Monks: What is their "role?"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Mathmuse wrote:
As a GM, I prefer to avoid having almost all the party fallen, because that is no fun for the inert characters.

Does this preference influence how you GM?

Shadow Lodge

Sayer_of_Nay wrote:

First off, I want to say that this thread isn't meant to debate the usefulness of the monk; I'm not interested in reading an endless stream of "monks are underpowered," or the like. If you only want to comment on how much monks suck, please move along.

That being said, I will say that I've never played the class. I never really understood what the class was for? What is their role? How exactly do they contribute to a group of adventurers?

Having just picked up the Ultimate Combat book, I've seen a lot of neat things there for monks, and unarmed combat in general, but I'm still having trouble grasping just *what* it is the monk is supposed to be doing in the grand scheme of things. In a way, this feeling extends to the other hybrid classes, but for me the monk is the most elusive.

as a Real Life martial artist, i see the monk as a control character. kenpo jujitsu(a type of martial arts) relies on disabling you opponent. an actual discription from a real martial art technique is (when someone is choking you)to pin the arms (grapple) strike the throat(dirty trick/stunning fist), which could kill the person, strike the eyes(dirty trick/stunning fist) and knee the groin(dirty trick), elbow smash the face (unarmed strike). so if you use that as a basis for what a martial arts type character would be, as you can see it would be a disabling support type character.

if you care only about damage then a monk is not the way to go. but if you are a more group focused type of player, a monk is (in my opinion) the best support class there is.


Fabricate doesn't do anyone a painter - skills do. The spell can speed the proces up to polaroid, but without painting skills the product will be crappy.

PRD wrote:

Fabricate

School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 5

Casting Time see text

Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet of material to be affected by the spell.

Dark Archive

Mathmuse wrote:

However, I would rather establish my credentials by stories of my gaming. This spring I played a Pathfinder alchemist. The setting was a small colonial city and after we reached fifth level by eliminating the illegal slave trade, my alchemist decided to become the foremost maker of magic arms and armor in the city. Actually, the only maker. (And the GM did allow an alchemist to use Craft Magic Arms and Armor like any other spellcaster.) Alas, the city had a metal shortage, because no-one dared explore deeper into the continent to find ore. So my alchemist researched the few libraries in the city, took ranks in Craft(mineral assaying), Knowledge(geology), and Profession(prospector) and led the party on an expedition to find ore. We found tin and established a mining town. We also found a lost civilization, but that is another story.

In addition, my wife, who roleplays more than me, solved the Linguist problem. Her character took ranks in Linguistics and declared that she would name the languages learned later, when the character needed to learn a new language.

Ha! Superb story! A man after my own heart! I am corrected, though to be truthful most of my retort was not directed at thee. And blindness is not the same as a dubious premise.

This case, however, and your other experience strengthens my point. Even you must admit that your skill-heavy prospector and schemes for magic item creation would be so much wasted effort in a great many campaigns. Unless the DM designs scenarios with your character's strengths and interests in mind, you will have wasted those points and come out looking quite dim.

I would go so far as to theorize that the primacy of casters under d20 rulesets has remained so strong because they are the characters with the greatest ability to adapt to the widest variety of GM styles. That and the tendency toward "1 encounter per day" which favors going nova over more sound and planned out strategies.

A tangent best kept separate:
Another curiosity/frustration of scenario design in this genre:
Anti-wizard countermeasures tend to look insufferably crude and contrived, and some players take that sort of thing personally.
"What do you mean the entire castle is an anti-magic zone? You're trying to screw over my character!"
"But the Viscount is extraordinarily paranoid! And an avowed atheist whose son was killed by a witch!"
"You're trying to screw over my character!"

But the same scenario reversed, where only a wizard has agency and all other classes are rendered inert, hardly warrants a blink anymore.
"Only a master of sin magic can reach the keys at the end of each test."
"I suppose that makes sense."
"None of you are wizards."
"But there's that one NPC guy in the last town, right? We will get him."

Whence this bias? I suppose it is an artefact of this sort of fiction and drama, but even still it doesn't help one whit. Fly was mentioned up-thread, and another thread has touched on the relative hatred this spell garners. But consider! In a grand test of a monk PC's skills -- lets say his temple-monastery's vertical corridor of traps and narrow handholds that the monk must ascend to prove their mettle -- an unprincipled or unthinking DM might permit a wizard with fly to simply bypass all the challenges ... and then the counterargument I have often seen leveled is that it is the DM's fault for not considering the wizard's strengths during scenario design!

Naturally, my present group is less prone to this sort of double-standard rhetoric and all the better for it, but I think that since playing "stronger" or "higher tier" classes is roughly equivalent to "winning" for a certain class of player, when one of that class of player plays a wizard and experiences a set-back they are more likely to cry foul than if they experience a setback while playing, say, a monk.

Hence the poor image of the monk.

Mathmuse wrote:

How can the monk serve this role without being the last man standing? As a GM, I prefer to avoid having almost all the party fallen, because that is no fun for the inert characters. How does a monk help others escape? My monk took Improved Grapple to try this role, but we had been fighting monsters much stronger than him, so the grapples lasted only one turn. Monsters with high CMDs are awfully common.

My wife, when she was GM for the campaign, did ambush the party in the night. Our 7-member 6th-level party had had an uneventful day traveling, so everyone had full spells and hit points, but the fighters sleep without armor. None were on watch in armor when three owlbears attacked. They got mauled as they fought. My monk also awoke and fended an owlbear away from the spellcasters. He fared better, but this was more a case of pulling his weight than of saving the party, since he could barely damage an owlbear.

I second LilithsThrall.

Off the cuff, I feel this preference favors more fragile classes. If the whole party were to play wizards, your preference for not killing them would likely lead to your pulling-punches. If a single survivable monk or Max-HP-and-Invulnerable Barbarian were part of this party, their role would be significantly affected. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- I'll admit, I've always wanted to do an all wizards game -- but it turns one of the strengths of the monk into a waste of character-sheet.

In a class with so few defined strengths, that is unfortunate.

In the case of the night-ambush by owlbears, would you have fared better as a fighter or a wizard? Was your performance negatively affected by being a monk, or positively? I am willing to bet that even at level 6 being a monk gave you more options for dealing with the beasts. Moving 40 to 50 feet a round certainly must have been nice.

Plus, with their AC of 15, you had trouble injuring them? I'll grant their CMD is high, but I'm just going to presume you meant "I could barely damage them before they cut me to ribbons". That I can completely agree with. Low AC vs. low AC fights can do that. Use more ki to raise AC? More dirty tricks?


Mathmuse wrote:
A monk's role is to take advantage of situational opportunities.

This is one of the best descriptions yet!

Versatility is always at the expense of specialisation, sadly.


Zmar wrote:
Fabricate doesn't do anyone a painter - skills do. The spell can speed the proces up to polaroid, but without painting skills the product will be crappy.

With painting skills and without the fabricate spell, the result will also be crappy; except if you spend years on your painting, any level 1 or 2 commoner will have enough money to buy it.

You need both to create anything worth mentioning : the skill and the spell. You can easily access to the skill while being a caster (everyone has skills), you can't easily access to the spell while being a skill monkey.

Dabbler wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:
It's very specific: the party used all of his daily resources (spells, cures, etc), but everyone is full HP? The encounter of the day were though and burned every single resources, but at the end the party is full HP?
Yes, it happens a lot - you finish the task at hand battered to hell and back, and the cleric blows his remaining channels and spell-slots on healing everyone before you rest. It's not like he can save them for the next day, is it? It's not like there's an advantage to everyone being on low hit points by the morning, and have the healer use up all his resources for the NEXT day instead of the remaining ones for the day before healing everyone - it effectively writes off a day of adventuring just healing up.

No, it never happens; or maybe, once in some campaign.

In my experience, HP run out faster than spells. Seriously, look at the average damages per rounds of creatures, compare with the number of spells of a caster. Past level 3, if the wizard doesn't have spells left, the martials don't have HP left.

And anyway, let's say that it happens once.The caster understand his mistake and learn rope trick. The situation you're describing can't happens more than once, we can as well ignore it.

Kegluneq wrote:
I get the distinct impression that GâtFromKI and Mathmuse have not played other Tabletop RPG rules before and therefore (somewhat rightly) feel constrained by the limitations of the d20 system's assumptions.

Are you serious?

I don't know any other tabletop RPG in which anyone would say "this character is very versatile : he's a fighter with high speed instead of high damages". D&D is the only one system in which a fighter with two or so weak special abilities is considered versatile.

And your conclusion is: the fact that I say that monks don't have any versatility proves that I've never played with any other system?

Your conclusion is so illogical that I don't really know what I can respond to you. Probably you'll have some other stupid ad personam fallacies to say anyway.

LilithsThrall wrote:
That's not what I said, but then again, you know that. You're trying to goad me.

If you're aware that "being able to sneak at a speed of 30 feet without penalty" is a crappy ability, especially if you gain it at level 9, why did you even bother to mention it? Except trolling?

What's next? Will you explain that slow fall is worth the time writing it on your character sheet?


GâtFromKI wrote:
If you're aware that "being able to sneak at a speed of 30 feet without penalty" is a crappy ability

Again, not what I said. Again, you're trying to goad me.

Its as if I'm trying to teach Calculus to someone who is hostile about learning algebra. It's not worth my time.

Dark Archive

GâtFromKI wrote:

Are you serious?

I don't know any other tabletop RPG in which anyone would say "this character is very versatile : he's a fighter with high speed instead of high damages". D&D is the only one system in which a fighter with two or so weak special abilities is considered versatile.

And your conclusion is: the fact that I say that monks don't have any versatility proves that I've never played with any other system?

Quite serious. But you are taking all of this too seriously. Relax, have some tea. And that's not my conclusion at all.

If your thesis is, indeed, "monks are fighters with two or so weak special abilities" than that is something I have missed in the midst of everything else. What I have seen are a variety of arguments targeted at the weak points of d20 rules in general as opposed to monks in specific. Examples: skills are weak and/or useless, casters always superior, etc.

What you have argued vigorously with these points is that the statement "monks are versatile" is false. I retort that this is a matter of scenario design, and that the most common approaches to scenario design minimize the strengths of monks by artificially supporting the tactics and strengths of casters and the like.

Honestly, if we are to have an orderly discourse here we've reached the end of the road unless someone wants to begin defining terms. You are talking about one sort of "versatility" and I see now that I am talking about another.

GâtFromKI wrote:
Your conclusion is so illogical that I don't really know what I can respond to you. Probably you'll have some other stupid ad personam fallacies to say anyway.

My thoughts on your experience was an observation about the form of your argument, nothing more. And that observation in no way supported my points. Honestly, the fact that you refuse to engage with my points is in much poorer faith than my idle musings if you are going to be grumpy about it.

My conclusion, once more, was that scenario design is king and ultimately dictates what is "balanced" or not. I find the monk to be a touch weak, but ultimately well designed to survive and thrive in a wide variety of circumstances. This contrasts with more specialized classes. And when DMs run games that permit the clever monk player to scout, plan their encounters, take advantage of terrain and even retreat (an option I find rarely available or explored in printed scenarios) than the monk's strengths show.


GâtFromKI wrote:


With painting skills and without the fabricate spell, the result will also be crappy; except if you spend years on your painting, any level 1 or 2 commoner will have enough money to buy it.

You need both to create anything worth mentioning : the skill and the spell. You can easily access to the skill while being a caster (everyone has skills), you can't easily access to the spell while being a skill monkey.

Irrelevant we're talking about monks.

GâtFromKI wrote:


No, it never happens; or maybe, once in some campaign.

In my experience, HP run out faster than spells. Seriously, look at the average damages per rounds of creatures, compare with the number of spells of a caster. Past level 3, if the wizard doesn't have spells left, the martials don't have HP left.

And anyway, let's say that it happens once.The caster understand his mistake and learn rope trick. The situation you're describing can't happens more than once, we can as well ignore it.

Also irrelevant we're talking about monks not casters.

Kegluneq wrote:

IAnd your conclusion is: the fact that I say that monks don't have any versatility proves that I've never played with any other system?

All it proves to me is that you're here for the sake of being proven right. On the internet. There's no other reason for this you want people to acknowledge fully that casters are god, non-casters are less than worthless and we're fools for believing otherwise. In the end it gains you nothing.

To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands. He does not need to cast a spell, nor does he need ot put it in a spellbook or commit it to memory or carry around the poo of various fuzzy animals. The monk is.

Dark Archive

TarkXT wrote:
To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands. He does not...

Yes! This precisely.


TarkXT wrote:
To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands.

Here let me quote myself quoting someone else.

Quote:

you don't need to cast all day long to rock the cazbah. you just need to cast when necessary. a combat encounter in 3.5 is usually done by the 4th round IMO so you might really only need to cast 2 spells... maybe. you start preparing spells that do heavier effects then a one-shot xd6 [element] or start comboing two spells together.

you start preparing scrolls for situational spells like "stone to flesh" and keep a wand of "knock" or "unseen servant" around... just in case.

your spell list suddenly becomes extremely versatile, especially if you keep a few slots open for later study when you know better what you're going to be doing that day.

you're flying, turing invisible, changing shape, bypassing all sorts of terrain without a care in the world, etc...

and the fighter is stuck swinging his sword. all. day. long.

the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.


Except you do need to cast them.

To pick one example off the top of my head, assuming the enemy has triggered an ambush - a cave in - coming down on you. The monk can run out of the way in one round. The wizard will require two (a round to cast his spell - assuming he can cast his spell with the rocks coming down on his head - and a round to run).


ProfessorCirno wrote:


the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.

If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.

Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.

But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.

Dark Archive

And again, the scenario design problem is that DMs make it far too easy for casters to cast spells "when they matter" and then escape their present troubles. It's too easy to design one-room fights or one-encounter-a-day stories. This biases everything toward casters. They never need marshal their power for "the right moment" because we only have four hours or so at the gaming table ... the right moment has to come right now and good night.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:


If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.

Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.

But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.

Good job with falling into Cirno's "Wizards vs else" discussion trap there, have fun :)


Gorbacz wrote:


Good job with falling into Cirno's "Wizards vs else" discussion trap there, have fun :)

ARGH! It's sticky! WHY IS IT STICKY!

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's made of honey! Soon you'll be COVERED IN BEES!

Dark Archive

Then more to the point. We've concluded thus far that:

1. Monks do not strike as hard as dedicated fighters, but they can generate appreciable attack and damage.
2. Monks have unparalleled mobility in the absence of dramatic magical enhancement.
3. Monk ki tricks are useful but could use a little more oomph (well, I think the thread as a whole has concluded this)
4. Monks have useful skills but will never compete with Ranger, Bard and Rogue.
5. The Monk's role is to be as water, flowing to fill the vessel they are placed within, adapting and exploiting the weaknesses and flaws of their enemies/scenarios.

Would it be presumptuous to boil my previous arguments down to a point six?
6. The more terrain, complication, and circumstance complicate an engagement, the more opportunities exist in that engagement for the monk to shine.

So, a 6 by 6 room with two doors and no features pretty much always favors other classes, but change that to a cliffside, the inner workings of a great engine, etc. and the monk's utility improves considerably.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's made of honey! Soon you'll be COVERED IN BEES!

AAHHH NOT THE BEES!

Dark Archive

TarkXT wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's made of honey! Soon you'll be COVERED IN BEES!
AAHHH NOT THE BEES!

I love these forums.

+1


Kegluneq wrote:
My thoughts on your experience was an observation about the form of your argument, nothing more. And that observation in no way supported my points. Honestly, the fact that you refuse to engage with my points is in much poorer faith than my idle musings if you are going to be grumpy about it.

I didn't engage because I though someone else would explain why you're plain wrong.

Quote:
The case of the party ambushed at rest shows the strength of the monk because there is virtually no delay moving between 'the monk at ease' and the monk 'battle ready'. The counter-argument, that the monk will not have the HP to fight, is spurious and could apply to any character taken in ambush. The monk will outperform fighting classes in ambush. Furthermore, the case of the party having low hp and no resources before they rest is a case of incompetence, since it leaves them quite vulnerable. If this is a common occurrence in anyone's game, I retort that the GM has not played opposition with appropriate aggression; when GMing, I afford even the occasional wild animal the low-cunning necessary to understand that they should attack adversaries when they are bloody and exhausted. Provided they can detect that weakness, of course, though if anyone is going to retort that the party can conceal themselves than I would say that they are not quite out of resources then, are they?

I did respond, but it's irrelevant since "we're talking about monks not casters".

I have to concede: if we ignore every class because they are irrelevant when talking about the monk, then the monk is the only one who can do something. I could talk about the ability of rangers to sleep into medium armor (or the ability of anyone to sleep into light armor), but it's irrelevant since "we're talking about monks not ranger".

Quote:
The comparison of innate featherfall to a ring of featherfall always comes out in favor of the innate class-based featherfall. Because it a)does not take up a ring-slot, and b) does not make the assumption that one can simply buy a ring of featherfall. I grow very weary of arguments that presume a steady stream of gold and the constant availability of any magical trinket commonly in print. If your game world works that way that is on you, but such abundance conditions are a distinctly modern luxury. If further argument is needed, than please realize that counter-arguments of "default setting assumes abundance / items are available in Pathfinder Society style" are non-unique and so could apply to any class. There are items to replicate class-abilities and spells of just about every level, so one could a commoner (where are all of these high-level commoners coming from?) with trinkets could do just about anything and that this invalidates all other classes. It's a fruitless and circular line of logic that demonstrates very little about the inherent capabilities of any given class.

Why do you talk about feather fall? The only classes with innate feather fall is the witch. Arguably the sorcerer and the bard. Since it's irrelevant because "we're talking about monks not casters", nobody has innate feather fall. And I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Flight and levitation, I will agree, jeopardize balance to an extraordinary degree. But the monk's mobility is impressive to behold, and absent magic items and expended sorcery easily the most impressive mobility of any class. This mobility allows the monk to dictate the terms of engagement, something their predilection for stealth and perception aids them in. But if the DM is uninterested in keeping track of this sort of thing because the encounters all take place on set fields and white-rooms rather than lived-in spaces, than it is true that all the monk's mobility is meaningless. So is any maneuverability, for that matter.

I agree: if you play an other game, without fly or levitate or haste or phantom steed or mount or expeditious retreat or longstrider or wild shape or beast form or elemental body, then the monk is very mobile.

Err... I actually played a halfling paladin in an actual 3.5 game, and he was actually more mobile than any actual monk. But it's irrelevant anyway since "we're talking about monks not animal companions", and we talk about a world without magic item or casters or animal companions.

Err... A regular mundane pony allow you to move 80 feet and then take a standard action (or a full-round action, but not a full-round attack). A monk can do this at level 15. A level 15 monk has the mobility of a level 1 halfling commoner with a pony, that's really impressive to behold. It's probably irrelevant anyway, even if it's not specific about any class.

Quote:
Finally, all arguments that rely on the wizard or bard having learned/memorized the appropriate spell by which their superiority over the monk is realized fail to take into account that the caster class has expended resources pursuing their superiority and that those resources are available only temporarily. Versatility, in the case of the monk, I will argue comes from their endurance. The monk may switch between several roles without expending consumable resources or taking additional time and preparation. The wizard must marshall their resources carefully, because it will take hours to restore them once they are gone. Scenario design will either favor the monk or the caster class via the frequency and ability of the party to take safe rest.

Yes, the monk is the only class in the game with infinite HP and infinite ki points.

Quote:
Skills are exactly as relevant and useful as your scenario design and DM allow them to be. If your DM only gives your party five skill checks every session and three of them are mobility related than this favors the casters by an absurd degree because, as some have pointed out, spells are quite a bit more powerful than skills at achieving the same objectives. But this goes without saying, and the same endurance I mentioned above applies in this case.

You can't force the character to do a skill check. You only present them a situation, and they decide how to react; sometime their solution involve skill checks, sometime not. You can't say "you have to make a survival check if you want some food" when the characters use Purify food and drink on random mushroom and berry they found.

And in Pathfinder, skills are exactly relevant and useful as the rules say. The more patent example is Heal: it take an awful amount of time, it cure almost nothing, and it doesn't even allow to heal the vast majority of condition (eg it can't heal ability drain). Instead of wasting your time using the skill, you should replenish your spells.

You can create houserules in which Heal is useful. In pathfinder, it isn't. It's the same for each skill: past level 5, they don't do anything relevant, except with massive houseruling or fiat.

Anyway, I don't think you understand the other point: everyone has skill. Everyone. A wizard has skill, and probably more than a monk (and the wizard can have a familiar also). The monk don't even have many skills: the only classes with less skills are the cleric, the fighter, the paladin and the sorcerer. And any summoner archetype without eidolon. 4.5 classes out of 19 have less skill points than the monk: the monk is mediocre at skills. A non-human monk can't even afford to max acrobatics, climb, perception, sense motive, stealth and swim: if you reinforce the useless physical skills like climb and swim, you're probably reinforcing the wizard instead of the monk.

A monk is mediocre at skill, how any reinforcement of skills could balance the monk? I fail to understand what you're arguing: if the skills were actually useful, it wouldn't be a point in favor of the monk.

TarkXT wrote:
But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.

For example, a level 5 monk isn't relying on a small list of very specific option. A level 5 monk can:

1. hit the plot to revolve it.
2. hit the plot, but twice.
3. stun the plot while hitting it (at-will with his infinite stunning fist).
4. grab the plot.
5. move 40 feets on the ground.
6. reduce the falling damage of 2d6, but only if there's a wall, and is the fall is 200 feet or less. It's far from specific.
7. jump 10 feet higher than any other class (at-will with the infinite ki pool). Again, it's far from specific: if something is flying exactly 20 feet high, the monk is the only one who can catch it. Many things fly exactly 20 feet high.
8. gain +4 AC for one round (at-will with the infinite ki pool).
9. move 60 feets on the ground (at-will with the infinite ki pool).
10. gain one additional attack for 1 round (at-will with the infinite ki pool).
11. use one of his countless skills.
12. ignore disease, which is very non-specific.

That's 12 different options, all of them being non-specific and at-will (as opposed to "2+Sag uses per day").

A level 5 bard, in the other hand, has only 7 very specific options like mount (it's very, very specific: unlike any monk ability, mount comes into play only if you need mobility) or sound burst (who cares about stunning in an area at range? It's too specific). And he has also some cantrip, bardic knowledge, bardic performance, some skills and a whip, but nothing worth mentioning compared to the wide array of monk options.

At level 6 the bard gain only 1 very specific option (and some other specific tricks like suggestion), while the monk gain 10 feet of slow fall (which is very non-specific), a totally non-specific feat, and the ability to hit the plot 3 times per round.

At level 7 the bard gains only 3 very specific options (which allow him to transform the whole group into stealthy undetectable scouts, including horses; but since the monk is the only character allowed to scout, who cares?), while the monk gain an at-will and non-specific CLW (err... actually, CLW cures more HP; but it's also very specific, while wholeness of body isn't. And wholeness of body is at-will, as opposed to "1.5+Sag/2 per day").

...

... TarkXT, did you ever play a non-caster? "A small list of very specific options" is what any non-caster actually have.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Except you do need to cast them.

To pick one example off the top of my head, assuming the enemy has triggered an ambush - a cave in - coming down on you. The monk can run out of the way in one round. The wizard will require two (a round to cast his spell - assuming he can cast his spell with the rocks coming down on his head - and a round to run).

Isn't there a force field barrier spell for this purpose?

Yes, there is.

Second: Quicken Expendious Retreat (same speed as a monk). In 3.5, there was a 1st level Swift spell that gave it for 1 rdm but quicken works too.

Or Burrow (just dig through)
Or Fly + move (60 feet is equal to monk)

Or Gaseous Form and walk.

Or Teleport/Dimension door

No wizard requires 2 rds.


Starbuck_II wrote:
stuff

Quicken Expeditious Retreat isn't available until high level and would take a dedicated 6th level slot (a very high opportunity cost). Fly? Did you see where I was using the example of a cave in? What's the DC for that Fly skill roll considering he's gonna have to dodge all that fallen rock and fly blind due to the dust? Teleport? Seperate the party? Yeah, that's never a bad idea! Not to mention that if the cave in starts behind the party, he may have to teleport blind to get back to the party.

I'm becomming more and more convinced that the difference in where people stand wrt the monk is how their GMs run. If the GMs are dedicated to taking things easy on the PCs, then the monk's strengths are rarely going to be seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Quicken Expeditious Retreat isn't available until high level and would take a dedicated 6th level slot (a very high opportunity cost).

You know what is also a high level ability? The monk fast movement. D'oh!

Well, let's crunch the numbers; monk against bard:

  • Level 1-2: round 1 the bard casts expeditious retreat and move 60 feet, while the monk moves 60 feet; round 2 the bard moves 120 feet while the monk moves 60 feet, bard wins. Or round 1 the bard casts mount while the monk moves 60 feet, round 2 the bard ride the mount and moves 100 feet, and wins at round three. Or the bard doesn't cast anything and moves at the same speed as the monk, whatever.
  • Level 3-6: round 1 the bard casts expeditious retreat and move 60 feet, while the monk moves 80 or 100 feet; round 2 the bard moves 120 feet while the monk moves 80 or 100 feet, bard wins this round or round 3, whatever. Or the bard ride a mount and moves 100 feet per round, the same as the bard. Or the bard doesn't cast anything and everyone dies except the monk, the monk wins.
  • Level 7-9: round 1 the monk moves 100 or 120 feet while the bard casts haste, moves only 60 feet and saves everyone.
  • Level 10+: round 1 the monk moves 120 feet while the bard casts DimDoor and saves everyone.

    Or the bard can ride a phantom steed and move 120 feet per round, or round 1 expeditious retreat + move 60 feet round 2 move 120 feet, whatever. The point is: the bard can pay the opportunity cost of casting a very common spell to save the whole party long before the monk can beat a mounted character in the speed department.

    In any situation, I'd rather play the class that save the whole party than the class who run away.

    And I think some classes gain access to haste and dimdoor at lower level than the bard, but I'm not sure.

    Quote:
    Teleport? Seperate the party? Yeah, that's never a bad idea!

    Did you know it? Unlike Abundant step, teleport allow you to bring travellers. Knowing this could save your life!

  • Dark Archive

    GâtFromKI wrote:

    I didn't engage because I though someone else would explain why you're plain wrong.

    ...
    I did respond, but it's irrelevant since "we're talking about monks not casters".
    ...
    I have to concede: if we ignore every class because they are irrelevant when talking about the monk, then the monk is the only one who can do something.
    ...
    Why do you talk about feather fall? The only classes with innate feather fall is the witch. Arguably the sorcerer and the bard. Since it's irrelevant because "we're talking about monks not casters", nobody has innate feather fall. And I don't know what you're talking about.
    ...

    Petulant, aren't we?

    Look, by the terms of the debate you are having, the monk is already dead. You've beaten him to death. Congratulations.

    I am quite the fan of the bard, but the bard does not do everything the monk does just as the monk does not do everything the bard does. I am actually a fan of just about every class in Pathfinder.

    So let me put it to you this way, GâtFromKI: what do you want from the monk? You seem married to a particular brand of Pathfinder, so within the Pathfinder you play and you like what role would you want the monk to play and what would it take to get there?


    the party of 6 10th level adventurers is ambushed with a cave-in
    Surprise Round: The monk (having a super high Perception check), makes his surprise roll and detects the ambushers just before they trigger the cave-in. He starts running.

    Round 1: The ground starts violently rocking
    *the Bard (who didn't put his high attribute in Wisdom and, so, fails his Perception check) and everyone else (except those who made their Perception check) act. Everyone else moves to touch the caster. If the Bard were to attempt to cast his spell now, he'd have a 20% chance of failing his concentration check. But, he's not attempting to cast his spell now. He's waiting til the next round when everyone is touching him.
    *The Monk is now 120ft away

    Round 2: Rocks are falling, everyone in the bury zone takes 8d6 damage
    *The Bard, who is planning to cast Dimension Door and is still in the bury zone, must make a Concentration Check. Due to the falling rock, he (and everyone with him - also still in the bury zone) takes 8d6 points of damage. The DC for the Bard's Concentration Check is 40. The Bard rolls 1d20 + 10 (his level). He will certainly fail this check. He and everyone with him is now buried (the kindly GM may let the Rogue's evasion keep the Rogue from being buried). But, let's say he makes this check (we've already established that your GM plays with kid gloves, so let's say you roll a natural 20 and he's merciful). Your bard now gets to decide which of his party members are going to stay behind (he can't take all of them), then he is blindly hoping that he targets his dimn door somewhere where there is enough room (he doesn't know where the fallen debris is) for him and all his buddies to materialize - otherwise he's taking damage and being redirected gods know where.
    *The Monk is either 240ft away now or is looking back to see where the ambushers are and if he can dig out the rest of his party before they die.
    If the Monk weren't here, this could be a TPK

    NOTE that this is *if* the burial doesn't happen until the 2nd round. If the burial happens on the 1st round, then things are even worse for the bard.


    The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.

    They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Andy Ferguson wrote:

    The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.

    They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.

    I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.


    ProfessorCirno wrote:
    Andy Ferguson wrote:

    The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.

    They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.

    I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.

    The best laid plans seldom survive first contact with the enemy.

    Except with GMs who habitually take things easy on the party.


    LilithsThrall wrote:

    Except you do need to cast them.

    To pick one example off the top of my head, assuming the enemy has triggered an ambush - a cave in - coming down on you. The monk can run out of the way in one round. The wizard will require two (a round to cast his spell - assuming he can cast his spell with the rocks coming down on his head - and a round to run).

    This is already being covered for how laughable it is. Wether it's a movement spell, a teleportation spell, or a spell that outright deflects the rocks, wizards have plenty of options.

    TarkXT wrote:

    If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.

    Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.

    But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.

    This is a) laughably untrue, and even if it was, b) the whole point.

    You need to go out of your way and set up situations specifically targeting the wizard. You don't need to do that to the monk.

    Kegluneq wrote:
    And again, the scenario design problem is that DMs make it far too easy for casters to cast spells "when they matter" and then escape their present troubles. It's too easy to design one-room fights or one-encounter-a-day stories. This biases everything toward casters. They never need marshal their power for "the right moment" because we only have four hours or so at the gaming table ... the right moment has to come right now and good night.

    Did you even read my post? Wizards have way more staying power then just one fight. One fight can be as little as two spells - and unless you're level 1, wizards have more then that.

    Here's the problem - wizards are always in "the right moment" because there is a spell for every moment - and the best spells are the ones versatile enough to BE the spell for every moment.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LilithsThrall wrote:
    ProfessorCirno wrote:
    Andy Ferguson wrote:

    The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.

    They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.

    I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.

    The best laid plans seldom survive first contact with the enemy.

    Except with GMs who habitually take things easy on the party.

    You're right - that's why it's best to have a class to help you survive first contact rather then desperately try to pick up the pieces when you fail.

    I mean under this logic, you could make a class that does only two things - it's permanently invisible and undetectable, and can raise the dead and heal. It can't attack or do anything else, just those two. That class would really save your bacon if you ever get hit with a TPK! Somehow, I don't think it's a very good class.


    ProfessorCirno wrote:

    I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.

    No class can do that. So if you are a person who always wants the safe choice, taking the class with a host of abilities that ensure that you can keep going is probably best for you.

    Shadow Lodge

    the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".

    Liberty's Edge

    TheSideKick wrote:
    the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".

    Yup.

    How do you beat a power wizard?

    Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.


    ciretose wrote:
    TheSideKick wrote:
    the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".

    Yup.

    How do you beat a power wizard?

    Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.

    So you beat wizards by specifically shaping the game directly around them?

    You're making my arguments for me!


    Andy Ferguson wrote:
    ProfessorCirno wrote:

    I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.

    No class can do that. So if you are a person who always wants the safe choice, taking the class with a host of abilities that ensure that you can keep going is probably best for you.
    Quote:
    I mean under this logic, you could make a class that does only two things - it's permanently invisible and undetectable, and can raise the dead and heal. It can't attack or do anything else, just those two. That class would really save your bacon if you ever get hit with a TPK! Somehow, I don't think it's a very good class.

    So you're saying that this is the best class ever?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LilithsThrall wrote:
    the party of 6 10th level adventurers is ambushed with a cave-in

    I can't even understand the rules you use. Do you play Pathfinder at all?

    How can the monk have an auto-success on the perception check while everyone else has an auto-fail? How can possibly a level 10 caster fail a concentration check for vigorous motion? Why doesn't the bard simply hold an action and cast the spell during the first round or the surprise round? And if holding the action is such an issue, why doesn't the bard simply casts haste? Why should the bard auto-fail the Reflex save? How can possibly the DC of the concentration check be 10+damage? Did the rock actually ready an action to attack the bard during incantation? How can Dimdoor (which offers the choice between "save 3 character out of 4" and "just run away") be worse than "just run away"? How can the monk deals with a CR-appropriate encounter alone?

    You're basically saying that if the DM never says "rocks fall. Everyone dies, except the monk", he's going easy on the party. And then you explain that I'm a troll, because I'm rude with your stupid arguments.


    LilithsThrall wrote:

    the party of 6 10th level adventurers is ambushed with a cave-in

    Surprise Round: The monk (having a super high Perception check), makes his surprise roll and detects the ambushers just before they trigger the cave-in. He starts running.

    Round 1: The ground starts violently rocking
    *the Bard (who didn't put his high attribute in Wisdom and, so, fails his Perception check) and everyone else (except those who made their Perception check) act. Everyone else moves to touch the caster. If the Bard were to attempt to cast his spell now, he'd have a 20% chance of failing his concentration check. But, he's not attempting to cast his spell now. He's waiting til the next round when everyone is touching him.
    *The Monk is now 120ft away

    Why isn't anyone near the Bard?

    Why is the Monk ditching the party?


    TheSideKick wrote:
    the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".

    ...

    As opposed to the abilities of the monk, which are more numerous and less predictable. If only there were somewhere a table giving every single ability of the monk...

    ...

    Try a simple experience: during a session, laugh each time a martial says "I don't have any ability for that situation", and see if you laugh more or less than during other sessions.


    LilithsThrall wrote:
    Teleport? Seperate the party? Yeah, that's never a bad idea!

    ...

    As opposed to the monk moving far away from the party and letting everyone die, which is A-OK...

    LilithsThrall, the more i try to grasp your way of thinking, the less it make sense.


    With the touch AC, high saves, speed, mobility, stunning and combat maneuvers monks make amazing mage killers.

    If you want to look at this profile its a monk I'm playing in a game right now who's damn near impossible to hit, and a grapple monster.


    GâtFromKI wrote:
    How can the monk have an auto-success on the perception check while everyone else has an auto-fail?

    I didn't say he'd automatically fail. He does, however, have a far better chance of making a perception check than someone who doesn't have Wisdom as a prime attribute. I, also, pointed out that some other party members would have as good a chance of making the Perception check.

    GâtFromKI wrote:


    How can possibly a level 10 caster fail a concentration check for vigorous motion?

    Vigorous motion has a DC of 10 + spell level = 14 for your bard.

    The bard's concentration check is 1d20 + his level (10). That means that if the bard rolls less than 14, he'll fail his concentration check.

    GâtFromKI wrote:


    Why doesn't the bard simply hold an action and cast the spell during the first round or the surprise round?

    IF he makes his perception check so as to allow him to cast in the surprise round, he could. But, he has a much lower chance of making that perception check than does the monk. If he casts the spell in the surprise round or the 1st round, he'll be leaving the rest of his party behind as they need to be touching him when he casts his spell in order to go with him. You said that he's going to take the rest of his party with him. That means that the rest of the party needs time to reach him.

    Seriously, do you have an actual worthwhile point or are you going to keep posting stuff that makes no sense?

    Forget it, I already know you're trolling. Of course you don't have an actual worthwhile point.


    Kegluneq wrote:
    Look, by the terms of the debate you are having, the monk is already dead. You've beaten him to death. Congratulations.

    The monk didn't need me to be beaten to death.

    The monk is dead because "we can't give him full BAB ! He could end up more useful than an other useless NPC class! (*)", and other similar argument from your camp.

    Let's beat a dead horse : the core monk is a joke, it's a fact. If it weren't the case, why would every archetype be better than the core monk? It is a fact, but two years ago, people like LilithThrall were explaining that the monk was a balanced class, and that "we can't give him full BAB!". And it's also because of them that the Pathfinder monk did receive so little improvement from 3.5.

    Today, the monk is still a NPC class, even with archetypes. Some peoples are still arguing that it's not the case: they were wrong two years ago and they're also wrong today. The monk will always remains a useless NPC class, because monk's lovers don't want him to be a playable class.

    (*) PCs resolve the plot, and therefore use classes which can resolve the plot.

    NPC classes are for henchmen, cohorts and the like: characters who can't interact with the plot, who can only fight. Monk, fighter...

    A quick method to see if a class is playable or is an NPC class: ask yourself "would I use this class as a BBEG?"; eg a bard can be a very interesting BBEG, a druid also, a monk... Not so much.


    LilithsThrall wrote:

    Vigorous motion has a DC of 10 + spell level = 14 for your bard.

    The bard's concentration check is 1d20 + his level (10). That means that if the bard rolls less than 14, he'll fail his concentration check.

    OK.

    Actually, you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, do you?

    Ghirrak Ironfist wrote:
    With the touch AC, high saves, speed, mobility, stunning and combat maneuvers monks make amazing mage killers.

    I already asked how a monk could possibly do anything to Togomor, from AP 12.

    The only response was "he can wait for other party member to deals with Togomor". I think a "mage killer" should be able to do more useful stuff.

    Dark Archive

    ProfessorCirno wrote:

    This is already being covered for how laughable it is. Wether it's a movement spell, a teleportation spell, or a spell that outright deflects the rocks, wizards have plenty of options.

    ...
    This is a) laughably untrue, and even if it was, b) the whole point.

    You need to go out of your way and set up situations specifically targeting the wizard. You don't need to do that to the monk.
    ...
    Did you even read my post? Wizards have way more staying power then just one fight. One fight can be as little as two spells - and unless you're level 1, wizards have more then that.
    Here's the problem - wizards are always in "the right moment" because there is a spell for every moment - and the best spells are the ones versatile enough to BE the spell for every moment.

    I did read your post. If I was unclear, I do not accept this argument as wholly valid.

    Which gets back to the peculiar bias I mentioned before. When I introduce circumstances that are sub-optimal to casters, somehow I am picking on them. When I introduce circumstances sub-optimal to everyone else, it is proper and normal. Why is that?

    And you are again basing your argument on perfect spell access and higher level wizardry. Wizards have the potential to cast any spell, and there exist spells for just about every circumstance in print. But I am perpetually asked to accept that all hypothetical wizards will have to ability to add any spell they wish to their spellbooks, and to accept that hypothetical bards or sorcerers have acquired exactly those spells perfect to each moment. I don't question that a strong toolbox may be assembled, but why is the argument always parsed in absolute terms? And why is it when I run games where wizards jealously guard their powerful spells instead of xeroxing off copies for anyone who forks over some gold I am accused of not playing in the spirit of the game or "intentionally going after the caster classes".

    No, I am afraid I don't accept that the wizard will always have all of the spells to survive and dominate the encounters thrown at them. In the dominant notion of "one-encounter a day, stop as soon as the wizard feels uncomfortable, the bad guys never press their advantages," this is undoubtedly so. But I believe that is an artefact of bad scenario design. I don't know what spells a wizard will take at level 5 that will allow them to take on every encounter in a day (at least when I run things) and I am skeptical that each and every wizard will always have just the spell combination to help them get through a whole day of encounters.

    Now, perhaps with the support of monks, fighters and the other characters of that ilk ... if you add that premise in your argument becomes much more palatable to me. But I do not accept that in all circumstances the wizard or bard is superior to the monk.

    Ciretose wrote:
    Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.
    ProfessorCirno wrote:

    So you beat wizards by specifically shaping the game directly around them?

    You're making my arguments for me!

    Oh come now. He means forcing the wizard to actually stick to a single spell list during game instead of the dubious practice of "memorizing" the right spell while game is going on. I can't believe you didn't understand that.

    And perhaps that is where this thread is coming apart. I am content to say that the monk is a bit weak, but also that I have a clear idea of its role. I happen to like the monk's role.

    Why then is it so important to demonstrate that wizards are always and forever superior to the monk? Or is it an effort to 'prove' that the monk is an objectively inferior class in every circumstance? Please, help me understand, because the notion of the monk being flexible appears to render some of you apoplectic. My calls for constructive commentary go unanswered, and the point of this thread is being lost behind the honey-trap of "casters uber-alles".

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    It never fails to amaze me how Cirno finds the time to discuss games he even isn't playing.

    Dark Archive

    Gorbacz wrote:
    It never fails to amaze me how Cirno finds the time to discuss games he even isn't playing.

    In the interests of good form, it is entirely possible that he has merely failed to update that page recently.


    Kegluneq wrote:
    Why then is it so important to demonstrate that wizards are always and forever superior to the monk? Or is it an effort to 'prove' that the monk is an objectively inferior class in every circumstance? Please, help me understand, because the notion of the monk being flexible appears to render some of you apoplectic. My calls for constructive commentary go unanswered, and the point of this thread is being lost behind the honey-trap of "casters uber-alles".

    And is precisely why it's essentially an easy troll for people. And why I'm going to abandon the argument. The caster/martial disparity thread is losing steam so they find an easy target to pummel. If this were an argument about say, the validity of paladins out of combat, we'd get the exact same tiresome arguments. And yes, they are tiresome.

    So I'll go back to my general heckling humor now with TriOmegaZero.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    TarkXT wrote:
    So I'll go back to my general heckling humor with TriOmegaZero.

    *Brofist*


    Kegluneq wrote:
    But I am perpetually asked to accept that all hypothetical wizards will have to ability to add any spell they wish to their spellbooks, and to accept that hypothetical bards or sorcerers have acquired exactly those spells perfect to each moment.

    They don't.

    Anyway:

  • A bard has more class abilities than a monk.
  • Those ability come into play more often. Some at-will ability of the monk don't even come into play once per week (slow fall), what's the point of being at-will?
  • Those abilities have the potential to solve solve any situation the monk can solve.
  • Those ability can solve many other situation.
    and it won't change before long: peoples don't want the monk to be a playable class. If they wanted it, they wouldn't be arguing that "the monk doesn't need full BAB, doesn't need magic, and doesn't need actual class ability: simply give him three or so new useless class abilities and call it a day".

    And actually, wizard always have the right spell at hand. Their class feature include "scribe scroll: have a handful amount of scroll for any situation".

    Quote:
    And why is it when I run games where wizards jealously guard their powerful spells instead of xeroxing off copies for anyone who forks over some gold I am accused of not playing in the spirit of the game or "intentionally going after the caster classes".

    Bards, clerics, druids, inquisitor, oracles, sorcerers, summoners don't rely of copy of a spell. Alchemists, magus, witchs, wizards do, but they also automatically gain some spells of their choice each level.

    I don't know what you're trying to achieve by limiting the access to scrolls: the spontaneous casters still have more possibilities than martials, and the prepared casters still have more possibilities than spontaneous.

    Spoiler:
    Quote:
    No, I am afraid I don't accept that the wizard will always have all of the spells to survive and dominate the encounters thrown at them. In the dominant notion of "one-encounter a day, stop as soon as the wizard feels uncomfortable, the bad guys never press their advantages," this is undoubtedly so. But I believe that is an artefact of bad scenario design.

    I actually played an actual game in which:

    • There was no wands.
    • The party stopped when the martials feel uncomfortable.

    In such a game, "when the matials feel uncomfortable" is synonymous to "when the divine doesn't have any cure left". Which is another way to say "when the casters don't have many spells left". Each time the bad guys pressed their advantage, some martial died.

    In the end, this kind of game is even worse for martials than a game with wands; and with wands, casters can't even run out of resources. But it's only my experience, you should run the experiment.

    Anyway, that's pure C-M D, there's nothing specific to the monk here: caster can do fine without martials, martials can't deal with CR-appropriate encounter without caster. Because, again, everyone has skills, everyone can hit things with a pointed stick, but not everyone can cure a meaningful amount of HP.

    That's the funny thing on any board: peoples talk about theoretical situations that never happen ("everyone burned their spells, but the monk is full HP!"), about theoretical plays they never played ("if the party can't rest when spells are out, including cure"), etc. But if you actually tried the class, the method of play, etc in actual play and with the actual Pathfinder rules, and if you're rude because you know that people are talking total nonsense they never tried (or because they are simply saying "the rules work perfectly since you can houserule instead of actually use them"), you're a troll who only knows theorycrafting. And the more your experience is based on actual play instead of silly situations like "rocks fall, everyone die except the monk", the more you're only using theorycrafting and "the dominant notion of one-encounter a day".

    Quote:
    He means forcing the wizard to actually stick to a single spell list during game instead of the dubious practice of "memorizing" the right spell while game is going on. I can't believe you didn't understand that.

    It's a stupid houserule. Why would anyone play a wizard instead of a sorcerer if he can't ever change his memorisation list? He should simply houserule that wizard don't exist.

  • 301 to 350 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks: What is their "role?" All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.