i think back at post 500 or so i brought this upthis discussion in my mind has no valid metricks, look at the last 100 posts it is people saying bring a character to the table.
Right, and those same people are arguing over how to compare those same characters. People don't know, and if they say they do, they're lying, what it actually means to be effective at any one role, how much Attack is needed to hit reliably, at what point is power attack better than normal attacking for the purpose of DPR, what CMB is needed to successfully trip/grapple/what-have-you a Dinosaur.
Hell, even when people do put up builds, some folks might decry them for one reason or another ("Doesn't take into account Stunning Fists contribution to DPR", "You're using enlarged permenancy", etc.)
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.
Not every comparison is opinion based. Also, at least when it comes to cars, there are a billion different things given measurement, from MPG to Towing Capacity, to interior space. While there are some people who purchase cars based on brand identity, others actually look at the numbers to make informed decisions.
Are you saying this discussion shouldn't happen now, after the playtest? (I don't think so based on the quote bellow, but I'm double checking) If that's the case I'd like to know why.
As an aside, the inclusion of something in a game does not mean it's up to snuff in terms of game play. This is less relevant in single player games unless said game aspect is non-functional, but it's very important for multiplayer/co-operative games where everyone is expected to contribute some minimum amount to the success of the group.
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.
Why does it resolve nothing? If accurate and agreed upon numbers are found, and it turns out that every class can reasonably reach those numbers, then doesn't that suddenly provide a different dimension to the "Class X sucks" discussions? It suddenly means people have to have reasons that go beyond miss-mashed play-styles and anecdotes.
I myself never argued that the monk is an unplayable class.
|
What criteria would you use? You can't harp on his criteria unless you present why it isn't correct.
You use Strawman incorrectly.
No I used strawman perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The question is "Are monks viable options or are they a detriment to a party relative to other classes"
The formula doesn't answer this questions.
The formula is a strawman.
An example of a strawman
Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.
Here
Person A: Monks are capable of holding their own and being a benefit to the party.
Person B: Monks are unable to meet the criteria of this formula designed for fighters, and are therefore useless!
Straw. Man.
|
|
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/+7Init: +9
Unarmed: +9, d8+2
Flurry: +9/+9/+4, d8+2
Flanking FoB: +11/+11/+6
Outflank FoB: +13/+13/+8
Elemental Fist: 6/dayFeats: 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 GPTarget 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
And you will note I said no stats below 10. I also pointed out I was buying items that are game useful (handy haversack) and not just formula useful.
Which is my point.
Your character has a 7 intelligence and a 6 charisma, and no utility items, so in my opinion is made for the formula and not for actual game play.
Either way, we can both agree they are perfectly viable 6th level characters relative to 6th level characters from other classes.
Which is the actual question on the table.
Here
Person A: Monks are capable of holding their own and being a benefit to the party.
Person B: Monks are unable to meet the criteria of this formula designed for fighters, and are therefore useless!Straw. Man.
No one is saying useless... we're saying broken
"monk is the most defensive class in the game" This has been posted numerous times. So why is it every monk I have seen posted would be killed by the creature they are fighting? How is that a good defense? "I take awhile to die" is not the same as "I'm hard to kill"
Ive also seen scouting brought up, which the rogue/barbarian/travel domain anything/druid does better (by better I mean the monk will only decrease their chances) until the monk is higher level and has a high movement, at which point a cheep magic item can do all your scouting so the monk still isn't needed.
Lets see, oh yes "my monk can beat your fighter! he runs up and steals your greatsword!" This one makes me laugh, I haven't seen a monk build yet with higher then a 10% chance of beating the fighters CMD. So far it has all been +1-+8 depending on level. (+8 at level 6 suuuucks, no you wont be grappling that wizard).
So considering all of this has been proven terrible for the monk, how is this supposed to be their strategy?
So ciretose or LilithsThrall, why not set some criteria that you think works? Or is your position that doing so is an impossible task?
Earlier in the thread there were many claims that a monk could become relevant due to combat maneuvers and/or stunning fist, so I don't see how measuring your success with those tactics is irrelevant to the discussion.
+1
Although the answer to your first question will be met with a yes, "roleplayers" don't need to roll for things to work so how do you measure that?
|
|
No one is saying useless... we're saying broken
Here
Person A: Monks are capable of holding their own and being a benefit to the party.
Person B: Monks are unable to meet the criteria of this formula designed for fighters, and are therefore useless!Straw. Man.
Broken or useless, it's the same straw man.
You have set arbitrary criteria that has to be met so that something isn't "broken" that most classes can't meet.
If you want to argue a monk can't out tank a fighter designed for tanking, I agree.
If you want to argue a monk can't out damage a fighter designed for damage, I agree.
If you want to argue that a monk can't be as valuable if not more valuable to some parties as either of the above builds, I completely disagree.
But the formula you are proposing as the "answer" has very little to do with the question.
I proposed a way to compare. Look at an AP and see how useful the monk is relative to other classes combat by combat. Qualitative rather than quantitative,
There are too many variables for a simple formula, and the proposed formulas don't reflect play unless you plan in an incredibly repetitive game.
If I recall correctly your monk didn't contribute anything to those AP's, he just survived.
If you want to argue a monk can't out tank a fighter designed for tanking, I agree.
If you want to argue a monk can't out damage a fighter designed for damage, I agree.
If you want to argue that a monk can't be as valuable if not more valuable to some parties as either of the above builds, I completely disagree.
Man, I wish class design in all games was like WoW. These wouldn't even be questions. The answer would simply be, "Of course the monk does valid DPS (sic)" and we could all move on.
If there was a class in WoW that fit the quoted "hybrid" role like a monk, it would 1) do competitive damage even as a hybrid, and 2) be speccable as a competitive tank. Otherwise no one would play it, and people would cry about it until it was fixed.
I love 3e, but class design has a long way to go. Many gamers have moved past the idea that class X should be best at Y and are embracing an equal playing field.
|
|
If you want to argue a monk can't out tank a fighter designed for tanking, I agree.
If you want to argue a monk can't out damage a fighter designed for damage, I agree.
If you want to argue that a monk can't be as valuable if not more valuable to some parties as either of the above builds, I completely disagree.Man, I wish class design in all games was like WoW. These wouldn't even be questions. The answer would simply be, "Of course the monk does valid DPS (sic)" and we could all move on.
If there was a class in WoW that fit the quoted "hybrid" role like a monk, it would 1) do competitive damage even as a hybrid, and 2) be speccable as a competitive tank. Otherwise no one would play it, and people would cry about it until it was fixed.
WoW is a very limited world with regards to variables. If Wow was the same as role playing than we would all just play WoW.
WoW is a very limited world with regards to variables. If Wow was the same as role playing than we would all just play WoW.
No argument here. But it excels at class balance, above any game I've ever played, electronic or otherwise.
|
|
WoW is a very limited world with regards to variables. If Wow was the same as role playing than we would all just play WoW.No argument here. But it excels at class balance, above any game I've ever played, electronic or otherwise.
And 4e is similarly balanced. And with that comes a certain sameness and repetitive quality, as everyone has similar outcomes by different names.
What I like about pathfinder is how many different ways there are to accomplish the same goals depending on the skill set of your character and your party. Each encounter could be handled an number of different ways, and some classes will be better at times than others with regards to dealing with different things.
That isn't a lack of balance. That is a plethora of options.
Straw. Man.
Then I'll answer the straw man:
The metrics HS put forth are not designed for fighters, they're just baseline numbers that he wants to see a monk put up.
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
Is in no way tailored to the fighter. In fact, in no way is any of the metrics or modes of comparison particularly tailored to the fighter, so I'm not sure where that even comes from.
Even the method that I'm trying to make is monster based as opposed to Class Based, so no particular advantage goes to the fighter there either.
I'm interested to see how HS's criteria benefits the fighter in a particular fashion.
Also, whenever a logical fallacy is called out, a warrant needs to be given as to why that's the case because it may not be readily apparent to everyone.
@LilithsThrall: Why don't we continue on with this thread? Seems like it has a good head start....
|
Lets see, oh yes "my monk can beat your fighter! he runs up and steals your greatsword!" This one makes me laugh, I haven't seen a monk build yet with higher then a 10% chance of beating the fighters CMD. So far it has all been +1-+8 depending on level. (+8 at level 6 suuuucks, no you wont be grappling that wizard).
So considering all of this has been proven terrible for the monk, how is this supposed to be their strategy?
You are probably talking about my level 11 example, who had an estimated ~+42 to disarm an ennemy, more than enough to disarm any mini-maxed and perfectly geared fighter of same level. Could also use True Strike without the help of a spellcaster, to disarm at ~+28 at level 4. Medium fighter CMD against a disarm at level 4 : 10 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 24.
But I will not make a cunning remark about people using straw men and reading only what they want to read. No, I shouldn't.
You are probably talking about my level 11 example, who had an estimated ~+42 to disarm an ennemy, more than enough to disarm any mini-maxed and perfectly geared fighter of same level. Could also use True Strike without the help of a spellcaster, to disarm at ~+28 at level 4. Medium fighter CMD against a disarm at level 4 : 10 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 24.
Man. All that effort and an 8 GP locked gauntlet still beats it. :(
Sometimes I think one of the problems with monk isn't so much the monk itself, exactly, but how limited / feast-or-famine maneuvers in general are.
|
|
Man. All that effort and an 8 GP locked gauntlet still beats it. :(
Sometimes I think one of the problems with monk isn't so much the monk itself, exactly, but how limited / feast-or-famine maneuvers in general are.
Locked gauntlet gives the level 4 Fighter +10 to CMD against disarm, so 34 total.
Add Weapon Focus : Unarmed to the monk, and he disarms the weapon from a fighter's locked gauntlet on a natural 5 or more since he got +29. 3/4 chances to disarm. No fighter can do it that easily without external help and a lot of feats.|
|
It's generally not worth optimizing your ability to disarm, because it's of limited value against spellcasters and almost entirely useless against anything with claws or fangs.
No problem, this topic is freakin' long.
Even if it looks like it, this strategy doesn't even optimize disarming. It requires only "Improved Disarm" and the qinggong archetype with the True Strike Ki power. You can add in/change it for Spring Attack, then Quicken Spell-like ability at level 11. Except one or two from these feats to work fine, and the last one to do marvels, you are free to build the monk as you wish.
|
You are probably talking about my level 11 example, who had an estimated ~+42 to disarm an ennemy, more than enough to disarm any mini-maxed and perfectly geared fighter of same level.
What about the CR 11 elementals, dragons, and fiends you'll be up against? The only one I see that you can even try to disarm is the cloud giant.
|
|
Straw. Man.Then I'll answer the straw man:
The metrics HS put forth are not designed for fighters, they're just baseline numbers that he wants to see a monk put up.
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
Is in no way tailored to the fighter. In fact, in no way is any of the metrics or modes of comparison particularly tailored to the fighter, so I'm not sure where that even comes from.
Even the method that I'm trying to make is monster based as opposed to Class Based, so no particular advantage goes to the fighter there either.
I'm interested to see how HS's criteria benefits the fighter in a particular fashion.
Also, whenever a logical fallacy is called out, a warrant needs to be given as to why that's the case because it may not be readily apparent to everyone.
Ok.
Why 50%? There are 4 in a party, why do you have to do 50% of the damage to be viable? Wouldn't 25% be the actual mark, as in if we all do 25% of the damage, then what we are fighting is generally dead in a round?
Why am I trading blows at all times to be in a position to then have a full attack back at me? Why is it not more viable at times to engage in hit and run tactics? Why is it not sometimes more valuable to the party to be in a strategic position between the BBEG and the caster than to actually be absorbing full attacks while trading blows.
Why is this formula in any way useful for assessing the value of any role other than "tank" who is closing to do a full round attack?
then Quicken Spell-like ability at level 11.
Is that an option the Quiong monk has? Or is it the same as the Monster Feat from the bestiary?
|
|
What about the CR 11 elementals, dragons, and fiends you'll be up against? The only one I see that you can even try to disarm is the cloud giant.
You can have the same exact bonus with any other combat maneuver if you take at least the "Improved" feat for a +2. Disarming was only an example used to compare with fellow classes that rely quasi-solely on their held weapons to do something.
Why is this formula in any way useful for assessing the value of any role other than "tank" who is closing to do a full round attack?
K, I see the issue now.
The 50% isn't 50% of damage, it's 50% to land an attack successfully. At least, that's my understanding of H-S's request.
Furthermore, his request doesn't particularly favor full round attacks over hit and run.
In fact, he specifically asks what the party's overall tactics are, and how they affect the way the monk plays and contributes.
So really, his request is quite open ended and flexible.
If I got it wrong, I'm sure H-S will be able to fill in any corrections.
|
|
then Quicken Spell-like ability at level 11.Is that an option the Quiong monk has? Or is it the same as the Monster Feat from the bestiary?
Monster Feat. And nothing saying the Qinggong monk can't take it.
You can only Quicken TS 3/day, but if you can pretty much auto-win or give yoursef real chances to hit with 3 combat maneuvers/day and use them at the right time, I say it's worth it.Even a heavy, maximized, 20-points buy + locked gauntlet geared fighter would have only 1/2 chance to avoid the hit, better chances if a Weapon Master. A BBEG or Mighty Minion without his shiny weapon is suddenly less combative. For real big monsters, you have others tricks, attacks, powers, or maneuvers to deal with them depending on your character.
And 4e is similarly balanced. And with that comes a certain sameness and repetitive quality, as everyone has similar outcomes by different names.
What I like about pathfinder is how many different ways there are to accomplish the same goals depending on the skill set of your character and your party. Each encounter could be handled an number of different ways, and some classes will be better at times than others with regards to dealing with different things.
That isn't a lack of balance. That is a plethora of options.
You could equalize things like damage potential across the board without taking away any variety. This would only empower underpowered classes.
4e I am not very familiar with, but from everything I've read, it sucks for too many reasons to be offset by class balance.
Monster Feat.
Coolio, just making sure.
Honestly, if I were to taken Quicken-SLA, i'd do it with Scorching Ray.
Because Lazerssss and 24d6.
|
|
Why is this formula in any way useful for assessing the value of any role other than "tank" who is closing to do a full round attack?K, I see the issue now.
The 50% isn't 50% of damage, it's 50% to land an attack successfully. At least, that's my understanding of H-S's request.
Furthermore, his request doesn't particularly favor full round attacks over hit and run.
In fact, he specifically asks what the party's overall tactics are, and how they affect the way the monk plays and contributes.
So really, his request is quite open ended and flexible.
If I got it wrong, I'm sure H-S will be able to fill in any corrections.
And it is met by pretty much every build posted if that is the criteria.
You are probably talking about my level 11 example, who had an estimated ~+42 to disarm an ennemy, more than enough to disarm any mini-maxed and perfectly geared fighter of same level. Could also use True Strike without the help of a spellcaster, to disarm at ~+28 at level 4. Medium fighter CMD against a disarm at level 4 : 10 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 24.
But I will not make a cunning remark about people using straw men and reading only what they want to read. No, I shouldn't.
I don't remember any builds out too 11, care to re-post or point me to a page number? Every monk I remember ignored maneuver feats so I definitely missed it.
And it is met by pretty much every build posted if that is the criteria.
/shrug, his standards not mine.
Although I haven't seen a build that immediately focuses on Stunning Fist too much.
I am interested in seeing something like that, if only because it seems like such a prominent class feature to just not trigger reliably.
And it is met by pretty much every build posted if that is the criteria.
Why is this formula in any way useful for assessing the value of any role other than "tank" who is closing to do a full round attack?K, I see the issue now.
The 50% isn't 50% of damage, it's 50% to land an attack successfully. At least, that's my understanding of H-S's request.
Furthermore, his request doesn't particularly favor full round attacks over hit and run.
In fact, he specifically asks what the party's overall tactics are, and how they affect the way the monk plays and contributes.
So really, his request is quite open ended and flexible.
If I got it wrong, I'm sure H-S will be able to fill in any corrections.
It's the criteria for Lilith, even though she refuses to post a build
What about the CR 11 elementals, dragons, and fiends you'll be up against? The only one I see that you can even try to disarm is the cloud giant.You can have the same exact bonus with any other combat maneuver if you take at least the "Improved" feat for a +2. Disarming was only an example used to compare with fellow classes that rely quasi-solely on their held weapons to do something.
Improved Grapple is the only one you can take without Combat Expertise and 13 INT.
/shrug, his standards not mine.Although I haven't seen a build that immediately focuses on Stunning Fist too much.
I am interested in seeing something like that, if only because it seems like such a prominent class feature to just not trigger reliably.
I'm of the same thought with maneuvers, every monk response seems to be "grapple it" "disarm it" or "trip it" but everyone built builds that hit 50% of the time on their main attack and subsequently dies to the monster afterwords. With no maneuvers or reliable stunning fist to hear of.
[
Improved Grapple is the only one you can take without Combat Expertise and 13 INT.
At level 1, At level 6, a whole slew of improved combat maneuvers open up for free.
I think the only ones that can't be gotten are Improved Dirty Trick (I could be wrong) and the power attack based ones.
Improved Grapple is the only one you can take without Combat Expertise and 13 INT.
Monks ignore pre-reqs for improved maneuvers for their bonus feats.
everyone built builds that hit 50% of the time on their main attack and subsequently dies to the monster afterwords. With no maneuvers or reliable stunning fist to hear of.
Mine could hit more than 50%, just I didn't realize that Medusa's Wrath did not work as intended.
Also had above average AC when standing still.
But that's just me tooting my own horn.
Sorry, it's the greaters you can't get.
My mistake.
Even so, to be a master maneuverer you would be even more MAD than normal.
everyone built builds that hit 50% of the time on their main attack and subsequently dies to the monster afterwords. With no maneuvers or reliable stunning fist to hear of.Mine could hit more than 50%, just I didn't realize that Medusa's Wrath did not work as intended.
Also had above average AC when standing still.
But that's just me tooting my own horn.
Didn't yours still end up being killed by his opponent first? and I think it was 60% yes? so slightly better, if medusas wrath worked I liked your build, after it was lackluster.
I would really love to see a max DPR monk build, as well as a max defense build. Even though they won't measure up to similar fighter builds, I would like to see what utility they have that might make up for it.
I've been following this thread all the way and have seen...mabe 10 monk builds, all of which show a pretty good style of monk in one way or another. The question I have is, If we post a monk build must it be ALL monk?
It absolutely has to be all Monk. My whole point is that the Monk as a class is broken. So no multiclass superglue
I've been following this thread all the way and have seen...mabe 10 monk builds, all of which show a pretty good style of monk in one way or another. The question I have is, If we post a monk build must it be ALL monk?It absolutely has to be all Monk. My whole point is that the Monk as a class is broken. So no multiclass superglue
yeah a few levels in alchemist fixes everything.
Is in no way tailored to the fighter. In fact, in no way is any of the metrics or modes of comparison particularly tailored to the fighter, so I'm not sure where that even comes from.
These values are intended to measure the relative value of a character to the party in a campaign.
Stepping back from the monk for a bit, do you think these values properly represent the relative value of a Bard compared to a fighter in a campaign? If not, then you are acknowledging that these values are skewed to favor certain classes over others.
They are there to measure i melee classes relative value
Quit twisting arguments and post something
|
|
I've been following this thread all the way and have seen...mabe 10 monk builds, all of which show a pretty good style of monk in one way or another. The question I have is, If we post a monk build must it be ALL monk?It absolutely has to be all Monk. My whole point is that the Monk as a class is broken. So no multiclass superglue
Soo, No multiclass and No PRC
What level do you want?
Didn't yours still end up being killed by his opponent first? and I think it was 60% yes? so slightly better, if medusas wrath worked I liked your build, after it was lackluster.
75% chance to hit before any sort of buffs, or traits. With Heirloom Weapon, it's 80%
93 HP means he survives 2 Rounds against an @CR creatures, means that it all goes down to initiative when it comes to who falls first.
He could 2RKO @CR by burning Ki.
He could do a little more damage if he had Elemental Fist.