Trip CMD (since many had special entry on that) the Kalavacus is still a chump, and the highest trip-able CMD a medium sized character must deal with is 36 from a White Dragon.
The average trip CMD is 32
So a CMB of 20, (reachable by lvl 10 w/ full BAB with only 22 STR and taking both the improved and greater line of feats) will help you CMB a dude about half the time. Using a trip weapon can help increase your chances to about 60%
Outside of class features, I don't know how else to buff CMBs
The build im writing up for this thread and the druid I am currently playing both have a cmb of +21 at level six in their respective maneuvers and neither have greater versions yet, are you sure monk is the maneuver king? I am going all the way to ten for this thread so we will see if I can break 30.
|
|
The question is, at each level is the monk competitive with an equal level counterpart.
And before that question can be answered one must determine metrics for competitiveness.
Why is it unreasonable for someone to want their DC based skills to function more than %50 of the time? Especially when there are other class features that can potentially replace it and be more effective.
Same goes for damage (though I'm still crunching away to try to answer that question as best I can). The current baseline is 2RKO, which should hopefully down an @CR dude before he's able to splat you. If that' unreasonable, then we can change the metric to better represent a more average sample size.
However, proper metrics must be determined before we can begin accurate character comparisons. Otherwise everyone is blowing hot air.
Metrics only work for inflexible variables.
Wizards do horrible melee damage, so that metric would be useless in examining them. Similarly Fighters stink at casting.
You can cherry pick metrics to create whatever strawman you like, lies and damn statistics applied also to arbitrary metrics.
The only reasonable comparison is an objective one. So post a "better" build for another class.
The question is, at each level is the monk competitive with an equal level counterpart.
And before that question can be answered one must determine metrics for competitiveness.
Why is it unreasonable for someone to want their DC based skills to function more than %50 of the time? Especially when there are other class features that can potentially replace it and be more effective.
Same goes for damage (though I'm still crunching away to try to answer that question as best I can). The current baseline is 2RKO, which should hopefully down an @CR dude before he's able to splat you. If that' unreasonable, then we can change the metric to better represent a more average sample size.
However, proper metrics must be determined before we can begin accurate character comparisons. Otherwise everyone is blowing hot air.
Metrics only work for inflexible variables.
Wizards do horrible melee damage, so that metric would be useless in examining them. Similarly Fighters stink at casting.
You can cherry pick metrics to create whatever strawman you like, lies and damn statistics applied also to arbitrary metrics.
The only reasonable comparison is an objective one. So post a "better" build for another class.
Except the only class that cant pass the metric so far is the monk, fighter cant cast spells but has high damage, he passes, wizard cant fight but his spell DC's rock, he passes, the bard cant fight and his DC's are average but his buffs put out a lot of damage, he passes.
Monk has average damage, sometimes average DC's, and unreliable maneuver control. So he fails.
As I said when I first posted what I considered the mechanical limits of useful, if you dont agree state why and provide an alternative. So far you have just said their stupid and usefulness is measured in butterflies (or may as well be considering how abstract your qualifications are)
Edit: I wont be off work until 11 so my build will have to be posted after that.
3 levels in to go with 4 levels of warrior when making Champion of Corellian.There are no bad classes, only people who play them badly. ;)CW Swashbuckler
Thank you for making his point.
|
|
Except the only class that cant pass the metric so far is the monk, fighter cant cast spells but has high damage, he passes, wizard cant fight but his spell DC's rock, he passes, the bard cant fight and his DC's are average but his buffs put out a lot of damage, he passes.
Monk has average damage, sometimes average DC's, and unreliable maneuver control. So he fails.
As I said when I first posted what I considered the mechanical limits of useful, if you dont agree state why and provide an alternative. So far you have just said their stupid and usefulness is measured in butterflies (or may as well be considering how abstract your qualifications are)
Edit: I wont be off work until 11 so my build...
No, you've set up arbitrary criteria.
Average based on what? A monk both has something with high DC and something with average damage, but the combination is of no value in your matrix.
And when you make your druid, consider spells per day and duration.
Except the only class that cant pass the metric so far is the monk, fighter cant cast spells but has high damage, he passes, wizard cant fight but his spell DC's rock, he passes, the bard cant fight and his DC's are average but his buffs put out a lot of damage, he passes.
Monk has average damage, sometimes average DC's, and unreliable maneuver control. So he fails.
As I said when I first posted what I considered the mechanical limits of useful, if you dont agree state why and provide an alternative. So far you have just said their stupid and usefulness is measured in butterflies (or may as well be considering how abstract your qualifications are)
Edit: I wont be off work until 11 so my build...
No, you've set up arbitrary criteria.
Average based on what? A monk both has something with high DC and something with average damage, but the combination is of no value in your matrix.
And when you make your druid, consider spells per day and duration.
By average I mean you cant go into a fight thinking " im going to stunning fist this guy" because half the time you will be wrong. Only problem with that is in the battle where it does go wrong (odds say the second monster you try it on) he will kill you before you can kill him (because of your low damage).
I am not building a druid by the way, that is the class im currently playing in a campaign and it has that +21 just using wild shape, before any possible buffing.
|
|
By average I mean you cant go into a fight thinking " im going to stunning fist this guy" because half the time you will be wrong. Only problem with that is in the battle where it does go wrong (odds say the second monster you try it on) he will kill you before you can kill him (because of your low damage).
I am not building a druid by the way, that is the class im currently playing in a campaign and it has that +21 just using wild shape, before any possible buffing.
Again, you do damage while you stun. And if no stun swift action to AC boost. Then if you survive a round, you can a) Try to stun again as part of flurry b) Add an additional attack. Assuming you didn't just move in to flank.
The problem with your matrix is it is based off the false assumption there is only one thing you can do in a given combat that has value.
We'll see your build and discuss. Feel free to post your Druid as well.
My Dude
STR 12
DEX 16
CON 12
INT 8
WIS 18
CHA 8
AC: 18 (22 against AoO when moving)
HP: 10
Saves: +3/+5/+6
CMB: +1
CMD: 19
Init: +3
Unarmed: +3, d6+1
Flurry: +2/+2, d6+1
StunFist: DC 15
Feats: Dodge (Monk), Weapon Finese, Mobility
Skills: Acro +7, Escape +7, Perception +8, Stealth +7
Target CR 1
AC: 12 (hit 60%, Flurry 55%)
HP: 15 (4.5 dmg per hit, dead after 3+ hits)
Saves: +4 or +1 (saves 50% or 35%)
Attack: +2 or +1 (hits 25% or 20%; has to crit for AoO)
PrimAbility: DC 12 (hits bad save 40%, good 25%)
AC: 18 (22)
HP: 17
Saves: +4/+6/+7
CMB: +2
CMD: 20
Init: +3
Unarmed: +4, d6+1
Flurry: +3/+3, d6+1
StunFist: DC 15
Feats: Dodge (Monk), Weapon Finese, Mobility, Combat Reflexes (Monk)
Skills: Acro +8, Escape +8, Perception +9, Stealth +8
Target CR 2
AC: 14 (hit 55%, Flurry 50%)
HP: 20 (4.5 dmg per hit, dead after 4 hits)
Saves: +5 or +1 (saves 55% or 35%)
Attack: +4 or +3 (hits 35% or 30%; 15%/10% for AoO)
PrimAbility: DC 13 (hits bad save 40%, good 25%)
AC: 19 (23)
HP: 24
Saves: +4/+6/+7
CMB: +4
CMD: 21
Init: +3
Unarmed: +6, d6+1
Flurry: +5/+5, d6+1
StunFist: DC 16
Feats: Dodge (Monk), Weapon Finese, Mobility, Combat Reflexes (Monk), Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike
Skills: Acro +9, Escape +9, Perception +10, Stealth +9
Equipment: Bracers of Armor +1. 0 GP
Target CR 3
AC: 15 (hit 60%, Flurry 55%)
HP: 30 (4.5 dmg per hit, dead after 7 hits)
Saves: +6 or +2 (saves 55% or 35%)
Attack: +6 or +4 (hits 40% or 30%; 20%/10% for AoO)
PrimAbility: DC 14 (hits bad save 45%, good 30%)
You seem to be confused about classes. If you have to go outside the class to make it good, you have a bad class.Truenamer. /argumentItem familiar to boost skill + item with +xx to skill.
That is incorrect sir.
If Class A > Class B, but Class A + Class B > Class A...
Then Class B is a powerful class in it's own right.
I've always found Monk as a class that is hard to measure the performance of, and the only way to see how well it works, is through real game play. Rouges are also on this list.
No, it shows that Class B has it's merits, and those merits only help the combination of Class A and Class B.
Sorry, but Monk really isn't that bad of a class. Fighter can be good, especially when it comes to hitting stuff and doing damage, but when it comes to a lot of other stuff it is found lacking.
The character with one of the best overall defenses in the game would be a Monk. And they are not "bad" at most other things they are capable of doing. Damage, Maneuvers, and several other things they can be decent at.
|
No, it shows that Class B has it's merits, and those merits only help the combination of Class A and Class B.
We're talking about the Truenamer, whose only merit is that it is a cherished concept that has not be done in a workable manner as of yet. And was mentioned to disprove the statement 'there are no bad classes'.
The Truenamer is a bad class.
Truenamer had many down-sides, but my thought of a "Bad" class, is something that someone can classify a class as once they play a character in that class and do not enjoy it.
Since the game is about having fun, and not about Accomplishing X.
Truenamer had many down-sides, but my thought of a "Bad" class, is something that someone can classify a class as once they play a character in that class and do not enjoy it.
Since the game is about having fun, and not about Accomplishing X.
The game is about having fun, but there are still bad classes. I can have fun with a commoner(and have in one game) if the game is fun, this does not mean the commoner is a good class.
|
Okay. I wanted to look at something so I did these up. Fighter and Monk, similar stat arrays(20 point buy with close comparison. And no, Im not dump stating). Both having no access to magic. Both with the goal of having whirlwind attack ASAP. Now before the flame war starts. Isn't the argument whether or not one class is just as good at something as the other?
Male human Fighter 4
LN Medium humanoid
Init +4 ; Senses Perception +0
==DEFENSE==
AC 24, touch 13, flat-footed 21 (+9 armor, +2 shield, +2 dex)
hp(4d10+8)
Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +2
==OFFENSE==
Spd 20 ft./x3
Melee Mwk Longsword +10 1d8+6 19-20/x2
==STATISTICS==
Str 19, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +4, Cmb +8Cmd +21
Feats Armor Proficiency (Heavy) (PFCR 118), Armor Proficiency (Light) (PFCR 118), Armor Proficiency (Medium) (PFCR 118), Combat Reflexes (PFCR 119-120), Dodge (PFCR 122), Mobility (PFCR 130-131), Power Attack (PFCR 131), Shield Proficiency (PFCR 133), Weapon Focus (PFCR 136-137), Weapon Specialization (PFCR 137)
Skills Climb +6, Intimidate +7, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Survival +7
Languages Common, Dwarven
Combat Gear Mwk Longsword, Masterwork Full plate, Masterwork Shield, heavy steel
Other Gear Armor & Shield, Weapons
• BRAVERY - As a fighter of level 4 you get +1 bonus to Will saves vs. fear. (PFCR 55).
• ARMOR TRAINING - Armor check penalty is reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and maximum dexterity bonus is increased by +1. No movement penalty for medium armor. (PFCR 55).
Traits • Indomitable Faith (Faith) - +1 on Will saves. (PFCT 5)
• Reactionary (Combat) - +2 Initiative. (PFCT 4)
Male human Monk 4
LN Medium humanoid
Init +3 ; Senses Perception +10
==DEFENSE==
AC 16, touch 16, flat-footed 14 (+1 dex, +4 monk bonus)
hp (4d8+8)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +7
==OFFENSE==
Spd 40 ft./x4
Melee Unarmed Strike +7 1d8+3 20/x2
Melee Unarmed Strike +6/+6 1d8+3 20/x2
==STATISTICS==
Str 17, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 10
Base Atk +3, Cmb +7Cmd +22
Feats Combat Reflexes (PFCR 119-120), Dodge (PFCR 122), Improved Unarmed Strike (PFCR 128), Mobility (PFCR 130-131), Power Attack (PFCR 131), Stunning Fist (PFCR 135), Weapon Focus (PFCR 136-137)
Skills Acrobatics +8, Climb +10, Intimidate +8, Perception +10, Stealth +8
Languages Common
Combat Gear Unarmed Strike
Other Gear Armor & Shield, Weapons
• AC BONUS - Add Wis mod +1/4 monk levels (max +5) to AC and CMD when unarmored and unencumbered. Apply vs. touch attacks and when flat-footed. (PFCR 57).
• MONK EVASION - Sucessful Reflex save for half damage results in no damage. Only works in light or no armor and while not helpless. (PRCR 59).
• MONK FAST MOVEMENT - The monk has a bonus to base speed of +10 feet when unarmored and unencumbered. (PFCR 58, 59).
• STILL MIND - +2 bonus on saving throws against spells and effects from the school of enchantment. (PFCR 59).
• KI POOL - A Ki point will buy for one round: 1 extra attack at highest BAB during a Flurry of Blows, +20 ft. speed, or +4 dodge AC. You have 5 points in your ki pool. (PFCR 59).
Traits • Bully (Social) - +1 intimidate checks. Intimidate is always a class skill for you. (PFCT 6)
• Reactionary (Combat) - +2 Initiative. (PFCT 4)
To me it seems like the Monk would have more in common with a 2wpn fighter or a mobile fighter. Sure the AC is way different in the fighters favor, but mobility is in the monks favor. And then you have the pool. For burst stat augmentation when needed. Is there something else, we should be looking at?
Truenamer had many down-sides, but my thought of a "Bad" class, is something that someone can classify a class as once they play a character in that class and do not enjoy it.
Since the game is about having fun, and not about Accomplishing X.
The Truenamer literally does not function. The math does not work. It cannot use it's own abilities.
I'm fairly certain I would classify that as "bad." If you want, we can also say it is "not fun"
Truenamer had many down-sides, but my thought of a "Bad" class, is something that someone can classify a class as once they play a character in that class and do not enjoy it.
Since the game is about having fun, and not about Accomplishing X.
The Truenamer literally does not function. The math does not work. It cannot use it's own abilities.
I'm fairly certain I would classify that as "bad." If you want, we can also say it is "not fun"
I'll agree with both TOZ and the prof here, i played a truenamer in RotRL. They actually get weaker every time they gain a level.
Metrics are bad.....
The only reasonable comparison is an objective one. So post a "better" build for another class.
Objectivity is helped through numbers. Also, metrics can help people build off-beat character concepts by giving them an idea of what numbers need to be hit in order to be effective at what they do.
Wizards suck at making melee attacks, but what if someone wants to play the scroll sage sub-class from UM? It's geared for combat, and requires the player the carefully build and prepare the wizard in such a way that doesn't make it languish in irrelevence.
Wouldn't it be nice for those player to know: OK, this is the minimum I need to sufficiently be able to hit the guy. Or, I need to be able to contribute this much damage so that way the BBEG doesn't TPK, and the rest of the party eyes me with resentment.
The metrics I want to establish are less "This is a comparative list of all builds, and where they stand in relation to each other on doing task X" And more: "So you wanna to Y? Well, these are the numbers you're going to need in order to be effective, if you reach them then you should be able to do Y properly, if you surpass them, more power to you"
So far the only metric that has been proposed is my @CR 2RKO, with HP based off of the monster creation rules in the PRD. Is it unreasonable? May be, but no one has mentioned an alternative and why it's better. Obviously, the character must also be sturdy enough to survive the physical encounter, even if the enemy goes first.
There are currently no real established metrics for things like DCs or CMBs and what constitutes effective. SoD says that it must have a greater than 50% chance of success, and I agree on this point. However, what actually determines effectiveness differs. 55% is better than a coin flip, but still s+$&ty. While 95% is effectivly making perfection the bare minimum. And that's a 40% difference between those two values. The halfway point is 75% effectiveness, which I don't think is a bad metric
Either way, this is still up for discussion.
Again, you do damage while you stun. And if no stun swift action to AC boost. Then if you survive a round, you can a) Try to stun again as part of flurry b) Add an additional attack. Assuming you didn't just move in to flank.
The problem with your matrix is it is based off the false assumption there is only one thing you can do in a given combat that has value.
We'll see your build and discuss. Feel free to post your Druid as well.
Stuff came up, my build is ready but i will only have my phone until tomorrow so posting it will have to wait.
If I can get my druid ill post it too, he started at level two so level one will just be assumptive.
|
|
Metrics are bad.....
The only reasonable comparison is an objective one. So post a "better" build for another class.
Objectivity is helped through numbers. Also, metrics can help people build off-beat character concepts by giving them an idea of what numbers need to be hit in order to be effective at what they do.
Wizards suck at making melee attacks, but what if someone wants to play the scroll sage sub-class from UM? It's geared for combat, and requires the player the carefully build and prepare the wizard in such a way that doesn't make it languish in irrelevence.
Wouldn't it be nice for those player to know: OK, this is the minimum I need to sufficiently be able to hit the guy. Or, I need to be able to contribute this much damage so that way the BBEG doesn't TPK, and the rest of the party eyes me with resentment.
The metrics I want to establish are less "This is a comparative list of all builds, and where they stand in relation to each other on doing task X" And more: "So you wanna to Y? Well, these are the numbers you're going to need in order to be effective, if you reach them then you should be able to do Y properly, if you surpass them, more power to you"
So far the only metric that has been proposed is my @CR 2RKO, with HP based off of the monster creation rules in the PRD. Is it unreasonable? May be, but no one has mentioned an alternative and why it's better. Obviously, the character must also be sturdy enough to survive the physical encounter, even if the enemy goes first.
There are currently no real established metrics for things like DCs or CMBs and what constitutes effective. SoD says that it must have a greater than 50% chance of success, and I agree on this point. However, what actually determines effectiveness differs. 55% is better than a coin flip, but still s&&!ty. While 95% is effectivly making perfection the bare minimum. And that's a 40% difference between those two values. The halfway point is 75% effectiveness, which I don't think is a...
The 2ko is not a good metric for a few reasons.
1. It assumes full round attack, which you aren't likely getting in round one and which completely negates the value of mobility in getting to position. The monks standard move is charge with a stunning fist, then flurry. The other classes comparable standard move is charge into position and then flurry. One has a chance of getting functionally two rounds of combat before retaliation, one doesn't.
2. There are 4 to a party, not 2. Why is it expected for all classes to take half of the damage of an equal CR creature in a single round? If that is all you can do, maybe it would be viable as a baseline, but again it is assuming one metric of value while ignoring mobility, survivability, etc...
3. It is a team game, in a party of Bards the value of a single bard is less than it would be to add a Bard to a standard party. The value of a class is just as much how it works with other classes as it is what it can do in to a single target in a single encounter.
The metric creates is a strawman argument. It is creating an arbitrary goal that doesn't reflect how the game is actually played. Would anyone argue Clerics were a poor class based on how they perform on this metric?
Of course not.
The question is, very simply, is the monk a class that can be successful and contribute to a normal party, or is it a "bad" class that falls behind the other classes and is a detriment relative to other classes.
That can only be answered by objective comparison.