This is kind of off topic a bit but wanted a quick answer and hoping since its about a monk build this thread might be helpful in answering it. I want to build a monk of many styles with a lore warden to make a style/combat maneuvering character. My main question is taking 4monk 1sorc and 3fighter wouldn't I get 4 feats for being level 8 also 2 bonus from fighter and 2 bonus style feats from monk giving me 8 feats at 8th level right? Just wanted to make sure that is how it works considering Style builds are feat intensive. Thank you for any advice/feedback.
This thread isn't about Monk builds, it's about the comparison of the Monk to other classes in Pathfinder. However, with that out of the way, I'll be happy to answer your question.
A 4th level Maneuver Master has 4 feats total. One from being a first level character, 2 from being a Monk an the 4th gained at 3rd level.
Taking Sorcerer at 5th level gives you an additional feat for simply being 5th level.
Taking a level of Fighter at 6th level gives you a Fighter bonus Feat, and you gain another bonus feat at 7th level, in addition to gaining a normal feat for simply being 7th level as well. Taking a third level in Fighter does not give you another feat though.
So 4 from Monk levels, 1 from Sorcerer and 3 for the Fighter levels does indeed net you a total of 8 feats by 8th level.
[Edit] I should mention that, technically you gain 11 feats for that combination of classes. Monks gain Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist while Lore Warden gains Combat Expertise. However, only 8 of those feats can be made of your own choice.
|
Of course we can, but that's not the point. Dabbler, you, Mastar Arminas, myself, Ciretose, Lord Wraithstrike, we can all build Monks that work fairly well. Raniel admitted upthread that he mostly plays Wizards and, though he does play other classes on occasion, he isn't familiar with how to get the most bang for his buck out of those classes.
He's approaching these builds from the viewpoint of a new player. A new player might have played a Fighter before, and knows that Strength = Damage, and therefore take the same route for the Monk. Or maybe he talked with someone who half-recalled some guide on the internet about a Strength Monk and tried to build one of those. Maybe he's trying to build a Muscle Wizard.
Point is, these are supposed to reflect possible builds of players who aren't very familiar with the rules, and don't what feats he should and shouldn't take, but the feats that sound good when first read.
Two-Weapon Fighting feats, for instance, sound great when you first read them, so too do Vital Strike feats (which sound amazing!), but we, as experienced players, know those feats aren't the most optimal choices. Though that has never stopped me in the past from choosing them to fit my concept.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm trying. One of the hard things is figuring out what to do with a melee build's feats when all I've got is CRB. I've pretty much looked at trying to get a primary style (mostly two-weapon fighting) backed by a secondary style (with the fighters that is usually bow).
Vital strike isn't for synergy sake. It is to have something to do if you have to move then standard. How do I maximize damage when I can only take one attack because of surprise round or movement? Vital strike!
As for not going pure dex on the maneuver build, I did want to keep a little bonus damage, mostly because of how this affects total damage. Of course, maneuvers don't necessarily deal damage directly (i.e. pinning someone with grapple, or triggering an AoO for your party).
Melee fighter: sword & board with TWF. Best AC and attacks you can get, especially when you get Shield Master at 11th.
Vital Strike...if you want massive attacks, Power Attack and Furious Focus are the first you get, VS is an also-ran if you have spare feats.
|
|
Melee fighter: sword & board with TWF. Best AC and attacks you can get, especially when you get Shield Master at 11th.
Vital Strike...if you want massive attacks, Power Attack and Furious Focus are the first you get, VS is an also-ran if you have spare feats.
Ah, but Furious Focus is APG. I'm only using CRB because that is the only book a new player/group is guaranteed to have. As for sword and board, I definitely plan to take Shield master at 11th (had to check that with my notes). Can't beat using a heavy spiked shield for damage and AC, all while treating what is normally a one handed weapon as if it was light!
|
Ah, but Furious Focus is APG. I'm only using CRB because that is the only book a new player/group is guaranteed to have. As for sword and board, I definitely plan to take Shield master at 11th (had to check that with my notes). Can't beat using a heavy spiked shield for damage and AC, all while treating what is normally a one handed weapon as if it was light!Melee fighter: sword & board with TWF. Best AC and attacks you can get, especially when you get Shield Master at 11th.
Vital Strike...if you want massive attacks, Power Attack and Furious Focus are the first you get, VS is an also-ran if you have spare feats.
Wouldn't bashing instead of a spike be better damage?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Shield spikes cost 9gp, bashing is a +1 equivalence.
Actually, I think they can stack.
|
|
I guess it depends on what you are spending your wealth on, but if this is a competition on damage then Bashing shouldn't be taken off the table. Mathematically speaking you will have to weigh the pros and cons of spending 9g or the +1 equivalence if you have the extra funds.
Shield bash tends to be one die weaker than the spikes. It is why I picked it. I guess you can trade bash for spikes if you need to switch to bludgeoning. Plus adding the spikes made it easier to track weapon upgrade versus shield upgrade. Plus to hit/damage? That's the spikes. Plus to AC? That's the shield.
|
Dabbler there are some things that no matter how many times I say them, you refuse to acknowledge and continue on with your misconceptions. I'm going to try one more time to highlight the things you keep saying that just aren't accurate:
1. The monk I used only used half the feats a 20th level monk gets. Even if I did make a monk only usable for this fight, you have half your feats to be a "normal" monk. The fighter used ALL 21 feats just to survive.
2. I didn't design the monk for this fight. I didn't need shot-on-the-run and showed how I would do it without it. Everything was stuff I would take on most monk builds. It was the fighter not the monk that had to be designed specifically for this fight. The fighter.
3. A Fighter hits harder than a Ranger, A Druid casts better spells than a Ranger and has a better pet than a Ranger. A rouge has more skill points than a ranger, ergo Ranger is useless. You must agree with that statement. If you do not agree with that statement, then stop using that argument against the monk.
In closing, does anyone remember the old 90s arcade fighting games? They typically had 3 fighters, the big slow but strong guy, the small fast but weak guy, and the middle guy. The monk is the middle guy. Not as strong as the big guy, but faster, not as fast as the little guy, but stronger. It takes 2 or 3 classes to do what a Monk can do in 1. You can call that useless if you want, but I call that utility.
this makes me laugh. but this more then anything else:
"It takes 2 or 3 classes to do what a Monk can do in 1. You can call that useless if you want, but I call that utility."ok i dont mean to sound like a dick, or derail this thread, but this mentality annoys me. a magus is a better 3/4th bab class then a monk. as much as i love monks its true. the fact that they can cast spells with more utility then DD, wear armor without ASF, and deal massive ammounts of pain with a higher to hit then a fighter. a cleric, magus, alchemist, and oracle all contribute more to the group then the monk. whats worse is they are all better without archetypes.
the standard monk is not a team player, is a soloist. guess what other classes are soloists, barbarian, fighter, and cavalier, all dpr classes, but the monk doesnt count as a DPR class.
This is kind of off topic a bit but wanted a quick answer and hoping since its about a monk build this thread might be helpful in answering it. I want to build a monk of many styles with a lore warden to make a style/combat maneuvering character. My main question is taking 4monk 1sorc and 3fighter wouldn't I get 4 feats for being level 8 also 2 bonus from fighter and 2 bonus style feats from monk giving me 8 feats at 8th level right? Just wanted to make sure that is how it works considering Style builds are feat intensive. Thank you for any advice/feedback.
Wouldn't you have 9 or 10?
1 feat at 1st level
1 feat at 3 total PC levels
1 feat at 5 total PC levels
1 feat at 7 total PC levels
3 combat feats for being a fighter
2 feats from the Monk's bonus feat list for 1st and 2nd Monk levels
-----
1 bonus feat at first level if Human
ok i dont mean to sound like a dick, or derail this thread, but this mentality annoys me. a magus is a better 3/4th bab class then a monk. as much as i love monks its true. the fact that they can cast spells with more utility then DD, wear armor without ASF, and deal massive ammounts of pain with a higher to hit then a fighter. a cleric, magus, alchemist, and oracle all contribute more to the group then the monk. whats worse is they are all better without archetypes.
I've mentioned it before, but I think that we shouldn't be focusing on comparing the monk to the barbarian, ranger, and fighter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok i dont mean to sound like a dick, or derail this thread, but this mentality annoys me. a magus is a better 3/4th bab class then a monk. as much as i love monks its true. the fact that they can cast spells with more utility then DD, wear armor without ASF, and deal massive ammounts of pain with a higher to hit then a fighter. a cleric, magus, alchemist, and oracle all contribute more to the group then the monk. whats worse is they are all better without archetypes.I've mentioned it before, but I think that we shouldn't be focusing on comparing the monk to the barbarian, ranger, and fighter.
We'll the big idea here is that the barbarian, fighter, monk, and ranger are both Core and melee. Okay, base the barbar, fighter and ranger are full BAB and the monk is 3/4. The monk should be compared to the other 3/4 BAB classes in Core. Problem is, somebody picks up the CRB and reads how monks get full BAB when the flurry, and most of the weapons a monk can use in a flurry are melee weapons, and flurry is a variation on two-weapon fighting. This hypothetical somebody is going to think, "melee guy! I'm gonna punch something!"
This person then sees how the monk will have a good AC thanks to adding Wisdom and Monk Bonus to AC and CMD. Speaking of Combat Maneuvers, there is the Maneuver Training class feature, so now the monk is as good as any full BAB class there as well. Right? Oh and hey, here is this feat Defensive Maneuver Training, so that little gap is plugged as well. And there's a whole host of magic items (monk's robe, headbands of this, belts of that, bracers of armor, and amulets, oh my!) that will boost AC, Save DC's, Ki pool.
Oh and look, one of their early features requires you to punch someone in the face to work (Stunning Fist). And there are all these bonus feats about Combat Maneuvers. Yep, melee guy.
Now, when you think melee guy, do you think rogue? Bard? Cleric? Or do you think Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger?
|
|
this makes me laugh. but this more then anything else:
"It takes 2 or 3 classes to do what a Monk can do in 1. You can call that useless if you want, but I call that utility."ok i dont mean to sound like a dick, or derail this thread, but this mentality annoys me. a magus is a better 3/4th bab class then a monk. as much as i love monks its true. the fact that they can cast spells with more utility then DD, wear armor without ASF, and deal massive ammounts of pain with a higher to hit then a fighter. a cleric, magus, alchemist, and oracle all contribute more to the group then the monk. whats worse is they are all better without archetypes.
That may be. And I just might stat up a magus at the end of this thing to test them. Or let someone else do that, as I'll probably need a break. I stuck with the CRB because that is the one and only thing you can guarantee a person will access. Sure, it is possible that a group is running 100% from the internets and would have access to 100% of the stuff that is on PFSRD. I feel the CRB is the one book that a group would go in for if they decided, "hey, let's try Pathfinder!"
the standard monk is not a team player, is a soloist. guess what other classes are soloists, barbarian, fighter, and cavalier, all dpr classes, but the monk doesnt count as a DPR class.
And that is what we are here to test. Two pure DPR classes and one full BAB class that is a scout, something the monk is supposed to be able to do with Dex being part of the monk's MAD and having Stealth, Acrobatics, and Perception as class skills.
So can everyone else "out monk the monk?" Can the monk "play in the big leagues"? Can the monk contribute? These and other pressing questions will be answered on the next episode of Days, er . . . as the Worm Turns, no. "Monk by the Numbers!"
Now, time to make the donuts.
|
|
yeah i wasnt trying to derail, i was just pointing out that its a very flawed opinion of a monk. monks are a great class if you are only concerned with you. what i mean is i have healing, teleportation, jumping, qinggong abilities, a bunch of attacks, +4 to ac ect... but it does do anything for the guy next to me, unless im a sensai.
with that being said BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND!!!
Wraithstrike:
I did get the impression that the barbarian was completely superior to the monk in the other post. I think a 13th level build is good. Most GM's stop at around that point from what I read on the boards.
Level 13: No multiclassing
WBL: 140,000 gp, with no more than 33%(46,200) of your wealth going to any one item.
Point Buy: 20 points
Books allowed: CRB, APG, UC, UM.
You get two traits, and no two traits can be in the same category.
Races: Core Only
edit: A 7th level build should be posted also. That is when many builds come into their own.
In line with what I’m thinking. Except, I want to complicate things by sticking to CRB. The only thing you can guarantee a player or GM will have access to is the CRB. A GM may not agree to add in the other
books, especially if he doesn’t have them. Now the flip is PFS. I could go with the books allowed in PFS.
I am late to the ball, but I will say this, that going core only hurts the monk more than the other classes. If you wish for me to go ranger(my favorite core class), or barbarian(not a favorite core class) then I can do that.
PS:Just to remain on topic, I am not saying the ranger is the best core class or even best martial core class. I just like the mix of in combat, and out of combat abilities that I get.
What you should you should also do is use the monk against various monsters of the same CR. Some monsters are flyers. Other like to use ambushes. Others use brute power. Some have special abilties, and some are what I call "combination" monsters. You should also use monsters that are APL+3 to see how a monk fairs in boss level fights.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I look at monsters 2 to 4 CR's above my character level when I build characters. I don't expect to be able to solo them, but I do expect to be able to contribute in some way against most of them.
As for full BAB scouts, I think that falls solely to the ranger if you are staying core. The monk built for dex might have a higher score in stealth and perception, but I doubt it will be significant. Actually I am only giving the monk perception since wisdom is his primary score according to many people.
That may be. And I just might stat up a magus at the end of this thing to test them. Or let someone else do that, as I'll probably need a break. I stuck with the CRB because that is the one and only thing you can guarantee a person will access. Sure, it is possible that a group is running 100% from the internets and would have access to 100% of the stuff that is on PFSRD. I feel the CRB is the one book that a group would go in for if they decided, "hey, let's try Pathfinder!"this makes me laugh. but this more then anything else:
"It takes 2 or 3 classes to do what a Monk can do in 1. You can call that useless if you want, but I call that utility."ok i dont mean to sound like a dick, or derail this thread, but this mentality annoys me. a magus is a better 3/4th bab class then a monk. as much as i love monks its true. the fact that they can cast spells with more utility then DD, wear armor without ASF, and deal massive ammounts of pain with a higher to hit then a fighter. a cleric, magus, alchemist, and oracle all contribute more to the group then the monk. whats worse is they are all better without archetypes.
I am sharing a party with my monk currently with a magus. Yes, he can out hit and out damage me in combat, match my AC and HP, and out versatile me with spells.
|
|
I am late to the ball, but I will say this, that going core only hurts the monk more than the other classes. If you wish for me to go ranger(my favorite core class), or barbarian(not a favorite core class) then I can do that.
PS:Just to remain on topic, I am not saying the ranger is the best core class or even best martial core class. I just like the mix of in combat, and out of combat abilities that I get.
What you should you should also do is use the monk against various monsters of the same CR. Some monsters are flyers. Other like to use ambushes. Others use brute power. Some have special abilties, and some are what I call "combination" monsters. You should also use monsters that are APL+3 to see how a monk fairs in boss level fights.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I look at monsters 2 to 4 CR's above my character level when I build characters. I don't expect to be able to solo them, but I do expect to be able to contribute in some way against most of them.
Some good points. I had considered using different monsters to test the group. I went with the generic monster to show the base statistics (AC, HP, Saves, etc). I could do numbers on three or four of the monsters at each CR. But that would have to wait a bit. I want to get the characters finished first.
I like the idea of the boss fight monster. I will definitely add that in.
"Rhode Island is neither a road, nor an island. Discuss."
I had to look that up :(
It's like butter!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I look at monsters 2 to 4 CR's above my character level when I build characters. I don't expect to be able to solo them, but I do expect to be able to contribute in some way against most of them.Some good points. I had considered using different monsters to test the group. I went with the generic monster to show the base statistics (AC, HP, Saves, etc). I could do numbers on three or four of the monsters at each CR. But that would have to wait a bit. I want to get the characters finished first.
I like the idea of the boss fight monster. I will definitely add that in.
Don't forget 2-3 CRs below level, to represent mook-fights.
"Rhode Island is neither a road, nor an island. Discuss."
It's like butter!
"something something...OMG! Barbara Streisand!....something"
I am late to the ball, but I will say this, that going core only hurts the monk more than the other classes. If you wish for me to go ranger(my favorite core class), or barbarian(not a favorite core class) then I can do that.
PS:Just to remain on topic, I am not saying the ranger is the best core class or even best martial core class. I just like the mix of in combat, and out of combat abilities that I get.
What you should you should also do is use the monk against various monsters of the same CR. Some monsters are flyers. Other like to use ambushes. Others use brute power. Some have special abilties, and some are what I call "combination" monsters. You should also use monsters that are APL+3 to see how a monk fairs in boss level fights.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I look at monsters 2 to 4 CR's above my character level when I build characters. I don't expect to be able to solo them, but I do expect to be able to contribute in some way against most of them.
Some good points. I had considered using different monsters to test the group. I went with the generic monster to show the base statistics (AC, HP, Saves, etc). I could do numbers on three or four of the monsters at each CR. But that would have to wait a bit. I want to get the characters finished first.
I like the idea of the boss fight monster. I will definitely add that in.
I would not do it at each CR. That is a lot of work. Maybe every 5 levels or so. We did it at level 13 since many GM stop running games between levels 13 and 15. It has also been my experience that the higher you go in level the more other classes pull away from the monk.
|
|
I would not do it at each CR. That is a lot of work. Maybe every 5 levels or so. We did it at level 13 since many GM stop running games between levels 13 and 15. It has also been my experience that the higher you go in level the more other classes pull away from the monk.
The way it looks now, I should be able to at least do CR = APL and CR = APL + 2 to show the average fight and Boss fight at least. I might be able to work in a fight that is CR = APL but using APL - 2 creatures to show a mook fight.
Right now, I've finished up the Offensive and Maneuver Monks at 1, 6, 11, and 16. I've double checked all the stats (HP, AC, skills, etc). I'm now moving on to the two fighters. Once I get all the characters finished. I'll go back and deal with the monsters, run DPR numbers, and check the percentages for successfully doing maneuvers or failing saves vs. stunning fist/special attacks.
"Rhode Island is neither a road, nor an island. Discuss."
Actually, technically Rhode Island is an island. Because the full state name is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." (smallest state and longest name! :) )
The PP referring to...the mainland of Rhode Island, which originally was just "Providence, and uh...all this land around it, I guess." And Rhode Island referring to Aquidneck Island, which had Portsmouth and Newport settlements. People over time have just shortened the state name down to RI and refer to the whole thing as RI, but in fact Rhode Island is actually an island.
/threadjack
I would not do it at each CR. That is a lot of work. Maybe every 5 levels or so. We did it at level 13 since many GM stop running games between levels 13 and 15. It has also been my experience that the higher you go in level the more other classes pull away from the monk.The way it looks now, I should be able to at least do CR = APL and CR = APL + 2 to show the average fight and Boss fight at least. I might be able to work in a fight that is CR = APL but using APL - 2 creatures to show a mook fight.
Right now, I've finished up the Offensive and Maneuver Monks at 1, 6, 11, and 16. I've double checked all the stats (HP, AC, skills, etc). I'm now moving on to the two fighters. Once I get all the characters finished. I'll go back and deal with the monsters, run DPR numbers, and check the percentages for successfully doing maneuvers or failing saves vs. stunning fist/special attacks.
So the monk is going to be assumed to take the fighter's spot in a 4 man party?
I would recommend trying them as the scout slot as well.
I did remember him saying he wanted a comparison to a full BAB, a full BAB scout, and a 3/4th BAB class.
The best full BAB scout is the ranger, which I did say I would build. I will use the TWF ranger, which is the lesser of the two IMHO, or either a switch hit version that focuses on archery first, and hitting things in the face second. Assuming this is 100 core we can use the bard or rogue. if we can use noncore classes then the magus, summoner, and inquisitor get to play. I don't see this ending well for the monk, even if the bard is the only 3/4 class used.
I should have the level 1 and 6 versions(ranger) done within a day or so.
I might try the bard also, but no promises. :)
|
|
I did remember him saying he wanted a comparison to a full BAB, a full BAB scout, and a 3/4th BAB class.
The best full BAB scout is the ranger, which I did say I would build. I will use the TWF ranger, which is the lesser of the two IMHO, or either a switch hit version that focuses on archery first, and hitting things in the face second. Assuming this is 100 core we can use the bard or rogue. if we can use noncore classes then the magus, summoner, and inquisitor get to play. I don't see this ending well for the monk, even if the bard is the only 3/4 class used.
I should have the level 1 and 6 versions(ranger) done within a day or so.
I might try the bard also, but no promises. :)
I'm doing the monk as the 5th man. This way he doesn't have to carry the front line, just contribute. Since the Pathfinder CR system (and 3.x before it) is predicated on the 4 to 5 character party and four fights a day, the fifth character would make a full party. Which would you be willing to take? The offensive "scouting" monk? The "defensive" maneuver monk? A second fighter (sword & board or twf)? The full BAB scout (aka twf ranger)? The raging Barbar? Okay not a fair comparison. He's there for a sort of high water mark on the DPR scale.
The assumption is the rest of the party is a cleric, a wizard, a trapsfinding rogue, and a frontline fighter. The main party is full, but they'd like one more guy, most likely a scout. The monks and ranger are there as scout comparison. The sword and board and two-weapon fighter are to compare if it is possible to out monk the monk in AC, HP, and "flurrying" while not really measuring up as a scout (not enough skills even taking the favored class bonus every level). The barbar is there if the party decides, "we don't need to sneak up on it. We just crush it in two rounds!"
Once that is done, and I've worked out the enemies and the DPR calculations (thankfully using Trejon's DPR calculator found over on the DPR olympics thread), I'll consider adding other classes, like the bard, or a scouting rogue. Or my head might just explode. We'll see.
My wife is complaining she's becoming a gaming widow. She's already looking for a "gaming widow" t-shirt and she's the DM for our Friday night game!
|
|
Quick question to the boards. If a weapon like the luck blade comes as a +2 weapon, is it acceptable to pay the additional +10,000 gp to make the weapon +3? Is that considered "too cheesy"? Same goes for other specific armor weapons/armor that have a stat bonus and additional powers. Could you just raise the + to the weapon/armor and consider the other nifty powers being similar to the +x gp type powers instead of +1 or +2 bonus powers?
The sword and board should be able to out AC the monk, and the TWF fighter should be able to outdamage the monk. That trapfinding rogue should also be a decent scout also. I think it would match the monk in stealth, but maybe not in perception. The barbarian can also get a really high perception.
I only mentioned the bard because you wanted a 3/4 class comparison.
Problem with this approach is that if the monk is not taking one of the 'four slots' then what does he do if there are only three other party members?
The 13th level comparison we did assumed a 5th man as well, and asked "would you take the monk over X?" where X in that case was a barbarian. X won.
|
|
Well, you could work a party of three (fighter, wizard, cleric) and then slot in the monk as a scout. Flip it and add the rogue and take out the fighter. See how versatile the same build is. I was working with a party of four looking for a fifth, so the fifth wouldn't have to be uber. He'd only need to be able to contribute enough to stand out. Honestly we are not setting the bar high. This isn't a test of can the monk out tank/DPR a fullplate wearing, two-handed greatsword wielding fighter.
Hell, the barbar really shouldn't be in the comparison. He's just the DPR monster you'd expect him to be (though light on the AC). I'd take him out and slot in a bard, except, I've built him out to 11th already. I'll go back in a minute and do up the Bard, after finishing up the monsters. The barbar even does okay on having the scouting role. Slap a headband of int on him and "hey! presto!" he's got all the skills he needs.
The barbarian situation had the barbarian being able to use spellcraft IIRC, had a high perception, could hit hard, and take a lot of damage. The enemies also could not ignore him. Even without including the fight(that was not statted out) the enemies were hard press to stand and deliver(fight toe to toe) with him.
The bard should be melee based with arcane strike, and power attack. :)
If you have the monk and rogue as the damage dealers I don't expect for the monk to be all that useful either, and the monster will just kill the rogue since he will be easier to hit, and he is probably the one doing most of the damage. Then he can move on to the two casters.
For the monk to be a viable choice he can't just be the guy that tags along(only usable as the 5th guy). The rogue's main thing is finding traps, but that can also be done with out of the box thinking so if a bard replaces the rogue it is not a big issue.
I know it is not just about DPR, but the monk needs a reason to be picked besides corner cases, which might never come into play. If he is not going to perform comparably well in combat then he needs to bring it somewhere else.
Quick question to the boards. If a weapon like the luck blade comes as a +2 weapon, is it acceptable to pay the additional +10,000 gp to make the weapon +3? Is that considered "too cheesy"? Same goes for other specific armor weapons/armor that have a stat bonus and additional powers. Could you just raise the + to the weapon/armor and consider the other nifty powers being similar to the +x gp type powers instead of +1 or +2 bonus powers?
It is not about cheese. The issue is that you are relying on GM Fiat which we try not to do in these discussion. That is why things like rings of protection combined with rings of evasion won't be seen.
If you were asking a rules question, then there are official rules for it since many of the items have ad-hoc'd prices.
|
|
I get the bump for a luck blade or sun blade. Combining other items into one doesn't really require DM fiat. It does require DM compliance. In the end, the DM is the final arbiter of what is allowed at the table. The rules state how to stack items. You take the least expensive and multiply its cost by 1.5, add it to the more expensive item, and viola! you've got a layer cake. The stuff that you can't break out because there is no real pricing anywhere else was bugging me.
In the end, I just avoided the issue in all but one case. I've combined an Amulet of Mighty Fists and Amulet of Natural Armor for the Offensive monk. I figure that far from swinging things in his favor, it actually highlights that you've got to spend way more money to equal someone else. After all, they get a magic sword +5 Holy Bane Thundering. You get AoMF at 2.5 times the cost of a weapon and it caps at +5. You've gotta decide, do I get a pure +5 to beat DR? Do I get +5 in special abilities, and then get GMF or GMW and rely on monk weapons to beat DR? Then you either go without AoNA and are +5 down on AC from everyone else, or you pay half again what everyone else is paying (on top of paying half again what the two-weapon fighters are paying) to stack the AoNA and AoMF. So, not optimal. But it gets the job done.
DM Fiat on the boards is any situation where you have to go to the GM and ask for permission, which is basically what the crafting rules fall under since they are only guidelines, when it comes to combining two items.
In short we only use the items as they are in the book. Evenif the item were to be ok'd it would be looked upon as the monk needing special allowances, and the issue of having to choose the amulet of natural armor of the AoMF has always been a concern, and a point against the monk.
It is kind of like getting a headstart in a foot race. Even if you win there will always be an asterisk there.
In this case even if the monk gains some ground the asterisk will be there.
|
|
DM Fiat on the boards is any situation where you have to go to the GM and ask for permission, which is basically what the crafting rules fall under since they are only guidelines, when it comes to combining two items.
In short we only use the items as they are in the book. Evenif the item were to be ok'd it would be looked upon as the monk needing special allowances, and the issue of having to choose the amulet of natural armor of the AoMF has always been a concern, and a point against the monk.
It is kind of like getting a headstart in a foot race. Even if you win there will always be an asterisk there.
In this case even if the monk gains some ground the asterisk will be there.
Okay, point. Wouldn't want to have to argue too much over that one thing. Hell, if the stuff really hits the fan, and you just have to have AC, you sacrifice 1 ki for either more move (= more AC by being nowhere near combat 8-P), or for the +4 to AC (nyah, nyah, you can't hit me). Besides, there's always Barkskin potions (or is it oil, DM: You've come up on some gobo's about to ambush your party. What do you do? Monk: I pull out my oil, grease up, and jump in there! DM: *stunned look. I, uh, I really could have done without the visual.)
I think it is oil, but it mostly flavor as to which one you call it.
Keep in mind, there's a debate over whether or not the Amulet of Mighty Fist actually penetrates DR. Weapon Enhancement bonuses penetrate DR at +3 and higher, but the Amulet is not a Weapon, it just provides an Enhancement. Because it's a Wondrous Item and not an actual Weapon, the item is largely just a permanent Greater Magic Fang and GMR only allows the penetration of DR/Magic.
I see your point Tels, but the monks unarmed strikes are weapons, and as long as they are enhanced they should by pass DR.
According to the item the unarmed strikes are enhanced
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
edit:I see the unarmed strikes are not enhanced themselves by RAW. They just receive an enhancement bonus to the attack rolls, so I can see how it could be read that the amulet itself, not the weapon is what holds the enhancement.
When you get a manufactured weapon enhanced the weapon itself is enhanced, and with a strict reading, a weapon actually being enhanced, and a weapon just receiving an enhancement bonus to its rolls, are not the same thing.
Exactly, that's why I said there is some debate. The problem is, every time there is a debate about the Monk, the RAW has a tendency to be against the Monk, just like the whole Haste thing in the other thread.
Monk's never catch a break, do they?
Not at all. Now I am sure haste does not work against monks RAI, but they just have strange rules. The unarmed strike should just be considered to be a natural attack, except for cases like Improved Natural Attack. That will keep it qualified for every case except for ones that devs specifically don't want it to count for. Changing the wording of the AoMF so that the enhancement is actually transferred to natural attacks would also help.
You've gotta decide, do I get a pure +5 to beat DR? Do I get +5 in special abilities, and then get GMF or GMW and rely on monk weapons to beat DR?
The spells do not beat DR, except for DR/magic, regardless of enhancement. There's only one way to go, and that's flat enhancement unless you are a weapon-using monk. Affording a weapon AND an AoMF is just plain ludicrous.
Wow, 196 posts and I see only one actual monk build. I'm right and your wrong posts don't prove anything. Show me builds that not only compare to hit and damage but out of combat skills and combat manuevers and there affect on the GAME. If you take damage from traps, ambushes you didn't see or because you couldn't sneak past a group of mooks are you really better.
Wow, 196 posts and I see only one actual monk build. I'm right and your wrong posts don't prove anything. Show me builds that not only compare to hit and damage but out of combat skills and combat manuevers and there affect on the GAME. If you take damage from traps, ambushes you didn't see or because you couldn't sneak past a group of mooks are you really better.
Way to not click on the links on the FIRST PAGE!
Try not being a Jerk and reading the posts some time.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, 196 posts and I see only one actual monk build. I'm right and your wrong posts don't prove anything. Show me builds that not only compare to hit and damage but out of combat skills and combat manuevers and there affect on the GAME. If you take damage from traps, ambushes you didn't see or because you couldn't sneak past a group of mooks are you really better.
Jeez someone ate their Jerky-O's this morning. Should have switched to Shredded Literacy.
I will try to stop being lazy, and get those ranger builds up today.