There are essentially two types of people:
The first type wants everything in the world to be easily converted into a number, so that success can be objectively judged. They are uncomfortable with or downright dismissive of subjective criteria and anecotal evidence. Let's call them the math and science majors.
The second type, either because they aren't qualified to do the math or more likely because they think the math is insufficient (all the variables aren't known or even knowable)to tell the whole story, tends to dismiss or outright ridicule attempts to break everything down and judge it mathematically. They place high value on subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence. Let's call them the liberal arts majors.
I submit for your approval the following theory: Math and science majors tend to think the monk is horribly unplayable because that is what the mathematical evidence they trust most tells them, while liberal arts majors tend to think monks are pretty cool and effective because that is what the subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence they are most comfortable with tells them.
Follow-on theory: Neither type will ever convince the other. Hence 1000+ posts.
Me. I majored in politics in college. Guess where I stand.
There are essentially two types of people:
The first type wants everything in the world to be easily converted into a number, so that success can be objectively judged. They are uncomfortable with or downright dismissive of subjective criteria and anecotal evidence. Let's call them the math and science majors.
The second type, either because they aren't qualified to do the math or more likely because they think the math is insufficient (all the variables aren't known or even knowable)to tell the whole story, tends to dismiss or outright ridicule attempts to break everything down and judge it mathematically. They place high value on subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence. Let's call them the liberal arts majors.
I submit for your approval the following theory: Math and science majors tend to think the monk is horribly unplayable because that is what the mathematical evidence they trust most tells them, while liberal arts majors tend to think monks are pretty cool and effective because that is what the subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence they are most comfortable with tells them.
Follow-on theory: Neither type will ever convince the other. Hence 1000+ posts.
Me. I majored in politics in college. Guess where I stand.
If the liberal arts majors would stop arguing that the math is good enough without posting said math, things would go a lot smoother.
AGAIN, no one is saying it's unplayable. Nothing is unplayable (exceptions blah blah careface). It's a ROLE playing game. Which is fine. But we have yet to see a compelling argument that the Monk can be of use to a party as well as not being worthless in combat.
Hence my request to Lilith to post her build. Every bit of it. As well as her characters purpose outside of combat.
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 CMDsis there anything youd like to add to this list?
There's all kinds of things that I think should be added to the list. For example, you didn't touch at all on the character's ability to be a scout/spy.
Skill checks
Try again
Skill checks, alone, are not sufficient to make a good scout/spy. Try again.
It's feats and skill checks, nothing more.
Yes, the Monk being able to be visibly unarmed and walk around unnoticed is a plus. But at higher levels when he's wearing magic items, it's not so easy.
Post your build or quit arguing for something youre not even making an attempt to prove.
Skill checks, alone, are not sufficient to make a good scout/spy. Try again.
It's feats and skill checks, nothing more.
No, it's manueverability (high initiative, how much ground can be covered in half a move or in a full move, without gear), resistance to damage, wisdom as a prime attribute (due to it's boost to Perception), etc.
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a framework for comparison. So far, all you've provided is a half-assed attempt. Without a framework for comparison, there's no point in posting a character.
If you don't even have a "here's my build, this is what it does" then we're done. For all your talk about people have to play a Monk to be able to criticize it, you seem to have never played one.
Post a Monk build, that's better than a Rogue and being a Scout/Spy then, while still contributing in combat.
How hard is this?... seriously... instead of arguing point by point what I'm asking you to do, just do it.
they aren't bad i am going to make a werebear king who is a lvl3 monk with his natural armor and wis he will be a clawing toting facebiting machine!
of course he is the bbeg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are essentially two types of people:
The first type wants everything in the world to be easily converted into a number, so that success can be objectively judged. They are uncomfortable with or downright dismissive of subjective criteria and anecotal evidence. Let's call them the math and science majors.
The second type, either because they aren't qualified to do the math or more likely because they think the math is insufficient (all the variables aren't known or even knowable)to tell the whole story, tends to dismiss or outright ridicule attempts to break everything down and judge it mathematically. They place high value on subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence. Let's call them the liberal arts majors.
I submit for your approval the following theory: Math and science majors tend to think the monk is horribly unplayable because that is what the mathematical evidence they trust most tells them, while liberal arts majors tend to think monks are pretty cool and effective because that is what the subjective criteria and anecdotal evidence they are most comfortable with tells them.
Follow-on theory: Neither type will ever convince the other. Hence 1000+ posts.
Me. I majored in politics in college. Guess where I stand.
You're missing the entire point.
Any game with a halfway decent development team uses a BUDGET (read: mathematical judgement) to determine a certain amount of equality between classes (among other things). We seem to be having a great deal of trouble agreeing that monks measure up. Maybe it's because we don't understand the budget as well as we should, or maybe it's because some people seem to think "well, I can bend over backwords and make it passable, that means it's fine."
If there are qualities of a monk that are difficult to quantify, it's only because we haven't got an acceptable common denominator. It does NOT mean those qualities can't be quantified and compared.
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think this is a very fair question.
Looking at that group, I don't think he could replace any one of the four and have the group be as good. I think this is largely because those four are designed to fill in each others weaknesses.
Now if we have a party of a Druid, a Bard, a Ranger and a Monk, I think the monk actually fits better than a fighter, cleric or Rogue. That group doesn't really need a tank, and the bard and druid can take care of the healing. What it needs is someone to take those bard buffs and either flank with the ranger or engage the enemy at a distance so the ranger can spend more rounds plinking then with a bow.
If you have Sorcerer, Barbarian, Paladin group I think a monk fits better than a fighter, cleric or Wizard. The Paladin can channel heal, the Barbarian and Paladin aren't very good scouts, and another arcane caster would mean the Barbarian and Paladin would be stuck in "protect" mode rather than "attack" mode. The monk can wade in with them, but still be able to get back if the sorcerer gets into trouble.
A monk isn't a tank. If you need a tank to fill out your group, don't take a monk. A monk isn't a blaster, if you need a blaster to fill out your group don't take a monk.
Now if you have a group of utility classes, or you need a scout or mobile melee class to fill out your group, monk is your guy.
|
|
You're missing the entire point.
Any game with a halfway decent development team uses a BUDGET (read: mathematical judgement) to determine a certain amount of equality between classes (among other things). We seem to be having a great deal of trouble agreeing that monks measure up. Maybe it's because we don't understand the budget as well as we should, or maybe it's because some people seem to think "well, I can bend over backwords and make it passable, that means it's fine."
If there are qualities of a monk that are difficult to quantify, it's only because we haven't got an acceptable common denominator. It does NOT mean those qualities can't be quantified and compared.
Or he doesn't agree with your point.
If combat is the same each time, if every time you play you run up and hit the enemy and then wait to get hit back, the formula works fine.
But that is a horrible and boring game for most of us.
So far the call has been that a monk should be squaring off with enemies like a fighter. And while sometimes this is what a monk does, it depends entirely on what the monk is fighting.
On the other hand, running up and squaring off is pretty much what the fighter does. It's his move. He doesn't have the mobility to stick and move, he doesn't have the saves to draw fire away from the group, he mainly just hits stuff.
The game meeting the formula criteria given would mean the games are, well, formulaic. While YMMV, I generally play with creative GM's, or baring that play with DM's who know how to run the creative modules and AP's.
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
wait i thought you were pro monk are you anti monk? whose side are you on?
hyperion
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
wait i thought you were pro monk are you anti monk? whose side are you on?
hyperion
I'm pro-good mechanics.
I like the Monk flavorPlaying a Monk can be fun.
Getting 1up'd by my party of 4 all the time at almost everything sucks.
Monks are MAD
I called attention to this fact (again apparently)
Thread now has 1000+ posts.
I am Pro Monk (the idea), anti Monk (the execution)
They're awesome, but they suck
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
wait i thought you were pro monk are you anti monk? whose side are you on?
hyperionI'm pro-good mechanics.
I like the Monk flavor
Playing a Monk can be fun.
Getting 1up'd by my party of 4 all the time at almost everything sucks.Monks are MAD
I called attention to this fact (again apparently)
Thread now has 1000+ posts.I am Pro Monk (the idea), anti Monk (the execution)
They're awesome, but they suck
sigh your one of them.....dang it all that brotherly affection i had built up in myhead. turns out that the whole time it was not band of brothers but the movie brothers make me sad.
sigh your one of them.....dang it all that brotherly affection i had built up in myhead. turns out that the whole time it was not band of brothers but the movie brothers make me sad.
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
wait i thought you were pro monk are you anti monk? whose side are you on?
hyperionI'm pro-good mechanics.
I like the Monk flavor
Playing a Monk can be fun.
Getting 1up'd by my party of 4 all the time at almost everything sucks.Monks are MAD
I called attention to this fact (again apparently)
Thread now has 1000+ posts.I am Pro Monk (the idea), anti Monk (the execution)
They're awesome, but they suck
what is mad? pretend i cant speak super dnd
Could someone emulate fast movement +60? I am trying to figure how other classes do that better. They also must have 7 attacks before being hasted but only on a full round attack so it's not too cheap :)
I am pretty sure it means "Multiple Attribute Dependency".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, now, having shown that you DON'T EVEN KNOW what a relevant comparison would look like between a Monk and another class, you have no basis to argue that monks are weak.
No no no, i dont know what a relevant comparison would look like that is acceptable to YOU.
You claim the Monk only has to worry about Dex and Wis. So make a Monk focused on Dex and Wis, fill out his skills as you see fit, and we'll see what he does
That's not how a relevant comparison is done. The way a relevant comparison is done is that you figure out a set of requirements and then you figure out how well the two options meet those requirements.
You keep showing over and over again that you can't identify what the requirements should even be. So, there's no basis for making any relevant comparison.
You can't even clarify what -you- think a relevant comparison should look like. You said to hit % and avg. damage, but when I asked if you think that that's the only thing that's relevant to a character in a campaign, you were unable to say "yes".
Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
But fine, lets do this.
Get your hit % at 50% or above
Stunning Fist DC at 50% or above
Post your stats
Post your AC
POst your CMB and CMD
Post your feats and tactics
The baseline is again, CR=CL
Lobulusk> To be clear and so that you don't get totally depressed, I'm mre interested in roleplaying than I am in rollplaying. I once played a Paladin for a couple of years of real time who didn't have his Paladin abilities - he was basically a farmer with a rusty old sword. I had a lot of fun with that character, although, being essentially a commoner, he was very much on the weak side of the party members. When he finally got his Paladin abilities (the GM set up a whole gaming session in which he went over my character's getting his abilities and sprung it on me in surprise), was one of my most memorable gaming sessions ever.
But, I also enjoy theorycrafting. It's a completely different aspect of playing with the game system which has nothing to do with actually playing the game.
I can respect that. i think these discussions are interesting but frutiless
Is there an AC requirement for the monk? Does he have to use bare fists?
|
|
what is mad? pretend i cant speak super dnd
Multi-Ability Dependent.
The argument being you can't dump as many stats with a monk as you can with other classes because you "Need" 4 high scores.
In reality you "need" two relatively high scores (str and Wis) and you "need" two decent scores (Dex and Con) and Int and Charisma aren't all that important.
For comparison, the argument goes that a Wizard only "Needs" a high intelligence. But in reality they need Dex and Con as much if not more than the monk considering they also can't wear armor, have less hit points, and don't get a bonus to AC from Wisdom.
Similarly a fighter "needs" strength to hit things and do damage, but also needs con and dex just as much as a monk.
So a monk has 2 key stats and two secondary while other classes only "Need" one core stat.
Now the fallacy comes in when you realize they only need one stat because they only have one move...meaning they aren't a versatile class, you know like a Bard or Inquisitor or Ranger, etc...
And as soon as you do identify all that you think is relevant and justify it, we can proceed with looking at actual characters.Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
Here's what this is going to boil down to.
Monks are MAD, hence they have problems doing everything the class allows well.Strictly statistically speaking, the Monk is inferior to every other melee class in almost everything.
There are things about characters that can't be quantified mathematically because there are too many variables (battlefield location, terrain, initiative checks, perception checks, skill checks, surprise rounds, what the enemy is, the rest of your party and so on and so forth until the end of time!).
Therefore, what the Monk may or may not be good at is the abstract and corner cases/specific situations.
Monks are more for the role player, and not the people who want the class as created mechanically (melee) to function properly.
|
|
Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
But fine, lets do this.
Get your hit % at 50% or above
Stunning Fist DC at 50% or above
Post your stats
Post your AC
POst your CMB and CMD
Post your feats and tacticsThe baseline is again, CR=CL
Why?
This is the criteria for a fighter or Barbarian because it covers pretty much all those classes do. It is an arbitrary assessment for the value of a class in game. I've posted a buil, I've posted how the class would perform in an AP relative to other classes, I've called for others to do the same.
Why should we fight the strawman you are building?
what is mad? pretend i cant speak super dnd
Multi-Ability Dependent.
The argument being you can't dump as many stats with a monk as you can with other classes because you "Need" 4 high scores.
In reality you "need" two relatively high scores (str and Wis) and you "need" two decent scores (Dex and Con) and Int and Charisma aren't all that important.
For comparison, the argument goes that a Wizard only "Needs" a high intelligence. But in reality they need Dex and Con as much if not more than the monk considering they also can't wear armor, have less hit points, and don't get a bonus to AC from Wisdom.
Similarly a fighter "needs" strength to hit things and do damage, but also needs con and dex just as much as a monk.
So a monk has 2 key stats and two secondary while other classes only "Need" one core stat.
Now the fallacy comes in when you realize they only need one stat because they only have one move...meaning they aren't a versatile class, you know like a Bard or Inquisitor or Ranger, etc...
so....If i say all a monk needs is wisdom and dex cause you can have weapon finesse every body will yell at me right? and if i say you don't need high str or con you WANT those. will people heads start to roll?
|
|
Here's where ciretose and I part company. I think a monk is better off with dex and wis, ciretose thinks the monk is better off with str and wis.
To be clear we disagree on many points throughout the thread. I'm just pointing out that the class has a role and is as viable an option in the game as most other classes.
Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
But fine, lets do this.
Get your hit % at 50% or above
Stunning Fist DC at 50% or above
Post your stats
Post your AC
POst your CMB and CMD
Post your feats and tacticsThe baseline is again, CR=CL
Why?
This is the criteria for a fighter or Barbarian because it covers pretty much all those classes do. It is an arbitrary assessment for the value of a class in game. I've posted a buil, I've posted how the class would perform in an AP relative to other classes, I've called for others to do the same.
Why should we fight the strawman you are building?
no thats fine, what page was that on? lol
|
|
so....If i say all a monk needs is wisdom and dex cause you can have weapon finesse every body will yell at me right? and if i say you don't need high str or con you WANT those. will people heads start to roll?
Lillithsthrall will agree with you.
I will tell you that you won't do viable damage with that build, but if you are ok with being the decoy with insane AC and saves who occasionally stuns the enemy, it's fine.
Others will shout you down as insane.
Google Treantmonks guide to monks and you will get 90% of my argument on the topic.
|
|
no thats fine, what page was that on? lol
Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
But fine, lets do this.
Get your hit % at 50% or above
Stunning Fist DC at 50% or above
Post your stats
Post your AC
POst your CMB and CMD
Post your feats and tacticsThe baseline is again, CR=CL
Why?
This is the criteria for a fighter or Barbarian because it covers pretty much all those classes do. It is an arbitrary assessment for the value of a class in game. I've posted a buil, I've posted how the class would perform in an AP relative to other classes, I've called for others to do the same.
Why should we fight the strawman you are building?
Lord knows...this thread is madness. Best bet is to click on my name and look there under my posts.
so....If i say all a monk needs is wisdom and dex cause you can have weapon finesse every body will yell at me right? and if i say you don't need high str or con you WANT those. will people heads start to roll?
Lillithsthrall will agree with you.
I will tell you that you won't do viable damage with that build, but if you are ok with being the decoy with insane AC and saves who occasionally stuns the enemy, it's fine.
Others will shout you down as insane.
Google Treantmonks guide to monks and you will get 90% of my argument on the topic.
i read it it was a pretty different idea on monks than i am used to not a fan of shurikin throwing but i may try it next time.
Because that isn't the only relevant thing.
But fine, lets do this.
Get your hit % at 50% or above
Stunning Fist DC at 50% or above
Post your stats
Post your AC
POst your CMB and CMD
Post your feats and tacticsThe baseline is again, CR=CL
Why?
This is the criteria for a fighter or Barbarian because it covers pretty much all those classes do. It is an arbitrary assessment for the value of a class in game. I've posted a buil, I've posted how the class would perform in an AP relative to other classes, I've called for others to do the same.
Why should we fight the strawman you are building?
What criteria would you use? You can't harp on his criteria unless you present why it isn't correct.
You use Strawman incorrectly.
6th
Attack is +10 for regular and first two flurry attacks, adding a third flurry at +5. Average damage normally is still 1d8 +5, power attack goes up to -2 to attack for +4 to damage meaning a flurry is +8, +8, +3 for 1d8 + 9.
AC is now 19 normally, 22 (it is now +3) with barkskin for an hour a day, 25 with a ki point. Hit points are 48.5 thanks to the Con belt.
Stunning fist is now 17, so still 40/60. Saves are +7/+8/+10.
Thats your guy at 6
Here's mine:LVL 6
Monk of the Four Winds Archtype
AC: 23 (27, Mobility)
HP: 51
Str 14, Dex 21, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 6
Saves: +7/+10/+7
Init: +9
Unarmed: +9, d8+2
Flurry: +9/+9/+4, d8+2
Flanking FoB: +11/+11/+6
Outflank FoB: +13/+13/+8
Elemental Fist: 6/day
Feats: Dodge (Monk), Weapon Finesse, Mobility, Combat Reflexes (Monk), Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike, Improved Initiative
Skills: Acro +12, Perception +9, Stealth +12
Equipment: Bracers of Armor +2, Belt of Dex +2, Amulet of Nat Armor +2. 0 GP
Target CR 6
AC: 19 (hit 60%, Flurry 60/35%, FlankFlurry 70/45%, OutflankFlurry 80/55%)
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%)
If the other melee class w/Outflank and I are Flanking, the enemy is super dead
Monks are more for the role player
Please stop this.
I want mechanically soundy classes BECAUSE of roleplaying - because for me mechanics and gameworld are connected and good mechanics improve my immersion.
Monks are more for the role player
Please stop this.
I want mechanically soundy classes BECAUSE of roleplaying - because for me mechanics and gameworld are connected and good mechanics improve my immersion.
I do too, but just because we both want that doesn't make it true
So don't say is for roleplayers. Is quite insulting.
The whole game is for roleplayers. Not underpowered things. Neither overpowered stuff is for munckins only. All the players play the same game and mechanics must work. Fullstop.
Say that something is for RP is a great excuse for bad design.
Abandon this mindset please.
I think these discussions are interesting but frutiless
Now I take issue with this. Theory discussion are not fruitless. I've been chugging away at trying to figure out how to determine valid metrics, and it's for the purpose of helping people who either aren't as skilled at building characters, or want to play offbeat character concepts and want to know what numbers to hit so that if they actually want to do X,Y,or Z effectively, they can invest in that area sufficiently to be successful in that particular endeavor.
I do this for two reasons:
1. Helps players give better feedback to the devs. Folks on this thread have all gone back and forth saying everything from "Monk is fine, learn to play" to "Monk is unplayable." Everyone thus far has really only put forth anecdotal evidence of either. (And I can provide plenty myself, but that's not the point) Some folks have done brute character comparisons, but that muddles the issue by potentially overshadowing what might actually be "good enough" numbers to succeed.
2. Math is fun, and I hope to use it to contribute to this conversation.
@Lilith'sThrall: Hope everything goes well in surgery, don't wanna lose a member of the community because a doctor got careless.
Every class is a role playing class. The monk requires a less brute force approach than other melee classes. I say melee because his bab improves under certain circumstances. He isn't a front line tank but he should be able to hold his own. He requires a player that is willing to work with his weaknesses and strengths, just like every other class.
The monk is a defensive character and that makes it hard for him to be pigeon-holed into a role. This is both a strength and weakness. It gives the player freedom but he must know the boundries he's working with.
To say any class is a role playing class demeans that class. If you want to role play a character where mechanics don't matter, then there are better systems than Pathfinder. If you want a system where mechanics play a role and you can still do some amateur acting, Pathfinder is a great system. If you want only mechanics and role playing doesn't matter, then war gaming is you thing.
Monks are more for the role player
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Hyperion merely meant the monk cannot be maximized like so many other classes can. So, monks are for roleplayers as opposed to number crunchers.
To say any class is a role playing class demeans that class.
Is it demeaning if they don't measure up, or is it simply the painful truth? How many hurdles do you have to jump to make a decent monk? How many counter-intuitive combos do you need? Take Lilith's proposal of having both weapon finesse and power attack, to allow a DEX monk to pump up their damage against debuffed monsters? Clever, but so counter-intuitive. At best, you're losing 1/4 the value of weapon finesse from having at least 13 STR (more if you don't have at least 18 DEX). If these are the kind of backbending maneuvers that are required to make a viable monk, there's something wrong with the monk.
Monks are more for the role playerCorrect me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Hyperion merely meant the monk cannot be maximized like so many other classes can. So, monks are for roleplayers as opposed to number crunchers.
To say any class is a role playing class demeans that class.Is it demeaning if they don't measure up, or is it simply the painful truth? How many hurdles do you have to jump to make a decent monk? How many counter-intuitive combos do you need? Take Lilith's proposal of having both weapon finesse and power attack, to allow a DEX monk to pump up their damage against debuffed monsters? Clever, but so counter-intuitive. At best, you're losing 1/4 the value of weapon finesse from having at least 13 STR (more if you don't have at least 18 DEX). If these are the kind of backbending maneuvers that are required to make a viable monk, there's something wrong with the monk.
Thank you for being here
I think these discussions are interesting but frutilessNow I take issue with this. Theory discussion are not fruitless. I've been chugging away at trying to figure out how to determine valid metrics, and it's for the purpose of helping people who either aren't as skilled at building characters, or want to play offbeat character concepts and want to know what numbers to hit so that if they actually want to do X,Y,or Z effectively, they can invest in that area sufficiently to be successful in that particular endeavor.
I do this for two reasons:
1. Helps players give better feedback to the devs. Folks on this thread have all gone back and forth saying everything from "Monk is fine, learn to play" to "Monk is unplayable." Everyone thus far has really only put forth anecdotal evidence of either. (And I can provide plenty myself, but that's not the point) Some folks have done brute character comparisons, but that muddles the issue by potentially overshadowing what might actually be "good enough" numbers to succeed.
2. Math is fun, and I hope to use it to contribute to this conversation.
@Lilith'sThrall: Hope everything goes well in surgery, don't wanna lose a member of the community because a doctor got careless.
i think back at post 500 or so i brought this up
this discussion in my mind has no valid metricks, look at the last 100 posts it is people saying bring a character to the table.
it is like comparing ford and chevy, it is all opinion based, i am not being offensive this discussion would more suited to a play testing pre game release but by the very fact of the monks inclusion in the core rule book it doe snot suck it fits a certain type of play style.
so if you want to have a math fight go nuts but realize it resolves nothing. i myself never argue the monk is better than any other class, nor would i ever do such a thing i like it. it does not suck in my mind druids suck but they don't . it is just that i don't prefer the class. it does not speak to my role playing soul. it is all opinion to me. no amount of number ninjitsu can change the fact. the math is just a small part of pathfinder.
Monks are more for the role playerCorrect me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Hyperion merely meant the monk cannot be maximized like so many other classes can. So, monks are for roleplayers as opposed to number crunchers.
To say any class is a role playing class demeans that class.Is it demeaning if they don't measure up, or is it simply the painful truth? How many hurdles do you have to jump to make a decent monk? How many counter-intuitive combos do you need? Take Lilith's proposal of having both weapon finesse and power attack, to allow a DEX monk to pump up their damage against debuffed monsters? Clever, but so counter-intuitive. At best, you're losing 1/4 the value of weapon finesse from having at least 13 STR (more if you don't have at least 18 DEX). If these are the kind of backbending maneuvers that are required to make a viable monk, there's something wrong with the monk.
I didn't jump through any hoops with my monks, who could do fine against equal CR opponents. While they don't do as well as some would like, they were able to do what I built them to do. In order to build a good character, of any class, you need to figure out what you want to do. Those aren't hoops. If you limit your charater builds of any class to requiring an 18 base stat, you will never find the monk (or a few other claases) playable.