|
Drago the barbarian
Let's go level by level. Also I am Ciretose, not Cartigan. Big difference.
Level 1.
Monk has an extra feat and an extra attack, but can't take some of the better combat feats because they don't meet the prerequisites. Monk is way better with saves.
Barbarian has better movement, better single attack damage, and can rage much more often than stunning fist will come into play, and has more hit points.
Don't see a big split at this point. Basically extra feat, 3 good saves vs 1 and a 2nd attack seems equal to fast movement, rage and more hit points and +1 to hit.
Level 2
Monk gets another bonus feat, so now has a 2 feat lead plus evasion and another +1 to all saves.
Barbarian effectively loses movement advantage to improve AC (an gain armor check penalties...) and gains a rage power.
Still look pretty equal to me at this point. Barbarian can take more hits and does more damage in a single attack, but still only has one attack, has two less feats, and lost all of his mobility advantage and is way behind on saves.
Level 3
Actually...wait, what? How are you getting permanency enlarge? If you are paying someone to do it, you generally have to pay a fee. The 2500 is the cost of the spell for the caster. Rule of thumb I've always heard was pay twice the amount. And no one in the party can cast it, since it is a 5th level spell.
And good luck getting through doors.
I'm going to wait for your response before I comment on the rest of the build, as permanently making yourself a giant isn't all that viable in most campaigns
Drago the barbarian
Let's go level by level. Also I am Ciretose, not Cartigan. Big difference.
Level 1.
** spoiler omitted **
Level 2
** spoiler omitted **
Level 3
Actually...wait, what? How are you getting permanency enlarge? If you are paying someone to do it, you generally have to pay a fee. The 2500 is the cost of the spell for the caster. Rule of thumb I've always heard was pay twice the amount. And no one in the party can cast it, since it is a 5th level spell.
And good luck getting through doors.
I'm going to wait for your response before I comment on the rest of the build, as permanently making yourself a giant isn't all that viable in most campaigns
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.
As far as being large in a campaign goes ive never had a problem, any areas i have to squeeze in is usually inhabited by small creatures, which means their cmds will suck hard. One space of squeezing in a doorway seems manageable too.
|
|
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.
This is a GM style thing. In games I play you would have to role play the hell out of finding a 9th level wizard who was willing to cast it on you, and then you would have a hell of a time for the rest of the game getting through doors.
I don't see being permanently enlarged as viable. Ironically, if it were it would benefit monks just as much if not more considering how quickly unarmed goes up with increased size.
To those still intersted, I double checked my math in a more brute froced method, and Momar is correct, the chance to land any one critical hit is increased when using Perfect Strike, so the numbers provided should be inputed to the calculations.
Had a Monk played by one of my players in my Curse of the Crimson Throne game I DM'ed. He had major issues with it, as he went a dex route, and had to re-build in the 3rd book due to being useless. Switched to the Treantmonk Strength build through a personal plot, quit the character in the 4th book despite it in disgust. Picked up a Paladin and never looked back. The party was Half-Elf Wizard, Human Sorceror, Halfling Rogue, Half-elf Druid, Human Bard, Human Monk (Paladin).I'd like to hear from people who ACTUALLY PLAYED A MONK (a -Pathfinder- monk, not a 3x monk) (and not just a one nighter, but over a campaign) and regularly felt their character was useless.
I'd like to hear what kind of campaign was being run. I'd like to hear what point buy was being used, what level the party was, etc.This is helpful
** spoiler omitted **
In a party with 3 casters and a rogue, the 5th player is going to be forced into the role of keeping things off the casters and taking hits while the rogue flanks. A monk can lock things down, and it can be a flanking buddy, but for what that party needs a Paladin...
Here's a gem: Construct a 3 man party where the monk would serve as the 4th man better any other class.
|
|
Here's a gem: Construct a 3 man party where the monk would serve as the 4th man better any other class.Had a Monk played by one of my players in my Curse of the Crimson Throne game I DM'ed. He had major issues with it, as he went a dex route, and had to re-build in the 3rd book due to being useless. Switched to the Treantmonk Strength build through a personal plot, quit the character in the 4th book despite it in disgust. Picked up a Paladin and never looked back. The party was Half-Elf Wizard, Human Sorceror, Halfling Rogue, Half-elf Druid, Human Bard, Human Monk (Paladin).I'd like to hear from people who ACTUALLY PLAYED A MONK (a -Pathfinder- monk, not a 3x monk) (and not just a one nighter, but over a campaign) and regularly felt their character was useless.
I'd like to hear what kind of campaign was being run. I'd like to hear what point buy was being used, what level the party was, etc.This is helpful
** spoiler omitted **
In a party with 3 casters and a rogue, the 5th player is going to be forced into the role of keeping things off the casters and taking hits while the rogue flanks. A monk can lock things down, and it can be a flanking buddy, but for what that party needs a Paladin...
Do that with any class.
If you have the big 4, the monk can take the place of the rogue or fighter.
If you had a utility group with Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Summoners, Bards, etc...you don't have anyone who needs someone else to fill a role for them to succeed.
The issue with that group is that you had multiple vulnerable casters that required protection from a tank.
The issue with pure melee, arcane casters, and somewhat rogues is that they require help to do things outside of their specific skill set. Arcane casters who are surrounded are in trouble. Melee classes without artillery support are in trouble
A cleric, inquisitor, a bard and a monk would be a very successful group. Same with an Oracle, Druid, Monk and Alchemist.
The problem in the group he proposed was the monk was forced into a suboptimal role because of what needed to be done to make the other classes viable.
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.This is a GM style thing. In games I play you would have to role play the hell out of finding a 9th level wizard who was willing to cast it on you, and then you would have a hell of a time for the rest of the game getting through doors.
I don't see being permanently enlarged as viable. Ironically, if it were it would benefit monks just as much if not more considering how quickly unarmed goes up with increased size.
Yeah it must be a difference in playstyle, because I would have made you roleplay and maybe go on a side quest to find a merchant with a +2 belt of strength, same amount of work involved with any magic item really, I thought that work was assumed in these build exercises.
Not sure how doors would be trouble, aside from having to duck and enter shoulder first, how do you imagine it?
And yes monks love being large, Im pretty sure a build did that earlier in this thread, works much better if you can get them huge but of course huge would be troublesome in your campaigns I imagine.
@helman: you should see the old rogue thread, I think it holds record.
(all your monk builds)I don't think your AC is high enough.
Looking at your guy from level 6 and my last guy at level 6, yours is a 20 and mine is a 23. Not only is that a 15% difference on the d20 roll but with an attack of +12, the baddie hits me 50% of the time, so he hits you 65%.2+ hits and your dead (25 high damage, you have 51 HP, so basically)
Now granted you can flurry. But at a +7 Flurry, you hit on 12s+ (45%). If we assume it only gets that one attack at +12, then you're probably ok.
Also, how is the dmg d6+13?
I got 3 STR, times 1.5 cause of two-handed, so that's 4. Power attack adds 4, times 1.5 cause two-handed, weapon spec of 1 and a +1 Weapon.
Thats 4+6+1+1= 12.Anyway, if your Flurry DPR is 25. He lives to round 3.
It's is about 17. So you live to round 3.Now it depends on who went first. Next hit kills either of you. I'd assume that if you engaged eachother, either he moved to you and swung first, or you moved to him and didn't flurry. That leads to your average death. I personally would prefer having the extra 3 AC + the ki point for more AC than just the ki point.
My AC is high enough. Can I make it higher? Sure. Does it do what I need it to do? Yes. Figuring out the DPR for the enemy is easier if I just use the table in the Bestiary. Using that, it's easy to calculate how long I can live. You'll notice that most of the time I either have a 50/50 chance of winning (with the monk going first this is in the monk's favor) or better. Since the monk is in a party of 4, I don't see this as a problem in the slightest. Remember that I don't have to stay there and trade blows if I'm getting my butt handed to me. I can get farther away than the enemy can move and I can heal then go back for more.
Also remember that all of my "rounds to live" calculations are rounded up to the next whole number. So 2.01 and 2.99 are both 3 rounds. This can make a difference as well.
What the best tactic for the monk would be would be to use his ki for +4 AC and to fight defensively on the first round increasing his AC by 6 (7 at level 3 on up). The next round, flurry.
Oh, as for the damage, weapon specialization is +2 damage. That would be the difference between your +12 and my +13.
Actually...wait, what? How are you getting permanency enlarge? If you are paying someone to do it, you generally have to pay a fee. The 2500 is the cost of the spell for the caster. Rule of thumb I've always heard was pay twice the amount. And no one in the party can cast it, since it is a 5th level spell.
And good luck getting through doors.
I'm going to wait for your response before I comment on the rest of the build, as permanently making yourself a giant isn't all that viable in most campaigns
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.
As far as being large in a campaign goes ive never had a problem, any areas i have to squeeze in is usually inhabited by small creatures, which means their cmds will suck hard. One space of squeezing in a doorway seems manageable too.
Permanent Enlarge Person should be: 2500 (Permanent Enlarge Person) + 9*5*10 (Permanency) + 10 (Enlarge Person) = 2960 gold pieces.
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.This is a GM style thing. In games I play you would have to role play the hell out of finding a 9th level wizard who was willing to cast it on you, and then you would have a hell of a time for the rest of the game getting through doors.
I don't see being permanently enlarged as viable. Ironically, if it were it would benefit monks just as much if not more considering how quickly unarmed goes up with increased size.
I used it for the first monk I posted. No one questioned it then and I mentioned it before and after that I was going to do it. I think it's only fair that Shadow can do the same thing. I completely forgot to do it for my second monk. That would have increased his damage and reach nicely.
Here's a gem: Construct a 3 man party where the monk would serve as the 4th man better any other class.
Why? That is not the goal at all. This is an unrealistic expectation of any class. The purpose is to demonstrate that the monk can be a reliable and useful member of the party. It is not to show that the monk is better than anyone else. This type of thinking is the reason why people have problems with certain classes. It is a binary thought process. It's saying the character is all or nothing.
How tall and wide do you imagine the typical door in a small roadside pub/inn is? How big do you think the typical private room in that inn is and how many people do you think would the innkeeper expect to keep in each room?
Not sure how doors would be trouble, aside from having to duck and enter shoulder first, how do you imagine it?
He's a barbarian. Why would he care? He can use Survival and stay outdoors. Squeezing through doors isn't a problem. If worse comes to worse, we can assume some of the wealth is spent on either Enlarge potions. They aren't expensive and he only needs 4 to 5 per day.
Why would he care? Because the rest of the party is probably going to want to spend the night in the inn and the upper class Mr. Johnson who wants to hire the party for a job (which the Barbarian might want to make a comment or two about) is going to want to talk to the party with his feet propped up on a plushy ottomon - not a stone in the mud.
The player running the Barbarian may actually want to participate in the game during the social encounters that take place in the inn rather than just sit back and thumb through rules books while waiting for the rest of the party to exit the inn.
Oh now it's just getting hokey. May be the dude is actually pretty content with not contributing to social situations.
This specific discussion now a weird intersection between RP and mechanics, and it can go in any direction honestly. Hell, the GM could even use the Barbarians newfound size as part of an adventure hook. Who wouldn't be a little amused by a Gulliver's Travels kinds of adventure?
He's a barbarian. Why would he care? He can use Survival and stay outdoors. Squeezing through doors isn't a problem. If worse comes to worse, we can assume some of the wealth is spent on either Enlarge potions. They aren't expensive and he only needs 4 to 5 per day.How tall and wide do you imagine the typical door in a small roadside pub/inn is? How big do you think the typical private room in that inn is and how many people do you think would the innkeeper expect to keep in each room?
Not sure how doors would be trouble, aside from having to duck and enter shoulder first, how do you imagine it?
Why would he care? Because the rest of the party is probably going to want to spend the night in the inn and the upper class Mr. Johnson who wants to hire the party for a job (which the Barbarian might want to make a comment or two about) is going to want to talk to the party with his feet propped up on a plushy ottomon - not a stone in the mud.
The player running the Barbarian may actually want to participate in the game during the social encounters that take place in the inn rather than just sit back and thumb through rules books while waiting for the rest of the party to exit the inn.
I don't think it's reasonable to worry about scenarios where the large PC will have problems. What if the party is dealing with giants? Would the large PC be at an advantage? What if the king was thinking that this rag-tag band of adventurers may have a difficult time but then he sees the 10-foot tall barbarian and feels more comfortable hiring them. What if the barbarian just keeps a potion (or wand) of reduce person handy so that he can be brought to normal size when the situations warrants? What if we just assume that the barbarian has a few potions of enlarge handy so that he is enlarged only in combat?
Role playing is something that will vary from campaign to campaign and we can't use it as a way to stop someone from having the character they want.
It wasn't a problem when I posted my enlarged dwarven monk earlier. I don't think it's fair to criticize Shadow's enlarged barbarian now. He said it was fair that I posted an enlarged monk. The same courtesy should be shown to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk is my favorite class as a concept, though not my favorite class. I tried playing one in 3.0 and never tried again. I thought it was the class I wanted to play, but it wasn't how I wanted to play it.
A few people in this thread have said monks could be fixed by relieving one of their stat requirements. The problem is, which to drop and how? (There are obviously other problems with the class but I'm singling this out.)
Str -- hit, damage
Dex -- AC, initiative, more AoOs, Reflex
Con -- HP, Fort
Wis -- AC, Will
The problem here is really that DEX is a broken stat for melee. STR is the logical stat to remove (martial arts in general are designed to use leverage rather than force, making them inherently finesse sports), but game mechanics make doing that a very poor option.
Here's my solution: give monks +1 damage for each bonus point of DEX as a class ability. Further, since STR monks don't benefit from this, give monks a second extra class ability: allow STR to affect your fort save.
That way, you can choose the type of monk you like. STR/WIS monks would have the benefits of a free feat (compared to finesse monks) and higher fort, while DEX/WIS monks would have equal damage (with finesse) and relaxed MAD. A lot of interconnected, cross-stat synergies, which is exactly how a monk should be IMHO.
Or something very similar.
|
stuffs
Mark me down as one of those that really prefers the idea of a DEX > STR monk and would like more support for it, though I'd still probably put a 12 in STR just to rationalize the Bruce Lee physique. :)
I've been in support of a "DEX for damage" feat for a while, but I'd never considered tying it into DEX directly and letting it synergize with STR. Curious how the ripple effects of that would play out.
Large is twice as large as medium. The character (who is already a Barbarian and, so, likely on the large side anyway) has magic put on him to _permanantly_ make him Large (ie. twice as big as he already is). He's willingly turning himself into a magical freak who will find it difficult to interact with people of his own species. He'll find it nearly impossible to find a member of the sex he's attracted to who will find him appealing. He'll find it next to impossible (if not just plain impossible) to use any social structure made for his species (whether it is a Barbarian longhouse or a roadside pub). Wherever he walks among his own kind he will be a social outcast sticking out like a sore thumb and treated like a freak (with all the social discrimination that entails). And why? So that he can get a couple of more bonuses in combat. I mean, if he wants to play a character like this, he can. But there are going to be consequences.
There may be consequences in the campaign, if this was a character built for a campaign. It is not. It is meant to showcase the barbarian mimicking a monk.
You are also putting limitations on his character that may never occur. Andre the Giant was able to do just fine. Robert Wadlow didn't have any problems making friends. He managed to fit into society. Bao Xishun has been sought out by others because of his great height. He was asked to help remove stuff from dolphins' stomachs. He is married and has a daughter. He routinely slept outside. Being large may not be a problem in some cultures. His size may be seen as a boon. Role playing isn't just about finding the negatives. It's also about using a potential negative as a positive. Being really big isn't so much of a freak as some of the sorcerer bloodlines, or dragon disciple, or tieflings, or tengu, or wild shaped druids, or barbarians that grow teeth and claws when they rage, etc...
As I said, no one complained when my monk had permanent Enlarge Person on him. In addition, it's easy to just have temporary Enlarge Person available for each combat.
"Where does he poop?"
My first guess is, wherever he wants. :)
I just wanted to put in that everyone is an absolute freak post 5th level. It's a wonder anyone who has heard about you doesn't cower in fear at the sight of you. A 6th level Barbarian can pick up a stick and tear through a brick wall with it in a matter of seconds without even going into a rage (1d6 club, 22 strength = +9 damage wielded with 2 hands, power attack adds +6 damage, a stone wall has 8 hardness, and if you full attack the wall then 2d6+20 damage is going through).
You thing being large would be a problem? Man, try to find a date when everyone's afraid that you might get angry and vaporize them. Some women are afraid you might hit them. Maybe people are naturally afraid of monks because those freaks can break wooden boards with their hands and bend swords on their stomachs. That's not natural. That's scary. You're a freak. You don't even stay human! One day you're going to turn into an outsider and people will recognize you for the monster you are because suddenly Knowledge (Local) doesn't work on you! :P
...
I hate that the immediate concerns that leap out at me for permanently enlarged characters are "There goes his/her love life" and "Where does he poop?"
I assure you. A fellow double the size of a normal man? I'm pretty sure he can find somebody that would be interested. *wink*
Edit: Especially since it can be really nice to be held in the arms of a big strong man. Look at some super heroes in comic books. Even Ben Grimm gets the lady in the Fantastic Four movie, and he's not just really big, he turned into a stone-skinned dude.
I read a piece of investigative journalism on Andre the Giant and it talked about him running into all kinds of problems. What source did you read that said he didn't have any?
And who cares about things like wild shaped druids? We've been talking about a permanent freak, not somebody who can occassionally take on a freakish form.
But, really, I'm not interested in taking some set of scribbles on a piece of paper and comparing it to a character. It's pointless and arbitary. Characters are set in worlds where things like discrimination and obviousness have an impact - even impact the ability to achieve success in an adventure (a 10-13 foot lumbering creature is a bit less subtle than someone who can pass themself off as a commoner).
He had a lot of physical problems but he was not considered such a freak that he couldn't fit into society. He did well for himself. He found what he was good at and he did it. Almost like an enlarged barbarian would do.
None of this really matters in the end though. Shadow can just use temporary ways of being enlarged often enough that it can just be accounted for for all his combats. The end result is the same.
There may be consequences in the campaign, if this was a character built for a campaign. It is not. It is meant to showcase the barbarian mimicking a monk.You are also putting limitations on his character that may never occur. Andre the Giant was able to do just fine. Robert Wadlow didn't have any problems making friends. He managed to fit into society. Bao Xishun has been sought out by others because of his great height. He was asked to help remove stuff from dolphins' stomachs. He is married and has a daughter. He routinely slept outside. Being large may not be a problem in some cultures. His size may be seen as a boon. Role playing isn't just about finding the negatives. It's also about using a potential negative as a positive. Being really big isn't so much of a freak as some of the sorcerer bloodlines, or dragon disciple, or tieflings, or tengu, or wild shaped druids, or barbarians that grow teeth and claws when they rage, etc...
As I said, no one complained when my monk had permanent Enlarge Person on him. In addition, it's easy to just have...
Not just for this post but thank you bob, and thank you for the enlarge person calculation, that looks like the value I used.
Monk has an extra feat and an extra attack, but can't take some of the better combat feats because they don't meet the prerequisites. Monk is way better with saves.
Barbarian has better movement, better single attack damage, and can rage much more often than stunning fist will come into play, and has more hit points.
Don't see a big split at this point. Basically extra feat, 3 good saves vs 1 and a 2nd attack seems equal to fast movement, rage and more hit points and +1 to hit.
I have to disagree with this assessment actually, The second attack= rage/+1 to hit, Extra feat can make the difference in hit points, I Suppose saves can = movement (even if I couldn't care about reflex in the slightest), Then I also have a reliable combat maneuver. I'd say that puts me at +1 (granted this is level one and no one really shines)
Monk gets another bonus feat, so now has a 2 feat lead plus evasion and another +1 to all saves.
Barbarian effectively loses movement advantage to improve AC (an gain armor check penalties...) and gains a rage power.
Still look pretty equal to me at this point. Barbarian can take more hits and does more damage in a single attack, but still only has one attack, has two less feats, and lost all of his mobility advantage and is way behind on saves.
Okay so Feat = rage power (depending on if the feat you took matches the versatility intimidating glare gives me, I can't remember what you took but I think its equal) so those essentially cancel out, I will openly admit my will needs improving at this level, but as you again forgot about me having a reliable maneuver to contribute to combat this does put us at equal.
So I give it to me level 1 (barely, and who cares? it's level one) and we both make a good monk at level 2. Personally I think I will start jumping ahead but we will wait until you get back to levels 3-5 before I post 6-10 (which I have written up)
Characters are set in worlds where things like discrimination and obviousness have an impact - even impact the ability to achieve success in an adventure (a 10-13 foot lumbering creature is a bit less subtle than someone who can pass themself off as a commoner).
And yet, we live in a world in which men take drugs that wreck their health, skew their emotions, and shrink their junk just to get a little stronger.
We also don't live in a world in which there are countless twelve foot tall sentient creatures, either.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that farfetched or ridiculous to me, which seems to be your point: that consequences would be so severe that no adequately roleplayed character would take them on.
RP is always tied to mechanics. There's nothing particularly weird about that.
As for the character not wanting to be involved in any social situations, do you roleplay at all?
I guess I should've chosen my words more carefully. It's not that Mechanics impacting RP is weird, but that mechanics always impacting RP in a very particular fashion is weird to me.
While it's possible that everything you described occurs, making if very difficult for the individual, it's also possible for there to be less severe, even favorable reactions towards enlarged permanency.
Mechanical interactions can breed great deals of creativity.
As for the social situations - Some dudes just want the quest giver to point them in the right direction and kill. They could care little for detective work, dinner parties, politics, etc. Other dudes find combat boring, and build dudes that excell in other aspects.
I've gamed with both kinds of folk.
Granted if you more specifically asked if I ever RP'd an enlarged person, then no.
I've seen half-giants referred to as "the big guy". :)
If you all must know, in towns and such I wear a business suit with sunglasses and say I'm the wizards hired muscle. No one questions the hired muscle. :P
Then again being large is the least of my problems when I'm level 12 and have big horns and spikes growing from my body.
Edit: If no one could tell I'm kidding, but point is, most adventurers are weird in one way or the other, some of those scenarios have to be a joke.
If you all must know, in towns and such I wear a business suit with sunglasses and say I'm the wizards hired muscle. No one questions the hired muscle. :P
Then again being large is the least of my problems when I'm level 12 and have big horns and spikes growing from my body.
Edit: If no one could tell I'm kidding, but point is, most adventurers are weird in one way or the other, some of those scenarios have to be a joke.
What? Silliness in Pathfinder? No wai, this is serious business.
You're only Spiked up when you're angry anyways, so you'll have lots of opportunities to look dapper in that suite of yours.
What? Silliness in Pathfinder? No wai, this is serious business.
You're only Spiked up when you're angry anyways, so you'll have lots of opportunities to look dapper in that suite of yours.
Well that's good, suits from another realm are very hard to come by, I'd hate to ruin it with lots of spike caused holes.
Well that's good, suits from another realm are very hard to come by, I'd hate to ruin it with lots of spike caused holes.
Oh that's nothing a little mending won't fix. And since you're the Wizard's Muscle, no reason it's not part of the benefits plan.
Oh that's nothing a little mending won't fix. And since you're the Wizard's Muscle, no reason it's not part of the benefits plan.
Well that's good, suits from another realm are very hard to come by, I'd hate to ruin it with lots of spike caused holes.
The funniest part is my job is literally the wizards muscle, if he is ever even close to danger I am built to run down anything in my path and hurl it away from him.
stuffsMark me down as one of those that really prefers the idea of a DEX > STR monk and would like more support for it, though I'd still probably put a 12 in STR just to rationalize the Bruce Lee physique. :)
I've been in support of a "DEX for damage" feat for a while, but I'd never considered tying it into DEX directly and letting it synergize with STR. Curious how the ripple effects of that would play out.
My guess is that it'd put the other classes one up on the Monk once again, so I'd say it should rather be tied to the Monk itself ( or any other class which would like to use DEX for damage, like my home-brewn Swashbuckler class ) via an "Monks only" feat.
|
|
I used it for the first monk I posted. No one questioned it then and I mentioned it before and after that I was going to do it. I think it's only fair that Shadow can do the same thing. I completely forgot to do it for my second monk. That would have increased his damage and reach nicely.
Oh sorry tottally spaced on the name, I used a value I thought I saw earlier in the thread, I cant remember what it was, either you can find it or wait till I get off work at 9. If it was wrong, and I dont permanancy very often so it could be, I wouldnt think a caster would charge double, the value I used appeared to be more 150% which makes more sense too me. Their is a price in the book for charging for spells depending on level, i dont have my book (at work, so obviously) but I suppose we should at that value to the 2500 and ill adjust accordingly.This is a GM style thing. In games I play you would have to role play the hell out of finding a 9th level wizard who was willing to cast it on you, and then you would have a hell of a time for the rest of the game getting through doors.
I don't see being permanently enlarged as viable. Ironically, if it were it would benefit monks just as much if not more considering how quickly unarmed goes up with increased size.
I honestly didn't notice or I would have commented the same way.
In our games, if you have a giant barbarian following you around it would effect how people interact with you. Additionally, with all the threads complaining about Cavaliers and mounts not being able to "fit" in dungeons, the permanently enlarged character would have the same issues.
It probably wouldn't be allowed by most of the GMs I played with, and if it was it would have serious in game problems. Seems like a cheese move to me.
But YMMV.
|
|
I read a piece of investigative journalism on Andre the Giant and it talked about him running into all kinds of problems. What source did you read that said he didn't have any?
And who cares about things like wild shaped druids? We've been talking about a permanent freak, not somebody who can occassionally take on a freakish form.
But, really, I'm not interested in taking some set of scribbles on a piece of paper and comparing it to a character. It's pointless and arbitary. Characters are set in worlds where things like discrimination and obviousness have an impact - even impact the ability to achieve success in an adventure (a 10-13 foot lumbering creature is a bit less subtle than someone who can pass themself off as a commoner).He had a lot of physical problems but he was not considered such a freak that he couldn't fit into society. He did well for himself. He found what he was good at and he did it. Almost like an enlarged barbarian would do.
None of this really matters in the end though. Shadow can just use temporary ways of being enlarged often enough that it can just be accounted for for all his combats. The end result is the same.
Yes, and Andre the Giant was a medium creature. A 10 foot tall creature is three feet taller than Andre the Giant.
This is part of the issue with the metrics, are we creating builds that are realistically playable in most campaigns to hit false numbers.
In my builds I actually acquired what was reasonable to acquire at each level and build to be versatile rather than hit a number (Point blank, handy haversack, neither helps hit a number, both are very useful in game) and that is how I think most people play.
(all your monk builds)I don't think your AC is high enough.
Looking at your guy from level 6 and my last guy at level 6, yours is a 20 and mine is a 23. Not only is that a 15% difference on the d20 roll but with an attack of +12, the baddie hits me 50% of the time, so he hits you 65%.2+ hits and your dead (25 high damage, you have 51 HP, so basically)
Now granted you can flurry. But at a +7 Flurry, you hit on 12s+ (45%). If we assume it only gets that one attack at +12, then you're probably ok.
Since the monk is in a party of 4, I don't see this as a problem in the slightest. Remember that I don't have to stay there and trade blows if I'm getting my butt handed to me. I can get farther away than the enemy can move and I can heal then go back for more.
Also remember that all of my "rounds to live" calculations are rounded up to the next whole number. So 2.01 and 2.99 are both 3 rounds. This can make a difference as well.
I was under the impression that this was purely a Monk vs CRx dude, with no party around him for healing etc... but hell, if there's a party, and I can have a Rogue or Fighter/Barb, my build just takes the Teamwork Feat that gives an additional +2 when I flank my opponent.
Wreck Face, Rinse and Repeat
I honestly didn't notice or I would have commented the same way.
In our games, if you have a giant barbarian following you around it would effect how people interact with you. Additionally, with all the threads complaining about Cavaliers and mounts not being able to "fit" in dungeons, the permanently enlarged character would have the same issues.
It probably wouldn't be allowed by most of the GMs I played with, and if it was it would have serious in game problems. Seems like a cheese move to me.
But YMMV.
Yes, and Andre the Giant was a medium creature. A 10 foot tall creature is three feet taller than Andre the Giant.
This is part of the issue with the metrics, are we creating builds that are realistically playable in most campaigns to hit false numbers.
In my builds I actually acquired what was reasonable to acquire at each level and build to be versatile rather than hit a number (Point blank, handy haversack, neither helps hit a number, both are very useful in game) and that is how I think most people play.
Yeah my build is realistically something I'd play, being large is very manageable in smaller sized areas because the penalties only just offset the bonuses and people aren't going to notice him as much as an alchemist with four arms a tumor and a second person hanging off him.
<<< this is fine but possibly being seen as a half giant isn't? Or are alchemists and synthisist summoners stoned to death in your games?You have the handy haversack... I have the gold to buy off the wall things to in the 6-10 levels, I just didn't find them all that important to put down because what I would get would be campaign dependent.
Side note, cavaliers don't fit for very different reasons, one, when squeezing or just in a dungeon in general you cant get a charge off, two, your a large and a half creature with you and your horse not just a large.
I was under the impression that this was purely a Monk vs CRx dude, with no party around him for healing etc... but hell, if there's a party, and I can have a Rogue or Fighter/Barb, my build just takes the Teamwork Feat that gives an additional +2 when I flank my opponent.
Wreck Face, Rinse and Repeat
Their is also a weapon enchantment that gives you another plus two when flanking.
For anyone interested Levels 6-10
Level 6
Stats: DEX 10 (+0) Decided on my human bonus (Just assume levels 1-5 have one more AC)
AC: 20 (+7 armor, +3 shield, +1 ring, -1 size) 18 rage
HP: 61 (73 rage)
Feats: same
Gear: same + Amulet of mighty fists (Furious +2 attack/damage while raging), Ring of protection (+1)
Saving throws 8/2/4
Rage powers: Same + Overbearing Advance
CMB: +15 (+5 STR, +6 BAB, +4 size), 18 overrun/bull rush, 19 rage, 22 raging overrun/bull rush
CMD: 28, 31 overrun/bull rush, 32 rage, 35 raging overrun/bull rush.
Attack +15/+10 2d6+7 or +13/+8 2d6+11
700 GP
Abilities: No grapple penalties, Fast movement (40)
DPR: 13.5+9=22.5, 20.25 using bull rush as second attack
Level 7
Stats: STR 22 (+6), 26 rage (+8)
AC: 20 (+7 armor, +3 shield, +1 ring, -1 size) 18 rage
HP: 69 (83 rage)
Feats: Same + Charge through
Gear: Same + Belt of giant STR (+2), Cloak of resistance (+2)
Saving throws 9/3/5
Rage powers: Same
CMB: +17 (+6 STR, +7 BAB, +4 size), 20 bull rush/overrun, 21 rage, 24 raging overrun/bull rush
CMD: 30, 33 overrun/bull rush, 34 rage, 37 raging overrun/bull rush.
Attack +17/+12 2d6+8 or +15/+10 2d6+12
1200 GP
Abilities: No grapple penalties, Fast movement (40), Damage reduction 1/-
DPR: 16.15+12.35= 26.5, 25.65 using bull rush as second attack.
Level 8
Stats: STR 23 (+6), 27 rage (+8), WIS 14 (+2)
AC: 22 (+8 armor, +4 shield, +1 ring, -1 size) 20 rage
HP: 72 (88 rage)
Feats: Same
Gear: Same + Headband of wisdom (+2), Armor/shield (+2)
Saving throws 10/3/6
Rage powers: Same + Terrifying howl
CMB: +18 (+6 STR, +8 BAB, +4 size), 21 bull rush/overrun, 22 rage, 25 raging overrun/bull rush
CMD: 31, 34 overrun/bull rush, 35 rage, 38 raging overrun/bull rush.
Attack +18/+13 2d6+8 or +15/+10 2d6+14
1200 GP
Abilities: No grapple penalties, Fast movement (40), Damage reduction 1/-
DPR: 15.75+10.5=26.25, 21.25 using bull rush as second attack.
Level 9
Stats: Same
AC: 22 (+8 armor, +4 shield, +1 ring, -1 size) 20 rage
HP: 91 (109 rage)
Feats: Same + Greater bull rush
Gear: Same + Cloak of resistance (+3), (In a real game I’d probably ask the party to pool together for an owl figurine to scout with, 1850 GP each person)
Saving throws 11/5/8
Rage powers: Same
CMB: +19 (+6 STR, +9 BAB, +4 size), 22 overrun, 23 rage, 24 bull rush, 26 raging overrun, 28 raging bull rush
CMD: 32, 36 overrun/rage, 37 bull rush, 39 raging overrun, 41 raging bull rush.
Attack +19/+14 2d6+8 or +16/+11 2d6+14
9200 GP
Abilities: No grapple penalties, Fast movement (40), Damage reduction
1/-
DPR: 14.7+10.5=25.2, 20.2 using bull rush as second attack.
Level 10
Stats: Same
AC: 22 (+8 armor, +4 shield, +1 ring, -1 size) 20 rage
HP: 98 (118 rage)
Feats: Same
Gear: Same +
Saving throws 12/5/8
Rage powers: Same + Fiend totem- lesser (or overbearing onslaught, I can’t decide which to grab first)
CMB: +20 (+6 STR, +10 BAB, +4 size), 23 overrun, 24 rage, 25 bull rush, 27 raging overrun, 29 raging bull rush
CMD: 33, 37 overrun/rage, 38 bull rush, 40 raging overrun, 42 raging bull rush.
Attack +22/+17 2d6+10 or +19/+14 2d6+16
9200 GP
Abilities: No grapple penalties, Fast movement (40), Damage reduction 2/-
DPR: 17.25+12.65= 29.9, 22.25 using bull rush as my second attack.
So yeah a lot of un-spent gold and some indecision on level ten rage powers but this is the basic 6-10. Using bull rush for my second attack seems very good for just about all of these, which keeps the enemy at one attack.
|
|
I honestly didn't notice or I would have commented the same way.
In our games, if you have a giant barbarian following you around it would effect how people interact with you. Additionally, with all the threads complaining about Cavaliers and mounts not being able to "fit" in dungeons, the permanently enlarged character would have the same issues.
It probably wouldn't be allowed by most of the GMs I played with, and if it was it would have serious in game problems. Seems like a cheese move to me.
But YMMV.
Yes, and Andre the Giant was a medium creature. A 10 foot tall creature is three feet taller than Andre the Giant.
This is part of the issue with the metrics, are we creating builds that are realistically playable in most campaigns to hit false numbers.
In my builds I actually acquired what was reasonable to acquire at each level and build to be versatile rather than hit a number (Point blank, handy haversack, neither helps hit a number, both are very useful in game) and that is how I think most people play.
Yeah my build is realistically something I'd play, being large is very manageable in smaller sized areas because the penalties only just offset the bonuses and people aren't going to notice him as much as an alchemist with four arms a tumor and a second person hanging off him.
<<< this is fine but possibly being seen as a half giant isn't? Or are alchemists and synthisist summoners stoned to death in your games?You have the handy haversack... I have the gold to buy off the wall things to in the 6-10 levels, I just didn't find them all that important to put down because what I would get would be campaign dependent.
Side note, cavaliers don't fit for very different reasons, one, when squeezing or just in a dungeon in general you cant get a charge off, two, your a large and a half creature with you and your horse not just a large.
Strange builds are considered strange in my games, yes. And I can't think of an AP where being large at 3rd level wouldn't be a problem.
Like I said, YMMV, but in our group it would be vetoed as a cheese build to 1) have to recruit a 9th level NPC to do something for you at 3rd level and 2) Put a permanent enlarge effect on a PC outside of a monster game.
Strange builds are considered strange in my games, yes. And I can't think of an AP where being large at 3rd level wouldn't be a problem.
Like I said, YMMV, but in our group it would be vetoed as a cheese build to 1) have to recruit a 9th level NPC to do something for you at 3rd level and 2) Put a permanent enlarge effect on a PC outside of a monster game.
Why have enlarge under permanency if you weren't meant to use it? Any example of a couple AP instances where being large would cause issue?
No wonder the monk shines in your games, he is the only character the gods don't smite for being weird. I am not sure how being large is cheesy either, no rules were twisted in any way to achieve it.
An assassin attacks the mayor your talking to and the dragon sorcerer grows claws and breaths fire to kill him, mayor shouts "he's a demon!! Kill him!!" no dragon sorcerers then. Just about everything the alchemist does is freaky juju stuff so obviously those get punished. Poor edilions are stuck being huge.... I suppose no one plays a frontline summoner in your games either... See now this is just getting too restricting, in a game where adventures are excepted for being weird (there's lots of them, you'd think people would be use to it) monks aren't as useful because everyone else isn't being burned at the stake.
Oh yeah and No high level caster needed just like buying any other magic item.