|
Shallowsoul, your entire "some people play the monk for *gasp* roleplaying" argument is an insulting one.
And I find your responses typical of someone who lacks experience.
I've been playing RPG's for over 27 years and I have seen almost everything you can think of when it comes to concepts but I can tell you for a fact that someone with the experience can create a concept out of any ability score no matter how low or how high.
I noticed you said that Bruce Lee didn't have a low CHA and INT. That's true but since when did all Monk's have to be Bruce Lee? The dwarf in my example actually has an above average INT but a very low Cha. This is justified easily with his backstory. Stoneknuckles spent many years of his life in the underdark as a loner trying to achieve the unity of the mind, body, and spirit so his people skills became rather crude, especially when a spent anywhere from 50 to 75 years alone.
So good sir before you start throwing around that you are insulted how about take a good look at yourself because the buck doesn't stop with you I'm afraid.
Whether you want to believe it or not, people "do" play classes for role playing purposes and not for just the numbers.
For 27+ years of experience you should know this but...
Role playing and mechanics have nothing to do with each other. I could play a fighter and role play him as a monk. Same with so many other 'classes' they are as much a role playing style as a class. So yes, Mikaze's statement is pretty accurate. As is trying to get on the grognard horse, your not the only one. It is insulting when you try and say that "that apple isn't and apple, its an orange!"
Saying the class is fine because some people pick it for role playing reasons is insulting. It is just an attempt to get around the fact that mechanically, the class has issues. The why or how a person picks the class isn't very relevant at that point. It is the mechanical functionality of the class we are...
What's insulting is you are basically saying that all those people out there who do choose classes for role playing purposes are insulting because they choose to do so, that is what's insulting.
Tell me this then. Why should someone choose one class over the other? Is it that old "badwrongfun" again?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can roleplay a commoner with 10's in everything. You can't use the "It can be roleplayed!" argument without inherently claiming that there is no such thing as poor mechanics, nor could anything ever conceivably have poor mechanics, because I can apply good roleplay to absolutely anything no matter how bad the mechanics are.
|
|
I can roleplay a commoner with 10's in everything. You can't use the "It can be roleplayed!" argument without inherently claiming that there is no such thing as poor mechanics, nor could anything ever conceivably have poor mechanics, because I can apply good roleplay to absolutely anything no matter how bad the mechanics are.
I'm not talking about bad mechanics. I am talking about the fact that there are people who don't care how mediocre a class my be mechanically. They enjoy the class for what it is, not the numbers that some people think it should be producing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about bad mechanics. I am talking about the fact that there are people who don't care how mediocre a class my be mechanically. They enjoy the class for what it is, not the numbers that some people think it should be producing.
Then you're getting mad about nothing. The issue here is not understanding why people want to play a class just for the name when they can play another, more fun, more successful class and roleplay it just the same. If someone enjoys the class they're playing there's no issue.
I dislike the monk class and will never play it myself. That doesn't mean I'll never play an unarmed specialist, nor does it mean I'll rag on someone for liking the class' mechanics. If that player's one of the PCs in a game I'm running I'll just have to figure something out to keep them having fun when the game outscales their class' capabilities.
Hell, I would even say that as long as a Monk has 2 points in his Ki Pool he can use his Dex mod for damage instead of strength.
You have just been arguing that the monk is fine as is, why the change of heart?
Besides, it's not damage that the monk suffers from, it's inability to hit.
I can roleplay a commoner with 10's in everything. You can't use the "It can be roleplayed!" argument without inherently claiming that there is no such thing as poor mechanics, nor could anything ever conceivably have poor mechanics, because I can apply good roleplay to absolutely anything no matter how bad the mechanics are.I'm not talking about bad mechanics. I am talking about the fact that there are people who don't care how mediocre a class my be mechanically. They enjoy the class for what it is, not the numbers that some people think it should be producing.
If a class is mediocre, that's fine. The monk isn't mediocre, it's bad. You have to work your butt off just to get to mediocre, and still suffer from being bad in situations where every other combat class can be OK, while the cases where you actually shine mechanically are all but non-existent.
If mechanics are bad, they need to be fixed. End of.
If you'd be fine with the class no matter how weak it was provided it had a flavorful name then, uh, why are you in this thread exactly?
You have just been arguing that the monk is fine as is, why the change of heart?
Besides, it's not damage that the monk suffers from, it's inability to hit.
Dex-to-damage does make the Monk less MAD, though, which indirectly gives to-hit a bump.
Of course, if you build around it, then your damage sucks if you don't have 2 Ki left, so you effectively can't spend those last two points unless you want to suck at hurting things for the rest of the day, so your already-small Ki pool effectively shrinks... and if you don't build around it, then it doesn't help the MAD problem. So it's something, but not enough.
You can easily bind a few efreeti (which have 3 wishes 1/day - only for non-efreeti) and have them stick around for a little while to give you your bonuses. It's just an opposed CHA check, and you can try again as many times as you want by casting the spell again if you fail. Getting +5 inherent to all stats is trivial.
And don't say they're some godlike force you're going to anger; at the point where you can bind them they're pretty paltry compared to a high level adventuring party. Heck, if you want to be a nice guy, Mr. Wizard could make scrolls of plane shift or a wondrous item that mimics it once for them all, an item far more valuable to them than a few wishes they can't use for their benefit or any of their friends' benefit. You could even make them some nice jewelry as a souvenir with fabricate.
The genies can't use wishes for themselves. Nothing is stopping them from trading those wishes for favors. If the genie someone escapes nothing is stopping him from hiring people either.
Personally I wish they were strong enough to handle things on their own, but since they're not....
If you'd be fine with the class no matter how weak it was provided it had a flavorful name then, uh, why are you in this thread exactly?
Dex-to-damage does make the Monk less MAD, though, which indirectly gives to-hit a bump.You have just been arguing that the monk is fine as is, why the change of heart?
Besides, it's not damage that the monk suffers from, it's inability to hit.
You can get it from the Agile weapon property, it's good but you are still in Two High Stat territory. Wis-to-hit helps reduce MAD by not needing two high stats, just one and two moderately good ones (still need some strength for damage and some dex for AC).
|
|
Hell, I would even say that as long as a Monk has 2 points in his Ki Pool he can use his Dex mod for damage instead of strength.You have just been arguing that the monk is fine as is, why the change of heart?
Besides, it's not damage that the monk suffers from, it's inability to hit.
If you've actually read my posts then you will see that I've already said the Monk isn't perfect. No class is perfect and all can use tweaking, some more than others.
I've already said the Monk can use some work but it's not as bad as some of you make it out to be.
The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.
|
|
You can get it from the Agile weapon property, it's good but you are still in Two High Stat territory. Wis-to-hit helps reduce MAD by not needing two high stats, just one and two moderately good ones (still need some strength for damage and some dex for AC).If you'd be fine with the class no matter how weak it was provided it had a flavorful name then, uh, why are you in this thread exactly?
Dex-to-damage does make the Monk less MAD, though, which indirectly gives to-hit a bump.You have just been arguing that the monk is fine as is, why the change of heart?
Besides, it's not damage that the monk suffers from, it's inability to hit.
Other classes depend on two high stats so I don't really see the problem. The Paladin depends on high Strength and Charisma and it does just fine.
I don't want 4th style where there are two primary stats for all classes. I want there to be a mixture like we have now.
Well forgive me but having just played one through a game, my monk really was struggling to have any effect whatsoever in 1/4 encounters over 10th level, for all the reasons I listed.
So personally, I would say the monk does have all the issues I've listed, and needs the fixes I have listed. Can't answer for anyone else, but that's how it's played for me in practice and in all the theory-crafting.
|
|
The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.
Careful with the "many people" because truthfully you have no idea how many people actually love or hate the monk. All you have is your personal experience along with some people from these forums.
I know a good many people who actually like the Monk and enjoy playing the class. They enjoy what the Monk brings to the table but I don't claim that their opinion of it is the majority. All I can tell is it's a fact that the people "I" know like the class.
Also, these forums don't represent the majority of Pathfinder player's either.
So, were is the level 10 monk build?
13 :)
The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.Careful with the "many people" because truthfully you have no idea how many people actually love or hate the monk. All you have is your personal experience along with some people from these forums.
I know a good many people who actually like the Monk and enjoy playing the class. They enjoy what the Monk brings to the table but I don't claim that their opinion of it is the majority. All I can tell is it's a fact that the people "I" know like the class.
Also, these forums don't represent the majority of Pathfinder player's either.
There is also the 3.5 forums before they changed so much I like going there. There is also The Den, and that other forum whose name I can't recall. It is similar to the The Den.
My friend enjoys the class, but even he admits that it sucks if I don't give him access to 3.5 books.
Liking the class, and saying it is good as is are not the same thing. Dabbler likes the class. I like the idea of beating dragons down with my fist, and making impossibly high jumps, not to mention the saves, but its current version could still use improvement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well forgive me but having just played one through a game, my monk really was struggling to have any effect whatsoever in 1/4 encounters over 10th level, for all the reasons I listed.
So personally, I would say the monk does have all the issues I've listed, and needs the fixes I have listed. Can't answer for anyone else, but that's how it's played for me in practice and in all the theory-crafting.
Well Dabbler nobody seems to be able to tell you how to solve those issue despite all of the monk threads. I think it is safe to assume they are valid until proven otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's insulting is you are basically saying that all those people out there who do choose classes for role playing purposes are insulting because they choose to do so, that is what's insulting.
Tell me this then. Why should someone choose one class over the other? Is it that old "badwrongfun" again?
That isn't even close to what I said. People can choose a class for any number of reasons and none of those reasons are wrong.
What I did say is that you can role play any class in a variety of ways. But how you role play a character has nothing to do with the mechanics of the character. Considering all the monk threads I participate in have everything to do with the mechanics of the character, not the fluff/role playing aspect, I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm saying how anyone should play.
Honestly, it feels like your trying to tell me I'm badwrongfun because I want solid mechanics. I provide enough role playing on my own, I don't need class mechanics to do that for me.
Now, do you feel a need for me to explain the differences between mechanics and role playing from my point of view further or can we get back to the topic at hand?
The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.Careful with the "many people" because truthfully you have no idea how many people actually love or hate the monk. All you have is your personal experience along with some people from these forums.
I know a good many people who actually like the Monk and enjoy playing the class. They enjoy what the Monk brings to the table but I don't claim that their opinion of it is the majority. All I can tell is it's a fact that the people "I" know like the class.
Also, these forums don't represent the majority of Pathfinder player's either.
You are mistaking wanting the monk to be better with 'hating'. If we hated the monk, we wouldn't care that it was underpowered. For myself, I love the monk. I still have fun playing the monk. I'd have a lot more fun and a lot less frustration if the monk was able to live up to it's stated role and was not a liability as often as an asset.
So a lot of people love the monk, but a lot of people on these boards also think it is a mechanically weak class that needs fixing, although they love it. The devs at Paizo have stated that it's a weak class that needs fixing. We have demonstrated that mechanically, it is a weak class that needs fixing. We have our personal experience of playing it (and if we were 'haters' why would we play monks?) that it is a weak class that needs fixing.
Given all that, I think it's fair to say that while a lot of people love the monk and enjoy playing it, their enjoyment could be more, and that mechanically the monk could be improved because it is a weak class that needs fixing.
That's what we are saying, and from what you have posted I think this is a statement you could agree with.
The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.Careful with the "many people" because truthfully you have no idea how many people actually love or hate the monk. All you have is your personal experience along with some people from these forums.
I know a good many people who actually like the Monk and enjoy playing the class. They enjoy what the Monk brings to the table but I don't claim that their opinion of it is the majority. All I can tell is it's a fact that the people "I" know like the class.
Also, these forums don't represent the majority of Pathfinder player's either.
There is also the 3.5 forums before they changed so much I like going there. There is also The Den, and that other forum whose name I can't recall. It is similar to the The Den.
My friend enjoys the class, but even he admits that it sucks if I don't give him access to 3.5 books.
Liking the class, and saying it is good as is are not the same thing. Dabbler likes the class. I like the idea of beating dragons down with my fist, and making impossibly high jumps, not to mention the saves, but its current version could still use improvement.
Ah, you're thinking of The Gaming Den. That makes for some good reads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can easily bind a few efreeti (which have 3 wishes 1/day - only for non-efreeti) and have them stick around for a little while to give you your bonuses. It's just an opposed CHA check, and you can try again as many times as you want by casting the spell again if you fail. Getting +5 inherent to all stats is trivial.
And don't say they're some godlike force you're going to anger; at the point where you can bind them they're pretty paltry compared to a high level adventuring party. Heck, if you want to be a nice guy, Mr. Wizard could make scrolls of plane shift or a wondrous item that mimics it once for them all, an item far more valuable to them than a few wishes they can't use for their benefit or any of their friends' benefit. You could even make them some nice jewelry as a souvenir with fabricate.
The genies can't use wishes for themselves. Nothing is stopping them from trading those wishes for favors. If the genie someone escapes nothing is stopping him from hiring people either.
Personally I wish they were strong enough to handle things on their own, but since they're not....
Genies are made to grant wishes. That's kind of the point of Genies. It's why you would call and contract a genie in the first place. Some evil wizards might even enjoy keeping a genie slave simply because genies grant wishes. That's their shtick. It's what they do. It is trivial to them. It costs them nothing, they cannot grant wishes for themselves, and they can cast at least three of them per day. Anything beyond mimicking lower level spells and inherent modifiers are in the realm of GM-fiat and thus not really an issue.
You grab a pair of efreeti. Bind 'em to magic contract (IE - you beat them at the opposed test of personality strength), and generally treat 'em pretty nice, and you can get some stat mods easily enough. It's not rocket science. Efreeti can't do anything for themselves with their wishes anyway. So you go "Okay guys, here's what I want. For the next six days, I want you two to make me stronger. Then more dextrous, then healthier, smarter, more cunning, and strong willed" and then they can either refuse to accept (based on the Charisma check -- not Diplomacy check).
Or you could really sweeten the deal. Call of three of them an offer to make a wish on their behalf for every 2 wishes they grant you. Say every day for a week, each genie casts wish twice and then you make a wish for them. Anyone who has ever seen Disney's Aladdin pretty much gets the value of this deal. Genie can't grant themselves wishes, but if you can grant a helpful wizard a wish that benefits you? Oh heck yes! Perhaps offer the genies a very simple trade. Each of them work together to give you and your friends +5 to all your abilities, and then you guys make wishes to give them +5 to all theirs. When they return to their home plane they are some of the strongest, fastest, toughest, smartest, most cunning, charismatic efreeti around.
Ah, you're thinking of The Gaming Den. That makes for some good reads.The class is sub-mediocre by many people. That is the issue with it. It is not "just about the numbers". It is more of a "what are you bringing to the table" issue. A class can be useful without doing damage. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the class to be good enough that more people can enjoy it, which is really what most of the complaints are calling for.Careful with the "many people" because truthfully you have no idea how many people actually love or hate the monk. All you have is your personal experience along with some people from these forums.
I know a good many people who actually like the Monk and enjoy playing the class. They enjoy what the Monk brings to the table but I don't claim that their opinion of it is the majority. All I can tell is it's a fact that the people "I" know like the class.
Also, these forums don't represent the majority of Pathfinder player's either.
There is also the 3.5 forums before they changed so much I like going there. There is also The Den, and that other forum whose name I can't recall. It is similar to the The Den.
My friend enjoys the class, but even he admits that it sucks if I don't give him access to 3.5 books.
Liking the class, and saying it is good as is are not the same thing. Dabbler likes the class. I like the idea of beating dragons down with my fist, and making impossibly high jumps, not to mention the saves, but its current version could still use improvement.
There is another one similar to The Gaming Den. I am sure I will remember when it no longer matters.
I don't think Genies were made to grant players as many wishes as they wanted just because someone has access to a binding spell. That is a just a consequence of the system.
Always remember this phrase.
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often
called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma
17, and "can" grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only)
who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8.Can is not the same as "always", or "has no choice", or "made to comply".
That's what the opposed charisma check in planar binding is for. :)
|
|
That's what the opposed charisma check in planar binding is for. :)Always remember this phrase.
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often
called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma
17, and "can" grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only)
who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8.Can is not the same as "always", or "has no choice", or "made to comply".
Well it's up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a "service".
Well it's up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a "service".That's what the opposed charisma check in planar binding is for. :)Always remember this phrase.
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often
called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma
17, and "can" grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only)
who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8.Can is not the same as "always", or "has no choice", or "made to comply".
If they want to house rule it, yeah.
The creature makes a save; if failed they're trapped in the binding. They can try and escape once per day with SR, planar travel, or with a charisma check.
The caster can then demand a service of their choosing in return for freedom; this is where the opposed charisma check comes in. The caster does not have to offer the outsider anything. They may offer them something to gain a bonus on their charisma check, the value of that bonus (between +0 and +6) being the sole thing determined by a GM in the entire spell.
So many monk threads at the moment, I don't know which to post this thought to... then again, I suspect anyone who cares about monks is probably reading all of them so.. moot point? Anyhow...
I, too, love the idea of the monk and would like to get my inner Jet Li on in a PF game. I also typically end up in pure CRB games. No Qiggong. No Zen Archer. No MoMS. So you can understand why I would really like to see the core, plain-jane, unadulterated, non-archetype monk touched up a bit.
I'd like to flip the question of "why take the monk" on its ear for a moment though, because I also understand why Paizo might be hesitant to bump a monk's martial abilities up very much. I would like to ask a few "why take the..." questions. Feel free to answer, comment, or whatever. I'm just tossing these out there from a design perspective.
Assume that the monk has been tweaked and is now "effective" in combat mechanically, that somehow MAD has been reduced but not eliminated, now on part with a ranger or paladin. Assume that by hook or by crook a monk can, at every level, reasonably expect to do 60-75% of the damage of a fighter in melee. Assume whatever you need to in order to feel that the core monk has been reasonably well "fixed" and is a useful member to a group.
Now then... "why take a fighter instead of a ranger?" Has nothing to do with a monk. What does a fighter do better than a ranger? Is the fighter's breadth of physical damage output and mitigation that much better vs. a ranger's performance against non-favored enemies? Enough to outweigh broader set of skills, spell casting, animal companion, etc.?
"Why take a fighter instead of a barbarian?" Especially as levels rack up, a barbarian seems likely to have more than enough rage rounds per day to be at peak performance for any fight of significance. What does a fighter bring to the table?
"Why take a fighter instead of a [fixed/effective] monk?" The new monk can now consistently dish out a 'reasonable' amount of damage, without having to spend tons of extra gold out of their WBL in order to enhance attacks via magic items. The new monk is in fact much closer to other martials in terms of increased combat effectiveness per gold spent, thanks to the new revamp. But with the built in defenses against poison, disease, aging (lol), AoE attacks, plus better mobility and better saves, they don't have to spend gold on items to shore up those weak spots. They don't need to burn feats to shore up those areas of concern.
With regard to the fighter vs. ranger and fighter vs. barbarian, personally I would love to see some opinions on that, but mainly I brought them up because those are existing classes (fighter, ranger and barbarian) that are generally considered fungible with regard to filling the "stand up and hit stuff" role in a group.
So in a world of a revamped, tweaked up, fixed up, put right CRB basic monk... what toes are they not stepping on?
I thought of something...
The monk "uses", essentially, four stats.
STR, DEX, CON, WIS.
That's a lot of stats. Instead of giving him, for example, DEX to damage or something, why not simply reward for having the stats actually spread out? We can give small bonuses if the monk has aquired enough points in that ability.
In order to prevent this from being clunky I'll introduce two new terms:
Monk ability score: STR, DEX, CON, WIS
Covered: A monk ability score is "covered" if that character has 14 or more in that score.
My idea is to change many monk abilities by adding bonuses depending on how many different monk ability scores are covered.
A new approach to the ki pool is: Size of ki pool = 1/2 monk level + wisdom modifier + 1 point per covered monk ability
This kind of bonus could be applied to other abilities as well, but it would basically reward a monk who spread his points around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a "service".That's what the opposed charisma check in planar binding is for. :)Always remember this phrase.
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often
called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma
17, and "can" grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only)
who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8.Can is not the same as "always", or "has no choice", or "made to comply".
Well, generally speaking a service in this use of term is regarded as" taking on and fulfilling a task for someone."
So if I call, and bind, a genie, and then set him to the task of granting me 3 wishes in succession, then if he fails that opposed charisma check he better get to granting. Now, if the DM doesn't want that done, that is a different story, but presumably the DM is not going to act like the Spanish Inquisition and go "Surprise!!!!" So you would know beforehand if the DM was OK with it or not.
But by RAW, yes, you call them, you bind them, they grant you wishes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having just finished playing through my second full adventure path, do people really see having +5 Inherent bonuses to every ability score for free as something standard? The way I see a lot of builds posted, people talk about these bonuses on the boards as if they're something that obviously everyone has, but it's not something I've ever seen in actual play. Is my group just unusual or is this some major theorycrafting here?
(And if this is meant to be standard, why does everyone value the +6 STR Sorcerer bloodlines so much if they only give a single point more than what everyone gets by default? And why are the manuals/tomes so expensive if access to a single sixth-level spell does the job of every single one of them for free? Remember that if you follow the "No more than half your WBL on a single item" guideline, you can't even get a +1 manual/tome until tenth level.)
Fighter is the master of hitting and damaging with weapons. Whatever it is, if you can hit it, the fighter can, and if you can damage it, the fighter can. He also has a first rate AC. Weapon Training and fighter feats mean that in the average scenario the fighter can always hit and damage reliably.
Barbarian is also a reliable damage dealer. He is not so accurate as the fighter, and doesn't have his finesse, but he makes up for it in damage. The barbarian is not so good in heavy armour, but is more mobile, and has a few more skills.
Ranger is, on the face of it, a lot less capable than the fighter at fighting generic monsters, and his AC is not so hot. However he is death on two legs for his favoured enemies, and he has other advantages: spells, animal companion, favoured terrain and excelent skills. A ranger is a great scout and is always good to have around in a survival situation.
Paladin is the holy warrior who kicks evil's ***. Against generic, non-evil monsters he is an also-ran for hitting and damaging them. He as good AC, and can act as a powerful healer. He has spells and his divine bond. His greatest advantage is in the boss-fights which he rules with Smite Evil.
Monk...should be the fast, mobile combatant who doesn't need weapons to be deadly. He should have excellent defences and can get places others cannot. One of these sentences is currently true, bit the other isn't. The monk is not really deadly, he struggle to hit and cannot inflict serious damage. If he had the changes we have discussed (corrected MAD, natural enhancement, ability to bypass DR), he would be good at hurting things that think themselves almost immune to hurt, and be as solid a damage dealer as the ranger or paladin without smite/favoured enemy.
Every class with something to offer both in flavour and in mechanics.
This kind of bonus could be applied to other abilities as well, but it would basically reward a monk who spread his points around.
Nice idea, but one of the monk's problems is that if they do this they cannot hit for toffee compared to other combat classes with an 18-20 in their hitting stat. They don't have comparable AC without high scores in Wis and Dex. They cannot do serious damage without a high Str score. These are a lot more fundamental than ki pool.
The other problem is that if you provide a bonus for covering stats, what happens when somebody has a monk like the last one I played: rolled stats, and no scores below 14? They end up over-powered, which is also a situation we want to avoid.
I don't think Genies were made to grant players as many wishes as they wanted just because someone has access to a binding spell. That is a just a consequence of the system.
On a side note, this was brought up during the playtest for Pathfinder. I've seen the thread. Someone pointed out that efreeti were within planar binding limits and could be called for wishes. It was acknowledged by the devs and some discussion about it occurred. However, Pathfinder comes out and still efreeti are bind-able wish-makers, so I presume it might not be as unexpected as some would have us think.
What did get nerfed however was wish. For one, the biggest abuse of wish as a SLA in 3.x was the fact you could wish for magic items with a scaling cost in components. SLAs meant that you got the benefits of the components free of charge, which means in 3.x you can have an efreeti produce a magic item of infinite value if desired. Wish in Pathfinder is so nerfed as to be patently worse than miracle by most standards, and is prohibitively expensive if cast the old fashioned way.
The fighter is great for overall combat versatility, but lacks significant out of combat capabilities. The barbarian is raw damage with a handful of out of combat capabilities. The ranger is a competent switch hitter in combat and has significant resources outside of combat. Each has a different role and a different function within the overall makeup of the party. The monk in theory is a good skirmisher and scout, but the inability to finish the deal by actually harming the enemy without sacrificing the effectiveness of their many defenses hurts the class considerably. That weakness makes it hard for the monk to really fill any role without a significant amount of outside help; the only other class to have that problem is the rogue, and even then, the rogue has enough skill points and complimentary tricks to allow them to find a useful place within party roles without an inordinate amount of outside assistance.
|
I'm home, so now the Rogue I promised. I will start core only, because I think that will be all I need to show the problem.
Monk Level 5
Male Malfling Rogue 5
LN Small Humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception TBD
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 18 (22 with Mage Armor), touch 18, flat-footed 11 (22 with Mage Armor)
hp 46 (5 HD)
Fort +5, Ref +12, Will +5; (+2 Fear)
Defensive Abilities Evasion, uncanny dodge
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +1 Dagger +13 (1d3+1 19/20) 3d6 Sneak attack
Melee TWF Dagger +11/+11 (1d3+1 19/20) 3d6 Sneak attack
Ranged Dagger +13 (1d3+1 19/20) 10ft 3d6 sneak attack
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 8 Dex 24, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +3; CMB +10; CMD 27
Feats: Iron Will (1), Toughness(3), Two Weapon Fighting (5th) Weapon Finesse (Rogue Talent), Weapon Focus (Dagger)(Rogue Talent),
Skills: TBD, but lots
Languages: Common
SQ:
Gear: 2 +1 Daggers (4600) +1 Belt of Dexterity (+2) (4000), Cloak of Resistance+1 (1000),
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead
Uncanny Dodge
55 HP (I have 46)
18 AC (I have 18 without armor. I can afford armor, I have enough gold left over, but I think this makes the point more clearly)
High Attack 10 (I have 13 and 11 TWF, so I make it either way)
Average Damage 20 (Not close without sneak attack, with sneak attach TWF I will average 29)
Low Damage 15 (Without sneak attack, not close. With sneak attack yes)
Primary Ability DC 15 (I don't have one)
Good Save 8 (check i got a +11 ref )
Bad Saves 3 (My lowest, fort, is still +5)
Only Core. I didn't bother calculating out the Skills, as this is the Rogues bread and butter at 8 per level.
And this is against the armed monk. An unarmed monk is going to be even lower with attack bonus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, this was brought up during the playtest for Pathfinder. I've seen the thread. Someone pointed out that efreeti were within planar binding limits and could be called for wishes. It was acknowledged by the devs and some discussion about it occurred. However, Pathfinder comes out and still efreeti are bind-able wish-makers, so I presume it might not be as unexpected as some would have us think.
Because if the Devs didn't specifically outlaw an exploit, they clearly fully endorse it.
Must. Not. Derail....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, this was brought up during the playtest for Pathfinder. I've seen the thread. Someone pointed out that efreeti were within planar binding limits and could be called for wishes. It was acknowledged by the devs and some discussion about it occurred. However, Pathfinder comes out and still efreeti are bind-able wish-makers, so I presume it might not be as unexpected as some would have us think.
Because if the Devs didn't specifically outlaw an exploit, they clearly fully endorse it.
Must. Not. Derail....
Some peoples exploit is another persons clever solution =) Although I do agree about not derailing the thread.
@Quinn:
A fighter is a combat generalist who can completely master one style of combat. In that style, competition doesn't exist outside of niche cases (paladin vs evil for example.)
A ranger is a skill monkey combat character. They get a good selection of skills, skill points to use them, with class abilities such as favored enemy and combat style to enhance the combat side and provide a different feel and style from the fighter.
A barbarian is a middle ground between a ranger and a fighter in some ways. More skill points, but not enough to be a skill monkey, and class abilities that focus towards a brute force approach to combat.
A paladin serves as the holy warrior, that high and mighty types whose strict adherence to his vows and ethos allows him to legitimately say "My god loves me, so I get perks." While he gets a host of class features, his feat selection is more limited than the fighter and ranger, and his class abilities require spreading stat points around more than a barbarian.
A reworked monk, if done well, wouldn't step on any toes. He would be an unarmed combat specialist focused on combat maneuvers and ki powers, in a way, a hybrid between a fighter and a non-spellcasting paladin. Between innate defenses and maneuvers to mitigate opponents ability to inflict harm, he can functionally fill any roll the other four classes mentioned can, just in a different way, with different flavor.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, your entire "some people play the monk for *gasp* roleplaying" argument is an insulting one.
And I find your responses typical of someone who lacks experience.
I've been playing RPG's for over 27 years
Oh boy, here we go.
and I have seen almost everything you can think of when it comes to concepts but I can tell you for a fact that someone with the experience can create a concept out of any ability score no matter how low or how high.
Well that's super. That doesn't have anything to do with not wanting to play a monk that is forced to be a derpatologist and/or a social misfit in order to be effective or the fact that that state of things means the monk as currently written needs help.
I noticed you said that Bruce Lee didn't have a low CHA and INT. That's true but since when did all Monk's have to be Bruce Lee?
Since when are NO effective monks Bruce Lee?
The dwarf in my example actually has an above average INT but a very low Cha. This is justified easily with his backstory. Stoneknuckles spent many years of his life in the underdark as a loner trying to achieve the unity of the mind, body, and spirit so his people skills became rather crude, especially when a spent anywhere from 50 to 75 years alone.
Fantastic. Hey, any min-maxed combinatin of numbers can be justified through backstory.
But when you're a character-concept-first player and you're trying to get the numbers to support that and the monk you want to play is meant to be one that lives up to the flavor of the monk, things fall apart.
I want to play an ascetic warrior whose strength comes from his rigorous training and enlightenment. A philosophical warrior that moves like water and strikes with precision rather than brute force, who turns his opponent's brute strength against them. A figure who unifies his mind, body, and soul as one and has achieved or is striving towards achieving a tranquility that can actually inspire those he meets.
But nope, can't have.
So good sir before you start throwing around that you are insulted how about take a good look at yourself because the buck doesn't stop with you I'm afraid.
These are words you need to read over and consider again, because you are being faced with a multitude of people from a wide range of gaming styles who are unhappy with the monk, and you are the one going "ALL IS WELL!"
And you don't seem to understand why your post was insulting. Here's why: Because of the implication that those unhappy with the monk are not "real roleplaiyers". This is a common dodge and a tired one.
I focus on the roleplaying. I detest the metagame. I'm a character-concept-first player. I invest in the setting. Damn near every roleplaying concept I can think of that keys into another class, I can make work. But not the monk.
Yosarian told it like it is upthread.
Whether you want to believe it or not, people "do" play classes for role playing purposes and not for just the numbers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having just finished playing through my second full adventure path, do people really see having +5 Inherent bonuses to every ability score for free as something standard?I have never seen inherent bonuses used in a game.
How frequently are elemental gems used?