Well, woken up, caffeinated hewy is much more pleasant :). Let me delete that...
|
Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.The difference between math, and practical application.
Ancedotal evidence is not practical application. It is about one happenstance. Practical application would be if we could get a sample of at least 21 (bigger is better) games at random or even limited to AP run as written and then see how well the monk did in those games.
Except that we have anecdotal evidence that they do suck in play. I don't know how you expect us to resolve this without math.
Math is the map of existence. ^-^
|
Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power.It certainly is, in most cases. A class that has 4 skill points, all other things being equal, is more powerful then a class that has 2.
Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence".Except that we have anecdotal evidence that they do suck in play. I don't know how you expect us to resolve this without math.
wraithstrike - I have posts where I went through the Kingmaker AP and there isn't a single encounter that a monk of equal level couldn't hit/damage or be effective.That's checkable by more than just anecdotal evidence. Take the sample party in the back of #34, and put them up against the tiger on page 20. The tiger can hit any member of the party if he doesn't roll a 1, for an average of 33 points of damage a turn, ignoring grab, 1s and criticals, so he's not likely to kill the party, but could easily kill a PC in 3 or 4 hits. The monk can't stun it; the tiger has a Fort +16 and the stun DC is 16.
Against an AC of 22 in melee, Sajan hits with flurry of blurs 50% of the time on +11, and 25% of the time with +6, doing 3d6+3 13.5 points * 1.5 = 20 damage a turn, with crits adding an additional point of damage.
At 75 HP, he'd die in 3 rounds, and could kill the tiger alone in 8 or 9 rounds. He is the only one that could run away, but has no distance weapons to harry his foe.Amiri hits with +16/+11, for 75%/50%, doing 22.5 damage a turn, and her crits add another 4 damage a turn. Raging (and why not?) that becomes +18/+13 for 85%/60% and plus 2 to damage, so that goes up to 35.5 points a turn before crits. At 125 HP raging, the tiger will drop her in 4 turns, and she can drop the tiger alone in 4 hits.
Harsk hits with +14/+9, for 65%/40%, doing 12 damage a turn, and his crits add another damage a turn. He will last 4 hits, but drops the tiger in a...
Hate to break it to you but Pathfinder's not all about the math, that's only part of it.
You can't take into account how the DM is going to run his creatures and what tactics they are going to use.
Posting some figures doesn't bring an end to the discussion by any means.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim the flavor doesn't match up. How about give us some examples?That really happens in my experience.
My monk could talk the talk but he absolutely could not walk the walk.
The monk class should be capable of living up to its image without breaking its own flavor.
I claim that the core monk does not live up to its flavor in actual play.
In order to try and keep up to par with other classes, the monk typically gets turned into the damn Hulk rather than a flowing, moves-like-water, graceful warrior. Going DEX over STR for the sake of theme hurts the monk a lot.
The alleged living weapons lag behind classes whose flavor doesn't put forth that they're dedicated to crafting their bodies into such on the battlefield.
The alleged ascetic warrior is even more dependent on magical gear to keep up than classes without ascetic flavor. They're just more dependent on fewer but more expensive forms of gear.
And the way items have been set up actively works against players that want their monks to be barehanded warriors that fight only with their bodies.
The alleged masters of maneuvers aren't really any better at it, and they can't capitalize on them against non-humanoid monsters later in the game.
There was a moment that I really got excited because it seemed like a perfect, beautiful moment for my monk to finally shine. He was sent into the bilge with two other guys alone and unarmed. My guy was never meant to use weapons anyway. The other two pulled knives on him once they were down there and alone expecting him to be helpless without a weapon of his own. I thought: Finally, I get a chance to shine.
NOPE. Miss, miss, miss, both elemental fists uses blown on misses, hit for weak damage, miss, miss, fall down, rest of the party comes down in time to save me.
And so on until he died, again failing to rescue someone.
The post-mortem heckling that that character failed at everything he did did not help matters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate to break it to you but Pathfinder's not all about the math, that's only part of it.
You can't take into account how the DM is going to run his creatures and what tactics they are going to use.
Posting some figures doesn't bring an end to the discussion by any means
Hate to break this to you...but PF isn't just about DM fiat either. It is a GAME and games have rules and rules are important.
And posting figures when talking about rules bring us a LOT closer to an actual discussion then you going nah uh, I'm right. And an END? You haven't even STARTED one...all you have stated is that monks are fine because you said so.
Ok now that you've thrown your toys out of the pram I'll repeat it's my character in my game and it works just fine now you don't have to agree with me that's your right to your opinion as it's i my right to my opinion and we shall agree to disagree
Everyone view things differently and some people won't see eye to eye on things but that's just the way of the world sorry i'm not going to change my mind just as i'm sure you are not going to change yoursI'm going to preface this post by assuring you that I'm not trying to be smart, nasty, snide or say you're doing anything wrong with your monk. Good times, happy vibes!
But you've got the wrong end of the stick completely. You've missed the point of the current discussion. This thread has really nothing to do with your monk, your game, or whether you're doing anything wrong.
This thread is representative of a movement on these boards that really likes the idea of the monk class, but is supremely disappointed about its actual effectiveness, not in one game, but in all sorts of games. To be blunt, unless the game is at the low end of the difficulty spectrum (which is a perfectly valid way to play!), the monk class consistently comes up short in effectiveness in many ways.
The movement I referred to, in part, makes so much noise on these fora because it wants the developers and designers to have no illusions about the fact that the monk class needs a serious overhaul/upgrade. The only way to do that is to keep this kind of dialogue happening.
On the other hand, if someone comes up with some kickass builds that demonstrate how the monk can hold its own in a medium-to-high difficulty game, it's party time! Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, as some of the people continuing this dialogue (not me) are very, very good at constructing effective characters.
So, the fact that you enjoy your monk character and believe the class is effective doesn't mean anything, considering that no one knows...
This is an excellent post. :)
@Jodaki: I'm not trying to be rude, but anecdotal evidence just doesn't hold much water in these conversations.
Why? Because for all we know, you're a super-optimiser that plays with 6 year olds, so of course your monk would be Captain Action. Now, I highly doubt that's the case, but how are we to know?
Numbers, however, are easily compared, and difficult to argue with (even more difficult than shallowsoul).
Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.
wraithstrike - I have posts where I went through the Kingmaker AP and there isn't a single encounter that a monk of equal level couldn't hit/damage or be effective.
You also say "50% chance" of being perceived. How did you come up with that number? Did you go through 100 different encounters and track the number of times you were and weren't caught in different enviornments or did you look at a chart that says average perception at this level is X so the monk has a 50% chance? I would guess the latter. Practical application, that most dismiss, was a very different story. Being able to talk to anything to know what's in the next room, being able to teleport, not wearing armor, having a DEX through the roof, stealth as a class skill, and using the envoirnment to my advantage. The ridiclous amount of movement meant that I was past them in 1 round only moving half speed (even if I had to leap), so no penalties there, and only 1 perception check.
The difference between math, and practical application.
Kingmaker? That is the AP I see get the most complaints because PC's run through it, mostly due to the "one encounter a day" issue. Yes I ran kingmaker, and it happened to me also.
My 50% chance of being perceived comment was due to various monk builds by posters compared to stock monsters in the bestiary. I could also go and make NPC's of the same CR with similar perception numbers. I also went by my player's monks in actual games. <---See I do more than just theorycraft. I mentioned it before, but it keeps getting ignored. :)
Now as I said before if we are having issues with monks help us fix them. In your games monks do well, but in our games they don't. All of the anecdotal comments don't mean much since it amounts to nuh uh, uh huh, rinse repeat.
Everytime this idea is put forth either nobody answers or it shows the GM is going easy on the monk. I am going to have to assume the same is going on if nobody can give a detailed answer.
All it takes is a posted build, and some commentary on strategy that we have not been using.
But they still do those things worse than other characters could. That's the problem. Even those things they can do, other classes do better. And I don't mean they do one or two of those things better, I mean they do every single one of those things better.Which is a problem if you're optimising a spreadsheet, but not if you're playing a roleplaying game.
This fallacy has been addressed. The "complainers" as you probably want to call us have seen these issues in real games. Do you have a solution?
What about the people that don't share your experiences and applications? You going to say they are wrong?Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power. Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence". It's comparable to me saying Wizards suck because they can't do anything, and if you want to prove me wrong you can't include the spells they can cast.
The difference between math, and practical application.
Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.
Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.
He already said how others play is not an issue to him. :)
We just don't think the monk works well unless the GM helps him out. So far nobody has posted anything but corner cases. Even my "monk" moments were due to a very high point buy. Without it I would have died very early on.
Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power.It certainly is, in most cases. A class that has 4 skill points, all other things being equal, is more powerful then a class that has 2.
Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence".Except that we have anecdotal evidence that they do suck in play. I don't know how you expect us to resolve this without math.
wraithstrike - I have posts where I went through the Kingmaker AP and there isn't a single encounter that a monk of equal level couldn't hit/damage or be effective.
That was not me. That was Jodokai. :)
You can't take into account how the DM is going to run his creatures and what tactics they are going to use.
What we can do is determine what good tactics are and see if the monk does well when facing such tactics, since that also influences the math, but is not strictly a numbers issue. As an example tripping someone might be a good idea, even if it does not damage.
Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.
Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.
Oh I get it, I'm wrong because I'm a dummy head. Great argument, and I look foolish? I would recommend actually trying to understand what you respond to if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
When your math can factor in the benefit of being able to teleport, having more skill points per level, and more class skills per level, going ethereal, having 80' of movement, a selection of feats designed just for the class you may have something. When you dismiss the "anecdotal" evidence you remove where they shine. You take it away because it's "situational". If you play the class would realize those "situations" come up nearly every session. The Monk has abilities that you really can't quantify with math but are still powerful abilities that make him relevant.
But let's talk about math. Let's take a 15th level Monk which is CR 14. If you look at the famous chart, average AC is 29 a 15th Level monk with a 22 DEX and Weapon Finesse is +19/+19 with it's flurry of blows (that's ZERO magic items). I can totally see your point a 10 or higher really is a pretty unattainable roll.
All that said, something else you should probably remember is that I was speaking in general, everyone else turned it into a monk discussion.
It's not necessarily WoW per se. What was the name of that game....oh wait I'm sorry it was warHAMMER not war craft. whatever. the MMORPG crowd thats usually a DPR/DPS pain in the arse are usually not the WoW types as much as the speed freaks from game that have nothing to do with rpg at all (like a diablo type game) nothing moves fast enough for them, they have to splay everything and if they have to do anything other than roll dice and get treasure they complain.... they used to be rare, seems like the table top world is rife with them now, I think it's because the video game people are taking longer to come out with new games now, development time has slowed.Not sure where you game, but down here in the Sunshine State, I've had to deal with my fair share of pushy roleplayers. Many of them have issues sharing any kind of limelight with anyone and will fuss, pout, and even resort to in game PvP if they don't feel like they are getting any attention. I think I've had more campaigns implode because of roleplayers than powergamers to be completely honest.
But hey, don't generalize a group of people. All groups have their a!*~*+!s, whether your a beardy old school guy or the much over-maligned MMO players. I've played with WoW players that had a legitimate interest in having fun and roleplaying. And I've played with people who've been around since ADnD that are worse powergamers than anything you'd see in a video game. Don't blame video games for what's really the issue; douchebags.
I think you should be more careful about jumping down people's throats like this. Blaming people for having wrongbadfun because they prefer a faster style of game play, and create characters to facilitate that end shouldn't be looked down on. I, as an example, do prefer a faster style of game and look to create characters that are capable of ending fights quickly. Why? Because I have tried slow combat games and simply do not find them enjoyable at all. I would rather have a fast 3 round combat of "rocket tag" than a slow 3 day battle. Honestly, it is why I switched from 4e to Pathfinder to begin with as I felt 4e was simply too slow for my tastes. Again, different strokes for different folks, just because they look for a different game doesn't mean it is wrong.
When your math can factor in the benefit of being able to teleport, having more skill points per level, and more class skills per level, going ethereal, having 80' of movement, a selection of feats designed just for the class you may have something.
The irony is quite literally all of these things can be qualified and quantified using math. All of them. Everything can be weighed, measured, and compared using math. From the distance, frequently, and usefulness of all of these abilities, all of it is mathematics and probabilities.
When you dismiss the "anecdotal" evidence you remove where they shine. You take it away because it's "situational". If you play the class would realize those "situations" come up nearly every session. The Monk has abilities that you really can't quantify with math but are still powerful abilities that make him relevant.
Anecdotal evidence is effectively word of mouth. It can be helpful, but not if someone cannot verify it to those they are telling it to. Forgive us for being skeptical, but we have just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary for every bit suggesting they work. Only we're also jaded to these conversations because 9 out of 10 times those who declare that "it just works" refuses to explain how it works, always seems to hate math and refuse to give it (what was going on, what was your opponent, what were the rolls, etc) and call us stinky poo-poo meanie powergamer heads.
Or the 1/10th scenario where they produce a monk and the situation and we look and quickly realize that rule X, Y, and Z were not being used correctly, or the enemies were being played very poorly (like outsiders who never use their spell-like abilities and just try to beat their faces against PCs until they fall down), or the monk was some guy who got lucky and rolled all 18s and a 19 on 4d6 reroll 1s through 5s and add 1. /hyperbole for emphasis on frustration
But let's talk about math. Let's take a 15th level Monk which is CR 14. If you look at the famous chart, average AC is 29 a 15th Level monk with a 22 DEX and Weapon Finesse is +19/+19 with it's flurry of blows (that's ZERO magic items). I can totally see your point a 10 or higher really is a pretty unattainable roll.
Congratulations. You can hit the monster 50% of the time on your high attacks and deal completely negligible damage. EDIT: And that's assuming that you began with a minimum of 18 in your to-hit stat (18 + 1 at 4th, +1 at 8th, +1 at 12th, oops wait...) make that a 19 minimum starting statistic, since we're talking no buffs here.
Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.
Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.
Oh I get it, I'm wrong because I'm a dummy head. Great argument, and I look foolish? I would recommend actually trying to understand what you respond to if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
When your math can factor in the benefit of being able to teleport, having more skill points per level, and more class skills per level, going ethereal, having 80' of movement, a selection of feats designed just for the class you may have something. When you dismiss the "anecdotal" evidence you remove where they shine. You take it away because it's "situational". If you play the class would realize those "situations" come up nearly every session. The Monk has abilities that you really can't quantify with math but are still powerful abilities that make him relevant.
But let's talk about math. Let's take a 15th level Monk which is CR 14. If you look at the famous chart, average AC is 29 a 15th Level monk with a 22 DEX and Weapon Finesse is +19/+19 with it's flurry of blows (that's ZERO magic items). I can totally see your point a 10 or higher really is a pretty unattainable roll.
All that said, something else you should probably remember is that I was speaking in general, everyone else turned it into a monk discussion.
Lol I admit, I was 15 mins out of bed and lacking coffee support when I posted that last sentence, it was probably a little aggressive, apologies.
But I won't apologise for the rest of the post. My point was, to suggest that the folks discussing the monk's crapness and looking for solutions from either other posters or changes from from the developers are not theorycrafting idiots that don't actually play games and observe the monk "in his natural habitat" as opposed to just numbers on paper. For you to suggest that there is no observation of practical application informing this point of view is, in fact, absolute rubbish.
Yep. Apologies for saying you looked foolish, but not for calling your statement absolute rubbish.
Why? Because we all play the game more than we sit staring at numbers. We all have thousands of hours of anecdotal evidence. But if I sit here and say to you "I had a monk that sucked," you will quite rightly think "What the f$&@ do I care?" It's meaningless unless backed up, if not with numbers, at least with descriptions and details that support your point of view. Which, you have started to add since you've been repeatedly slammed for not adding anything to the conversation but antagonism, but your details are still outweighed by your nose-thumbing.
So, keep posting your descriptions, and a build/actual character sheet would be nice too. But if you keep posting, "I'm right, you guys are wrong," well, don't expect any constructive responses.
Hate to break it to you but Pathfinder's not all about the math, that's only part of it.
You can't take into account how the DM is going to run his creatures and what tactics they are going to use.
Posting some figures doesn't bring an end to the discussion by any means
Well then, post some descriptions at least, with who your opponents were, who your party members were, and what happened in a number of scenarios (not just one - that's a really bad sample size) that demonstrate the monk goodness. Your build is already up, so you don't really need to post any more dirty numbers :)
Absolute rubbish. The whole issue is informed by practical experience and application. It's just that numbers are a much better way of discussing it. If you think the people that claim the monk needs revision lack practical experience and application, you completely totally wrong.
Think about what you post before you post, lest you continue to look foolish.
Oh I get it, I'm wrong because I'm a dummy head. Great argument, and I look foolish? I would recommend actually trying to understand what you respond to if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
When your math can factor in the benefit of being able to teleport, having more skill points per level, and more class skills per level, going ethereal, having 80' of movement, a selection of feats designed just for the class you may have something. When you dismiss the "anecdotal" evidence you remove where they shine. You take it away because it's "situational". If you play the class would realize those "situations" come up nearly every session. The Monk has abilities that you really can't quantify with math but are still powerful abilities that make him relevant.
But let's talk about math. Let's take a 15th level Monk which is CR 14. If you look at the famous chart, average AC is 29 a 15th Level monk with a 22 DEX and Weapon Finesse is +19/+19 with it's flurry of blows (that's ZERO magic items). I can totally see your point a 10 or higher really is a pretty unattainable roll.
All that said, something else you should probably remember is that I was speaking in general, everyone else turned it into a monk discussion.
He was not insulting you. He was just saying why he thinks anecdotes alone can't be used. It just becomes he said vs she said is basically the point he was making, or at least that is how I took it... This thread came from a monk thread, that is why the monk is being used. The monk is also an easy example to use.
edit:Ok, so maybe he was aggressive.
The irony is quite literally all of these things can be qualified and quantified using math. All of them. Everything can be weighed, measured, and compared using math. From the distance, frequently, and usefulness of all of these abilities, all of it is mathematics and probabilities.
Really? Well I have a lot to learn. Please tell me the mathematically probability that determines how useful having 80' of movement is over 30' of movement is. Please explain the formula to me. While you're at it, explain the formula that tells my how useful slow fall is. Please tell me how to determine the probability that Abundant Step will be useful in any scenario. If you still can't see the ridiculousness of that statement, I don't think I can help you.
Anecdotal evidence is effectively word of mouth. It can be helpful, but not if someone cannot verify it to those they are telling it to. Forgive us for being skeptical, but we have just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary for every bit suggesting they work. Only we're also jaded to these conversations because 9 out of 10 times those who declare that "it just works" refuses to explain how it works, always seems to hate math and refuse to give it (what was going on, what was your opponent, what were the rolls, etc) and call us stinky poo-poo meanie powergamer heads.
This happens on both sides of the fence. Remember the thread where I took a monk someone else built, added Spring Attack and defeated every fighter build but one using only half the feats available to a 20th level monk? Who did that actually convince? Absolutely no one. People said it wasn't fair because I used old age for the Monk since they ignore age penalties (oh yeah and please give me the mathematical equation that tells me how useful that is), or they tried to say my monk would be useless in a "real" game, even though I didn't use half the feats and the only fighter I couldn't beat was one that was pure defensive and took the Fortitude bumping feats that I've never seen on ANY fighter build before. Heck let's look at this thread, I went through all the encounters in Kingmaker, did that convince anyone? Nope, Kingmaker is an easy AP. Even when I back up the anecdotal evidence, it's simply dismissed for one reason or another.
Not that I expect to convince anyone now. I think I've learned what the real disconnect is though. The majority of people that post on these forums don't really want a GM. They really want a computer program to put them through a pre-programmed adventure and it's only there to make sure everyone uses the hard coded rules. This really hit home when I saw a post where people were offended by the thought that a GM might actually change a scenario based on the characters playing in it. The more threads I see, the more amazed I am at how frightened (for lack of a better word) people are about a GM using things like judgement. If it's in the rules the GM has to allow it, regardless or he's being a jerk. If the adventure only gives one way, a GM can't change it. Where I come from the GM doesn't finish designing the adventure until he has finished characters from everyone. This allows the GM to customize the adventure to the players. Shocking I know, but it actually worked well for us. Maybe this is why I don't have problems with monks, my GM's like to give everyone a chance to shine.
Info about a fighter monk fight
I don't remember you defeating anything. I remember certain things being called into question that could have allowed either the monk or fighter to win, not that it matters since casters might also lose one on one fights depending on the situation, but they are generally more useful to a party.
Not that I expect to convince anyone now. I think I've learned what the real disconnect is though. The majority of people that post on these forums don't really want a GM. They really want a computer program to put them through a pre-programmed adventure and it's only there to make sure everyone uses the hard coded rules. This really hit home when I saw a post where people were offended by the thought that a GM might actually change a scenario based on the characters playing in it. The more threads I see, the more amazed I am at how frightened (for lack of a better word) people are about a GM using things like judgement. If it's in the rules the GM has to allow it, regardless or he's being a jerk. If the adventure only gives one way, a GM can't change it. Where I come from the GM doesn't finish designing the adventure until he has finished characters from everyone. This allows the GM to customize the adventure to the players. Shocking I know, but it actually worked well for us. Maybe this is why I don't have problems with monks, my GM's like to give everyone a chance to shine.
How incorrect you are. Many of us do change fights to fit the group if they are optimized or if we don't like the bad guy in question. That also applies to certain rules. Your statement is not shocking at all. Many of us have done it to an extent. Don't apply what some of us do to all of us.
Your last sentence is telling though, and it matches up with the "shocking" statement. It also matches up with what I have been saying. GM's have to go out of their way to help the monk in many cases. That is part of our issue with it. We want the class to be good enough that if we throw a variety of situations out the class will holds its own. Otherwise why someone can claim experts and warriors are well made classes.
Just to be clear, and I will bold this since certain posters like to ignore things-->It is not that we can't adjust or believe adjustments should never be made. The idea is that a class should be able to holds its own without the GM having to make special allowances for it, assuming he has a variety of encounters(not neccesarily combats).
Otherwise any class is "good enough", no matter how it is made.
|
|
Just to be clear, and I will bold this since certain posters like to ignore things-->It is not that we can't adjust or believe adjustments should never be made. The idea is that a class should be able to holds its own without the GM having to make special allowances for it, assuming he has a variety of encounters(not neccesarily combats).
And something from the player's point of view to couple with that sentiment:
A player should be able to pick a monk without having to ask for special allowances from the GM in order to perform up to par.
and
A player should be able to trust the rules for the monk to intuitively lead to a character that can live up to its image rather than having to work against them.
Now how about the accusation of being inflexible stop unless quotes are provided and you let us know why the monk is failing when we use them, and why it fails the same way online?
From your last post what I got was the GM should make special allowances for the monk. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that what you are saying?
You may of course give a simple yes or no, or a detailed answer if you have one that explains why the monks don't do well in combat, or out of combat, unless corner cases come up.
The irony is quite literally all of these things can be qualified and quantified using math. All of them. Everything can be weighed, measured, and compared using math. From the distance, frequently, and usefulness of all of these abilities, all of it is mathematics and probabilities.Really? Well I have a lot to learn. Please tell me the mathematically probability that determines how useful having 80' of movement is over 30' of movement is. Please explain the formula to me. While you're at it, explain the formula that tells my how useful slow fall is. Please tell me how to determine the probability that Abundant Step will be useful in any scenario. If you still can't see the ridiculousness of that statement, I don't think I can help you.
Not a problem. All of those things are VERY easy to quantify. The catch is that it takes multiple steps. In this case of checking the conditional frequency of occurance. Now what that means is that we can evaluate a series of "what if" scenarios to identify plausible situations that can occur during a game, and then see how much something contributes to your ability to function in those situations.
In the case of movement speed, it's quite easy. Movement speed is simply how far you can move (and also a modifier to Acrobatics jump checks). Smaller environments such as indoors or inside caves or tunnels will rarely reward exceptional movement speed, whereas the opposite is also true in that wide open areas reward it heavily. However, it is a matter of circumstance, because if you can move but cannot do anything else then it is fairly meaningless (this results in the common belief that if you can move but you can't fly you have issues.
In shorthand, understanding how these things work could be written out as function x opportunity x frequency. Opportunity to use something is fairly nebulous, but we can examine many common examples of archetypal events and scenarios to get a fair estimate as to the overall usefulness of one option versus another.
Let's take for example Fire Resistance 10. Now fire resistance 10 is a completely useless ability if unless you're actually getting struck by fire. So how likely is that? How many types of things can it defend against? At first glance we can see it effectively immunizes you to Alchemist fire spamming, burning hands, scorching ray, and mundane fire damage. In this case our opportunity to apply our ability is very nebulous in that it requires fire to be involved (this much we know is in flux) but the frequency of applying it is 100%. We know that if any fire damage comes our way our ability is going to kick in. For an even deeper analysis we could look to see how many bestiary creatures use fire as an attack or defense source, how many spells in the core rulebook that it can defend against, and so forth. All of these things can lend to the expected frequency of the ability coming into question.
Now let's compare Slow Fall. Slow fall has a function of reducing falling damage. The opportunity is only available whenever you are...
1) Falling.
2) Within arms reach of wall (so adjacent).
Immediately we can see that the opportunity to use this ability is much smaller than the opportunity to use fire resistance. We only get to make use of this ability in a vary narrowly subset of falls we might take. Now an instance that you may fall, based on archetypal scenarios might be things such as...
1) Falling off a building in an urban environment (works here).
2) Falling in a pit that has walls (that is isn't a rounded pit but is just a strait drop down).
3) Falling off an airship or flying mount.
4) Falling from a treetop canopy.
5) Falling from a mount.
6) Falling from a failed fly check.
7) Falling because someone dispelled your fly spell.
So now we have a pool of scenarios that this would be useful in. However due to the limited opportunity of the ability, it only really applies to he first 2 for certainty, and possibly the 4th if the tree's trunk is adjacent to you when falling. In a situation where you are not falling, the ability is wasted entirely (this is why I compared it to an energy resistance because they have a similar weakness).
It's a lot easier to find examples of when Fire Resistance 10 would provide a benefit for the character than it is for Slow-Fall to benefit the character. All things being equal, if put through a gauntlet of different scenarios, terrains, and enemies, the Fire Resistance is statistically more likely to be relevant at any given time because it can be applied in a very wide range of scenarios (from fighting wizards to dragons to burning buildings to getting splashed by lava or boiling water to enduring or ignoring the party's own spells, etc).
Anything in the game can by qualified by mathematical function and frequency. Now most of us who will look at these things will note that in some specific campaigns mileage may vary. For example, a Swim speed is near useless in a campaign that takes place primarily inland, but is probably pretty awesome in a campaign that takes place in the ocean or on a riverboat.
In many cases if a function doesn't directly affect something, what does it allow you to do? For example, movement forms in and of themselves don't really do anything except move you around. What does that expanded movement allow you to do? Can you move away from an enemy and shoot a bow at them? Can you move towards an enemy and gain combat advantage? Can you intercept an enemy before they reach your party members? These are all things that could be done.
For example, a monk could run away from an enemy to reduce the enemy's melee advantage. Monks have no ranged capability so no advantage is gained in this case. Alternatively a monk could close with an enemy to reduce ranged advantage, which is more logical. So in this case movement creates the opportunity to use melee statistics (the monks melee capabilities are super sucky however but that's another pile of math).
This happens on both sides of the fence. Remember the thread where I took a monk someone else built, added Spring Attack and defeated every fighter build but one using only half the feats available to a 20th level monk?
Nope. Never seen that thread.
Who did that actually convince? Absolutely no one. People said it wasn't fair because I used old age for the Monk since they ignore age penalties (oh yeah and please give me the mathematical equation that tells me how useful that is), or they tried to say my monk would be useless in a "real" game, even though I didn't use half the feats and the only fighter I couldn't beat was one that was pure defensive and took the Fortitude bumping feats...
It actually isn't very useful. I wouldn't have whined about you being an old age monk, 'cause you could have just got reincarnated or something (maybe with a limited wish beforehand to get your old body back).
It would surprise me if the +3 from age made such a difference, but hey, who knows. These things are quantifiable. Everything from Darkvision to Regeneration X/Y can be rated based on evaluation of effect, frequency, and reliability. It's not hard to find some pretty even ground to work through to determine those things either, because most of it is fairly strait forward. When it comes to things like movement speed, dimension door distances, and so forth, these things are not difficult to put into generic scenarios and test their individual and then combined worth.
The problem monks have is that their consistent capabilities are horribly low. They are just strait out bad at fighting. Then their special capabilities are excessively hurting on the opportunity and frequency. Either they simply don't matter in an incredibly large number of encounters or scenarios that an adventurer may find themselves in, or they come too late or are too easily replaced (I've had monks who have purchased a ring of feather falling because of how limited Slow Fall is).
In the end, it's all really just a form of statistics.
Damage Per Round is all about what's important, fun, and effective for you to play in your DM's campaign. Nothing else matters. Not your group's whining, not the new-gen munchkins here, not even the horrific thought process that tries to translate an MMORPG concept onto paper.
Bottom line: If you like the concept, play it. If it doesn't work as you see it, change it if you can, build a better mousetrap later if you want.
If your party members are whining that you're not keeping your end of the bargain up in combat scenarios, though, you better have utilities galore enough to speak to the "This is what I bring to the fight" argument.
It's hard to take you seriously when you've been asked to show some evidence to back up your claims, yet all you do is make statements and declare yourself right while claiming everyone else is just doing it wrong, one way or another.
|
|
It's hard to take you seriously when you've been asked to show some evidence to back up your claims, yet all you do is make statements and declare yourself right while claiming everyone else is just doing it wrong, one way or another.
I've already shown evidence. The problem is some people around here don't seem to understand the meaning of the words useless and contribution. Apparently, in their reality, these words mean that unless you hit a target number, then you are considered useless and you don't contribute. Sorry but it's hard to take those people seriously.
All classes are different. No two classes are the same. Some classes have special abilities that are more powerful than other entire classes. The summoner does. Some classes can run really fast. The monk can. Every class is different. No class is incapable of creating a roleplayable character.
All classes bring something to a fight no matter what. This idea of being useless and contributing is B.S.
So we're back to the idea that a Commoner is a viable PC class then? After all, it brings "something" to the fight.
It's hard to take you seriously when you've been asked to show some evidence to back up your claims, yet all you do is make statements and declare yourself right while claiming everyone else is just doing it wrong, one way or another.I've already shown evidence. The problem is some people around here don't seem to understand the meaning of the words useless and contribution. Apparently, in their reality, these words mean that unless you hit a target number, then you are considered useless and you don't contribute. Sorry but it's hard to take those people seriously.
The game is mostly about combat.
Nothing you say changes that, unless you are playing a different game.
So yes, there is a target number of sorts if you don't want to be dead weight to the group.
In a game about teamwork, pulling your own weight in a group is rather crucial, so there's that.
All classes bring something to a fight no matter what. This idea of being useless and contributing is B.S.So we're back to the idea that a Commoner is a viable PC class then? After all, it brings "something" to the fight.
Yeah, let's start playing NPC classes as well as PC classes. It doesn't matter since being useless is a lie anyway!!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes bring something to a fight no matter what. This idea of being useless and contributing is B.S.
Well the idea that somebody can make a "fighter" that does under 10 DPR at level 8 (str 7, short sword...just one...no weapon spec...only a MW sword as all other treasure went elsewhere) is somehow contributing in combat is laughable at best (and no, this is not a hyperbole...I have been in a game with such a person). Course his social skills and knoweldge nobility was off the charts so he did actually contribute to the party...but in combat...yeah not so much.
And while technically true that even a level 1 commoner brings something to the table in combat...that does not make something VIABLE for contribution in combat. We are not saying that the monk brings NOTHING, we are saying the monk brings INSUFFICENT by a LARGE margin. There is a huge difference and you have yet to prove that what he monk brings is sufficent in anything beyond YOUR game...which we do not doubt...but we also DON'T CARE ABOUT.
Why are some people unable or unwilling to except that there are other players who are quite happy with the monk as is ,can anyone answer me ?
Just because they don't like it they assume that everyone should think the same and demand proof that the players are happy with it .
Well here's my proof when ever I've been in a game with a monk they have always contributed to the party's actions just as much as the next character and have allowed there player to enjoy the game and feel like a useful party member
I don't mind if you disagree that's your choice but please respect my opinion
Thank you and happy gaming
I am a fairly spiritual person. I believe in things that could be considered supernatural. I would like you to respect that that is my opinion. I don't expect you to believe or adopt my opinion without evidence however. Also, happy Halloween and good gaming to you as well, sir.
Remember the thread where I took a monk someone else built, added Spring Attack and defeated every fighter build but one using only half the feats available to a 20th level monk? Who did that actually convince? Absolutely no one. People said it wasn't fair because I used old age for the Monk since they ignore age penalties (oh yeah and please give me the mathematical equation that tells me how useful that is), or they tried to say my monk would be useless in a "real" game, even though I didn't use half the feats and the only fighter I couldn't beat was one that was pure defensive and took the Fortitude bumping feats...
That is a pretty selective reading of history.
For those that weren't aware, the thread was about a theoretical fight between a Fighter and a Monk at level 20, core only, with no magic items. The Monk in question maxed out Dexterity and Wisdom and used Spring Attack/Stunning Fist to move from behind cover (which for some reason was assumed to always be available) to keep trying until they could stun and kill the Fighter. People said it wasn't viable in a real game because the Strength was low enough for damage to be negligible, saves for monsters or characters with items would rise faster than the Stunning Fist DC, didn't address the standard Monk problems (DR, immunity, flying enemies negating speed, etc), and relied on Stunning Fist being close enough to an instant kill (not the case against multiple opponents). Advancing to venerable after reaching high level was a very small part that got blown out of proportion.
Heck let's look at this thread, I went through all the encounters in Kingmaker, did that convince anyone?
I looked up your Kingmaker example. Book 6, Part 1? Looks like nobody addressed it in that thread, so I'll address it here. You complain about how people aren't dealing with events in real games, then reduced the enemies to a number. The "CR13 encounter with 28AC?" Mandragora Swarm. Immune to weapon damage and stunning fist. The Horned Hunter? A Ranger, but you conveniently skipped over his Favored Enemy and Quarry abilities. You calculated the Stunning Fist chance without calculating the to-hit, which drops the chance of it working on a flurry to 30% and on a non-flurry attack to 22%. He was also wearing a helmet of teleportation, so could just have fled if he was blinded. Finally, you mention the next encounter (a Troll Fighter, fairly easy) but not the last one: a Lesser Jabberwock. AC38, Fortitude Save +23, DR15, Flying, able to hit your AC with every melee attack on a 1. So of the bosses in that chapter, the Monk is able to effectively contribute against 2 (both CR16s at level 16), can't do anything against 1 (the swarm), and would be hard pressed to do much against 1 (the Jabberwork). This pretty much jives with what others have said, that Monks are good against mooks but struggle against powerful opponents or anything with strange defenses or immunities.
Even when I back up the anecdotal evidence, it's simply dismissed for one reason or another.
Your examples actually do a fair job of explaining why anecdotal evidence is taken with a grain of salt. You told us about a Monk defeating a Fighter, but didn't mention the unique circumstances. You showed a couple of AP encounters the character would work well against, but they were against foes that happened to be easy for a Monk (class-leveled monsters) and ignored the monsters that were immune or extremely difficult for the character (those being, a swarm and the only one that was not CR=APL).
If you post a full build, give varied examples of effectiveness, and can support your assertions, people will be convinced. They desperately want to be convinced that a core monk can live up to its flavor. However, these examples simply don't do that.
I do respect your opinion i don't require any proof as to what you believe as i am quite willing to take you at your word and that's good enough for me
I don't for one second believe that you are lying about you experiences with the monk class it's just that I've never experienced any of the problems that you've had so to me there are no problems with the class
I could compare it to two people who go to the same restaurant for a meal one says it was great the other says it was terrible , there both right because that is what they experienced
And may your dice always roll high
And yours as well. :)
Continuing the subdiscussion about opinions though, my point is that even if we can appreciate each others' opinions, it is improper for us to declare our opinions as facts without evidence to back it up. That's why when I express something about a class, be it the monk, or the ranger, or the fighter, or whatever, I try to make sure that I give clear data concerning.
Which is more or less why I used spirituality / religion as an example. We have lots of people with different spiritual beliefs throughout the world. These could be likened to opinions. Many of us have our experiences which lead us to our beliefs and/or opinions, and those experiences vary. It would be silly of me, however, to walk up to someone in a theological discussion and demand they were all wrong and my belief was correct without having some way of demonstrating why my belief was correct outside of anecdotal evidence. Of course, having positive proof that my beliefs are somehow more valid than another persons is slim, just as it's likely they will have difficulties providing evidence of the same.
But in a discussion about game mechanics, it's not quite like that. It's entirely possible to see and prove that there are certain deficiencies in things (it is hard to argue that a creature's will save is its best save when both Reflex and Fortitude are higher for example). Now some of us have seen that the monk does not work in our games for various reasons, and we see those things confirmed in the books as well in terms of how they measure up in other areas. When we are discussing those mechanics, looking for ways to make monks work in our own games without coddling them and so forth we are having a discussion that is working towards something.
When someone comes in and insists to everyone "monks are fine" and is then asked for proof, and they respond by insulting everyone and calling them powergamers and/or then ranting about it later, telling them evidence and/or anything beyond anecdotal evidence doesn't matter and that they don't know how to play RPGs...
Well it's about as useful to a religious discussion for learning as someone bursting onto the scene, declaring their religion supreme, and then when asked for evidence that validates it more than another, instead of producing calls the group heathens and/or then ranting about it later, telling them that they don't need evidence or anything beyond this person's own experiences and that they clearly are not spiritual individuals or cut out for religious contemplation.
If the latter would frustrate you, it's not overly difficult to see why the former frustrates us.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are some people unable or unwilling to except that there are other players who are quite happy with the monk as is ,can anyone answer me ?
Just because they don't like it they assume that everyone should think the same and demand proof that the players are happy with it .
Not being one of those people (if such a person even exists) I cannot say.
I can say that I don't demand proof of happiness. I ask for concrete examples instead of word of mouth. I can totally accept your word about how much fun your imaginary friend is, but I can't believe he really exists without proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that most people are going to agree that there are some basic roles inherent in most of the classes.
Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian- Front Line Fighter (i.e. Tank), primary job is doing melee damage and preventing the squishy classes from getting squished
Rogue/Ranger/Bard- Skills guy and light fighter, primary job is handling skill challenges and providing melee and ranged support to the tank, can do damage and take a hit but shouldn't be expected to withstand sustained enemy fire
Cleric/Druid- Healer/Support. Primary job is to make everyone else better either through healing or buffs and provide secondary melee (and ranged support) to the front line fighters
Wizard/Sorcerer- Blaster/Controller. Primary job is to provide ranged and AoE spell effects as well as to provide some buffing and control effects.
Now obviously each class can play against type some and fill other roles on a as needed basis but generally their class abilities pretty firmly put them in a specific role although some classes like the Bard and Paladin can clearly function in multiple roles.
The problem with the Monk design is that it kinda encourages the Front Line Fighter role because of how flurries and full attacks work but it also wants to promise the skills guy and skirmisher role.
The failure of the class is that it's not really that good as a front line fighter and it's not really that good as a skirmisher/skills guy. The result is that you have a class that promises a lot an fails to deliver.
Now I'm not going to say it's impossible to enjoy playing a Monk, clearly people still play them regardless of their functionality but they should be better. Invariably people will suggest that it's a great 5th man class but you can almost always benefit more from a Bard or Ranger more than having a Monk as a 5th man.
Now I'm not going to say it's impossible to enjoy playing a Monk, clearly people still play them regardless of their functionality but they should be better. Invariably people will suggest that it's a great 5th man class but you can almost always benefit more from a Bard or Ranger more than having a Monk as a 5th man.
Same here. Also, I've recently mentioned I see the monk as the 13th wheel on a 12 wheel vehicle. He's the spare tire on a buss that could easily miss three or four. There's not a single class in Pathfinder that I think would bring less to the party than a monk if given a choice between the two. In most cases, classes not intended for certain things can often "fake-it" easier than the monk can in whatever direction the monk was trying to specialize.
I see your point and i agree with a lot of it but i'm at a lose to give you the proof you need as i don't know what about the monk you are unhappy with as I've not had the same problems you have.
But on the other hand with the posts I've read that claim they give proof that the monk is not up to scratch they all seam to concentrate on there combat skills and damage out put
Which will never beat that of a good fighter or barbarian but as i said in an earlier post i don't see them as a front line fighter
Also its unfair to view any character on there own i find it's far better to see how they act in a group and how they can assist others in the game
So sorry but i can't give you the proof you would like but to me the argument that the monk is broken hasn't been proven at least not to me i think the only way i could give you some proof that the monk is ok was if you where to sit in on one of my groups games but that won't ever happen
So remember live life to the full
(add game to the max)
That's cool, and great games to you too sir. But my point was merely directed at you. I'm actually not frustrated with you really. I was commenting on the frustration of other people who actually come into monk conversations, declare the monk to be perfectly fine, then when that assertion comes into question they get mad, insult people and their existence as gamers, and then wail about how stupid it is that people are so caught up on DPR (even when DPR was effectively a null-point during the conversation).
If you are not...
1) Demanding monks are fine without proof (saying you've had good experiences but YMMV isn't going to cause frustration, more like curiosity).
2) Insulting people who don't agree with you.
3) Demanding you've given proof and refuse to, even though you cannot provide your proof and no one else can find it.
Well I suppose you're okay then, and just listening to me (and some others) explain why we are annoyed with this type of behavior which some people do (and not just one person though some people may think I'm speaking of an individual since the OP has done much if not all of everything I listed here, but I mean this sort of thing in general and it happens on other boards too).
In short please spread the word to not do the following.
1) Go to a thread where people are comparing classes and the mechanics behind them.
2) Declare people don't know how to build X/Y/Z and that they are awesome in your games.
3) Demonstrate your leet hax by posting a build that crushes your credibility.
4) Throw a tantrum when people do not insult your build but express legitimate concerns as to reasons they think the build is flawed (this isn't even a DPR concern, as if you can deal 1,000 DPR at 10th level but youre defenses are so shoddy that you die by caltrops you're just as bad as the turtle of ultimate uselessness).
5) Begin threads to bash people interested in the mechanics and improving the game as being bad roleplayers, power-gamers, munchkins, or implying that all we care about is DPR or any other single statistic.
The fact of the matter is damage dealing is not a big thing on my list of priorities. That's actually the reason I've publicly stated I prefer Rangers and Paladins over Fighters. I feel they do enough damage and have way more to offer to a party than a Fighter does and feel they have better defenses. When Shallowsoul's monk was posted, the first thing that alarmed me was not his lack of to-hit or to-damage numbers, it was his abysmal hit points, poor armor class, average saving throws, and so forth. Since he had no ranged presence he would have to get into melee with people and I just didn't see that character surviving in any game that I ran near his level range, and I estimated he would struggle in a game at half his level range if the encounters were decent.
I'll be honest here. To me the mechanics exist as the framework for the story. It is the laws and rules that create the physics of the RPG world. It is the green symbols behind the matrix, so to speak. Acknowledging that these rules exist, abiding by them, and working to improve them does not mean that we do not roleplay, or do not care about the story, or are only interested in having the most powerful character possible, and so forth. As I mentioned earlier in the thread my group has played games where everyone played NPC-classes with 3 point buy! (IE - a normal person game)
Perhaps I'm just yelling into the darkness, but it would be nice for more people to understand. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is some people around here don't seem to understand the meaning of the words useless and contribution. Apparently, in their reality, these words mean that unless you hit a target number, then you are considered useless and you don't contribute. Sorry but it's hard to take those people seriously.
I wholeheartedly agree. Said people often like to distort and confuse the argument and discredit us by altering the context of the discussion with silly statements like "well then you should be quite happy playing a commoner then" when they know full well that we are talking about PC classes, not NPC classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what it comes down to is:
- Some people want balance.
- Some people don't care as much about balance (they care more about flavor, even if it costs them mechanical advantage).
Nobody's going to change their mind. These are two fundamentally different persons whose expectations are completely different from one another. Figure out what camp you're in and find a table that accommodates.
Cheers?