there is a simple solution here, someone run one of the APs, as said, with a party of monks only, and we can see how well or poorly monks are no?
You would need a few masochist to get that to work. I don't see it happening. Of course a party of all rogues or fighters would have issues also.
I think you take a cleric, and wizard. Pair them with two monks who are replacing the skills and primary melee guy, and see how it goes. 15 pb of course.I think an AP that is composed of dungeon crawls and one like Carrion Crown which uses a lot of skills should both be ran.
I don't think this will be done though since there is no way to make it happen. Well it could happen since people do play in real time online, but it is unlikely.
edit:removed "or accepted"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during play, sometimes I think they don't even play at all only excel at mathematical calculations and ranting.
Who tells me that SR is irrelevant with the argument "but the casters all all have spell penetration" that's just, I don't know, weird.
No, they don't have. Maybe in your games every caster, every monster has spell penetration, that's nice for you, for your arguments. Just take an AP and look which casters/monsters have this oh so prevalent feat.
I play this game every week, with different GMs/DMs who really know the rules (all levels) and I just can't follow your argumentation.
But whatever, hate on. Just never play a monk. They are so terrible, and can do nothing, just like commoners. Exactly like commoners who make all their saves all the time.
|
Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during play, sometimes I think they don't even play at all only excel at mathematical calculations and ranting.
Who tells me that SR is irrelevant with the argument "but the casters all all have spell penetration" that's just, I don't know, weird.
No, they don't have. Maybe in your games every caster, every monster has spell penetration, that's nice for you, for your arguments. Just take an AP and look which casters/monsters have this oh so prevalent feat.
I play this game every week, with different GMs/DMs who really know the rules (all levels) and I just can't follow your argumentation.
But whatever, hate on. Just never play a monk. They are so terrible, and can do nothing, just like commoners. Exactly like commoners who make all their saves all the time.
Actually, they fail at math.
I am a monk, I have all good saves, so mathematically I start off as the least likely class to suffer the effect of a spell, trap, etc...
The spells that don't have saves are generally rays, but fortunately a monk has highest touch AC in the game, meaning all those mean old casters with 1/2 BAD are unlikely to be able to hit me with rays.
Then I get immunities to poison and diseases.
Spell penetration is a +2 on caster level checks. My spell resistance is 10 plus my level. Without spell penetration an equal level caster has a 50/50 shot of the spell getting through (then I get to try and make my saving throw, which again highest in the game). With Spell Penetration it is 60/40 the spell gets through and I have to roll a save.
Also as to heals "A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance."
Also, stunning fist is against most casters low save. So that is inconvenient for them.
Survivability is an asset. I can't count how many times I've seen a party going against a creature with poisonous attacks, disease, etc...and everyone else is burning the clerics lesser restorations, the cleric is burning spells slots having to have them, not to mention standard actions to cast them, and the monk is like "I got this guys, no worries."
Protip: I love the idea of the monk class and never shut the hell up about it which is why I want to see them improved.
If you cannot critique something then you do not love it.
We whine about monks because we think monks should be really awesome and want to see them get better.
What I'm seeing is a lot of people who love the monk enough to actually get inside the class and look at the mechanics and fiddle with it, people who love the archtype and the idea enough to play it quite a bit and learn all it's good sides and bad sides.
Then I see people who give zero damns about anything giving them a hard time because bawwwww you are critiquing a thing!
Pathfinder would not exist without people critiquing 3.5, which wouldn't exist without people critiquing 3e, which would not exist without people critiquing 2e, and so on, and so forth. If you aren't playing OD&D with no house rules, you have lost your "right" to get mad at others who want positive change.
~*~
As for "survivability," again - I'd rather have a class that makes us win faster, not one that makes us lose less horribly. In the 3e engin, offense always wins. Always. You will always prevent the most damage by getting rid of the damage dealers, not by sucking up the hits and making the fight last longer.
Hiya.
[sarcasm]
Guys, c'mon! Monks suck donkey snacks compaired to everything else in the game, after all, it's all about combat. You know...guys in well lit areas, on flat ground, within striking distance of one another, one combat after the next, the monk gets trounced! The game is all about combat, as I said.
Now, if someone would just write some kind of supplemental book or something that gave rules and suggestions for adding in stuff other than combat into the game it may be another story. Hell, just placing a combat in, say, a rain-covered cobblestone street at night with only the moon and the light from nearby lanterns may open up a whole new way to play. Maybe even have it where there are, I don't know, a string of combat encounters, but kinda linked together in some kind of imaginary setting with some background story. You could have chases, leaping, climbing, swimming, and all manner of derring-do! Just think of a game where your imagination was the limit! You could play a 'campaign' lasting months or years. :D
Man...*that'd* sure be sweet! Then monks would probably easily hold their own then! *sigh* Well, I can dream, can't I?
[/sarcasm]
I mean. Really? "Monks suck"? Really? o_O I suppose someone's going to tell me Bards make the worst magic-users next, huh?
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Ah, I missed the rule that stated only monks could go outside when it was dark and raining; my bad!
|
|
@ Wraithstrike - I know you've insisted that there's a feat that allows a Fighter to add his shield bonus to Touch AC, but I'm not aware of it.
Are you perhaps thinking of the 3.5 feat Shield Ward feat, that granted shield bonus to Touch AC, but only versus a handful of combat maneuvers (Player's Handbook II)? If so, I thought the discussion was about Pathfinder Core + APG (and that feat wouldn't add to Touch AC vs. ranged touch attacks, anyway).
There is also an alternative class feature (also called Shield Ward) for the Shielded Fighter archetype that adds the base shield bonus to Touch AC (as in +2 for a heavy shield), without adding the enhancement bonus of the shield. It's a 20th level capstone ability, though.
Please provide a reference to what feat you're referring to. I don't think it exists outside of some 3PP or someone's House Rules.
|
Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during playI'd be interested in how you determined that from posts on the Internet.
Hiya.Hello! Let me thank you for the tags that told me I didn't need to read you post.
Duh, everything is on Internets. Sill you for even asking.
Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during play, sometimes I think they don't even play at all only excel at mathematical calculations and ranting.
Who tells me that SR is irrelevant with the argument "but the casters all all have spell penetration" that's just, I don't know, weird.
No, they don't have. Maybe in your games every caster, every monster has spell penetration, that's nice for you, for your arguments. Just take an AP and look which casters/monsters have this oh so prevalent feat.
I play this game every week, with different GMs/DMs who really know the rules (all levels) and I just can't follow your argumentation.
But whatever, hate on. Just never play a monk. They are so terrible, and can do nothing, just like commoners. Exactly like commoners who make all their saves all the time.
How would you know who has not played a monk?
I never said all casters have spell penetration. Read again and come back with a new argument. You must have skipped a few post since the rest of what you wrote is also inaccurate of concerning what I said. You can click on my name, go to the post tab. There you can type monk into the search bar. Press the "enter" key on the keyboard. There is an option to put my newest quotes about monks first. If you read a few of them from various monk threads I have 1 comment that I repeat that if you had read what had written would stop that silly "hate" comment you attribute to me. If you are not going to read what I write then don't respond to what I write.
I am a monk, I have all good saves, so mathematically I start off as the least likely class to suffer the effect of a spell, trap, etc...
Are you just following the poster who does not read quotes or have you actually seen someone say that monks don't have the best overall saves generally?
Also as to heals "A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance."
Lowering SR is a standard action. Nobody said it could not be lowered.
Also, stunning fist is against most casters low save. So that is inconvenient for them.
Getting to a caster is normally the issue, and then they have some defense up to make sure the they don't get hit.
....and the monk is like "I got this guys, no worries."
Everybody fails saves, even the monk, and you are over exaggerating with everyone else burning those lesser restorations unless the dice gods interfere, which has nothing to do with a monk. Surviving and contributing are two different things by the way. I have had monks with ridiculously high saves in my groups, but I am still unimpressed by them, and see them as the low class on the totem pole.
@ Wraithstrike - I know you've insisted that there's a feat that allows a Fighter to add his shield bonus to Touch AC, but I'm not aware of it.
Are you perhaps thinking of the 3.5 feat Shield Ward feat, that granted shield bonus to Touch AC, but only versus a handful of combat maneuvers (Player's Handbook II)? If so, I thought the discussion was about Pathfinder Core + APG (and that feat wouldn't add to Touch AC vs. ranged touch attacks, anyway).
There is also an alternative class feature (also called Shield Ward) for the Shielded Fighter archetype that adds the base shield bonus to Touch AC (as in +2 for a heavy shield), without adding the enhancement bonus of the shield. It's a 20th level capstone ability, though.
Please provide a reference to what feat you're referring to. I don't think it exists outside of some 3PP or someone's House Rules.
I think you are right so I just have to use the defending weapon property property to get a similar touch add.
I was thinking about the Ray Shield feat which automatically deflects anyone ray attack, which is still not bad unless the caster is a sorcerer since wizards have to prepare metamagic'd spells ahead of time generally so you get to waste a high level spell with it by deflecting it.
Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during playI'd be interested in how you determined that from posts on the Internet.
Hiya.Hello! Let me thank you for the tags that told me I didn't need to read you post.
I don't think he knows that if he comes to a debate he should bring a rebuttal, and not just an opinion.
<hangs sign up at entrance to the interwebs, stating that opinions have no value unless accompanied by some sort of proof or logic.>
PS:Bringing sarcasm does not help you either, Mr.Pming. Now if you want to bring an argument and less attitude we can discuss this like gentlemen. The choice is yours.
Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
|
|
Everybody fails saves, even the monk, and you are over exaggerating with everyone else burning those lesser restorations unless the dice gods interfere, which has nothing to do with a monk. Surviving and contributing are two different things by the way. I have had monks with ridiculously high saves in my groups, but I am still unimpressed by them, and see them as the low class on the totem pole.
Immunities not saves.
A Monster's poison isn't a worry to a monk. A diseased creature isn't a worry to a monk.
You are right, everyone fails saves. Monks do it far less often.
Being upright is part of contributing.
Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
Paizo's APs assume 15 point buy.
Protip: I love the idea of the monk class and never shut the hell up about it which is why I want to see them improved.
If you cannot critique something then you do not love it.
We whine about monks because we think monks should be really awesome and want to see them get better.
What I'm seeing is a lot of people who love the monk enough to actually get inside the class and look at the mechanics and fiddle with it, people who love the archtype and the idea enough to play it quite a bit and learn all it's good sides and bad sides.
Then I see people who give zero damns about anything giving them a hard time because bawwwww you are critiquing a thing!
Pathfinder would not exist without people critiquing 3.5, which wouldn't exist without people critiquing 3e, which would not exist without people critiquing 2e, and so on, and so forth. If you aren't playing OD&D with no house rules, you have lost your "right" to get mad at others who want positive change.
~*~
As for "survivability," again - I'd rather have a class that makes us win faster, not one that makes us lose less horribly. In the 3e engin, offense always wins. Always. You will always prevent the most damage by getting rid of the damage dealers, not by sucking up the hits and making the fight last longer.
But you aren't critiquing it. You are criticizing it. A critique is a critical look at something, an assessment or evaluation. To criticize is to disparage. When you say things like the monk is the same thing as a commoner, then you are disparaging it. When you say things like a monk's saves are not as good as they look because of the need for three high stats to maintain them, that's a critique.
As for house rules, I am all for them in someone's home game. But when we are discussing the effectiveness of part of the game, house rules need to be removed from the discussion. Changing a creature's feats is a house rule. It is perfectly acceptable to do this but it is not acceptable to think that all feats are equal therefore all classes should be able to handle the changes equally.
I'm not going to argue against the survivability argument. I can make a character survivable but that doesn't make the character fun. Offense is the only way to win the combat but defense can help you get into that offensive position, or help someone else get into it. This is a team effort after all. Playing the defensive guy isn't my style, but it can have its place.
Paizo's APs assume 15 point buy.Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
I assume so but is that written somewhere? It makes sense to me that they should assume 15 point buy.
What I'm saying is that if you change a creature then it is not the same as it was originally intended. That can have a tremendous impact since not all feats are created equal. That's no secret. If I take the basilisk, remove Skill Focus (perception) and give it Power Attack, drop Blind Fight and give it Weapon Focus (bite), I have potentially made the creature more potent in combat. This is especially true if the party isn't stealthy or has ways of being concealed. Some feat changes will make a significant difference. In this case, it will hit more often for more damage. Swap out Great Fortitude and Iron Will for Improved Natural Armor twice and it's also harder to hit. If there are no casters in the party (and that is entirely possible), this basilisk will be a different threat to the 3/4 BAB classes.
Actually what you have done is made the basilisk more vulnerable to characters with Stealth, and have likewise made it more vulnerable to conditions that would make it harder to see and made it more vulnerable to rogues. In return, you have made its attacks more accurate and more damaging. This is a trade off. The basilisk is still the same Challenge Rating, and is still the same creature (gaze attack, bite, etc).
Take the grizzly bear and change its feats to Iron Will, Improved Iron Will, and Power Attack and this bear with the changed feats can become a real threat to a caster who was relying on that +2 Will Save.
Again the bear is still the same CR, just with different feats - feats that it qualifies for. However, if the character basically has to rely on metagaming the monster's feat choice, then I believe that the character has already failed. Which is my point. If Iron Will is going to shut down your character, then your character needs to head back to the drawing board.
If you are changing the creature from what is written, then you are house ruling. That's fine with me but remember that it is a house rule and so you are no longer comparing the monk with RAW. That's what I'm talking about. Also, by changing the feats you could be potentially making Knowledge checks less useful since there isn't much consistency.
RAW a monster gets 1 feat that it qualifies for every odd hit die. There's no rule that says that a creature has a specific feat. Only the sample statblock. It is not a house-rule if a orc wields a greataxe instead of a falchion. I think your definition of house-rule is a little screwed up, buddy. We're not even talking about other things you can do within the RAW that would influence the fight, just "What does your monk do if he took Combat Reflexes and Ability Focus instead of Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike?".
Also I don't follow your logic for Knowledge skills at all. If anything it makes them MORE important because going through and memorizing the sample statblock for every monster doesn't mean that you'll automatically know everything about every horned devil or every grizzly bear or every 1st level orc warrior. However with Knowledge skills, you can acquire this information on the spot.
Also, I don't really care. I said that I don't think Lilith'sThrall's monk would ever make it to 16th level to begin with in my game, and if she did, then her options and strategy better include more than "I ambush it, then attempt to stun it", because if it doesn't, then the monk will die, die, and die again.
Lilith'sThrall strawmanned me by saying I was only interested in damage. I showed I wasn't. I then asked Lilith to explain if this was in fact the only method that she had for fighting the Horned Devil, which relied on sneaking up on the horned devil, striking the horned devil's flat-footed AC without a full-attack (meaning a lower BAB for the monk), then hope the Horned Devil fails a Fortitude save that he has a 60% of making (not including possible buffs or feats). I asked what would she do if the horned devil had Combat Reflexes. Would that throw a wrench in her character's entire strategy, or can she adapt?
A pretty legitimate question, I think.
I assume so but is that written somewhere? It makes sense to me that they should assume 15 point buy.Paizo's APs assume 15 point buy.Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
I think i have read a dev's post about that but i can't seem to find it.
Anyway the iconic characters of the APs are done with the 15 point buy.
What I'm saying is that if you change a creature then it is not the same as it was originally intended. That can have a tremendous impact since not all feats are created equal. That's no secret. If I take the basilisk, remove Skill Focus (perception) and give it Power Attack, drop Blind Fight and give it Weapon Focus (bite), I have potentially made the creature more potent in combat. This is especially true if the party isn't stealthy or has ways of being concealed. Some feat changes will make a significant difference. In this case, it will hit more often for more damage. Swap out Great Fortitude and Iron Will for Improved Natural Armor twice and it's also harder to hit. If there are no casters in the party (and that is entirely possible), this basilisk will be a different threat to the 3/4 BAB classes.Actually what you have done is made the basilisk more vulnerable to characters with Stealth, and have likewise made it more vulnerable to conditions that would make it harder to see and made it more vulnerable to rogues. In return, you have made its attacks more accurate and more damaging. This is a trade off. The basilisk is still the same Challenge Rating, and is still the same creature (gaze attack, bite, etc).
I think you missed part of my post. I mentioned this. The creatures are meant for a certain role. If you change things, then you change the role that they fill. CR is not a perfect measure of a creature's power. Some creatures are easier for some classes to handle. If you change the feats the creature has, then you have changed how certain classes handle it. Changing Combat Expertise to Improved Natural Armor can have the same effect on AC for a low CR creature but will affect the attack bonus of that creature. It may not seem like much but it does make a difference.
Again the bear is still the same CR, just with different feats - feats that it qualifies for. However, if the character basically has to rely on metagaming the monster's feat choice, then I believe that the character has already failed. Which is my point. If Iron Will is going to shut down your character, then your character needs to head back to the drawing board.
I didn't say it would shut down the caster. It can make a huge difference. If the caster was expecting to be able to target that Will save and the creature not only has an additional +2 but a second chance to make the save, it can be a game changer.
And I fail to see how this is metagaming. How much will power do you expect a bear to have? What if you made a successful knowledge check and you know that most bears are easy targets for mind-affecting spells? You cast Color Spray and that +2 and second chance ends up being able to get to your caster and power attack him. All because the GM changed the feats and the character was expecting something normal from the bear.
RAW a monster gets 1 feat that it qualifies for every odd hit die. There's no rule that says that a creature has a specific feat. Only the sample statblock. It is not a house-rule if a orc wields a greataxe instead of a falchion. I think your definition of house-rule is a little screwed up, buddy. We're not even talking about other things you can do within the RAW that would influence the fight, just "What does your monk do if he took Combat Reflexes and Ability Focus instead of Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike?".
Also I don't follow your logic for Knowledge skills at all. If anything it makes them MORE important because going through and memorizing the sample statblock for every monster doesn't mean that you'll automatically know everything about every horned devil or every grizzly bear or every 1st level orc warrior. However with Knowledge skills, you can acquire this information on the spot.
It affects knowledge skills because the characters should be able to use those skills to determine the strengths and weaknesses of creatures. If you are changing things, how can they rely on their expertise? I would really be ticked off if I had +25 to Knowledge (nature) and I thought that the bear had the Endurance feat and instead had Iron Will. My tactics would change but there is no way to know what tactics I should be using.
Also, I don't really care. I said that I don't think Lilith'sThrall's monk would ever make it to 16th level to begin with in my game, and if she did, then her options and strategy better include more than "I ambush it, then attempt to stun it", because if it doesn't, then the monk will die, die, and die again.
I can't speak to how any class would do in your game. I do know that the monk can do fine in a generic Pathfinder game.
Lilith'sThrall strawmanned me by saying I was only interested in damage. I showed I wasn't. I then asked Lilith to explain if this was in fact the only method that she had for fighting the Horned Devil, which relied on sneaking up on the horned devil, striking the horned devil's flat-footed AC without a full-attack (meaning a lower BAB for the monk), then hope the Horned Devil fails a Fortitude save that he has a 60% of making (not including possible buffs or feats). I asked what would she do if the horned devil had Combat Reflexes. Would that throw a wrench in her character's entire strategy, or can she adapt?
A pretty legitimate question, I think.
Without a full build, there's just not enough information to know how well the monk would do. Without knowing exactly what the scenario is, there is no way to know how well the monk would do. There's just not enough information. The math says that the monk has a chance. The situation will tell the real story though. Also, I'm not an advocate of the one on one combat. Pathfinder is a team effort and the CR is based on a 4 person party. All classes should have a harder time of dealing with a creature if they are one-on-one. Even the casters have to pull out all the stops to have a chance. It is assumed that there will be 4 sets of actions going to the equal CR opponent.
I assume so but is that written somewhere? It makes sense to me that they should assume 15 point buy.Paizo's APs assume 15 point buy.Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
I think i have read a dev's post about that but i can't seem to find it.
Anyway the iconic characters of the APs are done with the 15 point buy.
That makes sense. I don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks.
Wow, I find myself in almost complete agreement with Ashiel on this.
I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.
On the subject of how viable a monk is, I can't really say, but since I routinely play sub-optimal characters by choice, I really can't imagine that monks are so badly gimped that they can't be successful in a good team with the right tactics and the right buffs applied for combat.
I am currently running a PF campaign where the primary melee character is a dwarf monk. In our first combat encounters the monk proved to be underpowered so the player and I have exchanged some ideas to swap out some feats and revisit some tactics to see if that will help make the monk more viable. The most glaring problem with that particular monk so far has been the inability to hit an AC that the party ranger can hit pretty reliably. The other two party members are a sorcerer and an alchemist. Both of them have ways of doing damage that don't rely on hitting a high AC, so for our first few encounters the monk had to rely on keeping the biggest bad guy engaged while the other party members took him down from a distance. Which worked fine, it just was frustrating for the monk player.
We haven't yet had a chance to put the "improved" monk into combat, but I think his new feats and tactics will make a big difference.
And if I need to augment that with some magic items, I will.
I do like the flavor he is bringing with his monk.
I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.
This is something that would make me walk from a game. If there isn't any consistency with the creatures I encounter and I can't rely on using my characters' Knowledge skills, then I will not be happy. I don't have any issues with a unique creature. I do have a problem if every creature is unique.
If you are not going to read what I write then don't respond to what I write.
Thanks for telling me I am silly. Like your style.
I did not respond to/address you, unless you were the one with the statement "Spell Resistance is irrelevant". Someone just said exactly that. Wasn't that Prof. Cirno?
I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.This is something that would make me walk from a game. If there isn't any consistency with the creatures I encounter and I can't rely on using my characters' Knowledge skills, then I will not be happy. I don't have any issues with a unique creature. I do have a problem if every creature is unique.
Then walk. If you use your knowledge skills, you'll gain the benefit of knowing what the knowledge skills tell you about a monster. Is it your opinion that knowledge checks tell you what feats an NPC has? Do you believe a successful knowledge check is the same thing as having a photocopy of the Bestiary entry?
In my campaigns creatures are varied. I make up my own monsters frequently. And I do this in large part to make it impossible for players (perhaps players like you) to metagame the encounters.
|
|
I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.This is something that would make me walk from a game. If there isn't any consistency with the creatures I encounter and I can't rely on using my characters' Knowledge skills, then I will not be happy. I don't have any issues with a unique creature. I do have a problem if every creature is unique.
I don't have an issue changing things up to counter metagaming, as long as there is logic behind it within the story and it stays balanced.
I think you missed part of my post. I mentioned this. The creatures are meant for a certain role. If you change things, then you change the role that they fill. CR is not a perfect measure of a creature's power. Some creatures are easier for some classes to handle. If you change the feats the creature has, then you have changed how certain classes handle it. Changing Combat Expertise to Improved Natural Armor can have the same effect on AC for a low CR creature but will affect the attack bonus of that creature. It may not seem like much but it does make a difference.
Feats are supposed to make a difference. The thing is, feats are also selectable and varied. Monsters get feats based on their HD, and these feats are not preselected as a rule. Sample creatures are build with a selection of feats, but at the end of the day there is now rule that says they only have those feats. The rules do say that creatures get 1 feat +1 every odd hit die, and that it must be a feat they qualify for.
Also, Combat Expertise and Improved Natural Armor are not the same at low levels. Combat Expertise grants a Dodge bonus which applies to touch-AC as well, making it harder to be hit by touch-based effects. Natural armor is better vs melee (usually) and applies while flat-footed. Both have their uses, and are considerable. However, most creatures at low level who qualify for Improved Natural Armor do not qualify for Combat Expertise (due to Int requirements). Those that qualify for both may actually have a reason to choose one over the other, or even choose both.
I didn't say it would shut down the caster. It can make a huge difference. If the caster was expecting to be able to target that Will save and the creature not only has an additional +2 but a second chance to make the save, it can be a game changer.
Toughness can be a game changer. That extra +6 HP on a 6HD animal might mean the difference between a dead animal and a dead character (since that animal might get one more full-attack off). However, that was one of the feats this animal had. Good for that animal. It doesn't change his CR in the slightest. CR isn't Rock-Paper-Scissors. It's not about who can strike at the monster's weakness. A party full of spellcasters doesn't get anymore XP for monsters that have Spell Resistance.
And I fail to see how this is metagaming. How much will power do you expect a bear to have? What if you made a successful knowledge check and you know that most bears are easy targets for mind-affecting spells? You cast Color Spray and that +2 and second chance ends up being able to get to your caster and power attack him. All because the GM changed the feats and the character was expecting something normal from the bear.
Knowledge requires no action to use. You can use it the moment you see an enemy if you like to glean any useful information. You might find out that this Bear has Toughness and is more robust than most, or you might see that the bear seems more focused and have Iron Will. Or maybe you just get general information that gives similar info such as "This bear looks tougher than most" or "this bear has a stronger than average will".
It doesn't change the fact you probably know from your previous run-ins with bears or just generally know that animals tend to have poor will saves. It does mean that the bear's feats might change HOW you fight him. If you can't change how you fight him, then you as a heroic adventurer are in trouble. Which is my point.
It affects knowledge skills because the characters should be able to use those skills to determine the strengths and weaknesses of creatures. If you are changing things, how can they rely on their expertise? I would really be ticked off if I had +25 to Knowledge (nature) and I thought that the bear had the Endurance feat and instead had Iron Will. My tactics would change but there is no way to know what tactics I should be using.
So you're saying that having a +25 Knowledge skill means you guess the bear's stats, or look in the Bestiary for the example monster? Man it must piss you off when your GM uses humanoids, since virtually all of those have strengths and weaknesses based on their class levels and/or feats. There's not a lot of statblocks in the bestiary for different types of orcs, are there?
If anything, your character would be better served with those knowledge skills. You get to discern the strengths and weaknesses of the creature you encounter better than someone who happened to buy the Bestiary and have a lot of free time for reading. Congratulations.
I can't speak to how any class would do in your game. I do know that the monk can do fine in a generic Pathfinder game.
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen a whole lot to show that was the case. There comes a point where "generic pathfinder" hits the GM-screen. Remember how I mentioned stuff like terrain, sight conditions, buffs, debuffs, mixed groups, etc? Yeah, that kinda stuff happens in generic pathfinder games as far as I know. Without any splat books, creatures are allowed to have different feats they qualify for. Still generic Pathfinder. No splatbooks, homebrew or house-rules involved yet.
From the math that has been presented in this thread and others, I have my doubts that a standard generic 15 pb pathfinder monk that focuses so heavily on Dex and Wisdom will actually be able to adequately survive while participating in an actual adventure without being little more than a resource drain on the party.
I was trying to ask LilithsThrall what was the fallback if the plan wouldn't work. Instead, I got called a noob, and was told to go find some posts where it was already explained - but woe I could not find them. Still, a legitimate question, I think. I want to know how a monk is supposed to be played, since apparently having played the core of this system for 11 years and having seen many monks come and go through my games, some good and some bad, I apparently have no idea how a monk can or should be played. So, I wish to be educated for my "noobness".
Without a full build, there's just not enough information to know how well the monk would do. Without knowing exactly what the scenario is, there is no way to know how well the monk would do. There's just not enough information. The math says that the monk has a chance. The situation will tell the real story though. Also, I'm not an advocate of the one on one combat. Pathfinder is a team effort and the CR is based on a 4 person party. All classes should have a harder time of dealing with a creature if they are one-on-one. Even the casters have to pull out all the stops to have a chance. It is assumed that there will be 4 sets of actions going to the equal CR opponent.
I agree. Which is why I merely asked "What if".
|
Four Winds Monk mixed with Ki Mystic (legitimate dual use of archetypes) trades out a lot of the junk for some pretty awesome abilities. 12th level Slow Time- take three standard actions in a single turn. Thats three vital strikes at highest attack bonus (I know I know everyone says vital strike sucks... But with an enlarged mid-high level monk with the right spells on him its decent), or for a maneuver focused build three seperate maneuvers (grapple, pin, tie up before they can react?). And later on, they can take Aspect of Tiger and get Pounce. Only 1/hour sadly but also moving at 10x speed to do so. Combat started at 800 feet? No problem. I'll be there in 6 seconds and i'm going to have 7 or so attacks to boot.
My point is that the combination of Brass Knuckles as a fix to the high cost of amulet of mighty fists and the APG providing some very decent archetypes (including many, many ways to trade out stunning fist; if you don't want something that relies on a tertiary stat such as your 14 wisdom, opt for more damage as a Four Winds monk for example) has given the monk a lot of help.
The archetypeless monk isn't as good sadly. But on 20 point buy + i've never had trouble playing a monk and contributing either by high damage or CMB lockdowns. Move in/charge to grapple (it only takes a bonus feat to do this really) and initiate grapple. Foe can either ignore it and full attack me or break out. If ignored, excellent, +5 on my attempt to pin them which makes success very likely. If they break out, thats cost them an action allowing me to full attack (not to mention the action economy and time bought for my allies). Yes you can argue flying etc. but its a party focused game. We can assume the monk has allies who can also provide flight, dispel it, purge invisibility, etc.
I will admit that the monk is very hard to make viable on a 15 point buy. But beyond that, I see it like the 4E Warlock is usually seen. Much harder to optimise, but still powerful when done so well.
Edit: And monk's DO make better grapplers than anyone else. All the unnamed AC bonuses they get also contribute to their CMD, as does three of their stats (Dex, Wisdom, Strength) instead of the standard two.
Hey guys, just thought I'd pop in with another anecdote.
Right now, I'm playing a monk that is very much non-core (bunch of archetypes and such), going through a PF version of Savage Tide after losing a couple of characters. In the party, there is a druid, a cleric, a fighter, an alchemist, and myself. What I've noticed of the build so far, is that in no way could I possibly catch up to the fighter in damage, but I make up for that by playing support and defense.
We were facing some mummies that got all of us a bit surprised, and a little surrounded. We had a bunch of NPCs with us at the time, and nearly all of them plus half the party were paralyzed by the despair aura. I made my save, so it was up to me, the cleric and druid to keep everyone alive (her companion failed the save).
While I drew in bunches of melee attacks, I avoided nearly all of them. My defense, though the poor strategy it is in this game, helped save the day when so many people were left paralyzed.
I'm still getting used to this monk's skin, but I think it's a comfortable fit.
|
|
Hey guys, just thought I'd pop in with another anecdote.
Right now, I'm playing a monk that is very much non-core (bunch of archetypes and such), going through a PF version of Savage Tide after losing a couple of characters. In the party, there is a druid, a cleric, a fighter, an alchemist, and myself. What I've noticed of the build so far, is that in no way could I possibly catch up to the fighter in damage, but I make up for that by playing support and defense.
We were facing some mummies that got all of us a bit surprised, and a little surrounded. We had a bunch of NPCs with us at the time, and nearly all of them plus half the party were paralyzed by the despair aura. I made my save, so it was up to me, the cleric and druid to keep everyone alive (her companion failed the save).
While I drew in bunches of melee attacks, I avoided nearly all of them. My defense, though the poor strategy it is in this game, helped save the day when so many people were left paralyzed.
I'm still getting used to this monk's skin, but I think it's a comfortable fit.
Not getting mummy rot helps as well.
I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.This is something that would make me walk from a game. If there isn't any consistency with the creatures I encounter and I can't rely on using my characters' Knowledge skills, then I will not be happy. I don't have any issues with a unique creature. I do have a problem if every creature is unique.Then walk. If you use your knowledge skills, you'll gain the benefit of knowing what the knowledge skills tell you about a monster. Is it your opinion that knowledge checks tell you what feats an NPC has? Do you believe a successful knowledge check is the same thing as having a photocopy of the Bestiary entry?
In my campaigns creatures are varied. I make up my own monsters frequently. And I do this in large part to make it impossible for players (perhaps players like you) to metagame the encounters.
A bear and an NPC are not the same thing. I'm not a metagamer. I should be able to rely on my character's skills. Knowledge skills should be able to give me relevant information about a creature. If the GM is constantly changing things, then what's the point of investing in knowledge skills? I have played with GMs that change things so much that the game is no longer fun. A bear is a bear is a bear and that's how it should be. If there is a special bear running around, then it should stand out from the norm.
A bear and an NPC are not the same thing. I'm not a metagamer. I should be able to rely on my character's skills. Knowledge skills should be able to give me relevant information about a creature. If the GM is constantly changing things, then what's the point of investing in knowledge skills? I have played with GMs that change things so much that the game is no longer fun. A bear is a bear is a bear and that's how it should be. If there is a special bear running around, then it should stand out from the norm.I change monster's feats and abilities all the time. I do that specifically to keep players from metagaming encounters. A grizzly bear with different feats is more the NORM in my games than the exception. Players should be able to adapt, and depending on fighting monsters that are clones of the Bestiaries will get you in a lot of trouble in my campaigns, primarily because I don't think your characters have access to the Bestiaries.This is something that would make me walk from a game. If there isn't any consistency with the creatures I encounter and I can't rely on using my characters' Knowledge skills, then I will not be happy. I don't have any issues with a unique creature. I do have a problem if every creature is unique.Then walk. If you use your knowledge skills, you'll gain the benefit of knowing what the knowledge skills tell you about a monster. Is it your opinion that knowledge checks tell you what feats an NPC has? Do you believe a successful knowledge check is the same thing as having a photocopy of the Bestiary entry?
In my campaigns creatures are varied. I make up my own monsters frequently. And I do this in large part to make it impossible for players (perhaps players like you) to metagame the encounters.
I think you missed the 3-4 posts saying that your knowledge would be of more use in a game with changing monsters than one where every monster was always exactly as stated in the Bestiary. Being able to roll and get useful information, rather than "Trolls hate fire", sounds refreshing to me, doesn't it appeal to you too? Wouldn't you like to roll high and have the DM say, "This monster seems unusually quick on it's feet, as it's cloudy eyes peer at your general direction, it's nostrils flaring as it tries to locate you be scent rather than sight" and have him explain the troll seems to have lessened perception(lower wis and no skill focus) but is quicker on it's feet(higher dex and/or dodge feat)?
Not getting mummy rot helps as well.Hey guys, just thought I'd pop in with another anecdote.
Right now, I'm playing a monk that is very much non-core (bunch of archetypes and such), going through a PF version of Savage Tide after losing a couple of characters. In the party, there is a druid, a cleric, a fighter, an alchemist, and myself. What I've noticed of the build so far, is that in no way could I possibly catch up to the fighter in damage, but I make up for that by playing support and defense.
We were facing some mummies that got all of us a bit surprised, and a little surrounded. We had a bunch of NPCs with us at the time, and nearly all of them plus half the party were paralyzed by the despair aura. I made my save, so it was up to me, the cleric and druid to keep everyone alive (her companion failed the save).
While I drew in bunches of melee attacks, I avoided nearly all of them. My defense, though the poor strategy it is in this game, helped save the day when so many people were left paralyzed.
I'm still getting used to this monk's skin, but I think it's a comfortable fit.
Indeed. With that encounter and a trap in an earlier encounter, most of the party has had it at least once. With the alchemist on the brink one day, a lucky roll had cured him, and the healers were drained of resources. If I was also in that predicament, we'd have had an awkward choice to make.
|
A bear and an NPC are not the same thing. I'm not a metagamer. I should be able to rely on my character's skills. Knowledge skills should be able to give me relevant information about a creature. If the GM is constantly changing things, then what's the point of investing in knowledge skills? I have played with GMs that change things so much that the game is no longer fun. A bear is a bear is a bear and that's how it should be. If there is a special bear running around, then it should stand out from the norm.
Does a bear have to be special to have a different HP total? Do I need to say 'this bear looks different' if I advanced it a HD, or increased it's Str score beyond what the manual says?
Why must a bear be different just because it has Weapon Focus instead of Toughness or Skill Focus?
|
|
I finally got to play in a game last night, my second night home on leave. I had no idea what to play, but the party said they needed a healer, so I went with my old standby of cleric.
Unfortunately, my friend Jon played a monk. Usually this isn't a problem. Only this time was straight 3.5. And he doesn't have a good grasp of mechanics, so he focused on Dex of course. He was a little upset when the DM pointed out that he couldn't legally get Weapon Finesse and Improved Natural Attack by second level, which we were starting at.
He spent most of the three battles of the night plugging away with a crossbow. I'm sure the fiasco with the feats had an effect on his enjoyment, but he was also very frustrated with his performance in game from what I could tell.
Luckily, the barbarian, spellthief/duskblade, and my cleric had melee handled, so his monk pulled support alongside the bard and shugenja.
I just wish he could have felt more useful.
Feats are supposed to make a difference. The thing is, feats are also selectable and varied. Monsters get feats based on their HD, and these feats are not preselected as a rule. Sample creatures are build with a selection of feats, but at the end of the day there is now rule that says they only have those feats. The rules do say that creatures get 1 feat +1 every odd hit die, and that it must be a feat they qualify for.
Actually the rule you are referring to is for advancing or creating a new monster. The monsters in the Bestiary are already created. Their feats are preselected as a rule. Each of the creatures in the Bestiary are the standard. There can be differences but those creatures should stand out from the crowd.
Also, Combat Expertise and Improved Natural Armor are not the same at low levels. Combat Expertise grants a Dodge bonus which applies to touch-AC as well, making it harder to be hit by touch-based effects. Natural armor is better vs melee (usually) and applies while flat-footed. Both have their uses, and are considerable. However, most creatures at low level who qualify for Improved Natural Armor do not qualify for Combat Expertise (due to Int requirements). Those that qualify for both may actually have a reason to choose one over the other, or even choose both.
+1 Natural Armor and +1 Dodge end up with the same general effect of increasing the Armor Class. For most melee characters, there is very little difference. My point is only enhanced with your explanation anyway. That +1 dodge versus +1 natural armor has an impact on characters that rely on higher initiatives, like rogues.
Toughness can be a game changer. That extra +6 HP on a 6HD animal might mean the difference between a dead animal and a dead character (since that animal might get one more full-attack off). However, that was one of the feats this animal had. Good for that animal. It doesn't change his CR in the slightest. CR isn't Rock-Paper-Scissors. It's not about who can strike at the monster's weakness. A party full of spellcasters doesn't get anymore XP for monsters that have Spell Resistance.
It doesn't change the CR but it does change the actually difficulty of defeating it for some classes. This is something that needs to be taken into account. CR is not a perfect system and feats are not all equal. You can't just swap things around and assume that everything remains the same challenge.
Let me give a better example: If a fighter took skill focus every odd level, would you say that he is as effective in combat as a fighter that took more combat oriented feats at those odd levels? Is Skill Focus: Perform equivalent to Toughness for a level 10 fighter? If this was an NPC, which version would be harder to deal with? Not all feats are equal and should not be assumed so when making adjustments.
Knowledge requires no action to use. You can use it the moment you see an enemy if you like to glean any useful information. You might find out that this Bear has Toughness and is more robust than most, or you might see that the bear seems more focused and have Iron Will. Or maybe you just get general information that gives similar info such as "This bear looks tougher than most" or "this bear has a stronger than average will".
It doesn't change the fact you probably know from your previous run-ins with bears or just generally know that animals tend to have poor will saves. It does mean that the bear's feats might change HOW you fight him. If you can't change how you fight him, then you as a heroic adventurer are in trouble. Which is my point.
Knowledge is about what you know, not what you observe at that moment in time. Sense Motive or Perception should give you information like "this bear has a stronger than average will."
So you're saying that having a +25 Knowledge skill means you guess the bear's stats, or look in the Bestiary for the example monster? Man it must piss you off when your GM uses humanoids, since virtually all of those have strengths and weaknesses based on their class levels and/or feats. There's not a lot of statblocks in the bestiary for different types of orcs, are there?
Actually, with a +25 Knowledge skill, you should know quite a bit about the bear. For humanoids, Knowledge (local) would give you that information. Knowing that a human has an extra feat is one thing. Knowing that Larry the Cavalier is an expert with the lance tells you much more. This is the exact thing that Knowledge checks are for.
If anything, your character would be better served with those knowledge skills. You get to discern the strengths and weaknesses of the creature you encounter better than someone who happened to buy the Bestiary and have a lot of free time for reading. Congratulations.
The way you are using Knowledge skills there would be no difference. However, knowledge is about what you know in your field of study. If your field of study is in constant flux, then you can't know much about it.
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen a whole lot to show that was the case. There comes a point where "generic pathfinder" hits the GM-screen. Remember how I mentioned stuff like terrain, sight conditions, buffs, debuffs, mixed groups, etc? Yeah, that kinda stuff happens in generic pathfinder games as far as I know. Without any splat books, creatures are allowed to have different feats they qualify for. Still generic Pathfinder. No splatbooks, homebrew or house-rules involved yet.
From the math that has been presented in this thread and others, I have my doubts that a standard generic 15 pb pathfinder monk that focuses so heavily on Dex and Wisdom will actually be able to adequately survive while participating in an actual adventure without being little more than a resource drain on the party.
This is where you and I have very different experiences. I have seen the monk be the opposite of a drain on the party. In fact, the casters seem to be the bigger drain since they seem to want to spend time crafting (while the enemy is getting stronger) and they have expensive material components. Does this mean that I think casters are weak? Nope. It just means that we have different experiences.
It can be easily shown that the monk can deal with the target numbers for creatures of each challenge rating. What they will never show is how the party and GM handle things. I have seen GMs run animals as if they are as smart as ancient gold dragons. I have seen GMs run ancient gold dragons as if they are smart as bears.
I was trying to ask LilithsThrall what was the fallback if the plan wouldn't work. Instead, I got called a noob, and was told to go find some posts where it was already explained - but woe I could not find them. Still, a legitimate question, I think. I want to know how a monk is supposed to be played, since apparently having played the core of this system for 11 years and having seen many monks come and go through my games, some good and some bad, I apparently have no idea how a monk can or should be played. So, I wish to be educated for my "noobness".
I don't condone the "noob" comment. I have been gaming since 1979. That doesn't make me a better GM or player than you or anyone else. I don't generally bring it up because time-in-service is not always a good indicator of skill. We have all seen people who have gamed for decades still have a hard time with the basics. I do think that assuming all campaigns will be run the same way shows a lack of understanding of how role playing games work, but I don't think you fall into that category. There are some who do, but I can't think of any in this thread.
I agree. Which is why I merely asked "What if".
This is one of the things that makes fighting devils and demons a real challenge. Sure, there are some things you can count on, but a creature known for its strategies and tactics as it leads armies should not be an easy battle for anyone. Certainly not as simply walking into his home and taking him out.
A bear and an NPC are not the same thing. I'm not a metagamer. I should be able to rely on my character's skills. Knowledge skills should be able to give me relevant information about a creature. If the GM is constantly changing things, then what's the point of investing in knowledge skills? I have played with GMs that change things so much that the game is no longer fun. A bear is a bear is a bear and that's how it should be. If there is a special bear running around, then it should stand out from the norm.Does a bear have to be special to have a different HP total? Do I need to say 'this bear looks different' if I advanced it a HD, or increased it's Str score beyond what the manual says?
Why must a bear be different just because it has Weapon Focus instead of Toughness or Skill Focus?
It is different because the bears are known for their endurance and running abilities. If you change what they can do, then they are not the standard bears. That's fine, it just needs to be understood by the players that some creatures are different. If all creatures are different then it becomes difficult to keep up. If I encounter a bear today. I should be able to rely on that information tomorrow if I encounter another bear.
|
|
I finally got to play in a game last night, my second night home on leave. I had no idea what to play, but the party said they needed a healer, so I went with my old standby of cleric.
Unfortunately, my friend Jon played a monk. Usually this isn't a problem. Only this time was straight 3.5. And he doesn't have a good grasp of mechanics, so he focused on Dex of course. He was a little upset when the DM pointed out that he couldn't legally get Weapon Finesse and Improved Natural Attack by second level, which we were starting at.
He spent most of the three battles of the night plugging away with a crossbow. I'm sure the fiasco with the feats had an effect on his enjoyment, but he was also very frustrated with his performance in game from what I could tell.
Luckily, the barbarian, spellthief/duskblade, and my cleric had melee handled, so his monk pulled support alongside the bard and shugenja.
I just wish he could have felt more useful.
As I said, they are harder work to build effectively, which contributes to their reputation of suck.
Good points, but if I run a monk in an AP with 15 pb which is standard I don't see it doing well. It seems to need 20 pb at a minimum.
I will also add that her point was probably that the other classes are still keeping up. If the monk can't keep up....?
I'm running Age of Worms and I'm finding that all the classes are having a hard time at these upper levels. The party just hit level 17 and they are having one hell of a time. I haven't adjusted the module (other than converting to Pathfinder) and I'm running 7 players. My players are more casual than optimizers so that's part of the problem. I haven't run or read any of the other APs so I can't comment on them. I do know that the APs should be written for the casual gamers and the GM can adjust up to make it harder for the optimizers.
Also, are the APs written with 15 or 20 point buy in mind? I know the game assumes 15 point buy but many people use the 20 point buy that Society characters start with.
I started this AP with 15 point buy and within just a few sessions I had everyone increase to 20 point buy. It has helped but it's still rough.
Remember Age of Worms is 3.5, but as I recall the Iconics there still use the Elite Array.
Hope you are adjusting the WBL to account for 7 characters, heh.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I finally got to play in a game last night, my second night home on leave. I had no idea what to play, but the party said they needed a healer, so I went with my old standby of cleric.
Unfortunately, my friend Jon played a monk. Usually this isn't a problem. Only this time was straight 3.5. And he doesn't have a good grasp of mechanics, so he focused on Dex of course. He was a little upset when the DM pointed out that he couldn't legally get Weapon Finesse and Improved Natural Attack by second level, which we were starting at.
He spent most of the three battles of the night plugging away with a crossbow. I'm sure the fiasco with the feats had an effect on his enjoyment, but he was also very frustrated with his performance in game from what I could tell.
Luckily, the barbarian, spellthief/duskblade, and my cleric had melee handled, so his monk pulled support alongside the bard and shugenja.
I just wish he could have felt more useful.
He was a monk with a crossbow, he deserves what he got. Seriously, he could flurry with shruikien if he is married to having a dex build.
|
|
The enemies were around 60ft away. But at least the DM doesn't track non-magical ammo, so he'd have infinite shurikens.
I'm also amused that you say someone who doesn't know how to play 'deserves' what he gets.
In his case, I believe he deserves what he gets since he doesn't want to make time outside of the game to prepare. Especially as a stay at home dad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is different because the bears are known for their endurance and running abilities. If you change what they can do, then they are not the standard bears. That's fine, it just needs to be understood by the players that some creatures are different. If all creatures are different then it becomes difficult to keep up. If I encounter a bear today. I should be able to rely on that information tomorrow if I encounter another bear.
A bear and an NPC are not the same thing. I'm not a metagamer. I should be able to rely on my character's skills. Knowledge skills should be able to give me relevant information about a creature. If the GM is constantly changing things, then what's the point of investing in knowledge skills? I have played with GMs that change things so much that the game is no longer fun. A bear is a bear is a bear and that's how it should be. If there is a special bear running around, then it should stand out from the norm.Does a bear have to be special to have a different HP total? Do I need to say 'this bear looks different' if I advanced it a HD, or increased it's Str score beyond what the manual says?
Why must a bear be different just because it has Weapon Focus instead of Toughness or Skill Focus?
I think this too goes into the realm of Emerson's "foolish consistency."
Not all bears are equal. The brown bears of Alaska are the same species as the grizzly bears of Montana. But they are vastly different in size, strength and habits. The same is true of "mountain lions" which are the same species in Colorado and Arizona, but they are different.
Bob, I frankly think that you would find the way I handle monsters and NPCs quite refreshing and believable. I utilize knowledge checks, but I give more information based on your knowledge checks.
Let's say you are outside your normal area and encounter a bear. The bears in your area are forest foragers and adult males average around 500 pounds (say, a Montana grizzly), but you are in a salmon river setting and the same species of bear are river fishers and caribou feeders and adult males average closer to 1,000 pounds.
I play it that way. Ecologies are very important to my worlds.
If your grizzly bear character encounters a brown bear and makes a knowledge nature roll high enough, I would let you know that this particular variation of "ursus arctos" is more aggressive and quicker to fight than his forest dwelling cousins, and that it is harder to kill. If you rolled high enough I'd probably let you know that these bears are excellent swimmers and take no penalties for combat in water.
Stuff like that.
In any large group of animals I will have one or two that are the "alpha" animals. Usually that means I give them at least one more hit die, a boost to saves, AC or attack rolls, or I give them a different feat (improved initiative is one of my favorites.) I think that's totally realistic and provides the encounter with some uniqueness. I will always describe the alpha monster or animal in a way that distinguishes it from the others.
So far nobody has ever complained about these techniques, and in fact I have generally received nothing but compliments for doing this sort of thing.
And I haven't even talked yet about my completely unique monsters I make up all the time. I'm looking forward to introducing my "gatorsaurs" as soon as I can...
|
|
The enemies were around 60ft away. But at least the DM doesn't track non-magical ammo, so he'd have infinite shurikens.
I'm also amused that you say someone who doesn't know how to play 'deserves' what he gets.
In his case, I believe he deserves what he gets since he doesn't want to make time outside of the game to prepare. Especially as a stay at home dad.
By that I mean if you play a wizard who attacks with a long sword, or a barbarian who focuses on ranged attacks, or a monk not using a monk weapon...
Just saying.