Yeah the "monk before 2nd edition" was pointed out, but I don't know if it was this thread or the grasshopper monk thread.
Yeah the "monk before 2nd edition" was pointed out, but I don't know if it was this thread or the grasshopper monk thread.Okay. I'm just amused, because the monk was one of the very first non-core classes ever added to D&D (along with the assassin, in the same book), and isn't just older than 2e, it's older than AD&D.
The poster said it was pre-AD&D, even older than the drow.
This post says it came in 1st edition. I was not playing D&D back then though so I have no idea when it came about.
What if find interesting is that everyone keeps goin on and on about how the barbarian is going to pass the fort save, but nothing being said about will saves and reflex saves, especially will saves, the monk will win out every day
The will saves are not an issue either. those are also going to be made unless I roll very low, and if it is a boss fight then my barbarian is raging so it is still almost a non issue.
I am not shabby on reflex saves either, but even if I fail the damage is not something I can not deal with, and if it is fire then I have fire resistance as a class feature so that. Damage dealing spells in Pathfinder don't really do a lot of damage, not as much as me taking a full attack from a melee focused monster anyway.
edit:
will saves are +14(and +18 vs spells, SLA's, and poison)
When I am raging they go up to a 23 vs spells, SLA's, and supernatural abilities. If I roll a 2 I have a 25. CR 18 monster's normally force saves of 25, that is 5+APL which is even outside of suggest boss fight range.
This also assumes the players just stands and does a back and forth, which is a great Barbarian strategy and more of a situation based monk strategy.
I did look at this, as I mentioned, and actually...it's not better for the monk. At all. All he does is lose the advantages of his multiple attacks and FoB attack bonus. If the foe has more attacks than him, or less attacks but all at high attack bonuses, then it makes sense, because he can dish out more than he takes.
If you are using spring attack to disarm, then tiger pouncing if the disarm is successful (including a stunning fist on the first attack) that would make more sense than just trading blows. And the higher initiative doesn't hurt either. I'm not saying the monk is better against the melee, but I am saying they aren't going to be likely to do the same thing.
Disarm is situational on the foe actually using weapons (not a given) having a low enough CMD to affect (not a given) and them not having a spare weapon (not a given).
Tiger Pounce is a great opener, but using it with spring attack reduces the monk's chances to hit still further (3/4 BAB rather than full BAB-2). Stunning fist then has a correspondingly low chance to affect the target (50% to hit, 35% to effect = 17.5% chance of success).
Against a few foes, these tactics would be successful, but they are in the minority. Otherwise the monk is better off duking it out.
Now if both were facing a caster class, things would be very different. The monk can abundant step around barriers if needed and still attack in the same round, the monk is going to be resistant to touch attacks, have high saves, spell resistance, evasion, immunity to disease and poison, etc...I think in that situation the monk would be much better off than the Barbarian.
Disease and Poison go against the barbarian's best save, that's not going to be a huge difference if any. Bypassing barriers the monk has an advantage, though it isn't huge. In all honesty, Improved Evasion the high touch AC is the biggest difference between the two. On the flip side the barbarian's much higher hit points make up for a lot of that difference.
Against a flying, ray-shooting caster the monk has an advantage, and they may be able to engage them by grappling at the end of a flying leap or abundant step. Otherwise the barbarian has the advantage with a better missile weapon. Against the greater invisible flying caster, both are up the creek without a paddle.
I think what you posted adds well to the discussion, I just want to point out a melee combatant is a situation the Barbarian should be better at.
Against anything but a melee combatant either of them are less than perfect. The monk's advantages just aren't that huge that they make a significant difference. Even where the monk has an advantage closing with his foes, the barbarian's advantages in hitting and damaging make up for it.
Against a melee foe, the best option for both is duke it out, and the barbarian is far and away better at it. Bottom line is, the barbarian is better at hitting and dealing damage and that's what melee is all about. There isn't much else the monk can do but melee.
how did you get will save +14?
will save base +3, +4 wisdom bonus, +3 cloak, +2 raging, where is the other +2 coming from?
Oh so you want to wait until I close herolabs to ask questions. :)
+4 base not +3
+4 wisdom
+3 cloak
+ 1 indomitable faith(I said in a later post I forgot to pick up traits)
+2 iron will
=+14
Note, this is my non raging Will save, and it does not include Steel Soul either which is always on.
Against a flying, ray-shooting caster the monk has an advantage, and they may be able to engage them by grappling at the end of a flying leap or abundant step. Otherwise the barbarian has the advantage with a better missile weapon. Against the greater invisible flying caster, both are up the creek without a paddle.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Abundant step works like DD, and is subject to the same limitations unless otherwise stated. The monk can't AS into mid-air. :)
edit:It may have been missed, but my barbarian also has better preception and has spellcraft after I finally picked my traits. I thought I posted them, but if not I drop some of the athletic skills, and put those points into spellcraft for a +15, not great, but I can identify up to 9th level spells on a 9 or less.
What if find interesting is that everyone keeps goin on and on about how the barbarian is going to pass the fort save, but nothing being said about will saves and reflex saves, especially will saves, the monk will win out every day
I was just reading a simple feat the other day, allows a monk to change the save vs stunning fist to a will save and back again, as need be.
how did you get will save +14?
will save base +3, +4 wisdom bonus, +3 cloak, +2 raging, where is the other +2 coming from?Oh so you want to wait until I close herolabs to ask questions. :)
+4 base not +3
+4 wisdom
+3 cloak
+ 1 indomitable faith(I said in a later post I forgot to pick up traits)
+2 iron will=+14
Note, this is my non raging Will save, and it does not include Steel Soul either which is always on.
And 18 wisdom? That isn't very common for a barb, especially if you want str, con and dex to be high. Sounds a bit power-gamey, but maybe he is level 16.
And 18 wisdom? That isn't very common for a bard, especially if you want str, con and dex to be high. Sounds a bit power-gamey, but maybe he is level 16.how did you get will save +14?
will save base +3, +4 wisdom bonus, +3 cloak, +2 raging, where is the other +2 coming from?Oh so you want to wait until I close herolabs to ask questions. :)
+4 base not +3
+4 wisdom
+3 cloak
+ 1 indomitable faith(I said in a later post I forgot to pick up traits)
+2 iron will=+14
Note, this is my non raging Will save, and it does not include Steel Soul either which is always on.
How is it powergamey?
Is the GM going to go easy on me if I ignore a weakness? <--rhetorical question.I built this character based on how I GM to a large extent. When I GM no matter what class you are I attack all saves, ability scores, and hit points. I also like to ambush people. Even with all that I think there are GM's who come at players harder than I do.
With that aside I never saw the point of the big dumb brute always being played. Yeah I know you did not say that, but that is how it came across. What is power gaming is subjective anyway. If I had not put the money into wisdom I would have just boosted my AC or my offence so that I hit harder than I already do. By the time I get hasted I will be one-round CR=APL opponents while raging so I saw no reason to boost offence anymore. I am assuming I will get a haste because of the people I usually game for, and with when I get to play. There is normally good team work. Otherwise I would just get the boots that give me haste. The name escapes me at the moment.
My con is high enough to give me over 30 rounds of rage, which is more than I expect to need. I got my dex high enough to get a 30 AC when raging. Dex is not a priority for a barbarian. If I was powergaming I would have dropped charisma down to a 7 before racial stats came into play. Then I could have boost my constitution score which would affect my hit points, and my damage due to raging brutality, along with my fort save.
I think I have a decent con. The trick when making to making a good character is to figure out what you need. Once you get past a certain point it is just overkill, and the resources are better off going somewhere else. AS an example, I could have gotten a better cloak of resistance since I have about 12000 gp that I never spent, but I think my saves are ok. I also like my damage. If I were to spend that gold it would be to boost my AC.
PS:3.5 Loyalist do you play/GM high level characters on a regular basis? I ask because I think I could go paladin and do more damage with smite, and get better saves, and two I am curious as to what you consider to be within the standard for a 13th level character, and you think should be a hard fight for a party of 5.
edit:This character is level 13. :)
If you don't want him to be a big dumb brute, take a high int. You took it for the save. Simple.
+14 isn't so good for that level. Your high wis half gets around a problem, but need more feats and concentration to truly have that in the bag.
What is a hard fight will depend entirely on the party, how good their team-work is and what they are specialised at defeating. I am more used to mid-level games, without chars or monsters with multiple 18s. The players are adventurers, not super heroes, or so I run it. I got tired of chars and monsters without weaknesses, but that is me (spec or do not spec, but with lower ability scores you can't just 18 the problem and hope it will go away).
What if find interesting is that everyone keeps goin on and on about how the barbarian is going to pass the fort save, but nothing being said about will saves and reflex saves, especially will saves, the monk will win out every dayThe will saves are not an issue either. those are also going to be made unless I roll very low, and if it is a boss fight then my barbarian is raging so it is still almost a non issue.
I am not shabby on reflex saves either, but even if I fail the damage is not something I can not deal with, and if it is fire then I have fire resistance as a class feature so that. Damage dealing spells in Pathfinder don't really do a lot of damage, not as much as me taking a full attack from a melee focused monster anyway.
edit:
will saves are +14(and +18 vs spells, SLA's, and poison)
When I am raging they go up to a 23 vs spells, SLA's, and supernatural abilities. If I roll a 2 I have a 25. CR 18 monster's normally force saves of 25, that is 5+APL which is even outside of suggest boss fight range.
This is incorrect Lord Wraithstrike. Your Barbarian gains a bonus to Will saves when raging, bumping him to 16, then you add in the +9 from Steel Soul and Superstitious, for a +25 Will save vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities.
When not Raging, the Barbarian's Will is 13, which is 1 point below the Monks Will of 14 (you both gain +4 vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities), but your Fortitude is higher than his. Your Reflex is lower, (by 5 points), but when you're Raging, your Fortitude and Will skyrocket. In my own opinion, I think, defensively, the Barbarian and Monk posted, are roughly the same. Offensively, the Monk has some neat tricks, but the Barbarian has a trick that almost never fails to work. Raw Power.
What is wrong with taking it for the save? That is just smart character creation, not power gaming. You can't really build a character based off of thematic choices alone. Optimisation allows you to realise a concept, and use the mechanics to make sure you don't die. I am not saying no optimal choice will ever be sacrificed, but you dead characters don't RP at all. If I don't improve the barbarian's poor wisdom he get dominated, and hacks his buddies up.
I don't need the extra skill points so why take intelligence? I see more melee focused characters with high wisdom, and than high intelligence.
They normally need it for perception and the will saves, and at level 13 an 18 is not that high. It is my 3rd highest score, and we are only using 20 PB.
I am sure that I could have similar stats with a 15 point buy. I got that 18 though. I would just sacrifice the AC and drop wisdom by 2 points to make up for it. That my drop my Will save by 1, and my AC by 1 or 2 points, but it won't make that much of a difference.
With all that aside the idea was to build a barbarian that can compete with the monk's save so I did. It was not my idea, but I was curious to see if it could be done. I was surprised my AC got to be that thigh. Not bad for a first time barbarian build.
PS: I am assuming that by mid-level you mean 7-11. A little after level 10 Pathfinder becomes an entirely different game, but even at level 11 I would be too far behind the level 13 build that I put up. Going back to the weakness comment. I was trying to avoid dumping stats. If I did that he would have been better.
What if find interesting is that everyone keeps goin on and on about how the barbarian is going to pass the fort save, but nothing being said about will saves and reflex saves, especially will saves, the monk will win out every dayThe will saves are not an issue either. those are also going to be made unless I roll very low, and if it is a boss fight then my barbarian is raging so it is still almost a non issue.
I am not shabby on reflex saves either, but even if I fail the damage is not something I can not deal with, and if it is fire then I have fire resistance as a class feature so that. Damage dealing spells in Pathfinder don't really do a lot of damage, not as much as me taking a full attack from a melee focused monster anyway.
edit:
will saves are +14(and +18 vs spells, SLA's, and poison)
When I am raging they go up to a 23 vs spells, SLA's, and supernatural abilities. If I roll a 2 I have a 25. CR 18 monster's normally force saves of 25, that is 5+APL which is even outside of suggest boss fight range.This is incorrect Lord Wraithstrike. Your Barbarian gains a bonus to Will saves when raging, bumping him to 16, then you add in the +9 from Steel Soul and Superstitious, for a +25 Will save vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities.
When not Raging, the Barbarian's Will is 13, which is 1 point below the Monks Will of 14 (you both gain +4 vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities), but your Fortitude is higher than his. Your Reflex is lower, (by 5 points), but when you're Raging, your Fortitude and Will skyrocket. In my own opinion, I think, defensively, the Barbarian and Monk posted, are roughly the same. Offensively, the Monk has some neat tricks, but the Barbarian has a trick that almost never fails to work. Raw Power.
+4 base
+4 wisdom+3 cloak
+ 1 indomitable faith(I said in a later post I forgot to pick up traits)
+2 iron will
=+14<--not raging
edit:Thanks. I guess that means I have a 26 then when raging. :)
What if find interesting is that everyone keeps goin on and on about how the barbarian is going to pass the fort save, but nothing being said about will saves and reflex saves, especially will saves, the monk will win out every dayThe will saves are not an issue either. those are also going to be made unless I roll very low, and if it is a boss fight then my barbarian is raging so it is still almost a non issue.
I am not shabby on reflex saves either, but even if I fail the damage is not something I can not deal with, and if it is fire then I have fire resistance as a class feature so that. Damage dealing spells in Pathfinder don't really do a lot of damage, not as much as me taking a full attack from a melee focused monster anyway.
edit:
will saves are +14(and +18 vs spells, SLA's, and poison)
When I am raging they go up to a 23 vs spells, SLA's, and supernatural abilities. If I roll a 2 I have a 25. CR 18 monster's normally force saves of 25, that is 5+APL which is even outside of suggest boss fight range.This is incorrect Lord Wraithstrike. Your Barbarian gains a bonus to Will saves when raging, bumping him to 16, then you add in the +9 from Steel Soul and Superstitious, for a +25 Will save vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities.
When not Raging, the Barbarian's Will is 13, which is 1 point below the Monks Will of 14 (you both gain +4 vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities), but your Fortitude is higher than his. Your Reflex is lower, (by 5 points), but when you're Raging, your Fortitude and Will skyrocket. In my own opinion, I think, defensively, the Barbarian and Monk posted, are roughly the same. Offensively, the Monk has some neat tricks, but the Barbarian has a trick that almost never fails to work. Raw Power.
+4 base
+4 wisdom
+3 cloak
+ 1 indomitable faith(I said in a later post I forgot to pick up traits)
+2 iron will=+14<--not raging
edit:Thanks. I guess that means I have a 26 then when...
Lol, I probably should have finished reading before posting that.
Lol, I probably should have finished reading before posting that.
I do that a lot also. :)
|
The only thing that concerns me is that if its a caster that can't fly (such as a wizard or sorcerer), it's probably physically capable of tearing the monk a new one (clerics, druids, bards, rangers, alchemists, inquisitors, rakshasha, mind flayers*, beholders*, most outsiders...).
Any thoughts?
The monk has better AC than the barb and enough hit points to soak.
If a cleric, druid, or bard want to trade melee, great for the the monk and the party that they are engaged in something they don't do well against someone who almost certainly is fighting from advantage.
A Ranger isn't going to be as troubling about spells it can cast and so would probably be dealt with as they would deal with any melee class, or if it is an archer class deflect arrows is annoying to manyshot and then you close on them.
Alchemists and inquisitors similarly depend on type, and the monk may or may not be fine trading blows depending on if each is made for melee or not. The Alchemist isn't particularly troubling with bombs with the monks evasion, and the inquisitor is a beast solo against someone in the party with bane, so everyone is going to have a match up challenge with them.
Rakshasha are hardly an issue (Both sai and shruiken are piercing), I don't have my old 3.5 beastiary handy, but I remember monks being at advantage against mind flayers given their saves, resistances and touch AC, they definitely were awesome against beholders thanks to touch AC against rays (again going from memory, but I've had monks vs beholder experience and shined).
Outsiders are far to wide a classification to generalize, do you have some that are of a particular concern? Particularly relative to the Barbarian posted?
|
|
I am not seeing where DD says you have to land on a solid surface.
"You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot within range. You always arrive at exactly the spot desired - whether by simply visualizing the area or by stating direction. After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn. You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed your maximum load. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels. A Large creature counts as two Medium creatures, a Huge creature counts as two Large creatures, and so forth. All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you.
If you arrive in a place that is already occupied by a solid body, you and each creature traveling with you take 1d6 points of damage and are shunted to a random open space on a suitable surface within 100 feet of the intended location.
If there is no free space within 100 feet, you and each creature traveling with you take an additional 2d6 points of damage and are shunted to a free space within 1,000 feet. If there is no free space within 1,000 feet, you and each creature traveling with you take an additional 4d6 points of damage and the spell simply fails."
Fly potion then abundant step to the caster. Or if I'm feeling lucky Abundant step and attempt a grapple :)
It is in the general rules, and DD nor any other spell overrides them and unless a rule specifically overrides a general rule the general rule still applies.
I guess the fly potion would work though, but with a fly potion we are both equals. Barring any miss chance we both kill it. :)
The one good thing to come out of 4th edition D&D was the explanation of the monk as a psionic class.
I now just explain monks as psionic classes without manifestation abilities, like a soulknife.
I apply this to ninjas as well, or anything else with a "pool" of energy they can expend for super human abilities.
The one good thing to come out of 4th edition D&D was the explanation of the monk as a psionic class.
I now just explain monks as psionic classes without manifestation abilities, like a soulknife.
I apply this to ninjas as well, or anything else with a "pool" of energy they can expend for super human abilities.
You should probably take a look at Ashiel's Psionic Monk then as you may like it. I don't have a GM that will let me test it, so I never bothered to build one, but it looks awesome to me. Also, then I'd have to buy the Psionic's Unleashed book so I can learn the system.
You should probably take a look at Ashiel's Psionic Monk then as you may like it. I don't have a GM that will let me test it, so I never bothered to build one, but it looks awesome to me. Also, then I'd have to buy the Psionic's Unleashed book so I can learn the system.The one good thing to come out of 4th edition D&D was the explanation of the monk as a psionic class.
I now just explain monks as psionic classes without manifestation abilities, like a soulknife.
I apply this to ninjas as well, or anything else with a "pool" of energy they can expend for super human abilities.
You can find most of the crunchy bits about Psionics Unleashed on the D20pfsrd, it's just all in it's own section.
You should probably take a look at Ashiel's Psionic Monk then as you may like it. I don't have a GM that will let me test it, so I never bothered to build one, but it looks awesome to me. Also, then I'd have to buy the Psionic's Unleashed book so I can learn the system.The one good thing to come out of 4th edition D&D was the explanation of the monk as a psionic class.
I now just explain monks as psionic classes without manifestation abilities, like a soulknife.
I apply this to ninjas as well, or anything else with a "pool" of energy they can expend for super human abilities.
You can find most of the crunchy bits about Psionics Unleashed on the D20pfsrd, it's just all in it's own section.
Oh I know, but when I learn a new system I want the book in front of me so I can read cover to cover. Trying to learn the system by reading from link to link on a website, isn't very effective as you can miss a lot of things. I could download a PDF, but I don't enjoy reading PDFs beyond researching something in a book for ease of access. Every book I own, I own a PDF of because it's faster to hit Search: Word Casting than looking it up in the index and flipping to the page, so I can continue on with it later and not hold up the game.
-A lot of my bias against monks is based upon the contempt I have in the real world for most asian style dojo martial arts as a realistic fighting style/self defense tactic. I freely admit that. In the competition ring, under controlled circumstances, they are fine and make for a good show. But in real world confrontations they are less than ideal, and over-confidence in them as a way to keep yourself safe in a real incident can and will get you hurt or worse. Likewise repeated exposure to folks who got into martial arts for the wrong reasons and who were also swaggering over-confident punks has left a bad taste in my mouth about martial arts and their practitioners. (yes, I'm stereotyping there...but once again it's how I feel)
I can see where you are coming from, but my own experience with martial arts was very different: I went in in my twenties to learn some self-defence, and I went with club that didn't bother with competitions and instead taught very much real-world situational applications of the traditional stuff alongside it.
As such, I have a very healthy respect for the 'real' martial arts - the stuff that was used by the people who had to use it in the real world against other guys out to kill them with sharp, pointy and heavy things designed to mangle bodies. These arts were handed down by the ones who survived said attempts to kill them, which is a rather effective way of weeding out the techniques that don't work.
When not Raging, the Barbarian's Will is 13, which is 1 point below the Monks Will of 14 (you both gain +4 vs Spells and Spell-like Abilities), but your Fortitude is higher than his. Your Reflex is lower, (by 5 points), but when you're Raging, your Fortitude and Will skyrocket. In my own opinion, I think, defensively, the Barbarian and Monk posted, are roughly the same. Offensively, the Monk has some neat tricks, but the Barbarian has a trick that almost never fails to work. Raw Power.
The monk has some tricks yes, but they are situational. He does have some effective attacks, but he's just not in the barbarian's league for getting hits or scoring damage.
I'll stat them up for a boss-fight and see how that goes. Watch this space.
The monk has better AC than the barb and enough hit points to soak.
If a cleric, druid, or bard want to trade melee, great for the the monk and the party that they are engaged in something they don't do well against someone who almost certainly is fighting from advantage.
A Ranger isn't going to be as troubling about spells it can cast and so would probably be dealt with as they would deal with any melee class, or if it is an archer class deflect arrows is annoying to manyshot and then you close on them.
Alchemists and inquisitors similarly depend on type, and the monk may or may not be fine trading blows depending on if each is made for melee or not. The Alchemist isn't particularly troubling with bombs with the monks evasion, and the inquisitor is a beast solo against someone in the party with bane, so everyone is going to have a match up challenge with them.
Rakshasha are hardly an issue (Both sai and shruiken are piercing), I don't have my old 3.5 beastiary handy, but I remember monks being at advantage against mind flayers given their saves, resistances and touch AC, they definitely were awesome against beholders thanks to touch AC against rays (again going from memory, but I've had monks vs beholder experience and shined).
Outsiders are far to wide a classification to generalize, do you have some that are of a particular concern? Particularly relative to the Barbarian posted?
Well, using the Ghaele Azata Wraithstrike and I were discussing in another monk thread (concerning enemies and their buffs/equipment specifically), creatures like Angels, Azata, Demons, Devils, and other popular outsiders that may appear as opponents tend to be very nasty to fight in general. A Ghaele for example can simply out-fight the monk (but not the barbarian) because it will have a +28/+28/+23/+19 attack routine, dealing about 23 damage per hit. Against your monk's AC of 26 (you lack Uncanny Dodge like the barbarian has), that sets the DPR to...
95%/95%/90%/65% = 79.65 damage without crits. The monk may be easily dead in a round. Now with your good attack, at +17, you have about a 50% chance to land your attack after using dimension door. You then have to overcome DR 10/cold iron and evil, which is somewhat difficult. The Azata has a pretty sweet Fortitude save as well. Statistically, your chances of both landing the hit and the stun are very bad (especially after the total concealment problem), but you put yourself in a position to be dismantled by its full attack.
You're dead on the next round. That's assuming that he has no friends who want to get in this as well.
Now against Wraithstrike's Barbarian who sports Uncanny Dodge, the Azata isn't nearly as frightening. His AC non-rage is higher than yours versus the Azata, and his HP is greater as well (meaning that even if the Azata deals the same DPR to him, he will not die in 2 rounds). His unraging barbarian hits the Azata on an 8 (a 60% chance) for a ton more damage. Again, this is no-rage barbarian. Now when he goes super saiyen, his AC kicks up to 31, his HP gets bigger, gains scent (allowing him to easily pinpoint the Ghaele for attacking), and DR 6/-, which makes him far, far more enduring (the DR 6 nearly halves the Ghaele's damage bonuses on each hit).
The Ghaele's damage versus Wraithstrike's Barbarian becomes...
80%/80%/55%/30% = 56.35. Significantly lower than the damage vs the monk. The Barbarian also has 226 HP unbuffed, which means it would take about 4-5 rounds of pure beating to take the Barbarian down.
Now the barbarian isn't sitting super pretty either. His DPR is only...
85%/85%/60%/35% = 58.3 / 2 (50% miss chance) = 29.15 (not counting crits, which is a bit unfair since he's got a keen falchion, but just eyeballing it at the moment).
So I think both the monk and barbarian would lose this matchup if either of you could melee with the Azata. I think the Barbarian does a better job of it though, and could survive long enough to buy his allies adequate time to assist. Dead in 2 is pretty harsh.
PS: Blind Fight is everyone's friend.
Rather than run the characters solo against a set of stats, for the ‘boss fight’ I’ve selected a monster both should be able to effect reasonably well. It’s actually perhaps the weakest of the CR15 creatures I looked at: most have no weapons to disarm, and most have DR in addition. I’ve chosen the Oni, Fire Yai as the target beasty. I don’t expect either character to win, this is an exercise to see what they can do to it, and what it can do to them.
The Oni has AC29, 229 hit points, which are low for this CR. It’s attacks are high: +1 katana +27/+22/+17/+12 (2d6+16/18-20) or 2 slams +26 (1d10+15). Ranged fiery missile +19 touch (4d6 fire plus burn)
Monk:
The monk has some definite advantages against the Oni: first off, a lot of its powers rely on touch AC and reflex saves, which is playing to the monk’s strengths’.
Monk vs Oni:
Disarm: The monk can attempt a disarm with his sai, at +23. Bad news, the Oni has a CMD of 41, so only a 15% chance of success. Worse, this means the monk is not going to avoid AoO’s easily with his acrobatics.
Spring Attack: The monk can hit and run, which is an effective tactic in a group combat. Using Tiger Pounce he hits effectively twice each time, too. At +17 he has a 45% chance of connecting for 2x(2d8+8) with a 5% threat makes (.45x34)x1.05 = 16.065 DPR
Full Attack: If he goes for a full flurry of blows, the monk will hit: 55%/55%/30%/30%/5% for 2d8+8 which gives us: (1.75x17)x1.05 = 31.2375 DPR. The monk can increase this slightly by blowing ki, but given that the Oni can attack his touch AC he is probably going to focus that on his Dodge instead.
Stunning Fist: The Oni has a Fort save of +18, the monk’s stunning fist has a 15% chance of success.
Other Tactics: With a perception of 23 the monk is not going to get the drop on the Oni. Popping out of abundant step behind it with a Stunnign fist will achieve almost nothing save to put the monk in the way of a full attack next round. Spring Attack with Stunning Fist and Tiger Claw is more effective. The bleed is not going to get past the Oni’s regeneration.
Conclusion: the monk is not doing well against the Oni. Unless it takes a heavy debuff from somewhere the monk’s stunning fist and disarm are not going to achieve much. Stunning fist is worth the attempt, because you still do damage if you hit and it fails.
Oni vs Monk
Fiery Missile: the Oni can loose these off as a swift action every round, and there is no reason he wouldn’t or couldn’t use them in melee. At +19 touch, they are bad news even for the monk without fire resistance with a 70% chance of hitting without him spending ki, and a 50% chance of hitting if he does. Assuming he does, that’s an average 7 points of fire damage per round (although the monk’s reflex save is enough to make the burn effect academic).
Fire Shield: The Oni can use a hot fire shield to cause 1d6+15 fire damage per turn the monk attacks. That’s another 18.5 DPR.
Single Attack: If the monk uses Spring Attack he can avoid AoO’s, but not readied actions. The Oni has Vital Strike and Power Attack, so he is worrying about +22 to hit with 4d6+31 damage, or +27 to hit with 4d6+16 damage. Assuming the monk is putting it all in defense, he has an AC of 39. That’s high enough to make the Oni forget about Power Attack at least, so it’s a 45% chance to hit for 30 damage at 18-20 threat. (.45x30)x1.15 = 15.525 DPR.
Full Attack: Using its full attack the Oni will have to forego Power Attack, but it will still hurt: 45%/20%/5%/5% gives us: (.9x30)x1.15 + (.1x30)x1.05 = 34.2 DPR.
If the monk has some kind of fire resistance cast on him at the start he can trade blows with this Oni on a nearly equal footing. Sadly, he has 100 less hit points, which means he will last four rounds in a slugging match or eight in a hit-and-run contest. Again his special abilities only look neat on paper; they need a lot of luck to actually achieve much other than putting the monk in harm’s way or providing him with a ready escape.
Barbarian
The barbarian is more vulnerable to the powers of the Oni, with a much worse reflex save to avoid Burn and Fireball. His lower AC is going to count against him too. On the flip side he is just as tough as the Oni.
Grokko vs Oni
Grokko Smash: There’s only one tactic Grokko is interested in, get in close and hit hard. +24/+15/+10 means 80%/30%/5% for 2d6+40 at 17-20/x2. That works out as: (1.1x47)x1.2 + (.05x47)x1.05 = 64.5075DPR
Single Attack: If Grokko has to charge in, he gladly will: 90% to hit for 2d6+40 at 17-20/x2 works out at: (0.9x47)x1.2 = 50.76 DPR.
Oni vs Grokko
Fiery Missile: This is a virtual auto-hit every round for 14 damage + 2d6 burn, and with his lower Reflex save Grokko is in trouble, virtually guaranteed to take 21 DPR which will hurt.
Fire Shield: The Oni can use a hot fire shield to cause 1d6+15 fire damage per turn Grokko attacks. That’s another 18.5 DPR.
Power Attack: On a full power attack, the Oni hits for +22/+17/+12/+7 for 2d6+31 at 18-20/x2. Grokko’s AC31 means 60%/35%/10%/5% = 110%. So DPR = (.95x38)x1.15 + (.1x38)x1.1 + (.05x38)x1.05 = 47.69
Full Attack: On a full attack the Oni hits for +27/+22/+17/+12 for 2d6+16 at 18-20/x2. Grokko’s AC31 means 85%/60%/35%/10% = 190%. So DPR = (1.8x23)x1.15 + (.1x23)x1.1 = 50.14
Conclusion: If Grokko has fire resistance as well, he can trade hammer blows with the Oni and beat him down good and hard, especially if the Oni tries his Charm on Grokko which is basically going to waste him a turn finding out Grokko doesn’t do charmed any easier than the monk.
Without fire resistance, both Grokko and the monk will lose by close to the same margin, but this is a party monster, not a solo one. With fire resistance Grokko can dominate the Oni’s attention and force it to try and deal with him; the monk can annoy the Oni and play hit-and-run with it, but ultimately the Oni can ignore the monk until he has dealt with more serious threats and then all that the monk can do is cut and run. There’s an outside chance the monk can pull a stun or disarm on the Oni, but that’s all it is.
So why the big difference? Quite simply, the monk’s abilities do not make up for his MADness. The monk’s hitting stat of 22 is good, but other combat classes will likely have 24-26 at this level. That puts him +2 to hit behind. Then his lower enhancement loses him another +1. 15% less hits over five hits adds up to 85% less hits in a round, and makes his low chances of getting stunning fist to work lower still. His maneuvers are good but he isn’t going to run into monsters that are vulnerable to them all that often. The monk’s AC nearly pulls it back for him, but his relatively low hit points let him down again.
This is all against a foe that I picked out to try and give the monk an even chance: it has no DR, it is humanoid (if large), it uses weapons, and it does not have super AC.
The monk has better AC than the barb and enough hit points to soak.
If a cleric, druid, or bard want to trade melee, great for the the monk and the party that they are engaged in something they don't do well against someone who almost certainly is fighting from advantage.
A Ranger isn't going to be as troubling about spells it can cast and so would probably be dealt with as they would deal with any melee class, or if it is an archer class deflect arrows is annoying to manyshot and then you close on them.
Alchemists and inquisitors similarly depend on type, and the monk may or may not be fine trading blows depending on if each is made for melee or not. The Alchemist isn't particularly troubling with bombs with the monks evasion, and the inquisitor is a beast solo against someone in the party with bane, so everyone is going to have a match up challenge with them.
Rakshasha are hardly an issue (Both sai and shruiken are piercing), I don't have my old 3.5 beastiary handy, but I remember monks being at advantage against mind flayers given their saves, resistances and touch AC, they definitely were awesome against beholders thanks to touch AC against rays (again going from memory, but I've had monks vs beholder experience and shined).
Outsiders are far to wide a classification to generalize, do you have some that are of a particular concern? Particularly relative to the Barbarian posted?
Well, using the Ghaele Azata Wraithstrike and I were discussing in another monk thread (concerning enemies and their buffs/equipment specifically), creatures like Angels, Azata, Demons, Devils, and other popular outsiders that may appear as opponents tend to be very nasty to fight in general. A Ghaele for example can simply out-fight the monk (but not the barbarian) because it will have a +28/+28/+23/+19 attack routine, dealing about 23 damage per hit. Against your monk's AC of 26 (you lack Uncanny Dodge like the barbarian has), that sets the DPR to...
I went with the invulnerable rager. I think that gets rid of uncanny dodge, but my DR goes up to 6 instead of 3.
It should be noted however that unlike most barbarian my rage does not drop when I go unconscious, and I can convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage to prevent death. That gives the cleric/healer more time to help me if things go wrong. The Ghaele is likely to tag me for 3 of the hits. If it power attacks then it only lands 2, but my DR soaks some of that. I am not looking at the stat of the ghaele right now, but if the ghaele tries to "stand and deliver" I think it goes down.
|
|
@Ashiel - And once again you try and derail a thread with a specific corner case example with questionable statements and assumptions and prove what?
No thanks, not playing.
Wraithstrike, Tels and Dabbler are trying to have a serious discussion rather than throwing up corner case strawmen to show that they are clever and can find situations where they "win".
Perhaps you would like to join us?
@Ashiel - And once again you try and derail a thread with a specific corner case example with questionable statements and assumptions and prove what?
Outsiders are far to wide a classification to generalize, do you have some that are of a particular concern? Particularly relative to the Barbarian posted?
I posted an example that was particularly concerning to me, and used it because Wraithstrike and I had been talking about it recently in another monk thread, and it was the correct CR.
You asked, I answered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You posted a list of examples, got refuted, then sought out an example that would support your argument.
As usual you aren't trying to find an answer, you are trying to prove you are right. And in the example you gave you ignored the stated scenario of this person being added to the party of iconics and tried to make it solo PvP which was exactly what we all agreed we didn't want this to become, had numbers inconsistent with the PRD version of the creature (probably so you can derail this into another modification conversation...) and made assumptions of actions and reactions that were irrational for the monk (or the barbarian for that matter) because it better illustrated the point you want to make.
You know the rules very well, you could actual be a useful contributor to this discussion, but instead you are trying to derail it by seeking out corner cases where you are right that are counter to the discussion at hand.
It gets really, really old.
So ask I said, everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion. You can feel free to join us or you can keep trying to find ways to show you are right and derail.
|
|
To be clear what the issue is with Ashiel (as I realize if you didn't look up stuff it may seem I'm being harsh)
In the scenario posted she used numbers for a Ghale Azata. This is what is in the book.
Notice the difference? Look at the attack numbers. Yup.
Then she had the Azata, who can fly with greater invisibility engage in melee, despite the fact that it has 16 intelligence and ranged ray attack that ignore damage reduction. Not to mention all of the other spells it has access to...
Why? Because that would put the Barbarian at a disadvantage relative to the monk, who has good touch AC.
There is more (the fact the monks minimum unarmed damage is equal to the DR for example) but I think that is enough to make it clear this wasn't an honest attempt to look and see how it would actually work, but an attempt to fix things to make it work.
Ashiel changed the attack bonus and numbers of attack, had the creature act in an irrational manner (engaging in melee with a Barbarian when they have far better options) so that she can "win".
And it isn't like Ashiel doesn't know the rules, so this wasn't an "oops" moment.
I am glad everyone else is trying to have a serious conversation, rather than trying to "win".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then she had the Azata, who can fly with greater invisibility engage in melee, despite the fact that it has 16 intelligence and ranged ray attack that ignore damage reduction. Not to mention all of the other spells it has access to...So they both lose to an Azata. What's your point?
The point is Ashiel modified the creature and it's actions in order to manipulate the scenario to better aid her side in "winning" when everyone else is actually trying to look at the two builds and have a discussion about them.
I'm calling her out on it, to either shame her into joining with the rest of us in looking at the situation honestly or leaving the thread to people who are trying to have an honest conversation.
I'm fine with either, but I'm tired of the ridiculous scenarios full of "guess how I'm doing this" that require tons and tons of fact checking if you aren't quick with your rules knowledge (and even some if you are, as who has the bestiary memorized...) and aren't intended to do anything but garner attention and make people go "oooh, that wall of text and numbers sure looks impressive..."
When a poster is being dishonest in an honest conversation, calling them out on it is 100% appropriate. You know this, because you've been trying to do it to me for the last few days.
Only I'm not wrong here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You posted a list of examples, got refuted, then sought out an example that would support your argument.
As usual you aren't trying to find an answer, you are trying to prove you are right. And in the example you gave you ignored the stated scenario of this person being added to the party of iconics and tried to make it solo PvP which was exactly what we all agreed we didn't want this to become, had numbers inconsistent with the PRD version of the creature (probably so you can derail this into another modification conversation...) and made assumptions of actions and reactions that were irrational for the monk (or the barbarian for that matter) because it better illustrated the point you want to make.
You know the rules very well, you could actual be a useful contributor to this discussion, but instead you are trying to derail it by seeking out corner cases where you are right that are counter to the discussion at hand.
It gets really, really old.
So ask I said, everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion. You can feel free to join us or you can keep trying to find ways to show you are right and derail.
You asked for a specific monster, Ashiel answered with a specific monster. Ashiel also included a list of some of the more common outsiders which could be problems.
However, you are invalidating Ashiel's post, simply because Ashiel posted it. You claim he posted a corner case. By that same logic, Dabbler's post must also be invalidated because he used a specific monster as well (i.e a corner case).
Maybe if you could step back and forgo your bias against anything Ashiel, you could sit down and have a reasonable discussion with him. This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, regardless of what Ashiel posts, you find fault with it, then claim he is 'cheating' or 'power-gaming' or some other none-sense.
Grow up and stop acting like a child in High School.
====================================================
Ghaele CR 13
XP 25,600
CG Medium outsider (azata, chaotic, extraplanar, good,
shapechanger)
Init +5; Senses darkvision 60 ft., detect evil, low-light vision, see invisibility; Perception +20
Aura holy aura
DEFENSE
AC 28, touch 16, flat-footed 26 (+4 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +12 natural)
hp 136 (13d10+65)
Fort +17, Ref +11, Will +16
DR 10/cold iron and evil; Immune electricity, petrification; Resist cold 10, fire 10; SR 25
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft., fly 150 ft. (perfect)
Melee +2 holy greatsword +22/+17/+12 (2d6+12)
Ranged 2 light rays +14 ranged touch (2d12)
Special Attacks gaze
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 13th)
Constant—detect evil, holy aura (DC 21), see invisibility
At will—aid, charm monster (DC 17), continual flame, cure light wounds, dancing lights, detect thoughts (DC 15), disguise self, dispel magic, hold monster (DC 18), greater invisibility (self only), major image (DC 16), greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only)
3/day—globe of invulnerability
1/day—chain lightning (DC 19), prismatic spray (DC 20), wall of force
Spells Prepared (CL 13th)
7th—holy word (DC 21)
6th—banishment (DC 20), heal (DC 20)
5th—flame strike (DC 19), raise dead, true seeing
4th—death ward, dismissal (2) (DC 18), divine power, restoration
3rd—cure serious wounds (3), searing light (2)
2nd—aid, align weapon, bear's endurance, lesser restoration (2)
1st—bless, command (DC 15), divine favor, obscuring mist, shield of faith
0 (at will)—detect magic, purify food and drink, stabilize, virtue
STATISTICS
Str 25, Dex 12, Con 20, Int 16, Wis 19, Cha 17
Base Atk +13; CMB +20; CMD 31
Feats Combat Casting, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Disarm, Improved Initiative, Improved Trip, Lightning Reflexes
Skills Diplomacy +19, Escape Artist +17, Fly +25, Handle Animal +19, Knowledge (nature) +16, Knowledge (planes) +19, Perception +20, Sense Motive +20, Stealth +17
Languages Celestial, Draconic, Infernal; truespeech
SQ light form
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Gaze (Su)
In humanoid form, a ghaele's gaze attack slays evil creatures of 5 HD or less (range 60 feet, Will DC 18 negates, shaken for 2d10 rounds on a successful save). Nonevil creatures, and evil creatures with more than 5 HD, must succeed on a DC 18 Will save or be shaken for 2d10 rounds. A creature that saves against a ghaele's gaze is immune to that particular ghaele's gaze for 24 hours. This is a mind-affecting fear effect. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
Light Form (Su)
A ghaele can shift between its solid body and one made of light as a standard action. In solid form, it cannot fly or use light rays. In light form, it can fly and gains the incorporeal quality—it can make light ray attacks or use spell-like abilities in this form, but can't make physical attacks or cast spells. This ability otherwise functions similarly to a bralani's wind form ability.
Light Ray (Ex)
A ghaele's light rays have a range of 300 feet. This attack bypasses all damage reduction.
Spells
Ghaeles cast divine spells as 13th-level clerics. They do not gain access to domains or other cleric abilities.
Ashiel said, "it will have a +28/+28/+23/+19 attack routine" while the standard Ghaele has a +22/+17/+12. What you're not realizing, is Ashiel has included the buffs a 'Boss' is likely to have running when you enter the fight. The Ghaele has Divine Power which it could cast and lasts for 13 rounds, and give her a +4 to hit and damage and an extra attack. It also has Greater Invisibility at Will, so it will have a further +2 to hit and it's target is denied it's Dexterity bonus. That right there is +6 to hit, which raises the bonuses to hit to exactly what Ashiel posted. Ashiel didn't bother to toss on the Bull's Strength (for a further +2 to hit and damage) or the Aid for another +1 to hit, for a total of +31 to hit.
So Ashiel included, buffs that the Ghaele can add herself and were well within reason to include. If you don't bother to use ever ability a monster has, that's your own fault, but in discussions such as this, we need to.
Otherwise, we cannot use any monster in the bestiary and must use exactly what the tables for Generic Monster says instead. That is the only way that self buffs, that are part of the creature won't be a factor in the fight.
====================================================
Then she had the Azata, who can fly with greater invisibility engage in melee, despite the fact that it has 16 intelligence and ranged ray attack that ignore damage reduction. Not to mention all of the other spells it has access to...
Funnily enough, the monster Dabbler included also can fly and has an infinite number of ranged attacks. Lord Wraithstrike clarified a number of times that he has 12,000 gp and can buy a bow if needed. That bow would put the Monk at a major disadvantage if it came to ranged combat. So any creature that can fly out of range and use ranged attacks would be a bonus to the Barbarian, because he has the capability of having a Bow that matches his strength score.
So this is another case of you ignoring evidence in favor of your 'bashing Ashiel' mentality. If you can't be an adult and participate in a discussion by taking each persons posts in the nature it was given, with no bias against the actual poster. Then you shouldn't be participating in the discussion.
And it isn't like Ashiel doesn't know the rules, so this wasn't an "oops" moment.
I am glad everyone else is trying to have a serious conversation, rather than trying to "win".
I'm glad you are further acting like a child and invalidating Ashiel's posts simply because Ashiel posted it. If Dabbler had made the same observation, you would have continued discussing the Ghaele. But since Ashiel posted it the Ghaele, you automatically return fire with things like, "Ashiel is a power-gamer, Ashiel skews resulsts in his favor, Ashiel doesn't use what is given, Ashiel does this, Ashiel does that".
To be fair, I think, maybe your posts should also automatically be discarded, based solely on bias against anything Ashiel.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a Monk is a better choice than other classes as a fifth member. The accepted norm is that a Monk isn't a viable class option because of inherent weakness in the lack of enhancement, MADness and clashing class abilities. If you wish to challenge this claim, then you, not us, must prove otherwise.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually did comment on Dabblers use of back and forth melee being problematic to the discussion. But at least he used book numbers and didn't manipulate the scenario to "win"
Ashiel buffed her character quite a bit prior the the attack and made a number of assumptions. Yet the monk was at minimum scores she could find.
Odd that?
You've been honest, Wraithstrike has been honest. You both disagree with me but you've been trying to have an honest conversation.
Ashiel isn't.
She is throwing things out for optimum proof for her side of the argument, and trying to hide things that go against her argument.
This is 95% of my issue with Ashiel. She derails honest discussion between people trying to look at something objectively by throwing up walls of text full of assumptions of optimal circumstances for her side of the debate and maximum weaknesses for the other side.
Which only become obvious when you spend a ton of time checking each and every number.
It is dishonest and it is unhelpful.
You don't need to like me or how I talk to Ashiel to admit that was the intent of that post.
You can't reasonably argue that the example given was posted to add to an honest discussion of the issue. And unless you believe Ashiel is ignorant about the game and rules, you can't reasonable argue Ashiel didn't do so with intent.
The point is Ashiel modified the creature and it's actions in order to manipulate the scenario to better aid her side in "winning" when everyone else is actually trying to look at the two builds and have a discussion about them.
Yes, yes he did modify the stats. But he only modified the stats using built in abilities the Monster already had. So this argument is invalidated.
I'm calling her out on it, to either shame her into joining with the rest of us in looking at the situation honestly or leaving the thread to people who are trying to have an honest conversation.
So I'm calling you on your bias and child-like antics. Does that mean I'm going to shame you into growing up and being a more respectful poster? Unlikely, but I'll keep trying. Ashiel was being honest in his post. He posted only things the Ghaele was capable of. However, you were being dishonest in claiming that Ashiel was skewing results in his favor. If you want to compare a build, you must put them against the exact same scenario otherwise a true comparison can't be made.
I'm fine with either, but I'm tired of the ridiculous scenarios full of "guess how I'm doing this" that require tons and tons of fact checking if you aren't quick with your rules knowledge (and even some if you are, as who has the bestiary memorized...) and aren't intended to do anything but garner attention and make people go "oooh, that wall of text and numbers sure looks impressive..."
And I'm getting tired of entering a thread and seeing you being a child and making snarky potshots at Ashiel's posts by quoting him out of context, or ignoring evidence to prove yourself right in a situation. The Ghaele buffed itself, but you didn't bother to include the fact the Ghaele can self-buff, instead, just claimed Ashiel is cheating in his favor.
When a poster is being dishonest in an honest conversation, calling them out on it is 100% appropriate. You know this, because you've been trying to do it to me for the last few days.
Calling you out on being dishonest. Is it working?
Only I'm not wrong here.
Yes, actually, you are wrong here.
|
|
The point is Ashiel modified the creature and it's actions in order to manipulate the scenario to better aid her side in "winning" when everyone else is actually trying to look at the two builds and have a discussion about them.So your point is that you're both wrong, but Ashiel is more wrong.
This is a helpful contribution to the discussion, thank you.
What have I modified.
So far I've posted a build which gives me a baseline that can be checked I can't modify. I allowed someone who disagrees with my position to set the criteria for the build (level, point buy, etc...) and I posted first to insure I wouldn't just put up a counter to what they poster.
We agreed on criteria (which one would you add to the party of the four iconics) which was suggested by Tels, who clearly isn't on my side of the debate...
So what are you talking about? I know you seem to have a bug up your butt lately toward me, but I haven't done anything in this debate that isn't 100% on the up and up.
|
|
The point is Ashiel modified the creature and it's actions in order to manipulate the scenario to better aid her side in "winning" when everyone else is actually trying to look at the two builds and have a discussion about them.Yes, yes he did modify the stats. But he only modified the stats using built in abilities the Monster already had. So this argument is invalidated.
Divine Power is rounds per level. The Azata was pre-buffed with a rounds per level spell?
Look at what you and Wraithstrike have posted and compare it.
I know you think I am an ass, and you think I am particularly an ass to Ashiel, but that doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what I said would happen when I proposed why builds were needed, and that Ashiel isn't trying to actually see who would do better, but trying to show a situation where the monk would do worse.
And failing at that, considering the Ghaele Azata has a ranged touch attack that overcomes DR...which is pretty much exactly Kryptonite against the Barbarian build on the table...yet that is conveniently overlooked by someone who knows the rules very well...
This is the kind of think that drives me nuts in these discussions, as posters like yourself, wraithstrike, and dabbler are all here to see different approaches to things and test theories.
And you can't do that if you have someone who comes in professing to be seeking the same goal but it manipulating numbers to "win".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually did comment on Dabblers use of back and forth melee being problematic to the discussion. But at least he used book numbers and didn't manipulate the scenario to "win"
No, you did not comment on Dabbler's post of Monk/Barbarian vs the Oni. So that right there is a lie. You've made the claim that using Spring Attack would help the Monk, so Dabbler has always factored that in to any calculations he's made, and so far, I think the Monk has actually come off worse using Spring Attack. By your own words and choices, did you include Spring Attack in this discussion, therefore you must be held accountable for the lack-luster performance it included. To go back say it was problematic when you realized it wouldn't work well is being dishonest.
You claimed theory crafting doesn't work, only builds do. Everyone that has been posting here in the last few days since you came in challenging builds, is capable of theory crafting without much issue. We all knew Spring Attack really only helps in corner cases, and, as far as I know, most of us don't bother with it on the Monk. It makes the Monk have a harder time hitting than if he stands still, which is not a good thing in the long run. Spring Attack only allows the Monk to run and hide longer, taking potshots at an enemy he can't beat.
Ashiel buffed her character quite a bit prior the the attack and made a number of assumptions. Yet the monk was at minimum scores she could find.
Odd that?
So, what you're saying, is in order for a fair comparison to be made, we most not include any abilities that put the Monk in a less favorable light. Funny, now you're skewing the results in your own direction. Ashiel claimed that neither the Monk, nor the Barbarian are likely to do well against a Ghaele, but that the Barbarian would last a little longer. , but you can't seem to see that. Instead, you see Ashiel posting, and start complaining instead.
You've been honest, Wraithstrike has been honest. You both disagree with me but you've been trying to have an honest conversation.
Ashiel isn't.
She is throwing things out for optimum proof for her side of the argument, and trying to hide things that go against her argument.
Ashiel has been nothing but honest as well. Ashiel has been throwing out monsters that will use all their abilities, not just the ones that only favor one side! You are the one being dishonest. You only want monsters the Monk can go up against and win. There have now been 3 different scenarios posted, with the Monk coming off worse than the Barbarian, and you've argued two of them weren't good on the grounds one used tactics you yourself included and the other on the grounds that Ashiel posted it.
This is 95% of my issue with Ashiel. She derails honest discussion between people trying to look at something objectively by throwing up walls of text full of assumptions of optimal circumstances for her side of the debate and maximum weaknesses for the other side.
Which only become obvious when you spend a ton of time checking each and every number.
It is dishonest and it is unhelpful.
You don't need to like me or how I talk to Ashiel to admit that was the intent of that post.
You can't reasonably argue that the example given was posted to add to an honest discussion of the issue. And unless you believe Ashiel is ignorant about the game and rules, you can't reasonable argue Ashiel didn't do so with intent.
I've never seen Ashiel honestly derail a post. He's always posted on-topic, and given advice or pointed out mistakes when necessarily. However, I consistently see you posting in a thread doing little more than insulting Ashiel, which DERAILS THE THREAD. By your own actions, are you a hypocrite, but you're going to ignore that. By your own actions have you been dishonest and unhelpful. But you ignore that.
I will admit, I don't like you very much, but I'm able to post along with you fairly easily, because I can ignore a lot of things. But when you post something that does nothing more than insults another person, I get very annoyed and comment on it. When you're being helpful, staying on topic, and not being insulting, you're a great poster and have a lot of good points. It's when you start insulting that I start taking issue with everything you say.
I actually did comment on Dabblers use of back and forth melee being problematic to the discussion. But at least he used book numbers and didn't manipulate the scenario to "win"
Ashiel buffed her character quite a bit prior the the attack and made a number of assumptions. Yet the monk was at minimum scores she could find.
Odd that?
You've been honest, Wraithstrike has been honest. You both disagree with me but you've been trying to have an honest conversation.
Ashiel isn't.
She is throwing things out for optimum proof for her side of the argument, and trying to hide things that go against her argument.
This is 95% of my issue with Ashiel. She derails honest discussion between people trying to look at something objectively by throwing up walls of text full of assumptions of optimal circumstances for her side of the debate and maximum weaknesses for the other side.
Which only become obvious when you spend a ton of time checking each and every number.
It is dishonest and it is unhelpful.
You don't need to like me or how I talk to Ashiel to admit that was the intent of that post.
You can't reasonably argue that the example given was posted to add to an honest discussion of the issue. And unless you believe Ashiel is ignorant about the game and rules, you can't reasonable argue Ashiel didn't do so with intent.
Yeeep, ciretose understands how Ashiel argues.
I'm just lurking guys. Please continue.
|
|
I think Dabbler made a number of mistakes in his choices of how to set up his calculation, but I think he was looking at the two from an equal point of view and made just as many assumptions that hurt the Barbarian as the monk. I said that earlier about another post Dabbler made and frankly I don't think the PvP is very helpful, which I said earlier.
But I think Dabbler is looking at it impartially, trying to honestly assess both builds, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on the methodology he is using because I don't think he has an agenda or is being dishonest.
I think he is honestly trying to answer the question of which build is better.
Do you honestly believe that what Ashiel posted was her trying to honestly assess the two, or do you believe as I do that she is trying to prove the Barbarian is better in order to "win".
I think Dabbler made a number of mistakes in his choices of how to set up his calculation, but I think he was looking at the two from an equal point of view and made just as many assumptions that hurt the Barbarian as the monk. I said that earlier about another post Dabbler made and frankly I don't think the PvP is very helpful, which I said earlier.
But I think Dabbler is looking at it impartially, trying to honestly assess both builds, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on the methodology he is using because I don't think he has an agenda or is being dishonest.
I think he is honestly trying to answer the question of which build is better.
Do you honestly believe that what Ashiel posted was her trying to honestly
assess the two, or do you believe as I do that she is trying to prove the Barbarian is better in order to "win".
Considering that Ashiel has participated in the Monk threads on a number of occasions and wants to see the Monk be better than it is, yes, yes I do. The fact is, the Barbarian IS better than the Monk. It really can't be argued much, if at all. The Barbarian Lord Wraithsrike posted was built in an attempt to match the Monk in saves, it wasn't built in an attempt to be the best machine of destruction it can be. We already know the Barbarian can be an avatar of death if it wants, that's not the point here. A Barbarian that focused more on having decent to good saves, is still out fighting the Monk that is focusing more on being a viable combat class. That, is the point that Ashiel made. Even when the Monk is well built for combat, the Barbarian that focuses more on it's saves, is a better combatant.
|
|
I actually did comment on Dabblers use of back and forth melee being problematic to the discussion. But at least he used book numbers and didn't manipulate the scenario to "win"
Ashiel buffed her character quite a bit prior the the attack and made a number of assumptions. Yet the monk was at minimum scores she could find.
Odd that?
You've been honest, Wraithstrike has been honest. You both disagree with me but you've been trying to have an honest conversation.
Ashiel isn't.
She is throwing things out for optimum proof for her side of the argument, and trying to hide things that go against her argument.
This is 95% of my issue with Ashiel. She derails honest discussion between people trying to look at something objectively by throwing up walls of text full of assumptions of optimal circumstances for her side of the debate and maximum weaknesses for the other side.
Which only become obvious when you spend a ton of time checking each and every number.
It is dishonest and it is unhelpful.
You don't need to like me or how I talk to Ashiel to admit that was the intent of that post.
You can't reasonably argue that the example given was posted to add to an honest discussion of the issue. And unless you believe Ashiel is ignorant about the game and rules, you can't reasonable argue Ashiel didn't do so with intent.
Yeeep, ciretose understands how Ashiel argues.
I'm just lurking guys. Please continue.
And it wouldn't bother me so much if Ashiel wasn't actually rules knowledgeable.
Ashiel could actually add a lot to these kinds of discussions, and quite frequently does add a lot if she doesn't come in with a specific agenda she is trying to prove.
In discussions where she doesn't have a dog in the race she generally is one of the better posters.
But when she decides she is right, all you get are walls and walls of manipulated scenarios that you have to either ignore or spend hours trying to figure out what she did in order to disprove it by showing it is a rounds per level spell, etc...
She could be incredibly useful in this discussion if she would just approach it honestly, so it offends me when she decides not to.