| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.
Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.
First paragraph is a strawman. No one says the fighter sucks because a cleric can cast spells. They might say that the cleric can fight just as well as a fighter with more utility, which could be correct. That would mean that the cleric is better at being a fighter than the fighter.
Your 2nd paragraph is literally an answer to your 3rd paragraph. Why do people play things that are weak mechanically? Because they are fun and fit the player's style. That does not mean that they are not weak mechanically, because popular /= powerful.
Should fighters be made better? Maybe, but casters are pretty crazy so maybe it is the caster that is the true problem, not the fighter
Actually some do say that the fighter sucks because they can't cast spells. Spellcasters after all, are very strong in pf.
On clerics, I agree with the shallowsoul, they are tough and all that, but if un-buffed and the heavies close, they can be taken apart by barb or fighter. Forcing the cleric to try and cast to save themselves, heal and keep getting hurt, or melee a melee specialist when the cleric is a strong dabbler with spread out strengths against potentially some of the nastiest up close (greatsword or falchion massive damage fighter, combat manoeuvre master, ultra high ac-soak and chip away at the enemy brute).
I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.
I too find the magus broken and cheesy, crumbly like a Cheshire cheese.
|
I know this will get flamed over and over again, but here goes:
In the groups I play regularly, the following happens.
Rise of the Rune Lords (anniversary edition) with highly optimized characters, the Rogue routinely outshines EVERYONE for sheer damage capabilities. Routinely and consistently.
In the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I GM, the following happens:
The fighter character kills about 65% of the encounters solo. The Fighter/Cleric does about 25%, and the bard/monk account for the other 10%. 2 Fighters regularly and Routinely slaughter every encounter, usually with very little resistance.
Now...I can hear it brewing already (but but but, Bomanz...you dumb ass....personal experience matters very little, its pointless to argue!)...
The fact remains. Fighters kill most things in one game, and the Rogue kills most things in the other.
Facts is facts folks, and the fact is in my personal experience, Rogues and Fighters is just fine.
Argue all you want.
You'll never convince me. But then, from the bajillions of arguments I've seen on these here boards, you will never convince people like Dabbler, Roberta Yang, Ashiel and others too.
Oh, I forgot to mention....I play a blaster sorcerer and in PFS I have a CMB focused Monk.
Neither of those are broken either.
It boggles my mind how anybody could possibly think the Magus were overpowered unless that was the only caster they'd ever seen in action.
Probably because other casters outshine the fighter by doing way better things than the fighter ever could, whereas the magus outshines the fighter by doing exactly what the fighter does except better (and also a bunch of other stuff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.
Funny, the thing is that the longer he plays it, the more broken he finds it. It was anything but a kneejerk reaction.
Funny, the thing is that the longer he plays it, the more broken he finds it. It was anything but a kneejerk reaction.I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.
Is he new or something?
I am sincerely having trouble finding a way that a character who fights as good as a TWF Rogue in melee combat and who casts spells worse than a dedicated caster adds up to "Supar OMG OP ban nao pls".
I mean he adds up to a decent class, I dunno. If I had to take a stab at it, he's of the "Loads of damage once per day is OP" camp because his Magus can blow a bunch of resources to go nova on some poor schmucks ass? One wonders what he must think of a Paladin using Smite or a Raging Barbarian in that case.
Funny, the thing is that the longer he plays it, the more broken he finds it. It was anything but a kneejerk reaction.I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.Is he new or something?
I am sincerely having trouble finding a way that a character who fights as good as a TWF Rogue in melee combat and who casts spells worse than a dedicated caster adds up to "Supar OMG OP ban nao pls".
I mean he adds up to a decent class, I dunno. If I had to take a stab at it, he's of the "Loads of damage once per day is OP" camp because his Magus can blow a bunch of resources to go nova on some poor schmucks ass? One wonders what he must think of a Paladin using Smite or a Raging Barbarian in that case.
I can't say fully, because I haven't seen the build, or talked about the specifics. I do know part of it has to do with very high AC and damage output.
I'd like to see this build because I just can't.
Can't what? I dunno I just can't.
Sleep time now.
These arguments, especially those about the rogue, tell me not that Class X needs improvement, but that all the rest of the classes have had too much added to them.
Want to play a fighter that casts spells? Alternate between Fighter and Wizard.
Want to play a character that hunts down enemies of the faith? Play a Cleric and roleplay hunting down enemies of the faith.
Want to play an old west gunslinger? Play Boothill.
I understand that Paizo needs to keep producing new stuff to stay in business, but they need to keep in mind that adding new things just to add new things is not always a good idea.
Agree, they have gone overboard again and again. Look! A new class butting into the areas of two old classes, enjoy! Yeah that doesn't mess up balance at all.
|
I think that is the main problem with the synthesist summoner too, they are better at fighter than the fighter (mind you so is the barbarian).It boggles my mind how anybody could possibly think the Magus were overpowered unless that was the only caster they'd ever seen in action.Probably because other casters outshine the fighter by doing way better things than the fighter ever could, whereas the magus outshines the fighter by doing exactly what the fighter does except better (and also a bunch of other stuff).
Please don't address opinion as fact.
Fighters are great at 1st level! Magi are wonderful at 3rd level! At 11th, they both suck compared to the full casters -- and, far more importantly -- compared to the monsters.
"Starts weaker... gets more powerful" is why the game has levels.
"Starts strong... becomes irrelevant" is bad design unless all campaigns end before 10th level or so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.Sounds like a horribly stupid kneejerk reaction TBH.
Vod's friend has convinced me please ban the class from PFS. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus is a spell damage/melee class. He looks awesome pre-7th or so, because he can combine a fairly good damaging melee attack with powerful touch attack spells, specifically shocking grasp and then Scorching Ray. All that stacking damage, especially if you crit and/or roll well, looks awesome at low levels.
Then monster hit points start scaling, and their AC starts going up so your iteratives aren't hitting, and suddenly the technique doesn't work so well.
So, yeah, a 5th level Magus hitting someone with a rapier using Arcane Strike, critting, and delivering a 5d8 damage Shocking Grasp at the same time is freaking awesome.
Doing the same thing at level 10, and realizing your spell damage isn't scaling quite as fast as the hit points of monsters, becomes something of an issue.
==Aelryinth
I can't say fully, because I haven't seen the build, or talked about the specifics. I do know part of it has to do with very high AC and damage output.
Imo, pic bias aside, they are not broken. Yes they can do some cool nova-y things. However they're just a pocket gish.
-They're a 3/4 BAB class that is forced to "TWF"+They get cool kit and utility with their Arcana & Pool to offset their 3/4ness
+They get some decent spell selection & Spellstrike to delive touch spells
-They fight in melee specifically(forcing concentration checks) and are a 6/9 caster.
Seems pretty balanced to me compared to other melee oriented casters who get better buffs quicker(I'm looking at you Cleric) or better spell casters towards mid level(Eldritch Knights are good at what they do).
Now, is the Magus better better than the fighter? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you judge by.
+13(3bab,4dex,1WF,2E,3SG) doing 6d6 + 6 dmg(average of 27).
A 2Handed Fighter with 18 STR at 5th level with WF, WS, & PA for:
+9(5bab,4str,1WF,1WT,-2PA) doing 2d6 + 15(6str,1wt,2ws,6pa)<Average 22>.
However the Fighter has expended nothing, but to do this the Magus had to spend a pool(for the enhancement bonus), cast a spell(which could provoke and has a limited number of), and needs his enemy to have metal for his SG bonus. All for an extra 4 dmg.
In terms of AC they should be close(as the Magus is stuck with light/medium but has dex). The fighter's flatfooted will be higher(since he's not dex heavy) but the Magus's touch will be higher. However the Fighter's defenses can't be dispelled(Mirror Image & Shield are common combat buffs for them). However the FIghter's ACP will be lower cause their training and they'll move faster and better in it.
Imo the fighter isn't out fightered by the Magus... However he definitely is out skilled and out magic'd.
|
|
I know this will get flamed over and over again, but here goes:
In the groups I play regularly, the following happens.
Rise of the Rune Lords (anniversary edition) with highly optimized characters, the Rogue routinely outshines EVERYONE for sheer damage capabilities. Routinely and consistently.
In the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I GM, the following happens:
The fighter character kills about 65% of the encounters solo. The Fighter/Cleric does about 25%, and the bard/monk account for the other 10%. 2 Fighters regularly and Routinely slaughter every encounter, usually with very little resistance.
It does not surprise me taht the fighter kill most things in that group. Cleric and bards tend to be more about support, and easy to make unnptimied monks.
But can you say a little more about that rogue, what were the other lasses in that group?
First, let me address the Monk, because he is hardly unoptimized. Having a +18 to trip and a +18 to grapple is hardly "unoptimized". What he doesn't do that often is deal damage, and here is why. He routinely runs around the battlefield, disarming (he is like +18 to do that too), tripping (which makes the fighters a LOT more likely to hit) and grappling the bad guys. He doesn't really kill much because he is working as a team to utterly rule the battlefield. Typically by turn 3 or turn 4 I have 2-3 weaponless or tripped combatants, and the fighters are getting the +4 to hit prone targets.
As for the other group, the dynamic there is abit skewed, but basically you have a super optimized cleric, a super optimized blaster sorcerer, a TreantMonk spec'd switch hitting ranger, a 2HF big hit fighter, and a ranger/cleric. The reason the rogue does so well there is that typically the party each takes a foe and makes sure that the rogue gets flanking pretty easily. Rogue is 2WF with rapiers.
Both parties were built with 25 point buy, and GM is usually upping hte encounters to CL +2-4 in most cases.
I've been told though that personal experiences don't matter, so I'm sure others are poopoooh'ing this.
Facts is facts, and the fact is the fighters and the rogues don't need fixin'.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't address opinion as fact.
Care to explain exactly what definition of "posting opinion as fact" you're using here? And how exactly it applies to everyone else's posts that start with "I think" and can be backed up mathematically, but not to posts like:
The only thing the rogue needs is more rogue talents. A big book of rogue talents would be fantastic.
|
|
Also about the Magus/Fighter controversy...let me add my 2cp.
Having played a Magus from 1-9th, at low levels it was pretty stupid. Once I got Shocking Grasp as a spell, I pretty much NEVER cast another spell EVER. Too often I was holding it back to deal damage in combat.
The reality of it is, that the same "argument" about how rogues suck even if they backstab/sneak attack because a fist full of d6's don't make a hill of beans difference is pretty much the same argument against the Magus.
There were plenty of times I did a lot of burst damage. There were plenty of times where 1 or 2 smacks with a Shocking Grasp/Spell Strike combat round did in fact kill a lot of monsters/enemies pretty fast.
There were also just as many times where I rolled 5d6 and got 9 or 10 extra damage, and it didn't really do squat.
Also, it seems to me that as a Magus you can focus on damage output, or AC, but not both. Consequently, as a damage machine (limited burst damage) and then standing on the front line most often I was in dire need of healing midway through combat and I was usually the biggest drain on the healing resources.
Let's not even get started on the whole fighting things that have DR or SR or are immune to electricity.
By lvl 8, the Magus was pretty much a boring 1-trick pony that sometimes worked and most often didn't seem to.
I can certainly say that it was fun at low levels, but once at a certain point it was a very dull character, at least for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't address opinion as fact.
Funniest post ever.
I know this will get flamed over and over again, but here goes:
In the groups I play regularly, the following happens.
Rise of the Rune Lords (anniversary edition) with highly optimized characters, the Rogue routinely outshines EVERYONE for sheer damage capabilities. Routinely and consistently.
In the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I GM, the following happens:
The fighter character kills about 65% of the encounters solo. The Fighter/Cleric does about 25%, and the bard/monk account for the other 10%. 2 Fighters regularly and Routinely slaughter every encounter, usually with very little resistance.
Now...I can hear it brewing already (but but but, Bomanz...you dumb ass....personal experience matters very little, its pointless to argue!)...
The fact remains. Fighters kill most things in one game, and the Rogue kills most things in the other.
Facts is facts folks, and the fact is in my personal experience, Rogues and Fighters is just fine.
Argue all you want.
You'll never convince me. But then, from the bajillions of arguments I've seen on these here boards, you will never convince people like Dabbler, Roberta Yang, Ashiel and others too.
Oh, I forgot to mention....I play a blaster sorcerer and in PFS I have a CMB focused Monk.
Neither of those are broken either.
That is nice, but I can build a rogue that outdamages a fighter, barbarian, or ranger also, until I decide to build a fighter, barbarian or ranger that actually wants to do damage. My point is this. You can't just say a common belief on the boards is incorrect. You have to say why it happened. So maybe that rogue steals the show in your game, but can you take that rogue to another game, and get the same results. When myself Dabbler, and Ashiel make the statements we make, we are not looking at corner cases, but likely scenarios.
Sorcerers are not bad at blasting, and like I said n other post, it is not so much that blasting sucks or it can't work, it is that it is generally inefficient compared to other options. That is why it gets looked down upon. As for the CMB monk, there is probably a way to make a CMB based character do well past level 10. If so that is ok for PFS since it ends at level 12 so you only have to with the CMB deadzone which starts around level 10 for 2 more levels.
Both parties were built with 25 point buy, and GM is usually upping hte encounters to CL +2-4 in most cases.
I've been told though that personal experiences don't matter, so I'm sure others are poopoooh'ing this.
Facts is facts, and the fact is the fighters and the rogues don't need fixin'.:
1. 25pb matters.
2. The only fact here is that fighters and rogues are ok for that GM's games. Fighters do ok in my games also, but that does not mean they could not use help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wonder what level ranges we're playing at, too.
Fighters and rogues are AWESOME at 1st-4th levels!
5th-10th, less so.
11th+ and they're more or less dead weight.
Any character class that gets LESS effective as it increases in level is en example of bad design.
The only thing the rogue needs is more rogue talents. A big book of rogue talents would be fantastic.I'm actually going to call this the "Leap Frog Fallacy" because what ends up happening is each class would have to be made better than another to get anywhere. If you make the roguebetter then where does the Bard stand, if you make tthe fighter even better then where does the barbarian, ranger and paladin stand. You would have these classes jumping over one another in terms of power if that is the route we are trying to go."If we ever tried to fix anything we might screw it up, may as well say who cares and let the rogues burn instead."
The rogue needs one thing. A bonus to hit. It's just simple problem of math. With the conversion to Pathfinder the AC jumped. Full Plate is +9 instead of +8. Fighters get Armor Training allowing they to have +5 Dex bonus with Full Plate. That's 5 more AC on the fighter. The fighter on the other hand got +4 to hit with Weapon training. It balanced out. The rogue got the ability to use sneak attack on more targets, that's all fine and good except they can't hit at the higher levels which when the AC differences show up. That's an exageration of course but they miss a lot more often that is acceptable for the dangerous position they have to put themselves in to get the sneak attack.
My house rule to fix this is that I added class feature to the rogue called "Sneak Attack Percision". It's add +1 to hit on sneak attacks at level 3 and increases by +1 ever 4 levels. The effects in play really make the rogue work better at the higher levels. As well I think it makes sense. A rogue should get better at landing a sneak attack as they go up in level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, my experience of the classes is that the fighter has the best all-round combo of armour class and damage output. Saves aren't so hot, but he can get by with a little thought. The fighter has his thing, he dishes out hurt like no-other across the range.
Monks can (barely) out-AC the fighter and have better saves, but at the cost of zero damage output to the point that they can become irrelevant.
Barbarians can out-damage the fighter when raging but don't have so hot an AC and have the same saves.
Paladins out-damage everyone when smiting, otherwise their AC isn't so hot, though their saves are the best.
Rangers are hot vs their favoured enemies, but are also-rans otherwise.
The rogue can sometimes dish out some serious hurt, but he's not really a combat class. He can do his role, but other classes like the ranger can do it almost as well. The rogue needs a 'thing' that makes him special, and he doesn't really have it. That said he can do his job.
The monk has his thing, but he can't do his job and other classes can do pretty much anything the monk can do, and usually better.
The casters have great versatility, but that doesn't make every other class redundant because while a caster can use spells to do things other classes can do, it's not an efficient use of resources and they can't usually do it as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first level, a fighter can fight with any weapon, move at full speed and still attack properly, and isn't too far behind everyone else in skills yet because nobody can put more than one rank in any given skill anyhow, so they can still make some skill checks untrained.
At twentieth level, a fighter takes a -8 to hit, -10 to damage, and -x1 critical multiplier when not using his one special weapon, can't deal appreciable damage if she needs to move ten feet, and are so far behind in skills that it's not even worth trying anything they haven't maxed out because 20 ranks is such an enormous difference.
When your class gets less versatile as the game goes on, something has gone horribly wrong.
Barbarians can out-damage the fighter when raging but don't have so hot an AC and have the same saves.
Except that's not true at all? Rage comes with a bonus to Will saves, and Superstition makes the barbarian's saves obscene.
Paladins out-damage everyone when smiting, otherwise their AC isn't so hot, though their saves are the best.
Did Paladins stop having heavy armor? Paladins have some of the best AC in the game.
The monk has his thing
So uh what is it exactly?
One way to get around this is to use charge feats (see 3.5), but you are right, the forced move really shuts down the damage output of all melee, except the rogue (tumble sneak, move to flank and attack). A bit of an oddity deeply wedged inside the game. If you can't stay static and swing, you don't do very much.
I can't praise powerful charge followed by a full attack enough.
At first level, a fighter can fight with any weapon, move at full speed and still attack properly, and isn't too far behind everyone else in skills yet because nobody can put more than one rank in any given skill anyhow, so they can still make some skill checks untrained.
At twentieth level, a fighter takes a -8 to hit, -10 to damage, and -x1 critical multiplier when not using his one special weapon, can't deal appreciable damage if she needs to move ten feet, and are so far behind in skills that it's not even worth trying anything they haven't maxed out because 20 ranks is such an enormous difference.
When your class gets less versatile as the game goes on, something has gone horribly wrong.
Barbarians can out-damage the fighter when raging but don't have so hot an AC and have the same saves.Except that's not true at all? Rage comes with a bonus to Will saves, and Superstition makes the barbarian's saves obscene.
Paladins out-damage everyone when smiting, otherwise their AC isn't so hot, though their saves are the best.Did Paladins stop having heavy armor? Paladins have some of the best AC in the game.
The monk has his thingSo uh what is it exactly?
The monk's "thing" of course is that they are fast, with good saves; being quite nifty at defeating many mooks without being a twf, cleave, mook-slaying build. They also gain a range of immunities and protections (poison, disease, falling damage) as they level, and never have to worry about armour or shield penalties, so they are quite jumpy and acrobatic. Simply, skirmishers that can cause spellcasters to waste spells (if they are lucky, lol).
They don't do well at rocket-tag, which is the direction pf has gone.
Ashiel, you are being a jerk.
Those are their strengths, rocket-tag is not what they are good at (flurry is better for mooks, not high ac tough opponents where the returns can be very low).
You can put out a better post than lines of haha.
Rocket tag is only at higher levels, and it depends on playstyle. PF is not any different than 3.5 in that regard.
Rocket tag is only at higher levels, and it depends on playstyle. PF is not any different than 3.5 in that regard.
It is a bit different, the bonuses get a bit higher and very high pf CMDs can discourage and thwart even specialists pulling off their manoeuvres. It was a deliberate choice made by the designers (this has come up before, they didn't like the ease and effectiveness of using special attacks in 3.5, so they made it more about damage and cms harder to pull off).
Ashiel, you are being a jerk.
Those are their strengths, rocket-tag is not what they are good at (flurry is better for mooks, not high ac tough opponents where the returns can be very low).
You can put out a better post than lines of haha.
Except their full attacks, unless you go zen archer, require you to stand still. Generally if you're in a mook heavy battle the mooks tend to start out with ranged weapons and spread out to limit the damage dealing capabilities of heavy hitter melees who might have cleave, or to reduce the effectiveness of fireballs or other major AOE's.
So yeah, if the mooks are even semi-intelligent then all those extra attacks don't really help much (though at higher levels it is conceivable to go with the dimension door chain to let you full attack while jumping around the field, though you can't even start getting the feats till 12+)
Swarm mooks and ranged mooks are a bit different. Luckily the monk has that great speed to pursue any ranged mooks trying to sit back and shoot. They can also take deflect arrows very easily, which helps a tad with minimising the effectiveness of mook shooters when paired with a nice ac.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rocket tag is only at higher levels, and it depends on playstyle. PF is not any different than 3.5 in that regard.It is a bit different, the bonuses get a bit higher and very high pf CMDs can discourage and thwart even specialists pulling off their manoeuvres. It was a deliberate choice made by the designers (this has come up before, they didn't like the ease and effectiveness of using special attacks in 3.5, so they made it more about damage and cms harder to pull off).
When I say rocket tag I mean eliminating the enemy ASAP(1 round normally). You can do that better with SoD's or hit point damage. A 3.5 barbarian with leaping attack, could charge and get a full attack in, and the feat that let you power attack with no penalty was a thing of destruction. I am sure I saw a build that could do over 500 points a round.
There were also caster builds that could do several hundred points of damage.
If mooks, engage with monk, if spellcaster rush over with that fine speed and grapple with monk, if giant monster baddy that is better than you in close, support the party, try to get the flank and flurry and help the big hitters (which you are not) end it.
On minions, being flanked and attacks stacked against you while fighting the big bad is not fine strategy.
Ashiel, you are being a jerk.Dude, I'm still laughing. I lost it about the moment that you said that monks were "being quite nifty at defeating many mooks without being a twf, cleave, mook-slaying build", even though Flurry of Blows is just bad two-weapon fighting (it's two-weapon fighting without the option to not two-weapon fight or to use feats like Two-Weapon Defense or Two-Weapon Rend). So that alone had me chortling along so hard that I was having trouble drinking my soda with my dinner.
Those are their strengths, rocket-tag is not what they are good at (flurry is better for mooks, not high ac tough opponents where the returns can be very low).The second part was the absolutely hilarious idea that they are good at slaying mooks. Yes, we understand that monks absolutely suck at fighting enemies with decent ACs (glad that you notice this too). Unfortunately they're not good at slaying mooks either. If they don't full-attack then their to-hit is pretty "meh". Their damage is pretty meh too. Which means that a single mook is going to keep a monk busy for a while. Especially if he bothers to just make it difficult for the monk to full-attack him (such as fighting defensively and backing up, or just withdrawing and laughing).
See, if you want your monk's attacks to be somewhat relevant to wiping mooks, then the mooks are going to have to be insanely under CR, which means tons and tons of them (and you still aren't going to be good at taking them out quickly or efficiently). Here's a quick breakdown *snort, giggle*.
CR 13 encounter (25,600 XP worth of enemies)
Da Boss: 1 CR 10 enemy (9,600 XP)
Da Mook: 10 CR 5 enemies (16,000 XP)The monster creation chart suggests that the average CR 5 enemy has about 55 Hp. Which means that you must be capable of dealing 55+ damage each round to drop a mook per round. That includes moving. I doubt you can do this at the levels this encounter would be fought at. Seriously doubt it. You...
Did you wake up determined to be a jerk today?
Did you make it your quest? Did you receive this quest at a tavern?
I'm not reading another word you type when "Hahahaha" is attached to it. Nothing will be read when you are still acting like such a mega-jerk, end-boss jerk, paragon jerk with all the prestige classes of jerk taken. Zip, you are wasting your time.
Be civil, please. I was only discussing the strengths of the monk, jeeebus *shakes head*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it's usually the Renegade options that are jerkish, not Paragon.