I pointed it out before and I'll do so again. The monk has Perception as a class skill and both Dex and Wis as prime reqs.
No other class has that - not the Druid, Inquisitor, or Ranger.
Give the monk Improved Initiative, and the monk can close distance with the enemy before anybody else even knows combat has started.
Hold up.
First off, strength and constitution are also prim reqs.
Secondly, are you really saying that monks being brutally MAD is a good thing? There's LilithPosting and then there's literally saying that one of their biggest flaws is a good thing.
Third off, no, you're wrong. Ranged rangers and ranged inquisitors want dex and wisdom too! You are factually incorrect.
In addition, the monk has substantial movement (not even giving a magic item to another class will match the amount of ground the monk can _as_a_move_action_). The closest another class can get is with fly, which has substantial problems in forests, fog, underground, and, in fact, the majority of areas combat takes place and, also, requires skill points.
The monk runs fast. Just say "the monk can run fast." The reason you aren't saying this is because "run fast" is meaningless in 99/100 cases.
Synergizing with all of the above is the fact that monks get stealth as a class skill. So, they can make the perception skill, the initiative roll, and hide before the enemy even knows they are there - then, their half move (with a magic item) will keep them up with other characters who are _taking_double_moves_. Compare it to Druids who can come closest to matching this ability, but only by losing opposable thumbs.
Your babbling. Also, all of this applies to the above listed classes. Rangers have stealth too! So do Inquisitors! In fact, Rangers get HiPS, which monks don't! They are better at this then monks are.
Either way, stealth is useless in the eyes of blindsight, or tremorsense, or any number of other abilities that just ignore your hiding.
The monk gets a lot of free feats which can be spent on combat manuevers and, contrary to what some people believe, freedom of movement only impacts grapple, not disarm, trip, etc. In other words, combat manuevers remain useful at all levels.
FoM only works on grapple. Flying works on grapple and trip and, well, everything. Teleportation works on grapple and trip and etc, etc. Being large sized works on all of that too. Having four legs works on trip too.
See, you took one part of that - Freedom of Movement - and took that to be the whole thing. It's not. There's FoM, certainly. And then there's flying. And then there's teleportation. And so on, and so forth.
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.
AoW is a ridiculously hard AP which is why I did not bring it up. AoW is really hard starting at chapter 7(TPK chapter), as opposed, to just regular hard.
Off-topic:I heart AoW.
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.
Poison saves can be taken care of with a low level scroll, and normally after combat. Diseases are a little harder to deal with, but they are not that common. I also don't think a monk fails that much less since most saves are against magical affects. Being upright is not contributing. Doing something helpful is contributing.
A ranger can sure put his second highest score into Wisdom. Bonus spells and a good will save. He won't up it with levels, but he sure can with gear.
And I note you ignored the Inquisitor, who certainly might.
2) It's just movement. Much of what he can do can be done better by Boots of Flying at the levels he's capable of doing a lot.
3)Inqs and Rangers can take a feat to move at full while Stealthing..or just use Boots of flying for a base 60' move and do 30 while stealthing.
Or better yet, just use a Ring of Invisiblity while using Boots of flying.
4)Remind us the level at which you get Air Walk, and when you can reasonably afford boots of flying?
===Aelryinth
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?
You did not actually quote anyone, and while I don't agree with everything he said some things were said by both of us.
If addressing a particular poster then quote that poster in your response.
ok guys here what i propose look at each one of the monks ability's the bonus it gives and the amount they can use it then check out monsters in the beastiary's that those ability's would apply to at each level. such as how many monsters use disease attacks. you can give a monk a point for everyone and monsters that they are useless against take away one. or some such and see exactly how often and useful each monk ability is. then you can say you have the final word.
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.
This made me laugh. That's all I have to say on the matter, no offense to anyone I was conversing with but I feel I've been lost in the conversation.
Seriously though I Rofl at this.
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.This made me laugh. That's all I have to say on the matter, no offense to anyone I was conversing with but I feel I've been lost in the conversation.
Seriously though I Rofl at this.
Yeah it's pretty laughable. I don't even know how to respond, honestly. That's like saying it's a rule that Orcs wield falchions and have weapon focus (falchion). The GM is somehow cheating if that orc was to have, say, a glaive and power attack! Or maybe you can change the weapon but can't change the feat, because that would be cheating, so our glaive-wielding orc must keep Weapon Focus (falchion) or else that's cheating.
Man, and if one of those orcs might be an adept instead of a warrior, then the players should definitely walk. That GM has no business cheating like he's doing. The sample orc is quite clearly a falchion wielding orc with nondescript NPC gear, and that means they all are, or at least those that aren't are really rare. And they better stay rare, because I read the stats in the Bestiary and that makes it a rule. It's a rule dag'um-it. Anything else is a house rule and should be noted before the game ever begins. Don't you even THINK about touching that horse's Endurance and Run feats for Light and Medium Armor proficiency because BARDING IS CHEATING, and don't consider Fleet or Skill Focus (Perception) either, you dirty cheaters you!
/dies of sarcasm overdose.
Good Lord, you want to keep adding more and more magic items to a class in order for it to come close to matching what a monk can do!
But what you forget is that, while you keep spending all this wealth on items to match what the monk can do, the monk is spending his wealth on other items to make him even better.
Seems fair since the monk needs so many magic items to keep up with other character classes at almost anything except moving quickly. Seems pretty darn fair indeed.
Also, I couldn't find those posts you said would explain how your monk assuredly sneaks up on the Horned Devil, and you haven't yet explained what you do if your series of dominoes don't fall just like you want them. I'm still waiting for those examples. You could link me to your post, or quote them, since I couldn't find them.
I'm not against a GM altering his monsters slightly as he sees fit. But, that's a house rule and, like all house rules, should be known going into the game.
While I don't agree that it's a "house rule" to vary monsters and animals from the single stat block listed in the bestiary, I do make it clear to my players that I do that and other things before starting any campaign.
In fact I give them a pretty in-depth and detailed list of things that I might do differently than they have experienced with other GMs. That includes letting them know that magic can be very unpredictable itself. There are some places in my campaign world where using magic can be a pretty risky endeavor.
Really, a grizzly bear with an extra hit die, improved initiative and extensive swimming skills is a very, very tame example of the sort of differences you are going to run into in one of my campaigns.
I guess that I just can't help but feel that a "fantasy role playing game" should be, you know, fantastic for the characters and players. If my players aren't routinely saying "What the heck is THAT?" then I'm really not doing my job. At least imho.
+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.
While the +1 dodge bonus has a higher impact on those who use rays, like wizards. Yeah, feats do stuff. Amazing, I know. I mean, why should a feat actually matter to anything in a way that would be meaningful, right? I mean, they might as well not even have feats, because certain feats make them kind of nastier in some cases, or less nasty. Pfft.
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.
If you took skill focus every odd level, that would be quite odd, but you might have a +3 to +6 bonus in several skills which makes you more versatile. I guess if you're just trying to be asinine and choose stuff like "Skill Focus (Craft: Basketweaving)", and then just choosing the absolute worst feats possible as your bonus Fighter feats (stuff like weapon finesse, point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, and so forth while actually being a Str 18, Dex 13 Fighter who wields a greatsword and nothing else), then yeah you're going to have problems.
However, that's asinine. In most cases the feat swaps mean the creature might work a bit differently, but it won't make a major difference in how powerful that creature is. A bear with Toughness instead of Endurance isn't going to be that much stronger. Both even fit equally thematically. If the bear has Improved Natural Armor instead of Run, it's not going to make him that much harder to defeat, but he might not be able to chase down a barbarian or a monk now. In either case, he's going to be no harder for a Druid to charm or calm down. It's a bit different, but it's not a higher challenge rating and it's not cheating.
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."
That's all good and all, but last I checked you can roll a check when you see something you're curious about. It takes no action. Unless you walk around making checks constantly about stuff that has no immediate baring on the situation. That sounds kind of foolish to me. In fact, it says you can use it to "Identify Monsters and their Special Abilities" which leads me to think that you'd probably use it when you needed to identify the monster in question (in other words, this one right in front of you).
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.
Or you in fact know enough about your field of study to detail certain characteristics about different specimens in your field. In fact, it implies that you know more about your field of study because you can answer questions about a wider variety of "bear", or use your knowledge to surmise what seems to be an outstanding specimen. "Extraordinary! This bear is the largest I've ever seen before! If all the bears in this mountain are so heavily muscled, then we have discovered something most fascinating!" - "Yeah, yeah, but how do we kill it!?" - "Oh, well it's girth is so much and its fur so thick, I would suggest using splash weapons or spells!" - "Alright, gotcha, everyone get the alchemist fire!"
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.
That's cool, I guess. I've seen monks that could do well. I just said that particular monk would suck pretty harshly. Also, how on earth are spellcasters producing their own magic items a drain on the party? That's idiotic. Are you suggesting that using their share (or others) of the wealth to craft magical items at a cheaper rate is somehow taking more than their share of resources from the party!?
That's just stupid. If the cleric pops out a wand of cure light wounds to help them go farther, then he's contributing to the party. If all the Fighter is doing is using up those charges, and not giving anything meaningful back then the Fighter is a drain on the party. Anyone can be a drain on the party if played badly enough, but I think that monk is predisposed to being a drain on the party because it looks quite sucktastic to me, and thus far LilithsThrall hasn't actually given any answer for what it isn't sucktastic.
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.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed again. So my question remains. What does the monk do if its series of dominoes don't fall just as it plans? What else does it have to contribute? What else is it going to fall back on?
FIGHT TO THE DEATH GO
well unless someone can quantitatively prove their point its all just opinion isn't it?
I'm not against a GM altering his monsters slightly as he sees fit. But, that's a house rule and, like all house rules, should be known going into the game.
Uhh no, there is no such thing as a standard monster, the entire bestiary is samples and quick rules to get a game going. Do all of your players play the sample fighter provided? I somehow doubt it. Every class has a sample and every monster has a sample, just because their are 100+ monsters doesn't mean they are any different then any other sample.
|
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men?
Black Pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men...not acceptable.
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men? At some game tables, creating a Lawful Good Horned Devil will break the suspension of disbelief and at other game tables it'll be taken without batting an eye. Maybe the feats a monster has are part of it's anatomical structure or maybe they were taught to it. All this stuff depends on house rules.I'm not against a GM altering his monsters slightly as he sees fit. But, that's a house rule and, like all house rules, should be known going into the game.Uhh no, there is no such thing as a standard monster, the entire bestiary is samples and quick rules to get a game going. Do all of your players play the sample fighter provided? I somehow doubt it. Every class has a sample and every monster has a sample, just because their are 100+ monsters doesn't mean they are any different then any other sample.
All this stuff depends on GM's decisions. GMs make decisions and arbitrate game situations all the time. That's their primary purpose.
To say that modifying a monster is a "house rule" is literally the exact same thing as saying if a GM modifies a climb DC because "these particular bricks are really smooth" that is a "house rule."
If a GM goes nutzo and creates a two-headed flying lion with multiple bite attacks and a move of 120 and doesn't adjust the CR, that's a bad GM, not a "house ruled lion."
I rank the monk with the bard-if you play them without knowing the classes, you will not be good at them. In fact, you'll be pissed and bored, because you can't really do anything except miss alot and sing.
I consider them more advanced classes, because someone who knows the class can win (yes, win) any combat. And not be bored. Just like clerics-if you play a basic healbot, you'll get bored of the character and want him to die so you can roll a more exciting character. But, if you research and scheme, you can come up with a character that does awesome things.
TL;DR: Learn to play.
|
|
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men?
Black Pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men...not acceptable.
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for telling us the house rules where you play
Hey, thanks for asking the question.
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men? At some game tables, creating a Lawful Good Horned Devil will break the suspension of disbelief and at other game tables it'll be taken without batting an eye. Maybe the feats a monster has are part of it's anatomical structure or maybe they were taught to it. All this stuff depends on house rules.
My bestiary happens to come with monster creation rules, have a look maybe yours does too.
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 have been adjusting the money they get. I've been really nice about it too and just giving them a lump sum of gold to purchase what they want. It's still a really tough AP in some areas. We're about to finish Chapter 9 (The Library of Last Resort). They are on the final encounter. We find out next week if they live to see Chapter 10.
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...
So basically you are saying that you have broken down the ursine family into various species each with similar but still different features. That's something I'm perfectly fine with. That's not how I was understanding you initially. I think that would make things a bit more interesting. Simply adding a hit die or the Advanced Creature template to the alphas is something I do as well. While I was out today, I was trying to think of an example of a bear that was unique and had a reputation for being unique. It would stand out from the rest. I started thinking of "Bald-Headed Bear" from "The Great Outdoors." To emulate this bear (assuming no advancement), I would probably drop Run or Endurance and give it Toughness. The other bears in the area would remain unchanged.
regarding the 'noob' comment, I wasn't the one who brought up years of service. That was Ashiel. He waved his eleven years like it meant something. I made the 'noob' comment to point out that it doesn't mean anything.
It means I've been running 3.x/d20 games since their conception, for 11 years. I didn't pickup the manual yesterday and start criticizing based on lack of experience. I've had lots of monks in my games. Heck, one of my best friends LOVES monks and insisted they were made of awesome and win, and wielded a pair of Tonfas.
Your calling people a noob and just throwing words around and such doesn't really do anything positive for your case. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you have nothing to fall back on other than insults and petty "go review". I did go back and review. I didn't see anything that answered my questions. If you want to point me in the right direction with a link or perhaps quote yourself, then that's great. However, I'm very unimpressed with you so far.
Ashiel, what does a Wizard do if his series of dominoes don't fall just as planned? It's possible to create a scenario in which any particular character is going to be at a disadvantage. Fortunately, those characters are typically part of a team.
The the wizard defaults to doing something different. If for example the wizard gets the jump on the demon and casts flesh to stone on him, he's basically banking on piercing the demon's SR and save to end the fight immediately during the surprise round. If he succeeds, the demon is dead. Or maybe he opted to try and stick a dimensional anchor during the surprise round. Both seem like good options.
If they failed, the wizard could cast haste on the party, or use telekinesis to throw the party's fighter at the creature without provoking attacks, putting the party's high AC meatgrinder into position for a full-attack on his turn. Or he could cast circle of protection from evil so that everyone in the area would be warded from any summons the demon drops, mind control the demon might have, and so forth. He might simply dimension door away or teleport the party to safety if something looks bad.
The wizard might instead summon a monster. If he began summoning on the surprise round he could finish on his first round and drop the monster right next to the demon. He could ready an action to pummel the demon with magic missile if he tries to cast a spell/spell-like ability. He might just throw a stoneskin on one of his allies. He might drop a no-save / SR spell like black tentacles or two on the demon to harass him while his party members take the demon apart with ranged attacks and/or melee.
He has a lot that he contributes that doesn't involve getting a surprise on an enemy and landing stunning fist.
Even a Ranger (stealthy, high perception, higher than normal speed via longstrider, concealment via lesser cloak of displacement or similar, skillmonkey, mobile) could contribute not only to this environment with heavy damage in melee and ranged combat, but with skills both in and outside of combat, with spells (he can function as a party healer and has a variety of nice buffs), an animal companion to help the party in times of battle or for tracking, and is just as capable as the monk at doing things like grappling and/or tripping (especially since he could wield a guisarme and get some pretty huge trip modifiers that way). He could even pickup a life-drinker and have the cleric cast death ward on him, and then open up with a full-attack on the demon and inflict a bunch of negative levels on him (2 negative levels / hit) which would give the fiend some pretty horrendous penalties to his attacks, checks, and saves (and HP too).
But as I asked. How are you supposed to play a monk? Educate the ignorant here. Help me out. Is this, as you have shown, the correct way to play a monk to its fullest? Is this the monk that you expect should do better than mediocre in most games?
Your babbling. Also, all of this applies to the above listed classes. Rangers have stealth too! So do Inquisitors! In fact, Rangers get HiPS, which monks don't! They are better at this then monks are.
Either way, stealth is useless in the eyes of blindsight, or tremorsense, or any number of other abilities that just ignore your hiding.
Stealth is not entirely useless in those situations. It becomes more limited but it is not useless. You can use Stealth outside of the range of tremorsense and leap to the enemy. A high level monk should have little problem with that. A monk gains +4 at level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 just for his speed. At level 6, assuming a 12 Dexterity, he can leap 6 (ranks) +3 (class skill) +16 (40 additional feet) +6 (level) = 31 feet. At level 9, this is 9+3+20+9 41 feet. Level 12 we've got 12+3+24+12 = 51 feet. And at level 15 we're at 61 feet. This is assuming he didn't take Acrobatics and/or Skill Focus which would mean he can leap beyond the tremorsense range sooner than level 15. No magic was used either.
Blindsight can be dealt with as well. If the blindsight is granted because of hearing (and there are some with this ability), the monk can possibly deafen the target making stealth a sure thing. Of course this comes with the same restrictions as Stunning Fist but since I've got his Dex at 12, he can bump his Wisdom a bit.
FoM only works on grapple. Flying works on grapple and trip and, well, everything. Teleportation works on grapple and trip and etc, etc. Being large sized works on all of that too. Having four legs works on trip too.
See, you took one part of that - Freedom of Movement - and took that to be the whole thing. It's not. There's FoM, certainly. And then there's flying. And then there's teleportation. And so on, and so forth.
Flying does not prevent grapples. It may make some creatures be out of reach but that is no guarantee. And a creature that is relying on wings for flight may be in for a rough landing.
As I was writing this I was imagining a monk leaping across a clearing with Spring Attack to make one attack as he leaps over a creature and stunning it. That's style. It would look amazing. I think I'll see if I can make a monk that can do that. It's late so I'm not going to work on it tonight.
Again, yes, the GM can create a monster custom made to kill a monk character.
The GM can, also, create a monster custom made to kill any other character.
No big surprise and doesn't win arguments.
In the example scenario which brought us around to this discussion, the Devil had Combat Reflexes. But, the monk had a much higher stealth roll than the Devil's perception score. So, in addition to the Devil now having Combat Reflexes, we give the Devil a skill focus in perception as well. While we're at it, let's give the Devil a built-in stinger rather than his weapon (so he won't be disarmed), make him a construct instead of a Devil (so stunning fist don't work), make him four legged (so he can't be tripped), give him freedom of movement (so he can't be grappled), etc., but let's keep his CR the same. Sound fair?
Do not be asinine. Do you believe that merely having combat reflexes makes the creature custom made to kill a monk character? I think this statement pretty much sums up why I don't think your posted monk would survive in my games (as other monks have).
You still didn't suggest what your monk will do should your stunning fist gambit fail (and it is statistically more probable to fail than succeed). Being asinine and comparing having Combat Reflexes and Ability Focus (main ability) instead of Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike to actually changing the monster's type, natural weapons, body shape, and essentially changing it into something specifically designed to kill the monk.
You know that wasn't what I was saying. Do you have anything else to say on the subject, or was my question of "what if" too difficult. Should I take your post as an admission that your monk is screwed because of a simple feat swap? That is in fact how it sounds from my side, at the moment.
Again, yes, the GM can create a monster custom made to kill a monk character.
The GM can, also, create a monster custom made to kill any other character.
No big surprise and doesn't win arguments.
In the example scenario which brought us around to this discussion, the Devil had Combat Reflexes. But, the monk had a much higher stealth roll than the Devil's perception score. So, in addition to the Devil now having Combat Reflexes, we give the Devil a skill focus in perception as well. While we're at it, let's give the Devil a built-in stinger rather than his weapon (so he won't be disarmed), make him a construct instead of a Devil (so stunning fist don't work), make him four legged (so he can't be tripped), give him freedom of movement (so he can't be grappled), etc., but let's keep his CR the same. Sound fair?
No, look at the creation rules again, that is a much higher CR, besides combat reflexes let you make AOO while flatfooted so he doesn't need anything of that other stuff. Honestly though, after your one attempt at stunning him what is your plan? You could run away (how useful /sarcasm) or you can hit him, which lets face it won't do much.
Don't try to tell me the party will back him up because if they are close enough to reach him in a round they are probably close enough to ruin your stealth roll in the first place.
+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.While the +1 dodge bonus has a higher impact on those who use rays, like wizards. Yeah, feats do stuff. Amazing, I know. I mean, why should a feat actually matter to anything in a way that would be meaningful, right? I mean, they might as well not even have feats, because certain feats make them kind of nastier in some cases, or less nasty. Pfft.
You are missing what I'm saying. If changing the feats don't make a difference then why change them at all? Obviously it's because they make a difference. You want to beef up (I'm willing to bet that you rarely weaken a creature this way) the beastie for your games.
If you took skill focus every odd level, that would be quite odd, but you might have a +3 to +6 bonus in several skills which makes you more versatile. I guess if you're just trying to be asinine and choose stuff like "Skill Focus (Craft: Basketweaving)", and then just choosing the absolute worst feats possible as your bonus Fighter feats (stuff like weapon finesse, point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, and so forth while actually being a Str 18, Dex 13 Fighter who wields a greatsword and nothing else), then yeah you're going to have problems.
However, that's asinine. In most cases the feat swaps mean the creature might work a bit differently, but it won't make a major difference in how powerful that creature is. A bear with Toughness instead of Endurance isn't going to be that much stronger. Both even fit equally thematically. If the bear has Improved Natural Armor instead of Run, it's not going to make him that much harder to defeat, but he might not be able to chase down a barbarian or a monk now. In either case, he's going to be no harder for a Druid to charm or calm down. It's a bit different, but it's not a higher challenge rating and it's not cheating.
My point is that not all feats are created equal so you can't assume that a creature will be equally difficult to deal with just because you changed the feats. A bear with toughness will be harder than a bear with endurance especially against a character that isn't dealing a lot of damage. If you increase it's AC as well, then it is a little harder to hit as well. Combine those and the classes with 3/4 BAB and unable to deal a lot of damage (for example: rogues that can't get their sneak attack for whatever reason) and you have made the creature tougher.
That's all good and all, but last I checked you can roll a check when you see something you're curious about. It takes no action. Unless you walk around making checks constantly about stuff that has no immediate baring on the situation. That sounds kind of foolish to me. In fact, it says you can use it to "Identify Monsters and their Special Abilities" which leads me to think that you'd probably use it when you needed to identify the monster in question (in other words, this one right in front of you).
You're not trying to determine something about this exact monster in front of you. You are trying to determine something about the general monster in front of you. The knowledge skill very clearly states that it is about what you already know, that's why you can't make a second check if you fail the first one. Knowledge skills aren't really about curiosity. They are about already gained information that you are remembering.
Or you in fact know enough about your field of study to detail certain characteristics about different specimens in your field. In fact, it implies that you know more about your field of study because you can answer questions about a wider variety of "bear", or use your knowledge to surmise what seems to be an outstanding specimen. "Extraordinary! This bear is the largest I've ever seen before! If all the bears in this mountain are so heavily muscled, then we have discovered something most fascinating!" - "Yeah, yeah, but how do we kill it!?" - "Oh, well it's girth is so much and its fur so thick, I would suggest using splash weapons or spells!" - "Alright, gotcha, everyone get the alchemist fire!"
That's not what you were talking about at first. You weren't talking about making universal changes to a creature. You were talking about making individual changes to a creature on a regular basis.
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.That's cool, I guess. I've seen monks that could do well. I just said that particular monk would suck pretty harshly. Also, how on earth are spellcasters producing their own magic items a drain on the party? That's idiotic. Are you suggesting that using their share (or others) of the wealth to craft magical items at a cheaper rate is somehow taking more than their share of resources from the party!?
That's just stupid. If the cleric pops out a wand of cure light wounds to help them go farther, then he's contributing to the party. If all the Fighter is doing is using up those charges, and not giving anything meaningful back then the Fighter is a drain on the party. Anyone can be a drain on the party if played badly enough, but I think that monk is predisposed to being a drain on the party because it looks quite sucktastic to me, and thus far LilithsThrall hasn't actually given any answer for what it isn't sucktastic.
I italicized the portion you missed. When the wizard is spending a week making items, the enemy is gathering forces and replenishing. The enemy is scrying and gathering information. Sometimes time is of the essence. When the wizard is spending exorbitant amounts of gold to cast some spells often it can be a drain. The party I am running right now doesn't have anyone who can raise the dead so they have relied on the wizard to cast limited wish to reincarnate or raise dead. 1,500 gold a pop is a lot of money. In the Age of Worms, we have had several characters die recently. They also have needed to use it for more mundane things because no one had Craft: jewelry and they didn't have make whole or stone shape (the only two spells that could deal with the problem according to the module). So it is entirely possible that the wizard can be a drain on resources.
The monk is one of the few characters that has not needed anyone's help in the party. He hasn't needed much in the way of healing. He hasn't needed to be raised yet. He hasn't needed anyone to buff him. The wizard has buffed him but he didn't ask for it and didn't need it. Enlarge did help but it wasn't required.
I can't speak for LilithThrall's monk. I haven't seen the complete build so it's hard to comment on. Also, the effectiveness is going to depend a lot on what it goes up against.
Again, yes, the GM can create a monster custom made to kill a monk character.
The GM can, also, create a monster custom made to kill any other character.
No big surprise and doesn't win arguments.
In the example scenario which brought us around to this discussion, the Devil had Combat Reflexes. But, the monk had a much higher stealth roll than the Devil's perception score. So, in addition to the Devil now having Combat Reflexes, we give the Devil a skill focus in perception as well. While we're at it, let's give the Devil a built-in stinger rather than his weapon (so he won't be disarmed), make him a construct instead of a Devil (so stunning fist don't work), make him four legged (so he can't be tripped), give him freedom of movement (so he can't be grappled), etc., but let's keep his CR the same. Sound fair?
The example devil (the horned devil) that was brought up does have a built in stinger with a nasty attack.
Infernal Wound (Su) The damage a horned devil deals with its tail causes persistent wounds that deal 2d6 points of bleed damage. Bleeding caused in this way is difficult to staunch—a DC 26 Heal check stops the damage, and any attempt to heal a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed on a DC 26 caster level check or the spell does not function. Success indicates the healing works normally and stops all bleed effects.
I think that this particular devil can be more of a problem than you think even using the standard version. I'm not saying the monk can't be useful in the fight but this devil is designed to be one tough devil. It's probably at the upper end of the CR 16 monsters.
Thanks for telling us the house rules where you playSwap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
Actually, the bestiary helpfully denotes which feats are racial bonuses and can't be swapped. So, not so much.
We have reached a point where giving monsters feats as is recommended by the rules is considered houseruling.
I feel like Rod Sterling should be showing up now to monotone on what a strange land we've found ourselves in.
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men?Black Pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men...not acceptable.
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
No, it isn't. Only if the Black Pudding (why are we capitalizing it?) takes ten times damage from ten thousand spoons carried by a middle aged black man who only needs a knife. Then, it is acceptable. And ironic.
You are missing what I'm saying. If changing the feats don't make a difference then why change them at all? Obviously it's because they make a difference. You want to beef up (I'm willing to bet that you rarely weaken a creature this way) the beastie for your games.
Depends on what I'm looking for in the creature. A lot of creatures tend to have general feat swaps when I'm GMing (of course, then again, a lot of creatures in my games are humanoid too so maybe that doesn't count). However I have had them with certain feats if that fits how they are going to do stuff. If I have a creature that is going to stalk enemies over long distances without rest, or who will have to make Con checks to keep chasing or fleeing, then Endurance looks pretty good for them. If I have an orc lookout, he's more likely to have Skill Focus (Perception). If I have a hobgoblin that I want to be brutal, I'll drop Power Attack and a greatsword on him. If I want 'em to just be a little more spongy (take punishment) without making them much stronger I might toss toughness and/or some save boosters on 'em.
I don't think I have ever chosen a feat to make a monster worse at what I want them to do. I don't really think that's something to expect, and more than expecting a PC to take a feat that is going to actively make it worse at something that it is going to do.
Heck, a fun one would be to drop run and drop Diehard on the bear since it's already got Endurance. That would be a fun surprise indeed. ^.^
The funny thing is I don't expect any of these things to mean that any member of my group is "useless". If swapping feats, or even a bear that just refuses to die (Diehard) means your character is somehow invalidated...well then the character is a fraud. ^_^
My point is that not all feats are created equal so you can't assume that a creature will be equally difficult to deal with just because you changed the feats. A bear with toughness will be harder than a bear with endurance especially against a character that isn't dealing a lot of damage. If you increase it's AC as well, then it is a little harder to hit as well. Combine those and the classes with 3/4 BAB and unable to deal a lot of damage (for example: rogues that can't get their sneak attack for whatever reason) and you have made the creature tougher.
My point is it doesn't make them a completely different level of difficulty. If giving a bear toughness is going to be a major thorn in my character's side, whereas a bear without toughness wouldn't be, then it's a problem with my character. If I'm only functional under the assumption that an enemy A) doesn't have X feat, B) isn't immune to my favorite shtick, C) must play stupid (such as warriors letting themselves be flanked and not flanking, etc), D) might resist or oppose something I'm doing, then I'm a failure. I need to go back to the drawing board and retrain.
Those 3/4 classes might suddenly decide that it's a good time to whip out the acid flasks, or perhaps cast bless, or maybe use some of their class abilities that are the reasons they're not a full-BAB class and stop complaining. Maybe they'll decide that they need to try to flank, demoralize, debuff, or draw the enemy into a better situation. Maybe they'll try to force the "bear" to fight on their terms. If not, well then maybe they should flee.
Take the bear for example. Say we swapped all three of his feats to make him a big nasty bear that has been roaming the mountainous regions. He's just a big husky bear. He doesn't have Run or Skill Focus (Survival) and has fewer ranks in Swim and more ranks in Survival because of his hunting habits (this bear just doesn't swim that much). So we give him Improved Natural Armor and Diehard to represent his huskiness, hulking nature. He's not a giant, and he's not advanced several HD. He's not really that much stronger than most bears, just fat and ornery (but in turn he doesn't swim as well and isn't as prone to running like most bears).
Do we still have a grizzly bear? Yep. Do we have a slightly different grizzly? Yep. Do we have the grizzly we want? Yep. Is it a little tougher in some ways? Yep. Is it worth another +1 CR? Nope.
So what about our poor 3/4 BAB classes? Well let's see. He's 5% harder to hit. Well, if I was a magus I'd want to try and slam him with touch attacks. If I was a cleric, I'd want to grab a spear and try to flank him. If I was a rogue, I'd do the same (preferably with the cleric). If I was a monk, I'd try to let the bear come to me (total defense for +4 AC, which should bring my AC to at least 18), and then flurry when the bear got in range (if he manages to grapple, I can still flurry while he's grappling me and he will theoretically have a lower AC), where my flurry has full BAB and I can get off my iterative attacks at the cost of his full-attack. If I'm a bard, I would consider using a will-save spell and hoping he biffed it or just take cover behind my allies and buff them, then enter the fray with a shortbow or similar, after moving to get a clear shot (to avoid soft cover).
If the bear grapples, then it's time to lay into that bear with all the punishment you can muster. Stab it with light weapons (spiked gauntlet, short sword, whatever) if it grapples you, and have everyone and their neighbor attack it with everything they can muster while it's grappling (its AC is now crap), and the group should survive (unless you're level 1, in which case someone could die or be close to dying, but you might be able to overcome the bear if you have a bruiser or two to spank that bear like a four-year-old in K-Mart with some flanking or during a grapple).
We have reached a point where giving monsters feats as is recommended by the rules is considered houseruling.
I feel like Rod Sterling should be showing up now to monotone on what a strange land we've found ourselves in.
Indeed. It's very sad. :(
|
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
Yes and no. You get three attacks at 3/4 BAB but you don't gain your flurry or maneuver bonus.
The ability would be much better if standard action were less suboptimal for the monk.
|
You do get the maneuver bonus because that is not tied to flurry-
Maneuver Training (Ex)
At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus.
Standard is enough to do a maneuver, or you could do a highly specialised vital strike triple whammy with your three actions. But that does take certain spells cast on the monk to pull off.
Bob when I change a monster's feats I am not cheating you out of knowledge skill use at all. I will use a bear as an example.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
I always assumed this to mean things that are possessed by the monster naturally, not things like feats or skills that might change depending on where a monster lived.
Grizzly Bear CR 4
XP 1,200
N Large animal
Init +1; Senses low-light vision, scent ; Perception +6
Defense
AC 16, touch 10, flat-footed 15 (+1 Dex, +6 natural, –1 size)
hp 42 (5d8+20)
Fort +8, Ref +5, Will +2
Offense
Speed 40 ft.
Melee 2 claws +7 (1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7 (1d6+5)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Statistics
Str 21, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +3; CMB +9 (+13 grapple); CMD 20 (24 vs. trip)
Feats Endurance, Run, Skill Focus (Survival)
Skills Perception +6, Survival +5, Swim +14; Racial Modifiers +4 Swim
The bear has low light vision and scent. It has a good fort save, and low will saves. It is a decent grappler, and normally at least a swimmer(racial modifier).
I never give feats out when a knowledge check is made, but maybe that is just me.
If it was an outsider with DR, and SR I would give that out also along with typical SLA's.
|
|
\
Poison saves can be taken care of with a low level scroll, and normally after combat. Diseases are a little harder to deal with, but they are not that common. I also don't think a monk fails that much less since most saves are against magical affects. Being upright is not contributing. Doing something helpful is contributing.
Except monks have all good saves AND the immunities to poison and disease, and later they have spell resistance. Not to mention evasion and improved evasion.
And you act like a monk does melee damage like a wizard. They functionally have the full BaB two weapon fighting tree without having to use any feats to get there and they have bonus feats that don't require pre-requisites.
Are ability stats more important for a monk? Yes. Can the gold be spent on stat boost items rather than armor, or sometimes weapons? Yes.
At low levels monks have as many bonus feats as a fighter. Then when everyone else is buying magic armor and weapons the monk is getting ability boosters, since he isn't worried about armor check penalties and gets bonuses from Wisdom.
As to disease: Basidirond, Vrock, Bearded Devil, Pit Fiend, Ghoul, Goblin Dog, all Lycanthropes (werewolves, rats, etc...some actually have diseases in addition to Lycantropy), Mummies, Night Hag, Otyugh, Rats, Vargouille,
That is just Bestiary 1, and doesn't include variants, for things like Stirges and Zombies.
Except monks have all good saves AND the immunities to poison and disease, and later they have spell resistance. Not to mention evasion and improved evasion.
SR is not your friend. I specifically avoid ever playing drow because of it. It means you are less likely to receive buffs, which only puts you further behind the curve. I know some buffs are hours per level, but not too many of them. Evasion is nice, but most of the time the monk will make the save anyway. I would rather have a bonus to a weakness. As an example the 3.5 scout had a bonus to its fort save. Fighters get bonuses vs fear affects.
And you act like a monk does melee damage like a wizard. They functionally have the full BaB two weapon fighting tree without having to use any feats to get there and they have bonus feats that don't require pre-requisites.
The dex based builds which many players use are not all that great damage wise. They have bonus feats, but they are prepicked. It would have been better to give them access to the greater versions as well. They had to make FoB like TWF in order to make them somewhat decent in combat. Having to spend all of their feats on TWF trees would have made them no better than an NPC class.
At low levels monks have as many bonus feats as a fighter. Then when everyone else is buying magic armor and weapons the monk is getting ability boosters, since he isn't worried about armor check penalties and gets bonuses from Wisdom.
Having as many feats is not equivalent since they are not the same feats. Actually the monk still has to pay for weapons or get the amulet of mighty fist which cost more than weapons. If the monk goes with the amulet the money the other classes are not using on the amulet is going to stat boosters also. The full BAB classes can hold off on stat boosters and still do more damage. It is not like anyone has to spend all their gold on the big six unless the GM runs a meat grinder, and in that case the monk is also doing everything it can to boost stats also.
As to disease: Basidirond, Vrock, Bearded Devil, Pit Fiend, Ghoul, Goblin Dog, all Lycanthropes (werewolves, rats, etc...some actually have diseases in addition to Lycantropy), Mummies, Night Hag, Otyugh, Rats, Vargouille,
That is just Bestiary 1, and doesn't include variants, for things like Stirges and Zombies.
Most of those diseases are minor things, much like many poisons. The Mummies and Pit Fiends have bad diseases, but they can be dealt with. That is still not a high number of monsters considering the number in the book. If a GM uses diseases a lot then I guess it has more value, but other than that I don't see the how it adds much.
Monk are still not cracking the top 4, and are still party member number 5 or later.PS: The ghoul is used more for the paralysis than the disease. The mummy I will admit is more used for its mummy rot, but it has been debated on who it works against the monk and paladin since it is a disease and a curse.
Bob when I change a monster's feats I am not cheating you out of knowledge skill use at all. I will use a bear as an example.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.I always assumed this to mean things that are possessed by the monster naturally, not things like feats or skills that might change depending on where a monster lived.
** spoiler omitted **
The bear has low light vision and scent. It has a good fort save, and low will saves. It is a decent grappler, and normally at least a swimmer(racial modifier).
I never give feats out when a knowledge check is made, but maybe that is just me.If it was an outsider with DR, and SR I would give that out also along with typical SLA's.
I guess it depends on what you would consider special powers and vulnerabilities. Some feats seem like they would give special powers to a creature. In addition, besides knowing that it's a bear and it has animal traits, shouldn't I also know that a common feature of the bear is its ability to run fast for long distances?
I don't know how it would be beneficial for Knowledge checks if every single version of a creature is different than all the others. How can one learn even general information about a creature that is never the same from one encounter to the next?
Let's pick a bigger bear, the dire bear. Do you tell your players that it is known for it's greater reaction speed than a more mundane bear? Do you tell them that its senses are better too? Those are important features that rely on feats.
I'm not saying that you should tell the players what the creature's feats are. You can easily describe some of their effects. Some things will probably never be mentioned from the feats others probably should be. But as creatures get more hit dice, they also have more feats. The more feats to change, the less someone would know about the standard creature.
We have reached a point where giving monsters feats as is recommended by the rules is considered houseruling.
I feel like Rod Sterling should be showing up now to monotone on what a strange land we've found ourselves in.
Where is it recommended to change every monster the party fights? I can show you where the book calls the creatures in the Bestiary the standard creatures. Standard, at least to me, means "this is the typical version of a creature you should expect to encounter."