Running fast for long distances and better senses could just as easily be due to higher Con and Wis scores.
Could be but that's still useful information that is actually coming from the feats. As I mentioned, you don't have to tell the players what the creatures feats are but if the feats have an effect then their effects should be mentioned, assuming a high enough knowledge check.
For example (since orcs were mentioned earlier), it is reasonable to tell someone that orcs are known for their prowess with the falchion. You haven't told them that they have Weapon Focus but you have given them potentially useful information.
I'd be more inclined to mention that they favor large weapons, the better to cleave their enemies in twain. Maybe mention the falchion as a preferred weapon. But definitely comment that the whip-wielding orc is a rarity.
Even with this description, you have alluded to the weapon focus feat. While it doesn't have to mean that it is weapon focus, as a GM you did mention it. This can be important if we give the orc class levels and stay true to the theme.
|
Even with this description, you have alluded to the weapon focus feat. While it doesn't have to mean that it is weapon focus, as a GM you did mention it. This can be important if we give the orc class levels and stay true to the theme.
Wouldn't it be metagaming to say 'since orcs favor falchions, they must have Weapon Focus: Falchion'? All I have said is some prefer it. That doesn't dictate Weapon Focus. Indeed, I have seen many many characters who don't take WF in their standard weapon.
With a successful knowledge nature check
- This bear appears to have a thicker hide than most (it has taken the improved natural armor feat)
- This bear moves with a fluid grace uncommon for something its size (it has taken the dodge feat)
- The bear roars, revealing a set of teeth impressive even for one of its species (it has taken the improved natural attack: bite feat)
Wouldn't it be metagaming to say 'since orcs favor falchions, they must have Weapon Focus: Falchion'? All I have said is some prefer it. That doesn't dictate Weapon Focus. Indeed, I have seen many many characters who don't take WF in their standard weapon.
Even with this description, you have alluded to the weapon focus feat. While it doesn't have to mean that it is weapon focus, as a GM you did mention it. This can be important if we give the orc class levels and stay true to the theme.
I didn't say it dictated weapon focus. I said you alluded to it. Your description could very easily have been for power attack but just a personal preference for the falchion. My point is that you didn't just ignore the feat when you described an orc.
Just like BigNorseWolf doesn't ignore the feats when he describes his non-standard bear. His descriptions don't have to mean those exact feats. They could also mean that this bear has Toughness (it's hide allows it to take more damage), Improved Initiative (his grace has improved his reaction times), and Improved Natural Attack. He still alluded to the feats as part of the description.
it seems to me slot of the monk flack honestly bears down to a play style issue. I for one only ran into issues with my monk at higher level 9-10 due to the dm deciding the middle of no where I'n a jungle with no means to purchase a solution was a good time to make half the bad guys fly. even then I felt the character contributed.
a number of comments by ashiels seem to suggest a game that looks anything like the one I have played where all chars have all stats at +5 inherent bonus. this seems to suggest not that the monk is and, simply that it wouldn't work for her game.
but the baseline game if there is one seems to suggest monks are just fine, apparently they are totally viable and can contribute I'n pfs from what I have read.
our current group just hit lvl 7 with a drunken master monk played by an inexperienced player and he does just fine.
ultimately gms should be creating encounters for the characters they currently have not some unchanging baseline that cannot adapt.
it seems to me slot of the monk flack honestly bears down to a play style issue. I for one only ran into issues with my monk at higher level 9-10 due to the dm deciding the middle of no where I'n a jungle with no means to purchase a solution was a good time to make half the bad guys fly. even then I felt the character contributed.
This is another problem I have with the monk. Unless you're playing a Zen Archer, you absolutely need flight to continue to contribute. If you're a warrior, you can pickup a composite bow and rely on your BAB to pepper enemies with arrows (if they are flying, the odds of them having cover or meleeing is actually very low). Monks usually have to rely on shurikens which are useless at ranges greater than 50ft and that's with a -10 penalty (5 range increments at -2 / range increase).
Thus a character that flies so much as 60ft above the monk is virtually immune to the monk's ranged attacks, while pretty much any real ranged weapon can easily hit them (actually so can a sling, though you will take a -2) from that distance.
If they do have cover, then so do you. At which point I'd try to force them to come to you. Hide, or duck down behind trees and such (you are in a jungle after all). However, if you're 10th level and flying enemies are giving you hell just because they can fly, your party or character really needs some help (it sounds like you're either far behind WBL, or your toolkit isn't varied enough).
a number of comments by ashiels seem to suggest a game that looks anything like the one I have played where all chars have all stats at +5 inherent bonus. this seems to suggest not that the monk is and, simply that it wouldn't work for her game.
If you read my post, I was saying that I didn't believe that the monk was very viable even if the monk received +5 inherent mods in all its stats from the party wizard sprinkling parmesan on the game (read: cheesed the game to get +5 to everything at level 3), which would have greatly helped the monk's MAD problem.
It's true that at 13th level or higher I have come to pretty much expect a small bump in ability scores due to planar binding tricks. However that's basically a +2 or +3 to a few things. Not really anything to worry much about at these levels. I mean, at these levels enemies aren't exactly playing simple or fair. The horned devil in the more recent example forces a high Fortitude save every single time it hits you or it stuns you for 1d4 rounds, and can use greater teleport to escape and/or stalk you with ease.
but the baseline game if there is one seems to suggest monks are just fine, apparently they are totally viable and can contribute I'n pfs from what I have read.
our current group just hit lvl 7 with a drunken master monk played by an inexperienced player and he does just fine.
ultimately gms should be creating encounters for the characters they currently have not some unchanging baseline that cannot adapt.
I truly believe that monks can contribute. It can be hard finding them a niche since they don't have a lot of out-of-combat abilities that are really impressive, and even the monk fanboys complain they're not a combat class, but I think a monk can be built well and survive and contribute. I've had some good monks in my group before. Admittedly, the nerf on Improved Natural Attack was pretty harsh since it was a staple of building a monk that was fairly viable without loading them down with Strength, but you can't do that anymore legally (but y'know, if someone asked me if they could, I'd probably let 'em since monks in 3.x did it for a long time).
Tangent: Yes the loss of Improved Natural Attack was pretty harsh. With it a medium monk could reach 4d8 unarmed strike damage by 20th level, with 6d8 unarmed strike damage while enlarged. That would bring their average damage to 27 damage per hit, and simultaneously make stuff like Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike somewhat appealing to the otherwise flurry-slaved monk, as their unarmed strike damage would become 12d8 and 18d8 respectively (an average of 54 and 81).
That would have combo'd extremely well with their increased movement speed. The monk would basically be able to rely on vital strike feats and high movement to engage the enemy and then use a standard attack at a fairly decent bonus to inflict a good amount of burst damage (making it hard to avoid due to stuff like DR).
EDIT:
it seems to me slot of the monk flack honestly bears down to a play style issue. I for one only ran into issues with my monk at higher level 9-10 due to the dm deciding the middle of no where I'n a jungle with no means to purchase a solution was a good time to make half the bad guys fly. even then I felt the character contributed.
This is also a bit of a concern. If it's purely playstyle issues, then why isn't every class suffering the same flak? Why is it that Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Wizards, Clerics, Barbarians, Druids, Bards, and Sorcerers under the same scrutiny due to playstyle issues?
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."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 does it say the creatures in the book are standard creatures? Last I checked they are all quick-rule creatures.
Does every dragon in your campaigns know the exact same spells? How much sense does that make?
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."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.
You've stated that giving orcs a weapon other then a falchion is houseruling.
Come on now.
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."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 does it say the creatures in the book are standard creatures? Last I checked they are all quick-rule creatures.
Does every dragon in your campaigns know the exact same spells? How much sense does that make?
You didn't check because there is nothing that states they are quick-rule creatures.
As for where it states it, check out Appendix II: Variant Monster Index:
Not all of the monsters presented in this book have their own stat blocks. Many of them are merely variants on a theme, be they aquatic ghouls like lacedons, more powerful versions of efreeti known as maliks, advanced sharks like the great white, or alternate versions like the fast zombie and the plague zombie. Monster variants use the standard monster’s stats but with specific changes, as outlined in the text. The following list indexes all of the monster variants in this book that are associated with rules changes (creatures that are only mentioned in passing, such as the mature form of a nabasu demon or the possibility of other types of kytons or rakshasas, are not indexed here).
So the monsters presented are the standards and changes made to them are variants.
As for all dragons being the same, the dragon is specifically called out as to how to build it and then it gives specific examples. Spellcasting creatures (not spell-like abilities but actual spells) are selected by the creature. That makes sense. It is even mentioned in the beginning of the Bestiary:
Spells Known/Prepared: If the creature can actually cast spells, its caster level is indicated here followed by the spells it knows or typically has prepared. Unless otherwise indicated, a spellcasting creature does not receive any of a spellcasting class’s other abilities, such as a cleric’s ability to spontaneously convert prepared spells to cure or inflict spells.
It also states in the Bestiary that the Description:
[Is where] you’ll find information on how the monster fits into the world, notes on its ecology and society, and other bits of useful lore and flavor that will help you breathe life into the creature when your PCs encounter it. Some monsters have additional sections that cover variant creatures, notes on using the monsters as PCs, methods of constructing the creature, and so on.
You may notice that it discusses variants. That means that the norm is what's listed (otherwise calling something a variant makes little sense). You are more than welcome to make changes for your own games. I don't care. When we are discussing monsters from the Bestiary to compare characters to we should stick with the standard.
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."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.
You've stated that giving orcs a weapon other then a falchion is houseruling.
Come on now.
What you quoted and stated here don't seem to mesh but I did say that changing what's written is a house rule. I stand by that. That being said, if you advance the orc using class levels, he can have a wide variety of weapons available. Orcs (and many other monsters that can be used as races) have class levels and what is presented is one example build. Since they are "defined by their class levels." If you use the rules on advancing them with class levels you will end with a variety of different builds. Note though, that under the description of orcs, it states that they have weapon familiarity with greataxes, falchions, and any weapon that has the word "orc" in its name. If you change that, you are house ruling.
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.Let's take -one- example out of the many environments I listed. Aelryinth, read the fly skill. Now, tell me what rolls are required to fly in a wooded area (e.g. something like the Star Wars Endor) without looking like a Stormtrooper crashing into the side of a tree. Now, tell me how many skill points you're going to put in Fly and, by comparison, I'll tell you how many skill points the monk doesn't have to put in fly as well as how much he can spend on other items instead of on Boots of Flying.
3)Inqs and Rangers can take a feat to move at fullWhat feat and in book is it in?
Or better yet, just use a Ring of Invisiblity while using Boots of flying.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.
1) He can take 10 with the bonus from the Fly spell and not hit anything. Eesh. at the same time the monk in Endor has his speed cut in half by all the difficult terrain, and can't reach the archer 60' up in the air.
2) Desert Shadow, from the Qadira book, I believe? Basically the same as the rogue trick which does the same thing.
3) Good lord, I'm making the point that two magic items of middling value completely do everything that you claim is 'special to the monk', and you don't get my point.
The monk, on the other hand, has to pay double price for his armor protection, because his ability score bonuses to AC end in him having a sub-par AC vs an armor wearer and shield user. He's also spending money on multiple ability scores, instead of one or two, just to be viable as a combat class, putting him further behind the curve.
The ability to go from 'here to there' quickly is not that difficult to acquire if you want it, and going from here to there and not being able to do a lot of damage because you are reliant on full attacks to actually hit stuff doesn't bode well.
There are rarely occuring marginal situations where a monk can shine. In the rest, he's just kinda there.
===Aelryinth
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.
Well, you are getting there, but not quite there yet.
The bears I am describing are the SAME SPECIES, the only difference between a Montana grizzly bear and an Alaskan brown bear is their habitat and their habits. If you swapped a grizzly bear cub with a same sex brown bear and they were raised in the other habitat by the other bears, they would be THE SAME as the other bears.
They are not different species. They are the same species with different habitats and habits, and as a result they are entirely different in size, strength, skills and what we would view as "feats."
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.Well, you are getting there, but not quite there yet.
The bears I am describing are the SAME SPECIES, the only difference between a Montana grizzly bear and an Alaskan brown bear is their habitat and their habits. If you swapped a grizzly bear cub with a same sex brown bear and they were raised in the other habitat by the other bears, they would be THE SAME as the other bears.
They are not different species. They are the same species with different habitats and habits, and as a result they are entirely different in size, strength, skills and what we would view as "feats."
I can expect the majority of bears in one area to be pretty identical with a few exceptions. If I go to another area, I can expect the bears to be pretty identical in that area as well just different from the first.
That makes sense. Like I said, as a player I don't find it cool for the GM to change every creature every time just because he can. It's confusing and takes away from any consistency.
That makes sense. Like I said, as a player I don't find it cool for the GM to change every creature every time just because he can. It's confusing and takes away from any consistency.
I don't think any of us who modify monsters said we do it "just because we can." I think most of us have said that it is not house ruling to modify an animal's skills, feats or even hit dice, it is well within the RAW and doing so is completely within the GM's scope in running the game.
When I modify animals or monsters I do so in such a way that it makes sense to me according to the ecology of my world, and according to my whim on occasion when the ecology would accept multiple versions.
Since it's really too much work for me to roll up five different kinds of bears for one fight, I don't do that, besides the fact that it just doesn't make sense ecologically. But the bears a specific party encounters in a specific forest might very well be different than the bears in the Bestiary. I might decide the bears in the Gray Forest are more nocturnal and prey more on larger animals which are prevalent there, so they may be stronger and faster than bestiary bears. But they are still BEARS. And if I have a group of bears (bears aren't a great example for group encounters since most bears are solitary or are a mother and cubs, but for the sake of argument...) I will usually have one beefed up to be the alpha bear.
In my current campaign I have an entire tray full of minis that are completely custom created monsters of my own design. I am finishing up a mini right now for a particular extra-planar being that I am introducing in this campaign. I likely will make a mold and cast several copies of it if it turns out well, and it will become a recurring creature for my group to encounter and deal with. This particular creature has not been seen in the world for over a thousand years, so unless someone finds an ancient tome and studies it, even a knowledge check isn't going to help much in figuring out what it is or what it does. But once they fight it, they'll know.
well when the board starts argueing about the the habitat of bears im out *claps hands twice* out
well when the board starts argueing about the the habitat of bears im out *claps hands twice* out
Don't let the door hit you on the way. :)
Well, don't put us all in the same cubby hole now... But honestly, I've only bearly begun...
I don't think any of us who modify monsters said we do it "just because we can." I think most of us have said that it is not house ruling to modify an animal's skills, feats or even hit dice, it is well within the RAW and doing so is completely within the GM's scope in running the game.
That makes sense. Like I said, as a player I don't find it cool for the GM to change every creature every time just because he can. It's confusing and takes away from any consistency.
The original argument stemmed from taking the devil presented in the Bestiary and when someone said his monk could take it on, feats were arbitrarily changed that made it harder for the monk. That's what bugs me as a player, when the GM makes arbitrary changes simply because he has the power to do so.
I would probably have fun playing in your games. There was too much to quote and little reason to do so. I would know what to expect and that's perfectly fine with me.
I still think that if we are going to discuss the effectiveness of any class, we should compare it to what it was intended to go up against. Arbitrary changing of feats or gear in these discussions confuses the points and are intentional red herrings.
It is getting a bit unbearable here.
There was a lot of pandamonium going on for a while there. There was a grizzly battle going on with polar opposites.
|
The monk, on the other hand, has to pay double price for his armor protection, because his ability score bonuses to AC end in him having a sub-par AC vs an armor wearer and shield user. He's also spending money on multiple ability scores, instead of one or two, just to be viable as a combat class, putting him further behind the curve.
Do me a fave...run me through how the monk is so horribly sub-par, cause when I do it it does not seem so far as as it seems when you do it. Maybe I am not doing something right.
|
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for telling us the house rules where you play
Actually, the bestiary helpfully denotes which feats are racial bonuses and can't be swapped. So, not so much.
LilithsThrall insists that any monster that doesn't exactly duplicate its Bestiary writeup is a House Rule, without indicating where it says anywhere in the rules that a feat or a skill or a weapon can't be changed. So, every drow must fight with a rapier and hand crossbow (without exception), or you're not playing by the rules!
LT wasn't talking about bonus feats, either. He was talking about any variance to the exact writeup. The example that sparked this was a horned devil, which has no bonus feats.
Apparently, an orc armed with a greataxe is considered by some people to be as ridiculous as a black pudding that takes extra damage whenever attacked with a spoon wielded by a black man.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the folks at Paizo for not giving us a stat block in any Bestiary for humans, and especially for not listing them as being armed with a spoon. That would mean that no human could ever fight with any weapon but a spoon (unless you were using house rules), which sounds like an under-optimized choice to me. Extinction event avoided!
By the way, did you know that horses can't wear barding? Well, not unless you house rule that they can...
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for telling us the house rules where you playActually, the bestiary helpfully denotes which feats are racial bonuses and can't be swapped. So, not so much.LilithsThrall insists that any monster that doesn't exactly duplicate its Bestiary writeup is a House Rule, without indicating where it says anywhere in the rules that a feat or a skill or a weapon can't be changed. So, every drow must fight with a rapier and hand crossbow (without exception), or you're not playing by the rules!
LT wasn't talking about bonus feats, either. He was talking about any variance to the exact writeup. The example that sparked this was a horned devil, which has no bonus feats.
Apparently, an orc armed with a greataxe is considered by some people to be as ridiculous as a black pudding that takes extra damage whenever attacked with a spoon wielded by a black man.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the folks at Paizo for not giving us a stat block in any Bestiary for humans, and especially for not listing them as being armed with a spoon. That would mean that no human could ever fight with any weapon but a spoon (unless you were using house rules), which sounds like an under-optimized choice to me. Extinction event avoided!
By the way, did you know that horses can't wear barding? Well, not unless you house rule that they can...
Let's be fair here. It was me that said changing the monsters's feats are a house rule. It was me that argued it for the last couple of pages.
Some monsters are defined by the class levels. These ones, like orcs, have certain rules for them. The example "monster" is really just an NPC warrior. If you look at the cheetah, it is just a cheetah. If you look at a spell casting monster, like dragons, you can change the spell selection. All of this is explained at the beginning and end of the book.
There are rules available to allow horses to wear barding. The first one is that they suffer the penalties for doing so if they aren't trained. There is a change in cost and weight as well. So if you put barding on the horse, it will suffer penalties just like anyone else not proficient. To make it proficient, you have a few options I can think of:
1) Advance the horse with feats
2) Advance the horse with templates (there may not be any right now that can help but I haven't memorized everything)
3) Increase it's Intelligence (there are a bunch of ways to do this) and then have it level with classes.
The horse can have and wear barding. We don't need hyperbole in these discussions. What we need is for people to debate with points and counterpoints. I know that some think that we remain stuck in our positions but that isn't true. I changed my position with respect to brassbaboon's campaign/GMing style once he took the time to explain and I took the time to understand. It can be done if people want it to happen.
stuff about touch ac.The monk only had a 29 touch AC.
The fighter can have a 27 touch AC before using combat expertise, fighting defensively or a defending weapon. If he goes stalwart defender the touch AC is even higher.
From the posts that was built up by Lorekeeper
+4 heavy shield=6
dex=4
dodge feat=1
sheild feats=2
There is a feat that allows shield to add to touch AC.
ring=3
ioun stone=1If the fighter can be hit on average which I will go over next then the monk can also.
I am assuming we have a 16th level caster.
scorching ray does 4d6 per ray. The average per ray is 14 x 1.5=21
21 x 3 rays=81I have to look contagious up.
You blast several enemies with beams of fire. You may fire three rays, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 11th (to a maximum of five rays at 19th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.At level 16 you get 4 rays for 16d6. If you tried to empower it then it would be an 8th level spell. I am assuming you did since you said 24d6 though.
A level 16 caster has a BAB of 8, and I will say in a real game has a dex mod of +3. That is a +11. It looks like the fighter and the monk are safe to me.
You really don't know how to build characters do you? Which is probably a major reason why you don't like the monk.
A Draconic blooded sorcerer with the Elemental Spell Feat can switch his rays to the element he needs to do +1 damage per die of damage.
You said 16th lvl caster. By that level you will have 8th lvl spell slots.
If you are building a ray specialist, you will most likely do so around enervate or scorching ray. Either way you take Spell Perfection for either spell.
You also take a spell called Greater Heroism or Heroism which gives you a bonus to hit. Toss on that you are most likely going to pick up Weapon Focus (ranged touch spells) and the Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot feats to avoid the -4 from melee. Then you will use a magic item like a Belt of Dexterity +6. Average starting Dex for a halfling sorcerer is 14 to 16. So with a belt we're talking 20 to 22 dex.
So your bonus to hit will be as follows:
+8 BAB +6 dex +1 size (halfling) +4 (Greater Heroism) = +19
Then if you are even smarter and happened to have changed yourself into an Air Elemental beforehand, you can get a few more bonuses on your Dex. Then you may even be invisible by the time you attack, which makes the fighter lose all his Dex and Dodge bonuses. Same with the monk, but the monk keeps his wisdom which is usually one of his best bonuses if he is built right.
Then you unload your Empowered Elemental Contagious Flame and Empowered Elemental Quickened Scorching Ray (only counts as 1st lvl spell because of Magical Lineage) and destroy the fighter and probably the monk.
Your numbers and understanding of mechanics are extremely weak. You don't even seem to have any idea about combo powers for the casters or the monks.
The only fighter that will have a decent touch AC is the dex focused fighter, the shield focus fightered, or a Prc fighter which all do substantially less damage than a power two-handed or two-weapon fighter which will both have lower touch ACs.
The monk gives up nothing for a great touch AC. It is an inherent part of the class, whereas a high touch AC requires a very specialized fighter that gives up a substantial amount of damage. As does any class other than the monk that tries to go for an insane touch AC.
Why are you not taking into account the substantial drop in damage for a fighter going for touch AC?
Your numbers are very poorly done.
All I can say is I speak from experience about the monk. They have no trouble being effective in the campaigns with my group and are in fact one of the more annoying classes as a DM to challenge because they have no real weaknesses to exploit.
Your campaigns are obviously different than mine. In my campaigns no one touches the rogue because it is such a poor class in the most important encounters in the game. The rogue is the least desireable and played class amongst my group because they are the weakest combat class. We play very combat focused campaigns and when it comes to combat the rogue is very, very weak. The monk on the other hand is not.
Now the monk is not on par with the fighters or heavy hitters for damage. I do not dispute that. But they do nifty things like increase group damage or control their opponent or stun casters. Little things that turn the tides of battle and surprise the DM.
Tripping monks are a pain.
Zen Archer monks are a pain.
Grappling monks are a pain.
A monk, like any melee class at high level, usually needs a caster to clean off some of the buffs on an enemy. But once you do, they can really throw some mud into the works as far making a DMs life tough.
And like any class, you have to focus on some specialty as a monk to be effective. The most powerful focused monks are usually trip specialists and grapplers. Once that Freedom of Movement is cleaned off high level casters, they are grapple meat. Cast a Fly spell on a monk and let him go to work on whatever caster he can lay his hands on. Best caster control in the game and no real defense for it save for one spell. Once you have them wrapped up, they are usually done if you've built your monk grappler right.
You may have players that make weak monks. I don't. So we'll never see eye to eye on this issue. Now if we were talking rogues, we would have a discussion. I have had players try their best to make effective rogues, but they haven't been able to do by the rules. Too damn squishy in the BBEG fights. All it usually takes is one round from the enemy melee or caster and Mr. Rogue is dead. In my experience rogue is the least effective combat class in the game.
Wraithstrike,
Playstyle really isn't a good reason to change a class. For those us running standard by the book Adventure Paths, the monk is as potent as most of the other classes.
I don't want the monk to ever be as potent a damage dealer as a fighter. That makes the fighter obsolete.
And you really have some poorly designed casters if your fighters are easily making the save DCs agains their spells. That +6 bonus a monk gets to Reflex and Will helps them immensely. As does their SR and other nifty defensive abilities.
DCs are reaching 30 plus for spells easily. And fighters can't keep up with those kind of saves. Rogues are even worse since Will and Fort are the best saves to have at high level.
Monks are good class. Not as good as the Inquisitor, but about on par with most classes.
|
|
Let's be fair here. It was me that said changing the monsters's feats are a house rule. It was me that argued it for the last couple of pages.
Some monsters are defined by the class levels. These ones, like orcs, have certain rules for them. The example "monster" is really just an NPC warrior. If you look at the cheetah, it is just a cheetah. If you look at a spell casting monster, like dragons, you can change the spell selection. All of this is explained at the beginning...
LT also argued that giving different feats to a monster requires a house rule.
So, you're saying that a character with class levels can be given extra feats for their levels, but are you still insisting that those characters must take all of the feats listed in the sample stat block? Even though they aren't listed as bonus feats? Would every drow in the known universe have Weapon Finesse, for example? Or can characters with class levels swap out all of their feats (except bonus feats)?
As for horses, advance them with levels?!? Huh?!? You're suggesting that a horse with a 3 Int can become a Ranger? I hope I'm misreading what you're saying. By levels did you mean hit dice?
In the animal companion rules in the Core Book, it lists Armor Proficiency as a feat that can be taken by a normal Int 2 animal companion. Apparently, a horse animal companion can be trained to wear barding (without gaining hit dice), but then it doesn't necessarily have the Endurance feat. Is it still a horse? Every other horse in the world has the Endurance feat, according to their stat block. Do other horses laugh at it (or whinny, maybe)? It is something of a freak.
I find it bizarre that a horse can be trained with additional feats, but that an intelligent creature cannot simply choose different feats than those listed. That the only way a minotaur can choose different feats from the listed class block is to gain levels (or hit dice)? They're like a race of clone warriors. That every high hit dice monster has the same ten or twelve feats as the rest of its species. Do you even see a distinction of feats marked as bonus feats? It sounds like you're treating every feat like a bonus feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not gonna read all this but will add my 2cp. I played a monk from level 1-25. Yes epic levels! I had a lot of fun. My AC was phenomenal (like 50s) and my saves were in the 20s and I think +30 to will by the end. I had the Epic Speed and psionic Speed of Thought and basically I broke the sound barrier.
Thing is: I never affected change. I didn't have any spells, I didn't have any skills that were of use at higher level, and I couldn't hit a darn thing. Like ever. ONLY had a 22 str.
To be fair this was 3.0 and we rolled for stats, but still, all I could manage to do is make myself invincible but everything was invincible against me so it didn't matter.
|
|
Like meatrace, I too played a monk in epic levels. The campaign started at 15 and by then end my character was CR 36.
She could hit the enemies with her first attack. She had a lot of defenses. But when he threw Epic Handbook monsters at us instead of humanoids with class levels, she couldn't do squat to them.
Would it be different in Pathfinder? Would it be different now that I have more experience with the game? Maybe. But I think there could have been more done so that people just starting out, without rules savvy like myself and my friend, could avoid falling into the same traps.
Let's be fair here. It was me that said changing the monsters's feats are a house rule. It was me that argued it for the last couple of pages.
Some monsters are defined by the class levels. These ones, like orcs, have certain rules for them. The example "monster" is really just an NPC warrior. If you look at the cheetah, it is just a cheetah. If you look at a spell casting monster, like dragons, you can change the spell selection. All of this is explained at the beginning...
LT also argued that giving different feats to a monster requires a house rule.
So, you're saying that a character with class levels can be given extra feats for their levels, but are you still insisting that those characters must take all of the feats listed in the sample stat block? Even though they aren't listed as bonus feats? Would every drow in the known universe have Weapon Finesse, for example? Or can characters with class levels swap out all of their feats (except bonus feats)?
As for horses, advance them with levels?!? Huh?!? You're suggesting that a horse with a 3 Int can become a Ranger? I hope I'm misreading what you're saying. By levels did you mean hit dice?
In the animal companion rules in the Core Book, it lists Armor Proficiency as a feat that can be taken by a normal Int 2 animal companion. Apparently, a horse animal companion can be trained to wear barding (without gaining hit dice), but then it doesn't necessarily have the Endurance feat. Is it still a horse? Every other horse in the world has the Endurance feat, according to their stat block. Do other horses laugh at it (or whinny, maybe)? It is something of a freak.
That's not what I said at all. In fact what I said was that some creatures advance with class levels and that the build in the book is an example build. If you notice, the drow shown is specifically a warrior (an NPC class). All this is explained by the line: "Drow are defined by their class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice."
I find it bizarre that a horse can be trained with additional feats, but that an intelligent creature cannot simply choose different feats than those listed. That the only way a minotaur can choose different feats from the listed class block is to gain levels (or hit dice)? They're like a race of clone warriors. That every high hit dice monster has the same ten or twelve feats as the rest of its species. Do you even see a distinction of feats marked as bonus feats? It sounds like you're treating every feat like a bonus feat.
I said that the horse can get the armor training if it is advanced in some way.
As for the minotaur, and many other of the monsters, those are the standard. That's what is to be expected when you encounter them. The ones beyond that are the exception and should be considered exceptional or unique among their brethren. The players should expect some consistency.
In any case, as I have said multiple times, when we are trying to determine the viability of a class, arbitrarily changing the feats the example opponents have is bad form. That's where this entire argument came from.
I don't deny that player experience or lack thereof plays a part. But the rules themselves play a much larger part. It's easier to be accidentally awesome as a spellcaster than a warrior, and much easier to suck as a monk than other warriors. And that is a fault of the rules.
Well said TOZ.
|
|
I wondered when someone would use the its the not the rules it;s the players fault BS. What a universe sized cop-out. sometimes it is the rules.I've played a highly effective monk in Pathfinder - such that people I was playing with told me that I completely reversed their opinion of monks.
I have both played and DM'ed for highly effective monks at various levels.
I would say it as an advanced class though, not for those new to the game or who don't know the rules and pitfalls well. As TOZ said that is indeed a fault of the rules; but i'm going to continue to see decent monks played even if the interwebz tells me they suck.
|
|
With the Monl for me it's a bit of both. Yes players new to the game may have trouble building or running one. Yet unlike other classes that imo are pretty straight forward. The monk requires so much more planning and prepartion to play and build. I just hate it when a poster always blames players all the time. From my experience as both a player and DM sometimes it is the rules.
|
|
I wondered when someone would use the its the not the rules it;s the players fault BS. What a universe sized cop-out. sometimes it is the rules.I've played a highly effective monk in Pathfinder - such that people I was playing with told me that I completely reversed their opinion of monks.
Were I to ever play PF I would welcome you to demonstrate it for me. Maybe I'll get to Paizocon someday.
|
|
LazerX, while a noble idea, if stat blocks could settle arguments we would have much shorter threads around here. :)
Well, as I agreed, 3X monks were horrible. I wonder how much of the "munx sux" crowd have never actually played a Pathfinder monk.
I think I'm guilty of this, since Kirthfinder is a heavily houseruled PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AdAstra also posted an ok monk stat block (not looked at in detail) earlier in the thread that was conveniently ignored.
I also showed how that Monk has about an 8 in 10 chance of taking out a fighter one level higher with typical kit for the fighter. The fighter pretty much has to crit with the first shot, or play very differently.
Fighters excel at dishing damage. Monks aren't as good at dishing damage, but are better at a wide array of other things.
A monk standing toe to toe with a fighter, trading Flurry of Blows for Full Attacks? He better be getting healing when the other guy ain't.
A monk who decides the fighter is less dangerous when A) pinned or B) disarmed has a good chance of putting those conditions out.
Monk successfully grapples Fighter, Fighter dies. It may take about 7-8 rounds, but the outcome only becomes doubtful when the fighter's friends go and try and save him.