|
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.
Then post the build this uber Barbarian that blows what I posted out of the water.
If it is so obvious it should be simple to accomplish.
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...
Hours and hours? Really? I understand you're exaggerating, but all I did was glance at the Ghaele's buffs and knew exactly what he did. That's largely what it takes for people to understand anything Ashiel posts. I've never had to sit down and try and figure out how exactly Ashiel got the numbers he did, it's always been fairly obvious. Keep in mind, I've never read the ARG, UM or UC cover to cover, though I do own UM and UC. I've only read the CRB cover to cover, so I don't know everything in the other books. I know a few thins from other books, like some of the more beneficial spells, feats and archetypes, so my ability to glance at Ashiel's numbers and know how he's getting them, is based almost entirely, out of the CRB.
So if you don't know the CRB, and you're trying to participate in a discussion about flaws, weaknesses and power of builds... Why exactly are you participating?
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.
Then post the build this uber Barbarian that blows what I posted out of the water.
If it is so obvious it should be simple to accomplish.
Remember that bit about the 'Burden of Proof' that I said earlier? The majority of posters, the developers, the writers, the editors, the players, will tell you, the Barbarian is better than the Monk. That means, if you wish to claim against that accepted fact, then you must prove otherwise. That is the Burden of Proof. Anyone who makes a claim that goes counter to an accepted or proven fact, must prove otherwise. The Barbarian posted in this very thread, has thrice beaten the Monk in usefulness in a combat encounter. And he isn't even optimized for shear combat.
|
|
She presumed the Azata got initiative, cast greater invisibilty, then cast divine power...etc...
Stop lowering yourself to personal insults, you are better than that even if you think I am not. You didn't answer my question.
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 believe everyone else in the discussion so far has been trying to honestly assess the two.
Do you believe that was Ashiel's intent. Because you have to then believe she overlooked the ranged touch attacks that overcome damage reduction and that she thought the method of attack was equal for both.
Is that what you believe?
Here's a thought then, because Ciretose is complaining about self-buffing. He only wants to fight naked monsters, no buffs, no nothing.
To keep the fights themselves fair, that means, All Posted Build Must Be Devoid Of Buffs, Ki, Items, Spells Etcetera That Modify, Change, Alter, Increase, Or In Any Way Impact The Class Beyond Feats Or Built In Non-Temporary Class Features.
If a Monster can't buff an use it's abilities, than neither can the Monk use Ki, the Barbarian use Rage, the Wizard cast Spells, the Fighter use Weapons, the Bard use Music. All classes must fight naked, unarmed, and using only Feats and Class abilities that are 'always on' in order to be 100% fair.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that bit about the 'Burden of Proof' that I said earlier? The majority of posters, the developers, the writers, the editors, the players, will tell you, the Barbarian is better than the Monk. That means, if you wish to claim against that accepted fact, then you must prove otherwise. That is the Burden of Proof. Anyone who makes a claim that goes counter to an accepted or proven fact, must prove otherwise. The Barbarian posted in this very thread, has thrice beaten the Monk in usefulness in a combat encounter. And he isn't even optimized for shear combat.
So you have no evidence other than "ask anybody"
The burden of proof is on me, because...
And even if it were, I produced a build.
But if "everybody" says so, great. Guess we don't need to continue. Clearly asking you to produce evidence in the face of "ask anybody" is crazy on my part.
Weak. Sauce. Very disappointing.
| 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.
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...
Walls. Huge walls.
I got brow-beaten for not accepting dragons should be in armour, their ac should be higher and more difficult for a monk to reach. Despite it being entirely against how dragons are portrayed and presented in the standard rules (3.5 or pathfinder). Rules manipulations indeed. Sometimes the answer is very simple--monks can hit and kill the dragons they should be fighting; but if it is manipulated enough and we are dragged away from the topic and bombarded over and over with what dragons should be wearing, Ashiel can get some advantage. A jolly funny time. No surprise this is continuing.
She presumed the Azata got initiative, cast greater invisibilty, then cast divine power...etc...
Stop lowering yourself to personal insults, you are better than that even if you think I am not. You didn't answer my question.
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 believe everyone else in the discussion so far has been trying to honestly assess the two.
Do you believe that was Ashiel's intent. Because you have to then believe she overlooked the ranged touch attacks that overcome damage reduction and that she thought the method of attack was equal for both.
Is that what you believe?
Yes, I do believe Ashiel was honest. Ashiel threw both the Monk and the Barbarian into the exact same scenario using only 2 buffs the Ghaele itself can provide. Remember, we're looking at possible Boss encounters, that means the Boss is going to have buffs up. At Will Greater Invisibility means it can always be 'on' and as soon as the Ghaele detects the party coming around the corner, it casts Divine Power, for 13 rounds of buff. The Ghaele could also have pre-cast Bull's Strength for 13 MINUTEs and Aid for 13 MINUTES as well, but that didn't matter to you, did it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered you might be a little too pro Ashiel? The guy is regularly up to some dodgy stuff and wall of text spamming. I feel a bit bad he writes so much actually.
|
|
A few things happened.
1. We were discussing which one you add to the 4 iconics.
2. We posted two builds and had an open call for others.
3. We discussed how individual vs monster discussions were unhelpful, as that isn't how the game is played, which is why we set the standard at #1.
Then there was a buffed Ghale Azata that didn't use it's ability that would be most effective against the Barbarian and closed into Melee with the Barbarian (which is the stupidest thing it could do) and was pre-buffed without this being stated up front with a rounds per level spell.
Does this fit #1. Nope.
Was this a build? Nope.
Was it contrary to #3. Yup.
Was it also clearly a dishonest scenario. Yup.
So now that we are off the rails because I called out someone who was trying to play dirty pool, can we go back to discussing question 1 or has the derail succeeded?
|
|
Yes, I do believe Ashiel was honest. Ashiel threw both the Monk and the Barbarian into the exact same scenario using only 2 buffs the Ghaele itself can provide. Remember, we're looking at possible Boss encounters, that means the Boss is going to have buffs up. At Will Greater Invisibility means it can always be 'on' and as soon as the Ghaele detects the party coming around the corner, it casts Divine Power, for 13 rounds of buff. The Ghaele could also have pre-cast Bull's Strength for 13 MINUTEs and Aid for 13 MINUTES as well, but that didn't matter to you, did it?
So you think she didn't know the creature had a ranged touch attack that ignores DR?
Notice the difference? Look at the attack numbers. Yup.
The attack numbers aren't off at all. Look at the Ghaele's abilities. They have greater invisibility at will, along with greater teleport at will. They also have the ability to heal themselves from near dead to full again in a couple rounds. They have divine power (+4 to hit, damage, +1 attack per round as haste, +13 temporary HP). When you're invisible, you get a +2 to hit and your foe is flat footed. The numbers are correct for a Ghaele that actually wants to fight you.
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...
I'm confused as to how you think that is more intelligent. Floating around invisible and firing light rays is pretty pathetic. You deal an average of 26 damage hitting with both of them, and you're vulnerable to ranged attacks (you only take half damage while incorporeal but you're just stalling at this point and giving an enemy time to counter you). Heck, with the monk or barbarian, you could take 26 damage several times and comfortably buff to the high heavens, banish the outsider, or plan your course of action.
Buff, buff, greater teleport, full-attack seems entirely valid. It can take out an opponent in 2 rounds (possibly less if the foe is squishy). Full attack, 5 ft. step to confuse your opponent, teleport occasionally. I don't see a serious flaw with this tactic. It also doesn't cut your ability to use your spells. The sword the ghaele carries isn't just for show. It's obvious he/she's pretty badass with it in fact.
Why? Because that would put the Barbarian at a disadvantage relative to the monk, who has good touch AC.
Um, no? Beating them senseless in melee while invisible is still superior in either case. What does it matter if the monk's touch AC is better if the target is flat-footed (??????)? He hits on a 2 in either case.
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.
I'm not sure what you're implying here. Are you suggesting that because the DR doesn't stop all the damage that it's somehow irrelevant? Um, that makes no sense. If not, I'm not sure what you're talking about anyway.
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".
I'm not sure what you mean by act in an irrational manner. The Barbarian can't beat the Ghaele either (I mentioned that). He only tanks a bit better than the monk (either due to Uncanny Dodge or DR). I didn't change any attack bonuses by the way. Try actually reading what the monster is capable of next time. The creature is using its own abilities. Thanks in advance for next time.
Also, there's no explanation of suggested tactics for a Ghaele, but the ghales in the 3.5 SRD do. It actually says: "Ghaeles who enter combat prefer direct confrontation and damaging attacks to more subtle or insidious methods. They usually fight in their humanoid form, wielding incandescent +4 holy greatswords". The funny thing is they're actually better at fighting in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5 (in 3.5 they didn't even have 70 hp, in PF they have closer to 150 hp, better attack bonuses that are mostly irrelevant to their weapon, etc).
And it isn't like Ashiel doesn't know the rules, so this wasn't an "oops" moment.
I consider it more of a "Oh, somebody read the statblock" moment.
I am glad everyone else is trying to have a serious conversation, rather than trying to "win".
I've already "won" what I want to win. That is, I've won a monk that works for my group. I actually care nothing for Pathfinder monk at this point. I talk about it because I like talking games, and it's fun to talk with Wraithstrike, and I like crunching the mechanics. I'm not participating in your build comparison for reasons I mentioned before, but to put it bluntly I just find it to be a stupid waste of time (perhaps you feel the same about just discussing what classes are capable of, so we'll call it even).
I mean, if I just wanted to "win" something I'm not competing in (???), why exactly would I have shown a creature that spanks both the monk and barbarian? If I just wanted to be a douche to the monk, instead of giving a cast-hitter outsider as you asked me, I'd have just thrown up a storm giant. A Storm Giant is basically going to destroy a monk, while getting dismantled by the barbarian.
Giant Attack Routine
90%/65%/40% = 68.25 before the 15% crit chance.
Improved Vital Strike
90% = 56.7 before the 15% crit chance.
Awesome blow can spank the monk out of melee but keep it within the giant's reach, forcing AoOs if the monk moves up to get into melee, and then the pounding begins anew.
Remember that bit about the 'Burden of Proof' that I said earlier? The majority of posters, the developers, the writers, the editors, the players, will tell you, the Barbarian is better than the Monk. That means, if you wish to claim against that accepted fact, then you must prove otherwise. That is the Burden of Proof. Anyone who makes a claim that goes counter to an accepted or proven fact, must prove otherwise. The Barbarian posted in this very thread, has thrice beaten the Monk in usefulness in a combat encounter. And he isn't even optimized for shear combat.
So you have no evidence other than "ask anybody"
The burden of proof is on me, because...
And even if it were, I produced a build.
But if "everybody" says so, great. Guess we don't need to continue. Clearly asking you to produce evidence in the face of "ask anybody" is crazy on my part.
Weak. Sauce. Very disappointing.
I don't 'need' to prove anything. The number of Barbarian builds that have been posted that are "Awesome-Sauce" is staggering. Do I need to go and copy each of those builds and post them here for proof? No, no I don't.
Has there ever been a Monk build that has been posted as 'Awesome-Sauce' that didn't include house-rules or a rebuilding of the class? No, no there hasn't. At best, Monk builds have been deemed 'viable' while the number of Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Bard, have been staggering. Each of those classes have huge numbers of builds that shows how awesome those classes are, how powerful they are, how well they contribute, how survivable they are. I don't need to prove the strength of those classes, as it has already been proven; but you need to prove the strength of the Monk.
Weask-sauce indeed.
|
|
The greater invisible creature who can also be incorporeal and has damage resistance is going to close into melee with a barbarian when they have a ranged touch attack that ignores damage reduction?
You are going to move in to melee range of a barbarian rather that do two attacks at 2d12 damage that overcomes damage reduction while invisible, incorporeal, and flying.
Really.
And that isn't even mentioning chain lightning, prismatic spray, etc...
No rational being closes to melee with a Barbarian if they have other options that will basically keep them from taking much, if any damage at all.
The creature has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil and is invisible. Where is the Barbarian more likely to be able to do damage to them, at range or on the ground.
I think you have too strong a grasp of the rules to believe that you think closing into melee with the Barbarian was something a 16 Int creature would do.
But congrats, you got me to bite on the derail. Good job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Link to one and we'll use it for the comparison.
I don't 'need' to prove anything. The number of Barbarian builds that have been posted that are "Awesome-Sauce" is staggering. Do I need to go and copy each of those builds and post them here for proof? No, no I don't.
I don't need to do so, nor am I going to waste my time trying to prove a point that has already been proven. I'm not going to go through the hundreds of posts made on this forum each day simply to prove a fact. The Burden of Proof is on your shoulders, yet you consistently try and shove it off of mine. For an example of a better Barbarian build, look at the one that Lord Wraithstrike has posted. His build IS better, but you ignore that point each time I've made it.
Hell, you've ignored damned near every single thing that I've posted in the last couple hours. Instead, all you do is find one little thing in my post, and then comment on in, after which, I counter your argument, then you find something in the counter, and comment, then I counter that, then you find something in that counter and comment WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE ALREADY COUNTERED, forcing me to Restate what I've already Stated.
This is no longer a discussion on Builds, Strengths, or anything of the sort, this is an Argument with an obstinate child that refuses to see logic and instead sees only what they wish to see. I've claimed before you are living in your own reality only loosely based on ours. Now I'm going to claim you're simply delusional.
You have yet to counter a single thing I've posted, only gone in circles trying to discredit anything using untrue facts of complaining about unfair scenarios.
As far as I'm concerned, until you can actually start counter the flaws I've pointed out in every single argument you've posted I'm done until you go ahead and grow up. It's the 4th of July, and the Fireworks are about to start here, so I'll be leaving for some time to do something like.. I dunno, spend time with my friends and family instead of arguing with a hypocrite.
|
|
You have yet to counter a single thing I've posted, only gone in circles trying to discredit anything using untrue facts of complaining about unfair scenarios.
What have you posted? You posted about disarm and I responded to it. I actually think you were wrong since a weapon with the disarm feature by rule gets a +2, but I politely responded thanking you for point that out and said I think you undervalued spell resistance, which considering it will mean a percentage of spells will just fizzle is a significant bonus..
You said you preferred the Barbarian, I politely thanked you for the honest input.
What are you talking about?
This is my exact response to the one thing you posted about the build
"Thanks for for the disarm catch, I went from memory on Sai and it changed from 3.5 when it was a bonus against disarm. I'm also confused because the description of a disarm weapon says it gets a +2 to disarm.
"Disarm: When you use a disarm weapon, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy."
But I'll defer, it is a secondary attack to mix with spring attack to set up the tiger pounce. I like the combo.
I think you are underestimating the value of spell resistance, since it would only come into play on failed saves anyway. And I think you are forgetting that my touch AC is also very high, which weakens rays and touch spells significantly. And I'm immune to poison and all diseases, and can dimension door away from trouble as a move action.
I was trying to put it together at work, while working, so I'm not surprised at some errors. I was trying to err on the side of caution.
That is a fair evaluation, but I hope you also agree the gap isn't as wide as you thought it would be going in. And this was a fairly basic monk build, with the exception of tiger style which is pretty awesome."
The greater invisible creature who can also be incorporeal and has damage resistance is going to close into melee with a barbarian when they have a ranged touch attack that ignores damage reduction?
You are going to move in to melee range of a barbarian rather that do two attacks at 2d12 damage that overcomes damage reduction while invisible, incorporeal, and flying.
Really.
And that isn't even mentioning chain lightning, prismatic spray, etc...
No rational being closes to melee with a Barbarian if they have other options that will basically keep them from taking much, if any damage at all.
The creature has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil and is invisible. Where is the Barbarian more likely to be able to do damage to them, at range or on the ground.
I think you have too strong a grasp of the rules to believe that you think closing into melee with the Barbarian was something a 16 Int creature would do.
But congrats, you got me to bite on the derail. Good job.
the standard Ghale Entry needn't be the only one. there could be a variance in feats, equipment, prepared divine spells and Skills. you could easily retool one as a melee combatants that embarasses the monk and barbarian even further.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the standard Ghale Entry needn't be the only one. there could be a variance in feats, equipment, prepared divine spells and Skills. you could easily retool one as a melee combatants that embarasses the monk and barbarian even further.The greater invisible creature who can also be incorporeal and has damage resistance is going to close into melee with a barbarian when they have a ranged touch attack that ignores damage reduction?
You are going to move in to melee range of a barbarian rather that do two attacks at 2d12 damage that overcomes damage reduction while invisible, incorporeal, and flying.
Really.
And that isn't even mentioning chain lightning, prismatic spray, etc...
No rational being closes to melee with a Barbarian if they have other options that will basically keep them from taking much, if any damage at all.
The creature has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil and is invisible. Where is the Barbarian more likely to be able to do damage to them, at range or on the ground.
I think you have too strong a grasp of the rules to believe that you think closing into melee with the Barbarian was something a 16 Int creature would do.
But congrats, you got me to bite on the derail. Good job.
Yes, which is why both the monk and barbarian are considered a full CR lower than the Ghale and groups usually consist of 4 or more people.
The point being this is yet another example of a cherry pick scenario, only ironically this cherry actually is worse for the one it was trying to defend.
If we could move back to the question on the table, if you are the 4 iconics, at 13th level, and you can only choose one of the builds in the thread (currently my monk and wraithstrikes barbarian) which one do you pick...and preferably why.
If anyone would like to discuss this conflict in the context of that questions (and look at it honestly and not trying to skew things for one side or another) they could add greatly to this discussion.
And that would be wonderful.
The greater invisible creature who can also be incorporeal and has damage resistance is going to close into melee with a barbarian when they have a ranged touch attack that ignores damage reduction?
You are going to move in to melee range of a barbarian rather that do two attacks at 2d12 damage that overcomes damage reduction while invisible, incorporeal, and flying.
Really.
And that isn't even mentioning chain lightning, prismatic spray, etc...
No rational being closes to melee with a Barbarian if they have other options that will basically keep them from taking much, if any damage at all.
The creature has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil and is invisible. Where is the Barbarian more likely to be able to do damage to them, at range or on the ground.
I think you have too strong a grasp of the rules to believe that you think closing into melee with the Barbarian was something a 16 Int creature would do.
But congrats, you got me to bite on the derail. Good job.
If the monk and barbarian are trying to solo the Ghaele, then maybe that might be a good idea. But it's slow. It's really slow. And that lack of speed in actually putting an enemy down can give the martial and any allies they have time to set up the goal to take the ghaele down. I wasn't assuming they were alone. I was assuming both the monk and barbarian are contributing something to a group. Sorry if I needed to clarify that.
For the record, the reason I assume that the ghaele would melee with Barbarian is because it can and doing so is more effective than shooting 2 lasers to deal about 26 damage. It deals a lot more damage the other way. With the temporary HP buffs, 50% concealment, and so forth, we already determined the barbarian's DPR is pitiful against it. It can simply pound the Barbarian senseless, then turn incorporeal and sink into the ground (now invulnerable more or less due to total cover/concealment), greater teleport to safety, fully heal itself, and then teleport back to the battle right as rain to begin working on the next guy. And that's only assuming the barbarian got a good hit in. Against the monk, well we likely won't be bothered to heal.
I think trying to tell people how to run enemies by spouting ability scores that are in no way some sort of AI script is foolish and arrogant. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this conversation to me, since your argument is "well I think it could kick their butts this way instead". So what? Maybe it could. Maybe it could sit back and spam hold monster until his target enventually fails their save, then simply coup de graces them. Oh look, we've found another way to kill either of them if they can't fight back. Maybe we shouldn't do that, because clearly he's Int 16, and that tactic is reserved for Int 17 enemies, as shown in the Ciretose Rulebook of Non-Existent NPC AI Scripts.
I got brow-beaten for not accepting dragons should be in armour, their ac should be higher and more difficult for a monk to reach. Despite it being entirely against how dragons are portrayed and presented in the standard rules (3.5 or pathfinder). Rules manipulations indeed. Sometimes the answer is very simple--monks can hit and kill the dragons they should be fighting; but if it is manipulated enough and we are dragged away from the topic and bombarded over and over with what dragons should be wearing, Ashiel can get some advantage. A jolly funny time. No surprise this is continuing.
And as for you, sir. Nobody "brow-beat" you. You started freaking out over something that was entirely about flavor. It was already shown clearly that simply having the dragon use mage armor was not only an option that was simply ignored for that flavor, but was mechanically superior. So you can drop that nonsense about manipulating them to make them anti-monk; especially since that so-called manipulation (+3 AC vs the +4 force AC granted by mage armor) doesn't stop other classes from rocking socks.
the standard Ghale Entry needn't be the only one. there could be a variance in feats, equipment, prepared divine spells and Skills. you could easily retool one as a melee combatants that embarasses the monk and barbarian even further.
Yeah. The humorous thing is I used an entirely generic strait out of the Bestiary Ghaele. No swapped feats, gear, spells. Any of those things that might simply be different without changing CR? Not one. Just used the standard monster using its strength (humorously in accordance with the only text I've ever seen that describes their favorite approach to combat, which was beating the snot out of stuff with their swords).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Wraithstrike clarified a number of times that he has 12,000 gp and can buy a bow if needed.
That sounds better in my mind every time I hear it.
Ok, I will continue to read that now. No more self promotion on my part. :)
PS:I was just referring to the bolded area. :)
We shall speak with the king about your prospects. I promise nothing.
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.
I buff monsters too if I plan to use them in a boss fight. I normally have alarm or a guard or some other method so the BBEG knows the PC are so many feet away. From there I start to buff*. If the PC's can bypass my attempts to detect them or get to the monster quickly enough the reward is a less buffed or nonbuffed monster. I don't think buffing a monster is a bad idea since I do it in my games, and so do the Paizo AP's.
What I can do is sub out the Ghaele for a random CR 16 encounter from D20PFSRD. Now I think dragons, will kick our butts, and the advanced demilich would a problem also. That leaves 18 contenders.
* I often use magic mouth or alarm to let me know someone is on the way.
Monster 1:Aeon, Bythos
Monster 5: Demon, Shemhazian
My next post will have the likely details of the combat.
Ok, my post was eaten for the first monster, but here is the skinny. The barbarian can kill it in 4 rounds. The monster can not kill the barbarian in 4 rounds using average damage even when I assumed every attack hit.
The barbarian will most likely make every save even when forced to make 2 saves a round. The monk can not do comparable damage. He will also fail a save before the monster is dead.
Barbarian comes out ahead even though the monster is immune to crits.
Without haste the barbarian might fail a save since the monster's fast save keeps it around, and it might kill the barbarian through hp damage also.
The monk it seems would either suffer due to losing strength or being confused.
The barbarian comes out ahead with a party buff, and both fail without a party buff. The monk is more likely to fail a save vs confusion than the monster is to fail a save vs stunning fist. Even when stunned the gaze is still on so it is not like stunning fist completely shuts it down.
I have not done the demon yet, but I think it owns both of them. It can force a DC 27 fort save vs paralyzation. It can also fly, among other things. Yeah the barbarian still has to roll a 1 or 2 to fail a fort save, but still. The monk will get hit less, but he is more likely to fail that fort save.
I don't think I will do the demon. Maybe I should go back to the CR 15 range later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have yet to counter a single thing I've posted, only gone in circles trying to discredit anything using untrue facts of complaining about unfair scenarios.
What have you posted? You posted about disarm and I responded to it. I actually think you were wrong since a weapon with the disarm feature by rule gets a +2, but I politely responded thanking you for point that out and said I think you undervalued spell resistance, which considering it will mean a percentage of spells will just fizzle is a significant bonus..
I was referring to our disagreement about Ashiel's Ghaele scenario. Every thing I posted about your claims about Ashiel skewing the results or being biased against the Monk or any of your other claims, I posted a counter argument. Instead of responding to any of the counter arguments, you ignored them, pulled one or two lines out of my posts, commented on them, at which I point I would counter your comment, where you would again ignore it, pull a line out and comment on it.
You claimed Ashiel modified the Ghaele's attacks to skew the results, when all he did was apply buffs that are likely to be in effect. You claimed it was an attempt to derail the thread, when Ashiel simply posted a creature and a scenario, which contributes to the thread. You claim that he always tries to derail a thread, when all he does is post his observations and methods, gives advice, or clarifications that are pertinent to the subject of the thread.
You claim that Ashiel had the Ghaele act contrary to it's nature, siting a 16 Intelligence. However, the Ghaele is very clearly a melee combat oriented character. It's got some ranged attacks sure, but most of it's abilities are geared towards melee. So the scenario you posted, of flying invisibly and shooting rays, is contrary to it's own nature. At best, the Ghaele is a switch hitter and either method of attacking would be beneficial to the Ghaele.
You invalidate Ashiel's monster choice, because it's a specific monster, while Dabbler also chose a specific monster, but his choice is A-Okay. This implies your disregard Ashiel's monster, simply because it was Ashiel's monster. This is funny, because Ashiel said that your Monk was likely to have trouble with outsiders who can be both melee and casters. You then said, "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?" so Ashiel gave you a specific example of the Ghaele, and you disregarded it as a 'corner case'. The Oni that Dabbler chose is actually on the low end, power wise, for CR 15, and the Monk still came off worse than the Barbarian, but you didn't mind his post. Again, implication of bias against a poster, even though both monsters are 'corner cases'. One case is fine, but the other isn't and no explanation is given, but the implication drawn is because of the poster, not the monster.
You claimed Ashiel is being dishonest, or lieing in other words, yet this isn't true. No where in Ashiel's post did he lie about anything, yet you're claiming dishonesty. If Ashiel had included a buff that couldn't come from the Ghaele itself, it'd be dishonest, but he didn't. He used the Ghaele's own inborn abilities for self-enhancement, but you disregard this as being 'dishonest' while the Monk is freely able to modify his abilities via magic, Ki, spells etc. Hypocrisy much?
You include Spring Attack as part of your Monks build, but then when it's proven to be a bad tactic, you say it's problematic. You chose the tactic, you chose the feats, you posted the build. Any problems with the posted build are your fault, and not ours.
You claimed Ashiel derails thread, yet you're the one hoping into threads and taking potshots at Ashiel for no apparent reason, other than to discredit his comments, or simply to be snarky.
You claim Dabbler is being impartial when he crunched the numbers against a specific monster. Yet when Ashiel crunches numbers against a specific monster, he has an agenda. Further proof of your bias and hypocrisy.
Again, you claimed Ashiel was overly modifying things to prove his point, yet all it takes is a quick glance to see he does nothing more than alters things using the creatures own abilities.
Again, you claim the best method of dealing with the Barbarian, is to stay out of range while invisible and use his ranged attacks. Did it occur, this is also the best method of dealing with the Monk? Or any other non-ranged combatant? The monk you posted has absolutely no method of hurting the Ghaele if it used this tactic as the range of his Light Rays is 300 ft! Remember, he's invisible and you can't pinpoint his square, so you can't really Abundant Step and attempt a grapple. Even if you knew exactly where he was, he still has a 50% miss chance from Invisibility.
However, in that situation, at least the Barbarian can use a bow and attempt a few shots with a readied action.
Honestly? I think the Ghaele is too powerful for it's CR. But that's not the case here. Ashiel chose to move the Ghaele into melee, because that's the only real chance either a Monk or Barbarian has of taking it down. He also quoted the 3.5 tactics for the Ghaele, which was to use damaging attacks and it's sword, not fly out of range and rain lazer beams down.
As for buffing in combat, who's to say the Ghaele wouldn't simply Greater Teleport out of combat, buff himself up, then Greater Teleport back and reek havoc on the party. He could Teleport in, remain invisible, seek out the casters, kill them in a round or two, then proceed to take on the melee classes.
But Ashiel didn't do that. Instead, he gave both classes the most optimal chance of taking it out, and you're complaining about it!
Funny how you complain when Ashiel's scenario is the best scenario for the Monk with that given monster, but because Ashiel posted it, you cry foul.
So far, what I see is a lot of claims that have no basis and lack of any defense for the claims. You ignore any counters and proceed to slander Ashiel. When refuted, you proceed on wards with your head in the sand, and try and draw attention away from your lack-luster arguments.
I could swear you worked for Fox or something.
=================================================
As for the Sai/Disarm thing this is straight from the PRD:
Sai: A sai is a metal spike flanked by a pair of prongs used to trap an enemy's weapon. With a sai, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder an enemy's weapon. Though pointed, a sai is used primarily to bludgeon foes and to disarm weapons.
But I did glance back up at the table on the PRD and it does say Disarm but not Sunder. I noted the difference between the +2 to sunder, but then the claim of primarily to disarm, and thought that was odd, but I was distracted IRL and didn't look any further. I have to wonder if that isn't a carry over from 3.5 as no other weapon, that I recall, has that special Sunder bonus. So that was a mistake on my part, as I simply looked up the description to see if it had the Disarm property mentioned in it's description, when I didn't find it, I posted that bit about the Sai.
Lord Wraithstrike clarified a number of times that he has 12,000 gp and can buy a bow if needed.
That sounds better in my mind every time I hear it.
Ok, I will continue to read that now. No more self promotion on my part. :)
PS:I was just referring to the bolded area. :)
I wondered if you'd comment on that. I figured, since you have a board minion, might as well use the title. :P
I buff monsters too if I plan to use them in a boss fight. I normally have alarm or a guard or some other method so the BBEG knows the PC are so many feet away. From there I start to buff*. If the PC's can bypass my attempts to detect them or get to the monster quickly enough the reward is a less buffed or nonbuffed monster. I don't think buffing a monster is a bad idea since I do it in my games, and so do the Paizo AP's.
What I can do is sub out the Ghaele for a random CR 16 encounter from D20PFSRD. Now I think dragons, will kick our butts, and the advanced demilich would a problem also. That leaves 18 contenders.
1d18...
Why do you sub-out the Ghaele, a CR 13 monster, for a CR 16 monster?
The greater invisible creature who can also be incorporeal and has damage resistance is going to close into melee with a barbarian when they have a ranged touch attack that ignores damage reduction?
You are going to move in to melee range of a barbarian rather that do two attacks at 2d12 damage that overcomes damage reduction while invisible, incorporeal, and flying.
Really.
And that isn't even mentioning chain lightning, prismatic spray, etc...
No rational being closes to melee with a Barbarian if they have other options that will basically keep them from taking much, if any damage at all.
The creature has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil and is invisible. Where is the Barbarian more likely to be able to do damage to them, at range or on the ground.
I think you have too strong a grasp of the rules to believe that you think closing into melee with the Barbarian was something a 16 Int creature would do.
But congrats, you got me to bite on the derail. Good job.
If the monk and barbarian are trying to solo the Ghaele, then maybe that might be a good idea. But it's slow. It's really slow. And that lack of speed in actually putting an enemy down can give the martial and any allies they have time to set up the goal to take the ghaele down. I wasn't assuming they were alone. I was assuming both the monk and barbarian are contributing something to a group. Sorry if I needed to clarify that.
For the record, the reason I assume that the ghaele would melee with Barbarian is because it can and doing so is more effective than shooting 2 lasers to deal about 26 damage. It deals a lot more damage the other way. With the temporary HP buffs, 50% concealment, and so forth, we already determined the barbarian's DPR is pitiful against it. It can simply pound the Barbarian senseless, then turn incorporeal and sink into the ground (now invulnerable more or less due to total cover/concealment), greater teleport to safety, fully heal itself, and then teleport back to the battle right...
It is not about flavour at all. Don't even try it. Dragons do not wear armour in pathfinder, its bestiaries or in the monster manuals of 3.5 which it draws upon.
Some new pathfinder dragon art came out recently of some very impressive looking dragons. You will notice they were not wearing armour outfits--no studded leather, no plate, no chain. No lamellar skirts either. Ash, you were so desperate to defend how you modify dragons, so that the monk could look worse, if you start stacking armour on top of dragon natural armour, any class not on fast bab is going to hit a wall that slows it down. Dragons in armour isn't even close to official, don't bother trying to convince me Ash.
The argument that less than optimum bab classes can't hit is also bogus, they just need to roll better than fighters and raging barbs, and if it something around their CR, they will be able to hit it. Against foes without gigantic acs, they are just fine. Flurry then rocks especially.
If its ac is too high, maybe drawing it out, skirmishing or shock horror, going total defence will actually really help the party.
A monk is not weak because it isn't a barb, a barb and monk are separate things. One thing I have found from comparing 3.5 to pathfinder though, is that barbs have a lot longer rage in pf. Which can make defensive builds designed to get them to waste their rage less effective. The barbs has a lot of strength, but if they provoke AOOs and are heavy damage two handers they can get killed really quick. This is a separate discussion I suppose.
Now mage armour on an already good ac opponent might cause a lot of hassles for a monk, but that is why monk and wizard/sorcerer is a good pairing. Dispel those mage armours, shatter the weapons of the enemies. If the monk isn't heavy infantry, make the heavy infantry weaker than the monk!
|
|
Again, the discussion was adding each to the party of iconics. So since we are saying what prebuffing could take place...
If the azata is invisible with the 13th level iconics, what are the odds that invisabilty purge, glitterdust, etc, don't come into play?
And what are the odds the Azata wants to move into melee with a party with a fighter, rogue and either a monk or barbarian?
The issue is creating scenarios specifically to prove you are right rather than creating scenarios to find out if you are right.
I welcome the Ghale Azata scenario in the context we discussed because the monk will be much better off than the barbarian against something that can fly and attack from range with something that ignores DR.
I am even fine with Dabblers 1 on 1 combats, even though I think they aren't the best approach, because I think Dabbler is honestly going "Ok, what would each side do?" and not "How can I show I am right."
I am not fine with what was an obvious attempt to search through the bestiary to find the a specific example of where one is better than the other, posting in such a way that the creature uses a strategy that is clearly wrong against the side the person wants to prove is better.
So, if anyone wants to discuss a Ghale Azata conflict involving the 4 iconics adding on the monk and the barbarian, which was the criteria Tels, not I, set, that would be awesome.
If we you want to continue discussing the derail that appears (as predicted) have fun, I'll be over here trying to bring it back to the agreed upon scenario.
|
|
Now mage armour on an already good ac opponent might cause a lot of hassles for a monk, but that is why monk and wizard/sorcerer is a good pairing. Dispel those mage armours, shatter the weapons of the enemies. If the monk isn't heavy infantry, make the heavy infantry weaker than the monk!Yes. Casting Dispel Magic on Mage Armor is an excellent use of a spellcaster's time and not at all a wasteful, blindingly stupid use of an action in combat. I can't think of a single thing that a spellcaster might be doing at that time; certainly not casting a buff with a more-powerful, broader-based effect than +4 to hit against a single target, or casting some sort of attack spell more effective than a monk's attacks.
And again remember the context that the discussion wasn't about 1 on 1, which everyone agreed was not informative, but adding this group to a party of the 4 iconics at the same level.
So what is everyone in the party doing doing while the Azata is casting rounds per level spells?
|
|
wait i'm confused, are we doing lv13 characters against CR18 monsters?!
Don't worry, the goal posts will keep moving until either the thread is locked or when we get someone pinned down they take their ball and go home...
Or maybe we will actually discuss what was agreed on. Which build would be a better addition to the 4 iconics.
The conditions I will remind everyone, that Tels suggested.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tels - I am just ignoring most of the post about Ashiel because I see no point. If you want to discuss the Azata combat in the context of the 4 iconics, considering both the Monk and Barbarian have perception over 20 and both casters in the party have ways to deal with invisibility, I don't see the leave and come back strategy working so well.
Actually, it may favor the barb as if the Azata appears near the party to attack the casters and is suddenly visible, one pounce and game over.
(see, that is how you honestly appraise)
As to spring attack, where was it proven? It would allow me to move in and disarm without provoking an AoO, and if successful if I am within 30 feet next round I can pounce using the tiger style stuff. And I don't need a straight line to do it.
How is that not really, really, effective?
Cool moves ciretose, tiger snatches and then it strikes.
My dot vanished, so I am redotting this thread.
MA
| 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"
I didn't have to. The point I established with the Oni and with the generic example is that the monk performs badly compared to the barbarian. With the Oni, the monk basically can't get it's attention even if he goes all out for it. He can do some supporting damage, but really he's on a par with the rogue against the Oni. I made clear in that example this was not a case of one-on-one, but of what each class could contribute in a party setting - and the Oni was selected as a target that the monk could prove effective against! With the generic example, the monk takes longer to overwhelm the foe, and expends far more resources to do so.
If the point of this was to highlight that the barbarian was more effective in combat than the monk, that the monk's lack of enhancement and MAD stat requirements made it weaker, well it succeeded.
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. Both of them LOSE, but you can't seem to see that. Instead, you see Ashiel posting, and start complaining instead.
The Gheale example showed the same thing: that the monk cannot fair as well as the barbarian. All the monk's tricks lose their usefulness at this level; they have minimal chances of success. Hence actually hitting and dishing damage become more important and the monk just couldn't pull it off.
I don't see how Ashiel was in any way dishonest - failed to explain clearly where bonuses came from, but not dishonest.
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".
The barbarian is better in combat. It's matching the monk in terms of saves a lot of the time. Without fire resistance, the barbarian really suffers against the Oni, but then the monk without fire resistance also suffers against the Oni - he has to expend more resources, and loses proportionally as many hit points.
If we are not in combat, what's to compare between the two? The monk is sneakier, the barbarian has better perception. They are on a par with one another. Balance goes to the barbarian.
I got brow-beaten for not accepting dragons should be in armour, their ac should be higher and more difficult for a monk to reach. Despite it being entirely against how dragons are portrayed and presented in the standard rules (3.5 or pathfinder). Rules manipulations indeed. Sometimes the answer is very simple--monks can hit and kill the dragons they should be fighting; but if it is manipulated enough and we are dragged away from the topic and bombarded over and over with what dragons should be wearing, Ashiel can get some advantage. A jolly funny time. No surprise this is continuing.
I looked at CR15 dragons for the 'boss fight' scenario. AC38 made me decide otherwise, the monk would have no chance with his +19 highest attack bonus.
Again, the discussion was adding each to the party of iconics.
Really? Fairly pointless as neither adds anything significant to the party that it cannot already do. A party of iconics will already have a damage dealer, so you could argue the monk bring the ability to run away quickly and maybe be more resistant to a few things. On the other hand with two damage dealers the party will grind through foes way faster.
When you are adding a 5th character to a standard 4-character party, you can afford to go with flavour or not as you choose.
Let me ask another question: What role could wither of these characters fill as part of a four character party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who lurks these conversations, it is golden when someone posts a build to back-up their point. Abstract conversation is all well and good, but until it is applied its usefulness is questionable and well, remains abstract.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, fine, lets continue ignoring the fact you can't come up with a complaint about Ashiel that sticks longer than the time it takes me a post to refute it. If you're going to ignore my posts refuting your claims, then you should also simply ignore Ashiel's posts because you can't comment on them without bias against the poster.
=================================================
Funnily enough, here's something to take into account, a 16 INT creature is largely going to be far smarter than everyone we meet. The average person is supposed to be roughly 13 at best INT, yet the standard Ghaele is a 16.
So, let's say we're going to play the Ghaele as the most tactical response method we can. But first, we need to keep some things in mind.
Glitterdust: Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
See Invisibility: within your range of vision.
True Seeing: The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
Invisibility Purge: a radius of 5 feet per caster level
Hunter's Eye: Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Interposing Hand: Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Let's break it down now. The Ghaele has a ranged attack with a range of 300 ft. So Glitterdust, True Seeing, Invisibility purge, Hunter's Eye and Interposing Hand won't be very useful. See Invisibility will however. It's a personal spell, however, so only the caster has it. However, this depends on being in an area that is open for maximum ranges, which cannot be assured. So in more cramped conditions, the spells are viable options. But no terrain factors were ever set. The Ghaele Azata has a fly speed of 150 ft (perfect) so it's fairly safe the Ghaele will stick to environments that give it the maximum mobility.
If I were the Ghaele, and I saw a party come running around the corner, I'd immediately Greater Teleport out, apply Aid, and Bull's Strength, then Greater Invisibility, then Greater Teleport back (for a total of 4 rounds gone). Now, I'm well above the party and out of the range of most spells. I'd hover for a round to see if any casters notice my presence. If not, then I'd Greater Teleport to the most obvious caster (preferably a Wizard, then Cleric as severely damaging the Wizard can keep the Cleric busy for a number of rounds getting him back to his feet if necessary; 2 people out of the fight is better than one). After I drop the Wizard, I'd Greater Teleport out of range again, re-apply Greater Invisibility, then proceed to hit either the Cleric or the character farthest from the party with my Greater Teleport smash and stab.
Also, before I start seriously fighting my opponents, I will be using my at-will Dispel Magic Liberally to remove as many buffs as I can before engaging them.
Now let's say a caster does have See Invisibility on, and notices my presence. He'd immediately be my priority and I'd possibly hit him with a Flame Strike, then Greater Teleport, but only if he's in the middle of a group. I mention this, because most parties will scatter if an area effect spell hits, spreading apart afterward to minimize damage. I could also use my at-will Dispel Magic until he can see me no longer, but that could take some time.
So I Greater Teleport to the caster, and proceed to open a can of whoop ass on him. Unless he flees he'll probably be slaughtered on the first attack.
If the other caster has no method of detecting my presence, I may also simply hover and fire Light Rays, while periodically re-applying Greater Invisibility when necessary, as I whittle away my opponents health. Once I soften them up some, I'll apply Divine Power and Greater Teleport to the best looking target, and open up with a full attack as the enemy will likely be flat-footed against my attacks.
If I wanted to get real mean, I'd Greater Teleport to the best spot I can, and hit the party with Prismatic Spray, then a Chain Lightning and Flame Strike. That's going to a seriously damaging combo right there for a number of the party members.
=================================================
Now let's not forget the party of adventurer's, but we've run into a problem. There is very little they can do against a Ghaele Azata if the Ghaele is played in a way that is even remotely intelligent. The Wizard can't nuke or control it if he can't see it to target it. The Cleric can't banish it if he can't target it. The Fighter can't right, the Barbarian can't Rage, the Monk can't Stun, the Rogue can't Sneak. None of them can do anything to the Ghaele if they can't see and reach it.
On the off-chance the Ghaele gets wounded, it's got Heal, Cure Serious Wounds 3 times, and Cure Light Wounds as an at-will Spell-like Ability. So it can always Greater Teleport away, patch itself up, and return to fight.
The Ghaele is a master of hit-and-run tactics, as that is the most optimal method of attacking, unless of course it feels it can totally shred his opponents in melee combat. With a buffed to +31 to hit on it's best attack, this is certainly a viable option.
=================================================
In conclusion, the Ghaele is a very powerful CR 13 creature because of its built in abilities and mobility. If you can attack one in an enclosed, small space, sure, he's not as terrible, but even then, he's a very powerful opponent once he Greater Teleports out, self-buffs, and returns to fight.
I'm not a number cruncher, I don't do that as I've never been very good with math. If someone else decided to crunch the numbers for the above scenario, that's up to them. But I'm reasonably certain that unless the party can hit the Ghaele with a Dimensional Anchor, the Ghaele is going to be a serious threat that has a real good chance of TPKing a party if played intelligently.
Keep in mind too, something no one has really considered, is the fact that a party of 5, 13th level characters has an APL of 13, meaning a Ghaele is only an 'average' encounter. To make it 'hard' would need to include Mooks, or another Ghaele.
=================================================
Keep in mind, this is no Schrodinger's Ghaele either. All of it's tactics depends entirely upon party response. If they can't see him, he's going to hover and shoot light rays, or Greater Teleport + Full Attack the best looking targets when it can. He's not using any spells he may or may not have prepared (as he is also a 13th level Cleric and can swap out any spells the next day as a Cleric can). I'm only using the standard Ghaele abilities and spells as posted int he Bestiary. I'm also giving the party the best chance possible in assuming they are all good, or at least, neutral, and not evil. Not even going to question why a party of good adventurers are fighting one of the servants of Heaven.
Lord Wraithstrike clarified a number of times that he has 12,000 gp and can buy a bow if needed.
That sounds better in my mind every time I hear it.
Ok, I will continue to read that now. No more self promotion on my part. :)
PS:I was just referring to the bolded area. :)
I wondered if you'd comment on that. I figured, since you have a board minion, might as well use the title. :P
Why do you sub-out the Ghaele, a CR 13 monster, for a CR 16 monster?I buff monsters too if I plan to use them in a boss fight. I normally have alarm or a guard or some other method so the BBEG knows the PC are so many feet away. From there I start to buff*. If the PC's can bypass my attempts to detect them or get to the monster quickly enough the reward is a less buffed or nonbuffed monster. I don't think buffing a monster is a bad idea since I do it in my games, and so do the Paizo AP's.
What I can do is sub out the Ghaele for a random CR 16 encounter from D20PFSRD. Now I think dragons, will kick our butts, and the advanced demilich would a problem also. That leaves 18 contenders.
1d18...
I thought most boss fight were APL +3 or 4. I am not really switching the ghaele out, but upping the ante. I also saw that the results are much harder to simulate than an APL+2 fight without accounting for everything the rest of the party does so at the end I suggested going back to APL +2.
Now mage armour on an already good ac opponent might cause a lot of hassles for a monk, but that is why monk and wizard/sorcerer is a good pairing. Dispel those mage armours, shatter the weapons of the enemies. If the monk isn't heavy infantry, make the heavy infantry weaker than the monk!
If the party is an unconventional party with only 1 full caster that is not the best action. Actually even with 2 full casters it is not the best actions. Better spells can be cast, and the chance to overcome the monster's caster level is below 50% if the monster is above APL. Actually if the monster's CR is at APL the chance is still below 50%. The caster is not there to support the monk. He is there for the party. In this scenario we have 4 people. The barbarian and monk are both the 5th member. Buffing them or debuffing the dragon in someone is a lot better than dispel magic.
Let me ask another question: What role could wither of these characters fill as part of a four character party?
Grokko Smash and see sneaky people, just not invisible ones.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To the poster that mentioned the CR 18 monster neither lies nor snark wins debates. A 16 is far from an 18, and had you read my entire post you would noticed that I realised it was a bad idea, and went back to a 15. If need for me to bold key statements I can. :)
See Invisibility will however. It's a personal spell, however, so only the caster has it.
Wraithstrike has been educated today. I did not know it was a "personal" spell. Now I need a way a new way to reliably deal with invisible creatures as a melee type.
Tel's how many actions are you doing in one round?
"At will" abilities still take a standard action.
Once you teleport you are down to a move action.
PS:I still think the Ghaele is a tough fight if played to its potential, and I don't really expect it to stand and trade blows with a barbarian. I do think it would be buffed though.
I don't see how Ashiel was in any way dishonest - failed to explain clearly where bonuses came from, but not dishonest.
First off, thank you. I enjoyed reading your post Dabbler, and I laughed a bit when you noted that the Oni was chosen specifically for the monk, and that you avoided monsters that the monk would have no chance of (if only we were all so fair and ignored large portions of the Bestiary for the sake of one class :P). Kudos, and brofists to you. ^-^
Sorry if I wasn't clear as to where the Ghaele's buffs were coming from. Most of the folks in these threads act as though they are very knowledgeable of the game. Ciretose demands builds left and right like they mean something. So I linked the creature, and figured since my posts are already long enough to complain about that I would cut strait to the chase and not sweat the details that were obvious to anyone who reads the statblock. /head-desk
Also, thank you Tels (actually, thank you about 10d10+3 times), and Wraithstrike.
Now mage armour on an already good ac opponent might cause a lot of hassles for a monk, but that is why monk and wizard/sorcerer is a good pairing. Dispel those mage armours, shatter the weapons of the enemies. If the monk isn't heavy infantry, make the heavy infantry weaker than the monk!If the party is an unconventional party with only 1 full caster that is not the best action. Actually even with 2 full casters it is not the best actions. Better spells can be cast, and the chance to overcome the monster's caster level is below 50% if the monster is above APL. Actually if the monster's CR is at APL the chance is still below 50%. The caster is not there to support the monk. He is there for the party. In this scenario we have 4 people. The barbarian and monk are both the 5th member. Buffing them or debuffing the dragon in someone is a lot better than dispel magic.
Yeah. When picking classes, I tend to look for what they can add to a party, not take away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me ask another question: What role could wither of these characters fill as part of a four character party?Grokko Smash and see sneaky people, just not invisible ones.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To the poster that mentioned the CR 18 monster neither lies nor snark wins debates. A 16 is far from an 18, and had you read my entire post you would noticed that I realised it was a bad idea, and went back to a 15. If need for me to bold key statements I can. :)See Invisibility will however. It's a personal spell, however, so only the caster has it.Wraithstrike has been educated today. I did not know it was a "personal" spell. Now I need a way a new way to reliably deal with invisible creatures as a melee type.
Tel's how many actions are you doing in one round?
"At will" abilities still take a standard action.
Once you teleport you are down to a move action.
PS:I still think the Ghaele is a tough fight if played to its potential, and I don't really expect it to stand and trade blows with a barbarian. I do think it would be buffed though.
Only one Standard action a round, I'm afraid. Keep in mind, with at-will Greater Invisibility, time is on the Ghaele's side. He can attack someone and remain invisible. So the Ghaele opens up with a Flame Strike, and with his 150 fly speed, moves away. It then becomes a case of:
"Did you see that?"
"Ah F#+# that hurt!"
"Where'd it come from?"
"I dunno, I didn't see it!"
"OW!! What the hell was That! Beam of lights just came flying out of nowhere! Damn that HURT!"
"I saw it come from over there, but whatever it is, it remains invisible after it attacks"
"Gimme a second guys, I'll see if I can't figure something else out, the Arcane arts have never failed me before!"
"..."
I could go on, but I don't want to. Suffice to say, the Ghaele is taking her time, using her Invisibility to her advantage. Action Economy is never on her side, but the fact the party can't target her with any of it's abilities, mitigates that factor a lot.
"Yeah. When picking classes, I tend to look for what they can add to a party, not take away."
In certain other posts, this is true. However, in the case of the monk, it may not be. Your previous posts highlighted that monks tend to have certain glaring weaknesses and I agree the clas does. The difference is that when there is any example of monks beating something equal to their CR or two levels above their CR, it immediately becomes a fierce attempt to prove how it couldn't have happened. In the previous thread about monks, there was the posts about sticking dragons in armor and possibly other magic items from their treasure hoards. Strange thing is, that didn't actually come up in the thread until an example of a party with three monks and a warlock beat a dragon above their CR. Almost as if the monk has to stay extremely weak and useless from the view of some. If they were discovered to be adequate or even skilled at what they do, is it directly harmful in some way?
It is not about flavour at all. Don't even try it. Dragons do not wear armour in pathfinder, its bestiaries or in the monster manuals of 3.5 which it draws upon.
Except that it was clearly about flavor. The dragon you reference was in a home campaign, and clearly did not gain a mechanical advantage, because once again, the armor was pretty much for show and didn't stack with mage armor which the dragon could use instead (mage armor = +4 and a force effect, mwk studded leather = +3 mundane).
And why was he wearing it? Because in the story the dragon was a member of an army as a champion, and the armor was gifted to him by the leaders of the army with cool insignias and stuff. Since it offered no mechanical advantage, that's pretty much the textbook definition of flavor in RPGs.
Some new pathfinder dragon art came out recently of some very impressive looking dragons. You will notice they were not wearing armour outfits--no studded leather, no plate, no chain. No lamellar skirts either. Ash, you were so desperate to defend how you modify dragons, so that the monk could look worse, if you start stacking armour on top of dragon natural armour, any class not on fast bab is going to hit a wall that slows it down. Dragons in armour isn't even close to official, don't bother trying to convince me Ash.
Um, what? Can you count? Try it with me. +1 makes padded, +2 makes leather, +3 make studded leather, +4 makes mage armor. Now for a bonus question, let's see how many classmates call tell us which of these stack with each other? How about you little Timmy? Oh, it's a trick question? You're absolutely right! None of them stack! Very good Timmy!
Now what does that tell us? Oh, Timmy, you got the last one. Okay though. You're absolutely right. The dragon was in fact effectively not wearing armor since he could already cast mage armor, making it entirely for show. Your argument as to artwork or dragons presented means absolutely nothing to me. It also has nothing to do with monks. Please consider reading the context of the posts you're discussing when you plan to freak out and begin claiming someone is picking on the monk or any other class, when they aren't.
The argument that less than optimum bab classes can't hit is also bogus, they just need to roll better than fighters and raging barbs, and if it something around their CR, they will be able to hit it. Against foes without gigantic acs, they are just fine. Flurry then rocks especially.
Well Flurry forces you to be a dual-wielder, with all the usual problems with dual wielding, except then you're not dual-wielding your attack rolls are pretty bad. Unlike all the other 3/4 BAB classes, monks lack any meaningful way to buff their to-hit beyond just having better ability scores. Clerics? Buffs like quickened divine favor, divine power, righteous might, and so forth. Bards? Inspire Courage brings them to perfect BAB in terms of hitting, and that's before they cast spells (also +5 to damage, +5 more from arcane strike). Druids? They got buffs. So many buffs. They got buffs for themselves, buffs for their pets, buffs for their pets pets. They have energy buffs! Menergy buffs! Power Buffs! They have buffs for when they run, or when they stand still! They have turbo-buffs! And they do it while enjoying goofy-high natural armor bonuses while sporting +15 armor bonuses while they eat people as giant bears or elementals.
If its ac is too high, maybe drawing it out, skirmishing or shock horror, going total defence will actually really help the party.
It may really help the party. Or it might just let the dragon kill your party while you're doing nothing to stop him. I build defensively to a fault, and I'm a big believer in fighting defensively and total defenses, but relying on them frequently because you frequently can't hit is not a good thing. They are to be used when needed, and sparingly. In many cases, taking a total defense just means letting your opponent eat you (especially if the +4 AC doesn't stop them from tearing you apart, such as in the case of a monk or barbarian vs a ghaele azata).
A monk is not weak because it isn't a barb, a barb and monk are separate things. One thing I have found from comparing 3.5 to pathfinder though, is that barbs have a lot longer rage in pf. Which can make defensive builds designed to get them to waste their rage less effective. The barbs has a lot of strength, but if they provoke AOOs and are heavy damage two handers they can get killed really quick. This is a separate discussion I suppose.
Nope. A monk isn't weak because it's not a barbarian. A monk is weak because it's a monk. The problem lies with the monk class. The barbarian was just to kiddie of the week used to show how other classes can be more useful than the monk, more defensive than the monk, rival their mobility, and basically out-do the monk n the things that monks claim as their own. Get it?
This isn't as much Monk vs Barbarian as some might think it is. Next month it might be the Fighter. The month after the Magus. The month after that we might be to wild shaping druids...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Yeah. When picking classes, I tend to look for what they can add to a party, not take away."
In certain other posts, this is true. However, in the case of the monk, it may not be. Your previous posts highlighted that monks tend to have certain glaring weaknesses and I agree the class does. The difference is that when there is any example of monks beating something equal to their CR or two levels above their CR, it immediately becomes a fierce attempt to prove how it couldn't have happened. In the previous thread about monks, there was the posts about sticking dragons in armor and possibly other magic items from their treasure hoards.
No it wasn't. It was about how the dragon's abilities were ignored, like the fact it had blindsense. Or how the dragon just decided to stay in melee with not so much as a mage armor on. In other words, if you need an enemy to be absolutely stupid by ignoring their own abilities, then what are they going to do if they actually want to live? My post was pretty strait forward, and apparently where I went wrong was mentioning that a dragon in my game had armor.
Gotta love these completely naked dragons. Mage armor is a +4 AC to the dragon for hours. The moment the dragon sensed an enemy, if he doesn't just cast it throughout the day, he could have flown up and buffed or just buffed right there. +20% evasion. Assuming of course the dragon isn't wearing any studded leather armor or anything (I mean the dragon can make the stuff himself more than likely, and the cost for a truly goofy sized suit of studded leather is still less than 1,000 gp). Shield pushes the dragon's AC to 31 if he cared enough to do so. I mean they cast like sorcerers, so the 1st level spell slot isn't going to be missed.
All of this assuming, of course, that the dragon isn't wearing any of his treasures. Wondrous items like cloaks and such adjust themselves to fit their wearers, and dragons have voices and fingers capable of articulating complex words and manipulations. You'd be lucky if the dragon didn't have an amulet of natural armor, cloak of resistance, and ring of protection somewhere on him providing him bonuses to saves and AC (AC 32-33 easy).
Just hearing about that encounter sounds like an incredibly fail dragon. I'd say that I wish the dragons in our games were so suicidal, but I'd be lying through my teeth. I kind of like the fact my group doesn't look at dragons and go "oh boy, triple treasure rating on a steamroller encounter". I'm kind of happy that when my PCs see a dragon, they go "oh crap, get out the A game guys, we got trouble!". I mean, one of the dragons in my Red Hand Remix is mean as hell.
The party will encounter him on a bridge. He pre-buffs with stuff like mage armor, then swoops down blowing a cone of acid on them while flying by. He has Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows, and wears masterwork studded leather armor provided for his military use as an ally of an army. He carries some wands and magic trinkets with him and has a +19 UMD check. My PCs are going to love the encounter.
In this post, it notes that he's got mage armor active. That right there means that the masterwork studded leather is effectively not there. Yet it became a war over whether or not a dragon should wear armor and how unfair that was (ignoring the fact that the armor was negligible). It's my fault. It really is. I should have just said "meh, monk fails, mage armor for the win" and not bothered mentioning the dragon from my Red Hand game. Instead of listening to the dragon's tactics (pre buff, flyby breath weapons, deflect incoming arrows, use wands and such), 3.5 Loyalist zoomed into masterwork studded leather and wigged out. Conversation halted. Worlds collided. Cats and dogs living together. Total anarchy ensued.
Strange thing is, that didn't actually come up in the thread until an example of a party with three monks and a warlock beat a dragon above their CR. Almost as if the monk has to stay extremely weak and useless from the view of some. If they were discovered to be adequate or even skilled at what they do, is it directly harmful in some way?
It would have been impressive if the dragon wasn't played like a dunce (ignoring his own capabilities), and ignoring the rules (they never would have simply suck up on the dragon and killed him like that).