The AoMF should not be discounted in these discussions just because of cost. Once they can be afforded, they are very useful.
As can armor spikes, and enchanted daggers. And eventually a Ring of Freedom of Movement.
this thread has over 1000 posts.... ouch
goin for the record!
youre welcome for the thread
I just realized that my monks have a major problem with their DPR. For the single attack, I used BAB equal to monk level. I'm not going to go back and correct them. Someone else can if they want. Just note that the DPR is lower for single attacks.
Sorry about that error.
As for what "relevant comparison" means, it means "a comparison which looks at the things that we actually care about". For example, the fact that a monk can enter a noisy pub dressed as a commoner and eavesdrop on the conversation taking place on the other side of the inn without the monk exposing itself to danger by being unarmed and without raising suspicion is actually something we should care about.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the Monk being too MAD
But if that's what you'd like to talk about. The Sorcerer can do that as well. As can a Disguised Rogue.
point purchases shows the monk no mercy.
that is why they are bad.
it also why rolling your monk's stats would do better.this thread has over 1000 posts.... ouch
This is demonstrably false. Go look at both monk builds I posted. They go from levels 1 to 20 and are both 15 point buy. Both monks are useful additions to the party in combat. Skills can be changed around to keep them useful out of combat. 20 and 25 point buy would obviously make them better but point buy does not hurt the monk at all.
ok, this is my "screw stunning fist, acrobatic, Mobile Monk Man"
LVL 6
Monk of the Four Winds Archtype, Dwarf
AC: 23 (27, Mobility)
HP: 51
Str 13, Dex 21, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 6
Saves: +7/+10/+7Init: +9
Unarmed: +10, d8+1
Flurry: +10/+10/+5, d8+1
Elemental Fist: 6/day +d6Feats: Dodge (Monk), Weapon Finesse, Mobility, Combat Reflexes (Monk), Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike, Improved Initiative
Skills: Acro +14, Perception +11, Stealth +14
Equipment: Bracers of Armor +2, Belt of Dex +2, Amulet of Nat Armor +2. 0 GPTarget CR 6
AC: 19 (hit 60%, Flurry 60/35%)
HP: 70 (5.5 dmg per hit, dead after 12ish hits)
Attack: +12 or +8 (hits 50% or 30%; 25%/5% for AoO)
PrimAbility: DC 16 (hits bad save 40%, good 25%)and since there will probably be another Melee PC, we'll both take Outflank next. And hit everything all the time
Levels before this? just judging by feats and equipment I'm not sure you hold effectiveness until now. Also, what is his role? not a maneuver based monk so none of that, not a stunning fist user (obviously). So I have to assume tank or DPR machine
My first and biggest gripe is, he doesn't have a name ;). next thing I noticed is, your dpr is 9.35, takes you 7-8 rounds to kill something, Even taking the lower monsters attack and damage they do 12.6 to you. They kill you first. What is your plan with this guy? he is too weak to harass around the battlefield, he can't run around using maneuvers, and he can't stun things, so what was your intent?
Oh yeah add INT 8, CHA 6, and people are saying I'm terrible for being size large.
As can armor spikes, and enchanted daggers. And eventually a Ring of Freedom of Movement.
The AoMF should not be discounted in these discussions just because of cost. Once they can be afforded, they are very useful.
The difference is that the monk only needs to invest in the amulet. Swallowed whole? He has his weapons ready. Grappled? He doesn't need to draw anything. Disarmed? What's that? The amulet is more cost effective than weapons simply because it's essentially enhancing more than 2 weapons.
Levels before this? just judging by feats and equipment I'm not sure you hold effectiveness until now. Also, what is his role? not a maneuver based monk so none of that, not a stunning fist user (obviously). So I have to assume tank or DPR machineMy first and biggest gripe is, he doesn't have a name ;). next thing I noticed is, your dpr is 9.35, takes you 7-8 rounds to kill something, Even taking the lower monsters attack and damage they do 12.6 to you. They kill you first. What is your plan with this guy? he is too weak to harass around the battlefield, he can't run around using maneuvers, and he can't stun things, so what was your intent?
Oh yeah add INT 8, CHA 6, and people are saying I'm terrible for being size large.
The numbers are around the same for levels 1,2,4 and 5. Level 3 sucks because its still d6 unarmed.
I was actually trying to make the point that even just going Str, Dex, Wis and ignoring Con (base 12 +2 Dwarf) it still gets murdered by monsters.
The difference is that the monk only needs to invest in the amulet. Swallowed whole? He has his weapons ready. Grappled? He doesn't need to draw anything. Disarmed? What's that? The amulet is more cost effective than weapons simply because it's essentially enhancing more than 2 weapons.As can armor spikes, and enchanted daggers. And eventually a Ring of Freedom of Movement.
The AoMF should not be discounted in these discussions just because of cost. Once they can be afforded, they are very useful.
agreed its more cost effective. But it takes longer to get there in the first place.
(got work in 8 hours, be back tomorrow)
The numbers are around the same for levels 1,2,4 and 5. Level 3 sucks because its still d6 unarmed.I was actually trying to make the point that even just going Str, Dex, Wis and ignoring Con (base 12 +2 Dwarf) it still gets murdered by monsters.
Fair enough, I think you proved that well.
Then you're being disingenuous. No criticism was made of the idea of a fighter character dumping points into UMD and carrying scrolls (though depending on scrolls has it's own problems). The character was criticized for being permanently enlarged and it wouldn't matter how they became permanently enlarged.
And, to be frank, you know that. You are being deliberately disingenuous. That makes me care less about your attempt to make a point.
Two posted monks have been permanently enlarged, and every single one (besides ciretose's) has dumped stats, (sometimes lower then 7), yet everyone con-monk lets it slide, the moment a build that doesn't dump does the same thing, you throw a fit about it.
Yes if the monk is the only one aloud to use his resources given he is awesome, in your average campaign, where that isn't true, he isn't.
As for what "relevant comparison" means, it means "a comparison which looks at the things that we actually care about". For example, the fact that a monk can enter a noisy pub dressed as a commoner and eavesdrop on the conversation taking place on the other side of the inn without the monk exposing itself to danger by being unarmed and without raising suspicion is actually something we should care about.
So can anyone with a hat of disguise, any non-melee class doesn't even need one of those. What else can he do?
There are many aspects of what we're discussing - only one of which is the MAD issue. Ultimately, we're talking about -characters- and, as such, what matters is the gestalt.As for Rogues and Sorcerers also being able to enter a noisy room and eavesdrop on what's going on on the other side of the room without drawing notice to themselves or putting themselves at risk, yes, but we wer talkng about fighters vs. monks. If you'd like to discuss how monks comare to rogues or sorcerers, we can do that.
We can't just say that there's only one thing that matters wrt comparing one class to another. I don't believe that I'm the only one who realizes that fact. So, why do I have to waste time pointing that fat out?
I'm pretty sure we are talking about more then fighter Vs. monk, the thing in question is whether or not the monk can contribute to anything with reliability. He isn't contributing to that eavesdropping if the sorcerer is already doing it just fine before he showed up.
My OP states Monks are mad. Not that they arent valuable outside of combat. Although i didnt specify that they were either.
However, it seems youre now pointing out everything else besides combat because the Monk can't handle himself well enough in it while being MAD.
I fear that talking about outsside combat will bring in my love for the Rogue that will outclass anything the Monk can do as well as be of the same usefulness in combat.
If you claim the Monk can stealth up to an enemy, so can the Rogue.
etc and so on
|
Hrm, I want to contribute to this debate so much but it seems its mostly out of my specialization. mainly, Single classed characters, as I have had at the latest 2 single classed characters.
Okay, Maybe I can add something. The OP was that Monks are MAD, I must first ask, is this an inherently bad thing or is it that it just does not blossom as fast as people would want?
There are all kinds of problems with your arguement here
1.) What if there isn't a Rogue or a Sorcerer in the party with the relevant skills/spells? Keep in mind that if all the Rogue has is stealth and perception skills, well, the monk is going to have a far btter perception as well as a competitive stealth.
2.) The party would benefit from having more that one character with this ability. For one, they can back each other up in case something goes wrong. For another, one player may not be able to make it to game night, so another player can fill in.
1) then the wizard, druid, summoner, bard, (insert light armor class here) can do it, if you only have big full plate party members (and a monk) sure it is useful, but in that party the monk should have been a bard.
2) See 1, there are so many classes that can do this that the monk will almost always be the worse choice.
@hyperion: considering all but one monk (and I couldn't figure out that ones purpose) build dumped stats to 6 and 7 I'd say question answered.
There are all kinds of problems with your arguement here
1.) What if there isn't a Rogue or a Sorcerer in the party with the relevant skills/spells? Keep in mind that if all the Rogue has is stealth and perception skills, well, the monk is going to have a far btter perception as well as a competitive stealth.
2.) The party would benefit from having more that one character with this ability. For one, they can back each other up in case something goes wrong. For another, one player may not be able to make it to game night, so another player can fill in.1) then the wizard, druid, summoner, bard, (insert light armor class here) can do it, if you only have big full plate party members (and a monk) sure it is useful, but in that party the monk should have been a bard.
2) See 1, there are so many classes that can do this that the monk will almost always be the worse choice.
@hyperion: considering all but one monk (and I couldn't figure out that ones purpose) build dumped stats to 6 and 7 I'd say question answered.
To be fair, my monks were just built with the elite array and that comes with 1 dump stat. If I used 20 point buy there would have been no dump stats.
I agree that other classes can do some of the things a monk can do, btu then that means the reverse is also true: the monk can do some tbhings other classes can do. So depending on the campaign's needs, the monk may be just fine. For example, my players do not enjoy playinf clerics, druids, sorcerers, bards, alchemists, cavaliers, or oracles. We only have one person who enjoys wizards. The monk is a fine addition to this group because he can be mobile enough to provide flanking for the rogue or to protect the wizard or archer. He doesn't always get his flurry but he always feels useful. It needs to be noted that most of the enemies are medium so his greater trip comes in handy. Even against large creatures, he can do fine. The huge or bigger require different tactics.
To be fair, my monks were just built with the elite array and that comes with 1 dump stat. If I used 20 point buy there would have been no dump stats.
I agree that other classes can do some of the things a monk can do, btu then that means the reverse is also true: the monk can do some tbhings other classes can do. So depending on the campaign's needs, the monk may be just fine. For example, my players do not enjoy playinf clerics, druids, sorcerers, bards, alchemists, cavaliers, or oracles. We only have one person who enjoys wizards. The monk is a fine addition to this group because he can be mobile enough to provide flanking for the rogue or to protect the wizard or archer. He doesn't always get his flurry but he always feels useful. It needs to be noted that most of the enemies are medium so his greater trip comes in handy. Even against large creatures, he can do fine. The huge or bigger require different tactics.
Point taken on your monks.
It isn't that they can do what the monk can do, its that they do it better and have there own thing they really shine at, the monk can be decent at a few things (not jack of all trades, a few things) and is great at nothing.
Although yes, in a group like yours where over half the classes aren't used a monk can fill in (although you didn't mention rangers...)
To be fair, my monks were just built with the elite array and that comes with 1 dump stat. If I used 20 point buy there would have been no dump stats.
I agree that other classes can do some of the things a monk can do, btu then that means the reverse is also true: the monk can do some tbhings other classes can do. So depending on the campaign's needs, the monk may be just fine. For example, my players do not enjoy playinf clerics, druids, sorcerers, bards, alchemists, cavaliers, or oracles. We only have one person who enjoys wizards. The monk is a fine addition to this group because he can be mobile enough to provide flanking for the rogue or to protect the wizard or archer. He doesn't always get his flurry but he always feels useful. It needs to be noted that most of the enemies are medium so his greater trip comes in handy. Even against large creatures, he can do fine. The huge or bigger require different tactics.
Point taken on your monks.
It isn't that they can do what the monk can do, its that they do it better and have there own thing they really shine at, the monk can be decent at a few things (not jack of all trades, a few things) and is great at nothing.
Although yes, in a group like yours where over half the classes aren't used a monk can fill in (although you didn't mention rangers...)
I'm not convinced they can do everything the monk can do better consistently. I do agree that somethings they can do better.
The archer in my group is a ranger. There is also a barbarian/rogue. They make a good scouting team. The party consists of:
1) barbarian/rogue
2) ranger/shadow sorcerer/shadow scout/arcane archer
3) shield fighter
4) paladin
5) monk
6) two-handed fighter
7) wizard
8) inquisitor
It's rare that all 8 players are there every week. Usually it's 4 to 6 players. It's a large group and the Age of Worms is a hard adventure at upper levels. The target numbers from the Bestiary aren't even close to what the party is dealing with. I don't know how a 15 (25 in 3.5) point buy party of only 4 PCs is supposed to survive.
I should also mention that my players look at "fun" feats and abilities if they feel their characters are functional enough. They don't optimize beyond the basics.
Having 8 people makes it harder to see where any one is struggling, someone else can always pick up the slack.
Having 8 people makes it harder to see where any one is struggling, someone else can always pick up the slack.
As long as no one thinks they are struggling, then there aren't any issues. They always feel like they have something to do no matter what. In the end, that's what I strive for: fun for everyone. If someone starts to feel like they are lagging in some area, we see what we need to do to make corrections. Most of the time it's not a problem with mechanics though. It's a lack of understanding. This an issue with a couple players I have. They read every third word and skip most of those too. Once they understand how something works, they tend to do just fine.
Until you post what should be compared (between two classes) and justify it (so far, you've been unable to do so), you aren't ready for an example character to be posted. It'd be putting the cart before the horse. But by all means, let me know when you are ready for a character example to be posted.
I'm curious, because you do seem to have a good monk strategy, and while I would consider it inefficient, the fault may lie with the game rather than you.
1) Post a monk compared to a fighter for damage.
The fighter has the highest melee damage potential in the game.
2) Post a monk compared to a fighter for defense.
The fighter also has among the best physical defense.
3) Post a monk compared to a rogue for utility.
A rogue is the go-to skill-monkey.
Any you like, or all. I would consider viability to be 90%.
I'm curious, because you do seem to have a good monk strategy, and while I would consider it inefficient, the fault may lie with the game rather than you.
1) Post a monk compared to a fighter for damage.
The fighter has the highest melee damage potential in the game.2) Post a monk compared to a fighter for defense.
The fighter also has among the best physical defense.3) Post a monk compared to a rogue for utility.
A rogue is the go-to skill-monkey.Any you like, or all. I would consider viability to be 90%.
This is just going to be met with complaint on your options, a more broad approach was set up earlier and no one has given sufficient reason why it isn't a good metric to go by. This will just end in "monks aren't those classes and play differently"
This is just going to be met with complaint on your options, a more broad approach was set up earlier and no one has given sufficient reason why it isn't a good metric to go by. This will just end in "monks aren't those classes and play differently"
Well. If monks can't compete on an even field with the other classes at their roles, even with a 90% handicap (due to its hybrid nature), I could only conclude monks are broken, and only evidence would sway me.
Well. If monks can't compete on an even field with the other classes at their roles, even with a 90% handicap (due to its hybrid nature), I could only conclude monks are broken, and only evidence would sway me.
If it is their roles you shouldn't expect someone else to do it as well.
It works better to ask them to prove a monk can be a monk, not a monk can be a fighter, you don't ask the fighter to be a wizard do you? Only problem is I haven't yet seen a monk that can reliably be a monk. On the off chance of a good/bad roll sure he did something but it isn't 100 encounters worth of reliability.
Where is this string leading me along hundreds of posts...?
Fine.
Prove a monk can be a monk, and explain whatever that means.
Okay, I've had more play experience with my monk, and here's what I have for you guys and gals: another anecdote! (not that anyone is looking for one, but I thought wth)
When compared to the fighter in the group, I have a significantly better AC and saves, and nearly as many HP somehow. My damage, and accuracy, are a bit lacking (and I've had some bad rolls today on top of that). Though, doing any damage at all was better than the fighter has fared a couple of times; one battle where he was charmed for the whole thing and one where he was dominated and it was up to me, with a bit of assistance, to stop him from killing us all (I ended up grappling him while the cleric dispelled the magic). Mind both of us are way under WBL, else his AC and my damage would both be higher than they are currently.
So we've come to the conclusion that the numbers tell us anyway: I'm a better tank that's harder to defeat and he can pile up the damage with reach all day. Defense may not win the day in this game, but I've found that having so many defenses keeps me up and moving more than any other party member, and I'm in melee constantly.
I just wish some of my defenses were useful in the game so far. I haven't been targeted by a regular ranged attack at all with this monk. I have half a mind to retrain Deflect Arrows (my GM is allowing retraining).
Okay, I've had more play experience with my monk, and here's what I have for you guys and gals: another anecdote! (not that anyone is looking for one, but I thought wth)
When compared to the fighter in the group, I have a significantly better AC and saves, and nearly as many HP somehow. My damage, and accuracy, are a bit lacking (and I've had some bad rolls today on top of that). Though, doing any damage at all was better than the fighter has fared a couple of times; one battle where he was charmed for the whole thing and one where he was dominated and it was up to me, with a bit of assistance, to stop him from killing us all (I ended up grappling him while the cleric dispelled the magic). Mind both of us are way under WBL, else his AC and my damage would both be higher than they are currently.
So we've come to the conclusion that the numbers tell us anyway: I'm a better tank that's harder to defeat and he can pile up the damage with reach all day. Defense may not win the day in this game, but I've found that having so many defenses keeps me up and moving more than any other party member, and I'm in melee constantly.
I just wish some of my defenses were useful in the game so far. I haven't been targeted by a regular ranged attack at all with this monk. I have half a mind to retrain Deflect Arrows (my GM is allowing retraining).
Why did you have to grapple him before the cleric could dispel it? I assume the fighters next feat will be iron will xD it would be nice to have more offensive defense, but a mechanic like that would eat into the duelists parry/reposite ability.
Pardon me, but allow me to extrapolate:
Are you saying the roll of the monk is to run around assisting other combatants?
Pardon me, but allow me to extrapolate:
Are you saying the roll of the monk is to run around assisting other combatants?
That is what I've gathered from this thread.
On a side note. When I look at a monk I think terrain skill monkey, no non-living mass can stop him! Except terrain doesn't scale, so at higher levels that stops being the monks thing as well, and flying beats it outright.
|
Pardon me, but allow me to extrapolate:
Are you saying the roll of the monk is to run around assisting other combatants?
Quite often, yes.
Quite often the monk uses mobility to be a flanking buddy for spots others take two rounds to get to, or to save the casters ass when someone needs to run from the frontline to the back to intercept, etc...
The monk is a support class that can fill several roles, depending on what is lacking in that situation. Fighters are better tanks, but they aren't mobile and they have poor saves against spell effects. Rogues are better scouts, but they have weak saves, lower AC, and aren't as effective solo.
Monks are also caster killers, thanks to the them having high saves, high touch AC, and an attack that is against low save of most casters (fort).
Monks are the swiss army knife of melee classes. They do a lot of things well enough, if not as well as any one class at any one thing.
I think people miss the focus of the game. It's not all important to be super powerful. It's about having fun. A two handed fighter is almost always going to be doing the most damage, but its a trade-off in versatility and roleplay.
45% chance on a will save is under par but I look at it this way, I'm a fifth party member, using your will save attack on me means you didn't use it on the fighter, and guess who will be ending those spell effects (due to death) because you didn't? I can take it up to 50% if I use my human +2 bonus, I still haven't decided where to put that.[/url]
Well, being a 5th member means you're going up against more difficult opponents than in a 4 man party so that's kind of irrelevant. You have to take into account extra enemies using the spells, as well, as well as area effects.I generally don't care about reflex saves, grease isn't a big spell area, 10ft means with one DC 10 acrobatics check, passed easily with even a couple ranks, and I'm on the other side and in the wizards face. Other reflex saves are just damage and I have an HP buffer for that.What? Read the spell description again. DC 10 acrobatics doesn't negate the effect, it just means you can move through at half speed and there's no guarantee at all you're in the wizard's face. When that spell is used, there's usually a melee guy of some sort on the opposing side to keep you in place making rolls.
And it's not only grease. The pit spells as well as some wall spells are relevant as well, and bad reflex ~ bad touch AC (usually, and in this case). You're far more vulnerable to rays as well.
I think people miss the focus of the game. It's not all important to be super powerful. It's about having fun. A two handed fighter is almost always going to be doing the most damage, but its a trade-off in versatility and roleplay.
There is NOTHING about being a stock 2 handed fighter than inhibits role play. At all. Using the unique traits of your character build to help you role play(Ie, a sorcerer/paladin red dragon disciple who's working very hard to overcome his heritage) is one thing, RELYING on the mechanics is quite something else.
I think people miss the focus of the game. It's not all important to be super powerful. It's about having fun. A two handed fighter is almost always going to be doing the most damage, but its a trade-off in versatility and roleplay.
I fear you read it wrong. It's different - it belongs to how you imagine a caracter concept, and what te character can really do.
RP is not related directly with that. TH fighter is good not because deals "the most damage" but because in the tin is written that is a strightforward, powerful comabatant using big weapons and strenght to slay and push his opponents - and works exactly that way.
The monk.. I don't say is bad as in 3.5, but you must swear to accomplish what is written on the tin.
The objectives, dreams, mood, and characterisation of the characters you can create from those statblocks are a different thing. Is an important thing, maybe the most important I think, but is not the topic.
I am sincere - I start to be sick to see bad mechanics and hear designers, backed by people here, say "it's for roleplaying". REALLY sick.
Wooohoooo. Over a 1000 posts!!! Keep up the good work. I want to see you all get to 100,000 posts of crying and whining :-)
Wooohoooo. Over a 1000 posts!!! Keep up the good work. I want to see you all get to 100,000 posts of crying and whining :-)
Well, as of writing this, the thread is the second longest active thread in all of the Pathfinder RPG subforums. And for general discussion archives, it's the 6th longest.
I'd be excited to see 100k as well.
Especially since there's been a great deal of rigorous discussion on the nature of class roles and metrics, with some intermittent talk on the social impacts of enlarged permanency, and the creation of half-templates.
I think people miss the focus of the game. It's not all important to be super powerful. It's about having fun. A two handed fighter is almost always going to be doing the most damage, but its a trade-off in versatility and roleplay.
Telling people that how they play (or where they focus) is wrong doesn't endear them to change their mind.
Besides, plenty of folks like to play and focus mostly on the monster hunting aspect, because it's more fun than the skill challenge, or the RP, or the what have you. Making characters that excell in those fields isn't wrong, at least I don't think it is.
And while it's not important to be super powerful, to be effective at what you do is always nice. Nobody likes their character to languish in ineptitude (unless that's their character concept, but at that point, they're succeeding at being inept.)
Why did you have to grapple him before the cleric could dispel it? I assume the fighters next feat will be iron will xD it would be nice to have more offensive defense, but a mechanic like that would eat into the duelists parry/reposite ability.
Well, the cleric's initiative was quite low, he didn't immediately try to dispel, and his first attempt at dispelling failed. So, the fighter got a few swings in before he lost his domination. I have the highest maneuver numbers in the party, so it was up to me to disarm and/or grapple him to drop his offense while the magic was wearing off.
It's already been proven that a monk can be a monk. Read back through this thread and you'll see a ton of people posting about the monk they've (*gasp* here's a foreign concept *gasp*) -played- in a campaign and have had fun doing it. They feel like they've had their chance to shine in the game. That proves that a monk can be a monk pretty conclusively.The counter argument, well, I'm not even sure what the basis of the counter argument is suppossed to be given that the people on that side are unable to list what a relevant comparison should be based on let alone justify their list.
Just post your build.
If you are truly confident about it, then you shouldnt be hesitant.
There's no point in me going through the effort unless we first have some framework for comparison - frankly, I'm too lazy to do something pointless and it _will_ be pointless since you can't even figure out a framework for comparison.
It's already been proven that a monk can be a monk. Read back through this thread and you'll see a ton of people posting about the monk they've (*gasp* here's a foreign concept *gasp*) -played- in a campaign and have had fun doing it. They feel like they've had their chance to shine in the game. That proves that a monk can be a monk pretty conclusively.The counter argument, well, I'm not even sure what the basis of the counter argument is suppossed to be given that the people on that side are unable to list what a relevant comparison should be based on let alone justify their list.
Just post your build.
If you are truly confident about it, then you shouldnt be hesitant.
ONCE AGAIN, we have target numbers for combat. i'll figure out high and low CMDs for your maneuvers. skill checks will also be weighted into the equation
I want to know the point of your build and how he can contribute to a party of 4 others. The classic Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric. Then I want to see if he could replace one of the 4. He won't be considered a failure if he cant.
So, you think that a relevant comparison must look at CMDs, CMBs, and skill checks. Anything else? And what's your justification?
Well with the rest of your build ill be able to figure out to hit %s and avg damage.
A relevant comparison is basically everything that involves rolling a dice. Everything else is laid at the feet of the player.
You claim that builds we've put up arent comprehensive enough for whatever reason. Ive laid out your framework. Make a character that is useful to the party in ANY way. If this isnt sufficient enough for you, then i guess we're done.
Well with the rest of your build ill be able to figure out to hit %s and avg damage.So, you think that a character's value in a campaign is all about that character's to hit %s and avg damage and nothing else?
Are you even the same person on this username?
Because that would explain everything.I'll stick it all in one post so you won't have to scroll up. God forbid.
Hit %s
Avg dmg per hit
Avg dmg per round
Skill checks, all that your character has
You can even determine the party tactics, ie teamwork feats and flanking
CMBs vs CMDs
is there anything youd like to add to this list?
Wooohoooo. Over a 1000 posts!!! Keep up the good work. I want to see you all get to 100,000 posts of crying and whining :-)
Well, as of writing this, the thread is the second longest active thread in all of the Pathfinder RPG subforums. And for general discussion archives, it's the 6th longest.
I'd be excited to see 100k as well.
Especially since there's been a great deal of rigorous discussion on the nature of class roles and metrics, with some intermittent talk on the social impacts of enlarged permanency, and the creation of half-templates.
I think people miss the focus of the game. It's not all important to be super powerful. It's about having fun. A two handed fighter is almost always going to be doing the most damage, but its a trade-off in versatility and roleplay.
No one in this thread said they'd never ever play a Monk.
Pathfinder is about fun first and foremost, even for the power gamers.However, that doesnt mean that there arent serious flaws in the mechanics of the game.
Ive said it at least 3 times and I'll say it again. My OP asked for help. Maybe I had missed something. With this many responses and most of the posts/people agreeing with the flaws, I guess I haven't missed much.