What classes do you feel are imbalanced?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

851 to 900 of 940 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


To successfully make an attack role, you need one of two stats maxed out: Strength or Dexterity.
Maxed out? I'm not convinced that's true.

I've looked. I'm convinced.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Please stop trying to pretend the monk isn't meant to fight.
Please quote where I said the monk isn't meant to fight. Every class is meant to fight. But, every class has different ways of fighting. What I said is that the Monk should not be used to fight like the Fighter class.

And how is that, exactly? The way the combat system works there are only so many options, and hitting your enemy and dealing damage is the only sure-fire way to win.

Maneuvers? Don't work on everything.

Debuffs? Unreliable.

That leaves hitting and damaging, and the monk is even more constrained than the fighter in this with his 3/4 BAB if he doesn't flurry.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Well most traps are Fortitude or Reflex save based, so given that those are good saves for the Ranger, I don't see how your point is valid. If he does have the enemy beat on him, he has more hit points to soak the damage up than the monk. Even if you do get a Will-based attack, the ranger's Will save isn't going to be that far behind the monk's - he needs wisdom too in order to cast spells.
Immunity to poison, spell resistance, and if the character does get trapped in a trap, the monk has abundant step. So, yeah, your point that Fort is a good save for the Ranger is invalid.

Immunity to poison is handy I'll grant you, but when you have a good Fort save it's of limited usefulness. Spell resistance? Give me a break, the fact that the party wizard has a harder time buffing you in combat than the enemy wizard has of zapping you isn't an advantage. Diamond Soul is one of the worst, most self-nerfing abilities ever construed.

On the flip side, the ranger is less likely to not see a trap thanks to favoured terrain (Perception bonus), so I wouldn;t say the monk has any advantage even then.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


That's not versatility, that's running up to things and hitting them repeatedly.
When the character can change his target from round to round;

3/4 BAB and if you are running the character a low hitting stat means running up to people, missing, and then getting beaten up.

Justin Rocket wrote:
harassing the enemy wizard in the enemy's rear flank,

If there is one, if you can find him, and if you can reach him.

Justin Rocket wrote:
then as they reorient to get a defender back there, moving over to help your the rogue flank on one side of the board,

Translation: running away from any enemy that can actually fight because you can't, and by the way you left the enemy wizard free to start zapping your friends again, while you fulfil the same important role as the ranger's animal companion.

Justin Rocket wrote:
then getting a potion to the fighter on the other side of the board

Why can't he pull one out of his own pocket? Oh yeah, he's letting you feel useful. Because trust me, if there is something there tough enough to take him to zero HP, you aren't going live long enough to give him a potion.

Justin Rocket wrote:
then helping defend the party wizard in the rear

Listen, if the guy the enemy sent back to help their wizard was scary enough that you had to run from him, the guy they sent to kill your wizard is likely to be similar, in which case he's going to ignore you, kill the wizard, then kill your monk. Unless you run away again.

Justin Rocket wrote:
and then on and on, that's versatility. Plucking arrows and swinging swords is just DPR.

No, that's not versatility. That's running around the battlefield because running around is all you are good at. If you could take out the enemy wizard no matter where he was, that would be useful. You can't. If you could stand up to any reasonable defender helping him out, that would be useful. You clearly can't. Taking out the guy threatening the rogue rather than just being a flank-buddy is useful - but you can't. Healing or buffing the fighter from where you stand is useful, but you can't.

For 90% of what you are doing, a {insert any other class name, INCLUDING NPC classes} wearing boots of speed could do.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


The ranger could stand in one place and full-attack everything he can see (and not every enemy is going to be protected by wind wall) - as likely that they will be flying and thus the monk cannot reach them).
As you're so fond of saying, DPR isn't everything.

Archery DPR usually isn't that amazing, it's the fact that you constantly get in hits from beyond the enemy's reach that makes it so good.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
If he has to get into melee he can still fight reasonably well, and his favoured enemy bonus still counts. He has an animal companion that can flank with him and help out.
More DPR?

Versatility. If you don't do one thing, you can do another: melee, missile, spells, allies, skills. I'll bet the archery ranger is better at melee than the monk is at ranged combat.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Problem is the core monk doesn't get much in the way of synergy in his abilities,
Why are you foused on the core monk? There's a lot that has been added to the monk that is not in the CRB.

Two reasons:

1) Look at the thread title. I think the core monk is weak and unbalanced.
2) Some monk archetypes are OK, some are truly abysmal, all are based on the core monk and none of them really address the core monk's issues without detracting from it's few advantages, or else give you a class that isn't really a "monk" any more.. Hence most of them are still pretty badly balanced, and not in a positive way.

For example, the sohei is pretty good, but you don't get the real combat advantages until 6th level; up until then you're a less-able monk. The zen archer is a great archer, but he only does one thing: archery. He does it well, but that's it. They look great, compared to a core monk. They look "meh" compared to other combat classes - and those are the good ones.

I will grant the qingong is a (well, the only) significant improvement on the core monk because it allows you to chop and change abilities around and avoid the self-nerfing or useless ones. Even then, it's not outstanding, it leaves the core monk's major problems (MAD, bad weaponry, inability to move-and-fight) untouched.


Dabbler wrote:
I've looked. I'm convinced.

Then please show me the math.

Dabbler wrote:

hitting your enemy and dealing damage is the only sure-fire way to win.

In any combat, there are at least four critical components. These are

1.) party DPR (distinctly different from character's DPR)
2.) Actions which improve party's DPR (ex. Haste)
3.) Actions which reduce the enemy party's DPR (ex. Wind Wall or Healing)
4.) Actions which improve your ability to reduce the enemy party's DPR (ex. Cursing to cause penalties to enemy saves)
Some actions do more than one of these (ex. Dominate)

Note: A combat begins long before initiative is rolled. It includes information and counter-information, manuevering your party into tactical positions before initiative is rolled, etc.

A party needs all of these and versatility is a measure of how many components a character can provide and how easily they can switch between different components.

Versatility is not the ability to switch from different ways to hit and do damage (the 1st component). Focusing on being able to hit and do damage will result in a TPK against any cunning enemy (including many animals who have predatory hunting instincts). Focusing on being able to hit and do damage is a surefire way to lose a combat. Like I said, you need all four components (that's why they are critical).

(btw, this is one of the reasons roles are such a g~%~+%n stupid idea. Because most games cannot rely on every player making it to every game. With roles, missing a player creates a significant imbalance between the four critical components.)

The monk provides the 1st (ex, against mooks), 2nd (ex. helping rogues flank) and 3rd (ex. harassing the enemy wizard).

Dabbler wrote:


Maneuvers? Don't work on everything.

Debuffs? Unreliable.

Well cry me a river. Will you toss the hammer out of your toolbox because not enerything is a nail?

Dabbler wrote:


Immunity to poison is handy I'll grant you, but when you have a good Fort save it's of limited usefulness.

The guy who played the Ranger who rolled a 2 on his Fort save might disagree with you.

Dabbler wrote:


Spell resistance? Give me a break, the fact that the party wizard has a harder time buffing you in combat than the enemy wizard has of zapping you isn't an advantage.

A harder time? Please explain.

Dabbler wrote:


On the flip side, the ranger is less likely to not see a trap thanks to favoured terrain (Perception bonus), so I wouldn;t say the monk has any advantage even then.

The favored terrain bonus to Per is only +2.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I've looked. I'm convinced.

Then please show me the math.

Dabbler wrote:

hitting your enemy and dealing damage is the only sure-fire way to win.

In any combat, there are at least four critical components. These are

1.) party DPR (distinctly different from character's DPR)
2.) Actions which improve party's DPR (ex. Haste)
3.) Actions which reduce the enemy party's DPR (ex. Wind Wall or Healing)
4.) Actions which improve your ability to reduce the enemy party's DPR (ex. Cursing to cause penalties to enemy saves)
Some actions do more than one of these (ex. Dominate)

Note: A combat begins long before initiative is rolled. It includes information and counter-information, manuevering your party into tactical positions before initiative is rolled, etc.

A party needs all of these and versatility is a measure of how many components a character can provide and how easily they can switch between different components.

Versatility is not the ability to switch from different ways to hit and do damage (the 1st component). Focusing on being able to hit and do damage will result in a TPK against any cunning enemy (including many animals who have predatory hunting instincts). Focusing on being able to hit and do damage is a surefire way to lose a combat. Like I said, you need all four components (that's why they are critical).

(btw, this is one of the reasons roles are such a g$$#!%n stupid idea. Because most games cannot rely on every player making it to every game. With roles, missing a player creates a significant imbalance between the four critical components.)

The monk provides the 1st (ex, against mooks), 2nd (ex. helping rogues flank) and 3rd (ex. harassing the enemy wizard).

The monk does not provide a significant amount of the 1st in situations where the outcome is in doubt. Being good against mooks is not valuable because everyone is good against mooks. Being good against real threats is valuable, but monks aren't.

The monk does not provide the second in any significant way. Anyone can flank. The ranger, by virtue of having an animal companion, can flank with twice as many people as the monk.

The monk does not do the third in situations where the outcome is in doubt. Especially not if you're building a stat other than your attack stat. The monk has greater difficulty than most classes getting greater maneuver feats for anything other than grapple and grapple is one of the harder maneuvers to boost, and harder for monks to boost than most because they can't use the brawling armor property.

The monk does not do the fourth. The only martial save reducer is intimidate and it's based on the monk's primary dump stat.

So a ranger can be better at dealing damage by virtue of not being locked into the inferior TWF style, better at helping other combatants by virtue of having a pet that can also flank, better at combat maneuvers by virtue of having real BAB and the ability to use brawling armor, and just as good at enabling others to debuff.

And unlike the monk, who can fail at lots of different things in melee and be completely useless at rangees beyond 50', the ranger can use a longbow. Real versatility is not being able to be inept at more things in one situation. Real versatility is being able to contribute effectively in more situations. When flying enemies show up the monk may as well play angry birds, but the ranger is still in the game. Even if his only investment is to write "sling, weight 0" on his character sheet he's ahead of the monk, who is stuck throwing shuriken with a range increment so pathetic the sling (a simple weapon that weighs and costs nothing that only the monk and wizard lack proficiency with) only starts taking range penalties where the shuriken is completely out of range. If the ranger puts actual money into a composite longbow, with which he is also proficient, his superiority becomes an unbridgeable gulf. If he takes the archery combat style, as most two handed weapon rangers will since the two handed weapon style kind of sucks, he's actually pretty good.


Quote:


Nope : Monks and ranger starts usually with the same wisdom. But the ranger have bonuses to perception as class powers, while the monk don't.

Post your Ranger. Atarlast already posted a 10th level Monk we'll use for comparison.

Quote:


The monk IS a fighter.

Check your rulebook again. The Fighter is a different class.

Quote:
The reason is he NEEDS to be able to hit to do anything, from doing a manoeuver to succeeding to hit with at least one of its flurry attack.

By that logic, the Rogue, Paladin, and Barbarian are all Fighters. Yet, they actually are different classes.

Quote:


If Wisdom is his first ability (or even he maxed it out, as you suggest he should), his other abilities will not be beyond 13 or 14 (before magic items). So it is another -2 to -4 to every attack rolls compared to a Fighter/Barbarian/... Worse, he hit less often than the rogue, who, him, maxed out DEX.

Yep, the Monk makes a worse Fighter than the Fighter does. So does the Wizard.

Quote:


It's not as if he had some sneak attack, or bonus with manoeuvers, or ways to deal with special villains. He has nothing except good endurance (good saves, spell resistance, immunity, ...), but that doesn't help win encounters.

That's true if we ignore stunning fist, quivering palm, poison use, manuever training, flurry of blows, feats like Medusa's Wrath, etc.

Quote:
Poison is rare, and easily dealt with most of the time.

If you're acting as a scout, you don't have easy access to the Cleric. Depending on the poison, you may be immobilized.

Quote:
Traps are a joke.

I can think of all kinds of traps that aren't jokes.

Quote:


You say "harassing the enemy wizard", but I see at least X problems to that :

1 => You need to start before the wizard.
2 => You need to manage to reach the wizard before he cast his first protection spell
3 => You need to be able to hit the wizard.
4 => Those hit(s) need to be able to harass the wizard in such a way that he won't be able to cast spells.
The Tetori can manage the 4th point. Others... not so much.

Please build a Wizard at 10th level and we'll see how far you have to abuse the rules to prove your case.

Quote:


full-attack everything he can see (and not every enemy is going to be protected by wind wall) - as likely that they will be flying and thus the monk cannot reach them).

First, you just contradicted yourself.

Second, The monk can reach them with fly. How is a archer going to circumvent wind wall?


Quote:
The monk does not provide a significant amount of the 1st in situations where the outcome is in doubt. Being good against mooks is not valuable because everyone is good against mooks. Being good against real threats is valuable, but monks aren't.

A large number of CR or CR+1 or even CR-1 enemy can drop a party. They need to be dropped quickly. Flurry of Blows helps with that.

Quote:


The monk does not provide the second in any significant way. Anyone can flank. The ranger, by virtue of having an animal companion, can flank with twice as many people as the monk.

Anyone can flank only in theory. In practice, somebody moving into flanking position must 1.) get rid of the enemy already engaged with them 2.) make their way over to the square where they can flank without drawing an opportunity attack. You're wrong that anybody can do that, not unless they roll crazy well.

Quote:


The monk does not do the third in situations where the outcome is in doubt. Especially not if you're building a stat other than your attack stat. The monk has greater difficulty than most classes getting greater maneuver feats for anything other than grapple and grapple is one of the harder maneuvers to boost, and harder for monks to boost than most because they can't use the brawling armor property.

As per FAQ, monks can apply Dex to trip, sunder, and disarm instead of Str without agile manuevers. Plus, monks bypass hardness on adamantium after a certain level (helps with sunder).


Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I've looked. I'm convinced.
Then please show me the math.

Look at the character and see which is their highest stat. No difficult math required, that's their primary stat. If it's not wisdom, wisdom is not their primary stat.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

hitting your enemy and dealing damage is the only sure-fire way to win.

{stuff we all already knew}

The monk provides the 1st (ex, against mooks), 2nd (ex. helping rogues flank) and 3rd (ex. harassing the enemy wizard).

1st instance: The monk does DPR much worse than most other combat classes in most circumstances, we've seen this; unless they are min-maxed to hell and back they struggle, and even then they only manage to come up to the average other classes will do. The monk isn't "better" against mooks, everyone is - but mooks are all he's guaranteed to be good against. So he does the 1st, but he's 2nd-rate at it at best.

2nd instance: The wizard's familiar can help the rogue flank. Helping the rogue flank is saying the rogue is the important one here. The monk is basically doing a task not as well as a non-combat class. So he's definitely 3rd-rate at this (a full BAB class would be first rate, another rogue 2nd rate).

3rd instance: the best counter to the enemy wizard is a gizzard full of arrows or (most likely) another caster. Monk is effectively 3rd-best at doing something that doesn't always need to be done here.

This isn't a list of what the monk can do well, it's a list of what the monk can find to do because he can't do anything else. I'm not saying a monk can't make himself useful by doing this, but existing so the rogue can get a sneak attack in isn't exactly heroic.

We've had other threads running over what the monk can offer a party in comparison to other classes, and I'm afraid that taking the barbarian from those threads, or the ranger example here:

1st instance: the barbarian offers top-notch DPR vs everything he can hit. Period. The ranger offers decent DPR, and can strike at range and from cover.

2nd instance: The barbarian doesn't just help the rogue flank, he swats the rogues foe to hell for him. The ranger sends his animal companion to flank with the rogue, he has more important things to do - like ACTUALLY buffing or healing allies, or by doing (4) by using his spells to hinder the enemy.

3rd instance: a superstitious barbarian can splatter an enemy wizard better than a monk. That's why enemy wizards do stuff like fly and hide behind wind walls. But then the monk cannot reach them in those instances either. A ranger can shoot him to bits, but should he throw up a wind wall (as easily as a wizard the monk attacks using fly to avoid him) he can also do this task by using his spells to hinder and harass the enemy.

You can say this of every other combat class as well; they all do these things better than the monk, and some do more besides. So why have a monk when you can have one of them? The only conclusion here is that the monk is a weaker class than the other combat classes. I'm not saying you can't have fun playing a monk, or that you can't do anything, but doing worthwhile stuff on a par with the rest of the party takes a lot more work or a lot of luck.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Maneuvers? Don't work on everything.

Debuffs? Unreliable.

Well cry me a river. Will you toss the hammer out of your toolbox because not enerything is a nail?

My point is, is a tool-box with nothing other than a hammer in it much use? Or would you prefer one with a hammer and a screwdriver set?

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Immunity to poison is handy I'll grant you, but when you have a good Fort save it's of limited usefulness.
The guy who played the Ranger who rolled a 2 on his Fort save might disagree with you....

He might, but then he might cast Neutralise Poison or use it on a scroll to get around the problem.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Spell resistance? Give me a break, the fact that the party wizard has a harder time buffing you in combat than the enemy wizard has of zapping you isn't an advantage.
A harder time? Please explain.

OK, it goes like this: The monk has spell resistance. This (by RAW) resists ALL spells and SLAs, unless you take a standard action to suppress it. So if the party wizard wants to cast haste on the party, he has to overcome the SR unless it's done in advance of the fight (rare, in the case of a short-term buff like haste) or your monk has advance warning and does nothing much in the fight for that turn; similarly, if the monk is taken to negative HP and receives a cure spell, it has to likewise overcome SR (he can't consciously lower it, he's out for the count). Now if you run into an enemy wizard he's usually a boss, so he is usually higher level than the party, and as such his caster level check has more chance to overcome the monk's SR than the party casters, so you are getting a severe drawback in return for a smaller advantage.

Diamond Soul is a bigger problem for most monks in a party context than it is an asset. It's the poster-child of badly thought-out monk abilities.

Justin Rocket wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
On the flip side, the ranger is less likely to not see a trap thanks to favoured terrain (Perception bonus), so I wouldn't say the monk has any advantage even then.
The favored terrain bonus to Per is only +2.

No, it stacks up like favoured enemy, it starts at +2, and every time you gain a new one you have another rise by +2. So at our tenth level standard the ranger has one at +2 and the other at +4. If he takes "urban" and "underground" that pretty much covers 95% of the places that you'll find traps...and enough to put him ahead of the typical monk.

This is one difference between the monk and other classes: their abilities synergise, while the monk's often don't.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Quote:


The monk IS a fighter.
Check your rulebook again. The Fighter is a different class.

Amazingly, everyone in the thread unbderstands the difference between "The Fighter" (uppercase and/or definite article) and "a fighter" (lowercase and/or indefinite article). Even the people accustomed to autocorrected texty leet-speak and people for whom English is a second (or third) language. The only one in the thread who pretends not to see the difference is you, and you seem to be doing it as an attempt to dodge the actual point being made (that Core monks can't actually do what they're admitted to have been designed to do), rather than addressing it.

Demanding "builds" is another example of the same thing. Tell someone that a character with d4 HD and a Con of 10 has low hp, and they immediately demand 1st - 20th level "builds" because they don't want to look at what's in front of them. When the 10th level example shows up with 25 hp, you can then carp about him not taking Toughness, and not buying a belt of constitution +6, and keep ignoring the fact that he has d4 HD.

These are fundamentally dishonest sleights that make it seem like you're trolling, or arguing simply to be arguing, rather than attempting to examine a position in good faith.


Everyone just ignore Justin, he's not worth the frustration.

In every conversation I've had with him his entire "argument" for any given thing has relied on being willfully obtuse about things ("The Fighter is the only fighter gais"), failing to provide any evidence of his own, ignoring what is presented to him, and then asking for more (that he can ignore).

You're not going to convince him of anything because he's either a troll or doesn't want to be convinced, he just wants to state things that can easily be seen to be untrue with a few moments thought because that's how he wishes things were.

Save your time and move on to more productive discussions with people who'll actually listen to what is being said.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Demanding "builds" is another example of the same thing.

If that's all you're doing, sure. Builds do take much of the intangible out of the discussion. Artanthos's builds did restore some of my faith in the monk, albeit requiring serious system mastery.


Pandora's wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Demanding "builds" is another example of the same thing.
If that's all you're doing, sure. Builds do take much of the intangible out of the discussion. Artanthos's builds did restore some of my faith in the monk, albeit requiring serious system mastery.

Yeah, there are definitely times when showing a build can be useful for displaying just how well different classes stack up against each other and can add to the overall balance discussion. However, as often as not once builds get posted the thread devolves into nitpicking the details of various builds instead of the original balance discussion. Especially if any of the builds are oddball ones or make any rules interpretations that aren't 100% agreed upon by every single poster in the thread.


Pandora's wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Demanding "builds" is another example of the same thing.
If that's all you're doing, sure. Builds do take much of the intangible out of the discussion. Artanthos's builds did restore some of my faith in the monk, albeit requiring serious system mastery.

It actually proved to me how weak the monk is, that you have to dump-stat that much just to make a "viable" build - except that it wasn't even realistically viable: 7 strength at levels 1-4 before you can afford an agile amulet, assuming one is even available, means you are effectively useless for those levels, and probably will not survive.

Scarab Sages

Dabbler wrote:
For example, Ciretose's monk was maxing at +19 to hit, 1d10+8 damage. At 10th level I can easily build a fighter with +25 to hit, 2d4+27 damage. Now the monk has more attacks, so vs low AC he's getting way more hits in and can maybe score more damage. But the low ACs are not where you have a problem, it's the high ACs where you really want the hits. So against AC24, with haste and an extra attack, his monk could hit at +19/+17/+17/+17/+12/+12 for 53.865 DPR. Not bad. But a decent fighter without haste can dish +25/+17 2d4+27 15-20/x2 which adds to 68.64 DPR. With haste it's 108.16.

Post your complete build, lets see what you are giving up. (I can build monks with higher damage, but I would be giving up defenses to do it. The builds posted so far, both fighter and monk, have been balanced between offense and defense.)

*The DPR for the builds I posted used AC 24 as the baseline, with between 80(non-hasted armed) and 104 DPR(hasted unarmed) depending on build. The hasted character did spend the resources to purchase Boots of Speed, so it's not exactly a freebie. Robes of the Monk are only slightly less effective and both can be purchased at 10th level if you do not care about defense.

**The armed monk breaks magic, cold iron, silver, adamantine and Law DR. He carries oil of bless for the situational fights where Good is absolutely required. How many types of DR does your fighter bypass? Please post your build so we can find out.

Scarab Sages

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Yeah, there are definitely times when showing a build can be useful for displaying just how well different classes stack up against each other and can add to the overall balance discussion. However, as often as not once builds get posted the thread devolves into nitpicking the details of various builds instead of the original balance discussion. Especially if any of the builds are oddball ones or make any rules interpretations that aren't 100% agreed upon by every single poster in the thread.

I try to be fairly conservative rules wise in the builds used in these types of arguments. I know people are going to look for absolutely any excuse they can find to dismiss the build.

People even try to dismiss builds using CRB class features whose functions are crystal clear.


I like the guy raging about Vow of Silence when it only adds 1 ki point. The build is still valid without it mate relax.


Artanthos wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:


Yeah, there are definitely times when showing a build can be useful for displaying just how well different classes stack up against each other and can add to the overall balance discussion. However, as often as not once builds get posted the thread devolves into nitpicking the details of various builds instead of the original balance discussion. Especially if any of the builds are oddball ones or make any rules interpretations that aren't 100% agreed upon by every single poster in the thread.

I try to be fairly conservative rules wise in the builds used in these types of arguments. I know people are going to look for absolutely any excuse they can find to dismiss the build.

People even try to dismiss builds using CRB class features whose functions are crystal clear.

Dude its a good theorycraft build, but that doesn't change the fact that

its pretty useless from levels 1-5 and then only works if you happen to get an agile amulet. That requires someone in the party with craft wondrous(and down time although not very much), running into pretty much the exact same type of monk as yourself(no one else really would use an agile amulet), or a straight 75% chance in a metropolis. SO for 4 levels its pretty useless(could be easily replaced with a decent animal companion. Wolf gets to attack AND trip for example) and then its time to wait until that item spawns. But at level 10 you win DPR for 10-12 ROUNDS as long as you get to full attack. I salute your system mastery for achieving even that, but please don't pretend it makes a viable character from first.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Question wrote:

I think Eidolons are only strong if you go for the "as many natural attacks as possible" route.

Getting a Eidolon to wear armor and wield a sword is not going to be very effective due to feat requirements and the lack of greater magic weapon on the summoner spell list. Also quite a few of the evolutions make you go "uh, what?".

Right, the problem with the summoner is not any individual thing it can do, or even how much 'umph' it gets. Its that the player is overwhelmingly free to choose it all. And thus they can put it all into smashing things, or being impossible to hit, or what ever take their fancy, thus making the eidolon better at this then most classes can acheive without some hyper optimization. If summoners had to take things like scent, and darvision for their eidolon in addition to combat or magical prowess, the class wouldn't be a problem.

The summoner should be the target not the eidolon in combat. Any intelligent enemy gets a spellcraft check in my game to notice that the big ugly and that wimp both have the same mark on their heads. Hey, let's hit that guy and see what happens!


Artanthos wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
For example, Ciretose's monk was maxing at +19 to hit, 1d10+8 damage. At 10th level I can easily build a fighter with +25 to hit, 2d4+27 damage. Now the monk has more attacks, so vs low AC he's getting way more hits in and can maybe score more damage. But the low ACs are not where you have a problem, it's the high ACs where you really want the hits. So against AC24, with haste and an extra attack, his monk could hit at +19/+17/+17/+17/+12/+12 for 53.865 DPR. Not bad. But a decent fighter without haste can dish +25/+17 2d4+27 15-20/x2 which adds to 68.64 DPR. With haste it's 108.16.
Post your complete build, lets see what you are giving up. (I can build monks with higher damage, but I would be giving up defenses to do it. The builds posted so far, both fighter and monk, have been balanced between offense and defense.)

It's a fighter I chucked together which isn't uber-optimised, so what's the point? All you would prove is that given a target you can twist the pretzel and beat a casually chucked together build with an uber-optimized one, and that really kind of reinforces the point that the monk is a weak class that requires a great deal of system mastery just to make it work.

If you really want the build, though, here it is.

Spoiler:
Simon the Solid
Human (Shoanti) Fighter 10
N Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +12
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 27, touch 15, flat-footed 24 (+11 armor, +2 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection, +1 dodge)
hp 100 (10d10+36)
Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +9 (+3 vs. fear); +4 vs. effects that cause you to lose your grip on weapons
Defensive Abilities bravery +3
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +3 Falchion +25/+17 (2d4+27/15-20/x2) and
. . Gauntlet (from Armor) +13/+8 (1d3+12/x2) and
. . Unarmed strike +13/+8 (1d3+12/x2)
Ranged Masterwork Composite longbow (Str +6) +16/+11 (1d8+9/x3)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (heavy blades +4, bows +3)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +10; CMB +13; CMD 31 (35 vs. Disarm, 35 vs. Sunder)
Feats Dodge, Furious Focus, Greater Weapon Focus (Falchion), Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Iron Will (1/day), Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack -3/+6, Step Up, Toughness, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Weapon Specialization (Falchion)
Traits Deft Dodger, Indomitable Faith
Skills Acrobatics +1, Climb +12, Escape Artist -1, Fly -1, Handle Animal +4, Intimidate +3, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +5, Knowledge (engineering) +5, Perception +12, Profession (soldier) +6, Ride +6, Stealth -1, Survival +8, Swim +7
Languages Common, Shoanti
Other Gear +2 Full plate, +3 Falchion, Arrows (20), Masterwork Composite longbow (Str +6), Amulet of natural armor +1, Belt of physical might (Str & Dex +2), Cloak of resistance +1, Gloves of dueling, Ioun stone (dusty rose prism), Ring of protection +1, 97 PP, 1004 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bravery +3 (Ex) +3 to Will save vs. Fear
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Gloves of dueling These supple gloves grant the wearer a +4 bonus to her CMD against disarm attacks, attempts to sunder her wielded weapons, and effects that cause her to lose her grip on her weapons (such as grease). The wearer doesn't drop held weapons when panicked or stunned. If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, her weapon training bonus increases by +2.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic weapon; Cost 7,500 gp
Improved Iron Will (1/day) Can re-roll a Will save, but must take the second result.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Step Up When a foe makes a 5 ft step away from you, you can move 5 ft to follow them.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +4 (Ex) +4 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training (Bows) +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows

As you can see this build is nicely rounded between offence and defence, and I've left him nearly 2Kgp for weapon blanches, oils, etc. and other consumables (I generally don't go into that much detail on a chucked together build, and these things are as available to one character as another - you can get them easily, but they run out too).

Like I said, I expect you can beat this. I also expect you'll have to min-max like crazy to do it, and if you do that really just proves the point.

Artanthos wrote:
*The DPR for the builds I posted used AC 24 as the baseline, with between 80(non-hasted armed) and 104 DPR(hasted unarmed) depending on build. The hasted character did spend the resources to purchase Boots of Speed, so it's not exactly a freebie. Robes of the Monk are only slightly less effective and both can be purchased at 10th level if you do not care about defense.

Within a party context I think haste is a reasonable thing to assume, and I assumed AC24 as the standard CR10 foe as well - however, most monk accuracy falls off fast when the AC goes up from there. The monk accuracies I have seen are around +17 to +19 at 10th level. That makes high ACs very hard to hit, while the fighter builds are around +25...so they hit the high ACs way better.

Artanthos wrote:
**The armed monk breaks magic, cold iron, silver, adamantine and Law DR. He carries oil of bless for the situational fights where Good is absolutely required. How many types of DR does your fighter bypass? Please post your build so we can find out.

Again, I've posted it, but I don't usually list out weapon blanches, oils and potions - they are as available to one character as another. Assume Oil of Bless Weapon and adamantine weapon blanch and he's chopping through as much DR as your monk is (or not if he doesn't have time to apply them), I guess. I made a non-optimised solid build balanced between offence and defence. I could have super-min-maxed for one thing or another, but I usually don't like to play that way, so I don't.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Quote:


Nope : Monks and ranger starts usually with the same wisdom. But the ranger have bonuses to perception as class powers, while the monk don't.
Post your Ranger. Atarlast already posted a 10th level Monk we'll use for comparison.

Don't need a build to do that :

The ranger need WIS to cast his spells, so it is a secondary ability he will be likely to raise to 14 or something at level 1 (and buy headband of wisdom). Most monks (those who want to have at least the ability to hit mooks or wizards unbuffed) will have about the same wisdom.

Rangers have more skill points by level, and gain bonuses to perception (among other things) at 3rd and every 5 levels beyond that in several terrains.

Admitting the monk had little more wisdom than the ranger (1 or 2 modifier, let's be crazy), the ranger will have AT LEAST the same perception score in most common terrain (underground, urban, forest, ...), and probably way more in a specific one.

Quote:
Quote:


The monk IS a fighter.
Check your rulebook again. The Fighter is a different class.

Yeah, the Fighter actually succeed to do his job. The monk don't.

Quote:
Quote:
The reason is he NEEDS to be able to hit to do anything, from doing a manoeuver to succeeding to hit with at least one of its flurry attack.
By that logic, the Rogue, Paladin, and Barbarian are all Fighters. Yet, they actually are different classes.

Barbarians, Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, Cavaliers/Samurais are all "fighters", people who fights (that's what they do).

The monk is supposed to be one of them, except he isn't because he can't hit things easily.

Other classes (Gunslinger, Rogues/Ninjas, Inquisitors, ...) have the same "Monk-weaknesses", by having medium HD and medium BAB, but they all have ways to improve either their to-hit (Gunslingers hit Touch AC, Inquisitors have bonuses to hit with proper class power, ...) or to improve their damages to almost "fighter level" (as the rogue sneak attack for example).

The monk doesn't have any of that.

Quote:
Quote:


If Wisdom is his first ability (or even he maxed it out, as you suggest he should), his other abilities will not be beyond 13 or 14 (before magic items). So it is another -2 to -4 to every attack rolls compared to a Fighter/Barbarian/... Worse, he hit less often than the rogue, who, him, maxed out DEX.
Yep, the Monk makes a worse Fighter than the Fighter does. So does the Wizard.

Except the wizard's role isn't going into melee to hit things. The Fighter and the Monk HAVE to do it (well, the Fighter need not, but most do).

A transmuter wizard could maybe be a better fighter than the monk, BTW.

Quote:
Quote:


It's not as if he had some sneak attack, or bonus with manoeuvers, or ways to deal with special villains. He has nothing except good endurance (good saves, spell resistance, immunity, ...), but that doesn't help win encounters.
That's true if we ignore stunning fist, quivering palm, poison use, manuever training, flurry of blows, feats like Medusa's Wrath, etc.

Stunning fist : you have to declare using it before attacking, you need to hit normal AC, you have a fortitude save (the easiest for most monsters) and the effect last 1 round when all conditions are met. Average in effect, very bad in chances to affect the target.

Quivering palm : same.

Poison use : Yeah, that's pretty sure a Loyal guy will use poison. That's so like it. Even then, Poison is very expensive (and need fortitude save, and can't affect enemies with poison immunity).

Manoeuver training : Manoeuvers doesn't work reliably past 6th level. The monk doesn't have bonuses to them BTW, this ability allows them to look like fighters without class powers when doing it, that's all.

Flurry of blows : yeah, you know how it's called usually ? Flurry of misses.

For the feats, everyone can take them. Or take better one.

Quote:
Quote:
Poison is rare, and easily dealt with most of the time.
If you're acting as a scout, you don't have easy access to the Cleric. Depending on the poison, you may be immobilized.

Well... You won't have to deal with it if you could know something was poisonous (knowledge), could disarm the trap, could avoid the trap or any other solution. That's not as if it was unavoidable (moreover for a real scout).

Quote:
Quote:
Traps are a joke.
I can think of all kinds of traps that aren't jokes.

Good for you.

Quote:
Quote:


You say "harassing the enemy wizard", but I see at least X problems to that :

1 => You need to start before the wizard.
2 => You need to manage to reach the wizard before he cast his first protection spell
3 => You need to be able to hit the wizard.
4 => Those hit(s) need to be able to harass the wizard

...
Please build a Wizard at 10th level and we'll see how far you have to abuse the rules to prove your case.

I don't need to build to prove my point.

1/ You need initiative.

The monk and the wizard have both good DEX (a bit more for the monk if he chooses to be efficient in combat).

The wizard have room for Improved initiative (some says it is often one of the first feat a wizard character should have), the monk doesn't.

The wizard can take a greensting scorpion at level 1, the monk doesn't.

The wizard can eventually be a diviner.

It's likely the wizard will have at least as much Initiative. 90% of wizard's builds will.

2/ You need speed and resistance

The monk have those. But ONE attack of opportunity in the way to go there can be the end for the monk.

And he can't Dimension door next to the wizard, because he will be unable to attack this round if he chooses so.

3/ You need good to-hit and possibly ways to deal with protection spells

The more levels the wizard and monk have, the harder it will be for the monk. At 11th level, the monk can't hit a wizard. Ever. Before ? Not easily. Not reliably either.

Oh, and as the monk moved, he can only attack once. And with medium BAB.

And that supposed the wizard didn't cast a spell before the combat even started, knowing the monk would come with Divination or observing him with his cristal ball or something.

4/ You need either good damage, or be able to grant a very bad condition reliably or other things like that.

The monk can grapple. That's pretty much it.
__________________________________________________

Quote:
Any intelligent enemy gets a spellcraft check in my game to notice that the big ugly and that wimp both have the same mark on their heads.

Too bad most enemies can't make spellcraft checks...

Lantern Lodge

Question wrote:
And could use some tweaking?

My vote goes for monk. I didn't take a melee class to sit in the back row for 8-10 levels and fire a crossbow.


anthoncan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Question wrote:

I think Eidolons are only strong if you go for the "as many natural attacks as possible" route.

Getting a Eidolon to wear armor and wield a sword is not going to be very effective due to feat requirements and the lack of greater magic weapon on the summoner spell list. Also quite a few of the evolutions make you go "uh, what?".

Right, the problem with the summoner is not any individual thing it can do, or even how much 'umph' it gets. Its that the player is overwhelmingly free to choose it all. And thus they can put it all into smashing things, or being impossible to hit, or what ever take their fancy, thus making the eidolon better at this then most classes can acheive without some hyper optimization. If summoners had to take things like scent, and darvision for their eidolon in addition to combat or magical prowess, the class wouldn't be a problem.
The summoner should be the target not the eidolon in combat. Any intelligent enemy gets a spellcraft check in my game to notice that the big ugly and that wimp both have the same mark on their heads. Hey, let's hit that guy and see what happens!

How do they see the mark when he's invisible and flying/levitating while the melee beast is trying to eat their face?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinma the Lost wrote:
Question wrote:
And could use some tweaking?
My vote goes for monk. I didn't take a melee class to sit in the back row for 8-10 levels and fire a crossbow.

Good thing, because monks don't get crossbow proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The classes I feel need the most work to get them up to snuff:

1. Rogue/Ninja: Two bad saves that are the worst bad saves to have. Bad Fort and Will makes for a very lame time playing.

Rule Alteration: Rebuild the rogue with two good saves.

Give them Evasion (for ninja) Improved Evasion without having to take a talent.

Rogue/Ninja comparison should be to other 15 BAB classes.

Sorry Paizo, Trapfinding is not enough of a role to make up for all their shortcomings.

I already house-ruled the above to make the class more viable. It was not fun playing a rogue running from every fear aura, held by every hold spell, mind controlled by every control spell, while at the same time being obliterated by poison, disease, and death effects. Someone explain to me how any high level rogues survive when there are all kinds of creatures with darkvision, blindsense, blindsight, light spells, true seeing, and the like that have Fort and Will save attacks that obliterate the supposedly heroic PC rogues.

2. Monk: They need some tweaks on offense. That's about it.

I think you could put a monk on par with other classes by doing the following:

amulet of mighty fists on par with weapons for enchantments. None of this super-expensive, +5 max enhancement bonus garbage.

Allow them to use Monk Clothing that operates like armor when it comes to enhancements.

Allow them to use Ki to boost hit chance, so they can have a good round against high AC now and again. Flurry of Misses against most BBEG's isn't very fun.

3. More skills for Fighter and Cleric. Being a good fighter takes more than knowing weapons.

Same with the cleric. Priests in the real world are usually very learned people.

4. Give the fighter some means to boost saves. Maybe something like armor or weapon training for saves so he can boost either Will or Reflex depending on his training. The barbarian has Superstition and gets a boost to Will saves when raging.

The fighter has only one good save and no real way to boost it. The imroved fear save is somewhat helpful. But fear is pretty low on a fighter's list of will save concerns. It is easily removed by a first level cleric spell.

Whereas hold spells, magic jar, hexes like slumber or retribution, teleport effects, word spells, and other more harmful effects are a much bigger concern.

I think most of the other classes are fairly competitive and well-designed. I prefer magic to be as powerful compared to martial as it is.

Unlike others, I don't think martials are less fantastic than casters. The martials in my campaigns regularly fight dragons in toe to toe combat, something no real world martial could hope to do. They can smash down stone walls on castles. Cut through steel doors. Cut down huge iron golems and giants in single combat. Kill powerful demons that could wipe out entire villages and towns in head to head battle. Cut through magic walls and magical defenses most beings in a given world can't touch.

Just because they can't teleport or the like doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fantastiacally extraordinary and powerful. I guess to jaded gamers being able to do 30 to 50 points of damage doesn't seam to be very fantastic unless you take the time to think that a martial's skill allows him to hit as hard as a fireball or lightning bolt every time he swings his weapon. Mundane as it seems around the game table, martials would amaze anyone in the real world with their skill and ability to kill. They are in no way weak or forced into real world rules. Some just don't want to acknowledge that cutting through steel and stone and going into hand to hand combat with dragons and demons is as extraordinary as casting a powerful spell.


Shinma the Lost wrote:
Question wrote:
And could use some tweaking?
My vote goes for monk. I didn't take a melee class to sit in the back row for 8-10 levels and fire a crossbow.

Well said. And I would add or to trip something and still get battered by it.


Atarlost wrote:
Shinma the Lost wrote:
Question wrote:
And could use some tweaking?
My vote goes for monk. I didn't take a melee class to sit in the back row for 8-10 levels and fire a crossbow.
Good thing, because monks don't get crossbow proficiency.

<Cough>

CRB wrote:
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My feel on classes.

Figher - Fine as is.
Paladin - Fine as is (As long as the DM doesn't go out his way to screw him)
Monk - Fine as is (With some decent Archtypes now)
Rogue - Fine as is
Ninja - Fine as is
Cleric - Fine as is
Wizard - Fine as is
Sorceror - Fine as is
Druid - Fine as is
Bard - Fine as is
Summoner - Fine as is (If you follow the rules of building your pet)
Witch - Fine as is
Cavalier - Fine as is
Anything I missed - Fine as is.

See a trend here. The classes are balanced (enough) for the DM to tweak what needs tweaked for their individual gaming experience. This isn't an MMO or a PVP arena game. Its a Team based pen and paper roleplay game. Everyone doesn't have to be 100% equal to everyone else. As long as every player has a role to play in battles and everyone feels engaged. This "Class A is so OP vs Class B!" nonsense is (imo) directly attributed to MMO thinking. There are no Ranked Arena matches here people... its ok. Let the DM buff what needs tweeked (Like the monk) and play the game as a team.

*Rant off*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:
This "Class A is so OP vs Class B!" nonsense is (imo) directly attributed to MMO thinking.

?????????????????

Personally, it bugs me that the caster classes come with tools that allow influencing the story in a DM-like manner, beyond just immediate encounter-scale stuff. Mundane classes do not come with those tools. Taken a step further, some mundane classes (e.g., fighter) don't come with ANY abilities that are useful outside of personal combat.

It's a straighforwad issue of narrative power, not damage or PVP or video games or whatever. If you choose to ignore that, OK, but accusing anyone who disagrees of "video game thinking" means that you have absolutely no idea why most people complain about class imbalance.

Also, "the DM fixes it" is not an excuse for massive imbalances within the rules themselves, any more than "don't drive on it" is an excuse for designing highway bridges that collapse when weight is put on them.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

My feel on classes.

Figher - Fine as is.
Paladin - Fine as is (As long as the DM doesn't go out his way to screw him)
Monk - Fine as is (With some decent Archtypes now)
Rogue - Fine as is
Ninja - Fine as is
Cleric - Fine as is
Wizard - Fine as is
Sorceror - Fine as is
Druid - Fine as is
Bard - Fine as is
Summoner - Fine as is (If you follow the rules of building your pet)
Witch - Fine as is
Cavalier - Fine as is
Anything I missed - Fine as is.

See a trend here. The classes are balanced (enough) for the DM to tweak what needs tweaked for their individual gaming experience. This isn't an MMO or a PVP arena game. Its a Team based pen and paper roleplay game. Everyone doesn't have to be 100% equal to everyone else. As long as every player has a role to play in battles and everyone feels engaged. This "Class A is so OP vs Class B!" nonsense is (imo) directly attributed to MMO thinking. There are no Ranked Arena matches here people... its ok. Let the DM buff what needs tweeked (Like the monk) and play the game as a team.

*Rant off*

This game is supposed to fun. I'm sorry, high level rogues and ninjas are often not fun. When the rogue and ninja with their two bad saves start running into creatures with auras, AoE attack, and at will attacks that hit Fort and Will doing things like blinding them, draining their abilities away, taking over their minds, causing them to run, or outright die, they start to hate life and wish they had never made the character.

My balance issues are concerned with player versus environment, not balance in some kind "we all must be equal" scenario. Player versus the environment rogue and ninja get smacked like little dogs. It's very lame to watch one of your players play a character for a good 10 or 12 levels, only to hit that high level game and find his character seriously lacking in an area that leads to lots downtime.


I'm with Raith on this one.

Figher - A little weak, could use some out-of-combat love.
Monk - Very weak, he needs direction and some beefing up to be the combat class he is meant to be.
Rogue - Weak, too many other classes do his job and more besides, he needs uniqueness.

Everything else is OK.


Im sorry but I disagree. Magic items can cure alot of the weakness vs enviroment when it comes to most classes. And that isn't even an issue just facing rogues and ninja's. Thats every non casting martial in the game.

I could understand an arguement against a class not having the power to face an enviroment or having no abilities that affect things outside of combat but thats not what most of the arguements I see on this thread and others are stating. They are complaining about class balance vs other classes. And as for certain classes being useless outside of combat... thats because you build him or RP him to be useless outside of combat. Nothing says you have to effect the out of combat situations with spells or abilities. Feats, Skills, Magic items, and just good old fashion RP can be almost as effective in most cases.

I have played high level rogues. I have seen High level Monks. With magic items and sound decisions on the battle field they are fine. Could they be tweeked here and there. Possibly. But then you would have the masses come in and scream they became broken. My personal opinion is that the classes are fine as is(Expecially with the addition of archtypes). To say there are massive imbalances is a large exaggeration.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

Im sorry but I disagree. Magic items can cure alot of the weakness vs enviroment when it comes to most classes. And that isn't even an issue just facing rogues and ninja's. Thats every non casting martial in the game.

I could understand an arguement against a class not having the power to face an enviroment or having no abilities that affect things outside of combat but thats not what most of the arguements I see on this thread and others are stating. They are complaining about class balance vs other classes. And as for certain classes being useless outside of combat... thats because you build him or RP him to be useless outside of combat. Nothing says you have to effect the out of combat situations with spells or abilities. Feats, Skills, Magic items, and just good old fashion RP can be almost as effective in most cases.

I have played high level rogues. I have seen High l
evel Monks. With magic items and sound decisions on the battle field they are fine. Could they be tweeked here and there. Possibly. But then you would have the masses come in and scream they became broken. My personal opinion is that the classes are fine as is(Expecially with the addition of archtypes). To say there are massive imbalances is a large exaggeration.

Have to disagree with your out of combat utility comment. When you say you can role play it you devalue those classes that focus on face abilities mechanically. Of course there's no reason to add out of combat utility to classes when you ignore the mechanics of out of combat situations.


The "Mechanics" of Out of Combat situations are usually skill based which any class can take. Are you referring to spells that bypass the need for skills (charm person, divination spells, ect)? Those spells aid a caster in getting around the need for sinking skill points in social skills. I get that can be seen as unfair. But it doesn't mean the fighter is devoid of options to have an impact on situations outside of combat. He simply has to use skills vs memorizing a spell or two. Is that fair? Meh. In practice, most casters wont have the right spell memorized for the right time unless he has built his character to be good at those situations or unless he knows he will need them. I just dont see an issue. There is far too much ability in Pathfinder to branch out into skills and abilities that complement a play style that doesn't solely focus on combat.

And its not that I ignore the mechanics... but good RP in a social scenario should be rewarded. Befriending the local constable should give you a bonus on any inquires you have in the local mystery. Having the foresight to bring chalk and marking the walls should give you a bonus to your check to get through the maze. Chatting up the nobles at the ball should give you a bonus to your diplomacy check when needed later. ECT. Its not ignoring it... its simply helping when the PERSON is engaged with the out of combat situation. I dont know of many DMs who wont throw a bone to someone who is active and responsive vs. the deflated guy in the corner checking facebook on his smartphone.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

The "Mechanics" of Out of Combat situations are usually skill based which any class can take. Are you referring to spells that bypass the need for skills (charm person, divination spells, ect)? Those spells aid a caster in getting around the need for sinking skill points in social skills. I get that can be seen as unfair. But it doesn't mean the fighter is devoid of options to have an impact on situations outside of combat. He simply has to use skills vs memorizing a spell or two. Is that fair? Meh. In practice, most casters wont have the right spell memorized for the right time unless he has built his character to be good at those situations or unless he knows he will need them. I just dont see an issue. There is far too much ability in Pathfinder to branch out into skills and abilities that complement a play style that doesn't solely focus on combat.

And its not that I ignore the mechanics... but good RP in a social scenario should be rewarded. Befriending the local constable should give you a bonus on any inquires you have in the local mystery. Having the foresight to bring chalk and marking the walls should give you a bonus to your check to get through the maze. Chatting up the nobles at the ball should give you a bonus to your diplomacy check when needed later. ECT. Its not ignoring it... its simply helping when the PERSON is engaged with the out of combat situation. I dont know of many DMs who wont throw a bone to someone who is active and responsive vs. the deflated guy in the corner checking facebook on his smartphone.

My issue is that to build a fighter with skills(except loremaster) you have to build a raltively sub par fighter in comparison to almost every other class who either posses significant int synergy or lots of skill points. SO the mundane fighter has less ability to use skills and every fighter build that is skill effective could just as easily be used on almost any other class to gain a lot more skills.

As for the second what my group does is roll the dice and then role play out what happens because otherwise it spoils it for me. We have a few people in the group who can deliver blisteringly smooth RP, but the character in question doesn't have diplomacy. So why wold that person even need diplomacy if you're running on RP. My argument is that one of the most effective moments in star wars is when Han tries to talk the storm troopers into not coming down to the detention level. Now its my opinion that Han had significant bluff and that Harrison could haves delivered on an extemporaneous speech, but he rolled a 1 so he went out of his way to role play a horrible bluff check.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

My feel on classes.

Figher - Fine as is.
Paladin - Fine as is (As long as the DM doesn't go out his way to screw him)
Monk - Fine as is (With some decent Archtypes now)
Rogue - Fine as is
Ninja - Fine as is
Cleric - Fine as is
Wizard - Fine as is
Sorceror - Fine as is
Druid - Fine as is
Bard - Fine as is
Summoner - Fine as is (If you follow the rules of building your pet)
Witch - Fine as is
Cavalier - Fine as is
Anything I missed - Fine as is.

See a trend here. The classes are balanced (enough) for the DM to tweak what needs tweaked for their individual gaming experience. This isn't an MMO or a PVP arena game. Its a Team based pen and paper roleplay game. Everyone doesn't have to be 100% equal to everyone else. As long as every player has a role to play in battles and everyone feels engaged. This "Class A is so OP vs Class B!" nonsense is (imo) directly attributed to MMO thinking. There are no Ranked Arena matches here people... its ok. Let the DM buff what needs tweeked (Like the monk) and play the game as a team.

*Rant off*

Oh look someone who shares my opinion! I have found a unicorn.

Lantern Lodge

I think the biggest issue is that in many cases players have an expectation when playing a character class. You have people who focus on the in combat abilities (I want to kick ass), the people who focus on skill abilities (I want to save my ass and not get caught), and then you have people who want to be god like at first level (I don't know my head from my ass).

The reason why I say monk is not because I wanted to get in the dirty and do some major damage. That would be nice. But a Martial Artist is a pin point striker. A good martial artist gets better with every exchange when fighting an opponent. (+ Wisdom to def). Snake style gives you the option to use sense motive 1x per round to use your sense motive in place of your AC. But I shouldn't have to take a feat that "fixes" a class.

Either make the monk harder to hit, or give him more damage. (flurry doesn't come into play for more dmg until about lvl 8 in my opinion)

Then again its early morning...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:
Im sorry but I disagree. Magic items can cure alot of the weakness vs enviroment when it comes to most classes. And that isn't even an issue just facing rogues and ninja's. Thats every non casting martial in the game.

The problem here is that the monk is reliant on one item, the amulet of mighty fists, and what it does for the monk it does double for druids, animal companions, and monsters. So fix it for monk, and it gets OP for them. So it isn't getting fixed, and that leaves you with the base class to modify.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
I have played high level rogues. I have seen High level Monks. With magic items and sound decisions on the battle field they are fine.

Only they are demonstrably not fine. I've not just seen them, I've played them. They are weak because everything you can point at them and say "this class does this" another class can do better and more besides. You don't have to make good decisions, you have to make perfect decisions, and even them there are no guarantees. Inthe case of the monk, it can't even perform it's own stated role.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Could they be tweeked here and there. Possibly. But then you would have the masses come in and scream they became broken.

And there is the problem, and the reason Paizo will not make bold changes but incremental tweaks. But small tweaks can add up to big differences, eventually, if you keep working at it, and I hope Paizo will.


Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).

Silver Crusade

Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.


David Bowles wrote:
Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.

Summoner's cant summon AT ALL while they have their Eidolon out unless they are playing a Master Summoner and then they have a glorified familiar for a Eidolon pet. Even then they can only have ONE summon out at a time. Compare that to a Druid.

Same HD
Same Armored Casting
9th level spellcasting vs 6th level spell casting
More spell slots
Full powered Animal Companion while still able to Summon
Wildshape thrown on just cause

Thats my point. On paper the two dont even compare. But you cant balance a class vs other classes. Does it fill a role. Can it meet the requirements of that role. Is it fun. Thats about all you need to ask when looking at a class. It doesn't really matter if another class can fill the same role but better. It isn't a competition between classes. Its a team based game.

Now if you are argueing that a class can't fundamentally fill the role it was intended for... then I will listen to your arguement. Otherwise I just see it as whining. The only class I have seen have a legit arguement is the Monk. It really cant fill the "Mobility Fighter" roll considering you need to Full attack with a flurry. Making the Flurry a standard action would solve that imo. Otherwise there are great archtypes that bring the monk up to par with other melee and make it able to fill a role. Its AC is fine. Its magic item use is fine. Is it a challenge... yes. That doesn't mean its impossible. It just lacks the mobility it is supposed to have.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.
Summoner's cant summon AT ALL while they have their Eidolon out unless they are playing a Master Summoner and then they have a glorified familiar for a Eidolon pet. Even then they can only have ONE summon out at a time.

Technically, a Summoner is only restricted from using the Summon Monster Spell-like Ability they gain from their class while the eidolon is out. Casting the spell normally or using a wand/staff/scroll would allow them to have summons and their eidolon out at the same time.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.

Summoner's cant summon AT ALL while they have their Eidolon out unless they are playing a Master Summoner and then they have a glorified familiar for a Eidolon pet. Even then they can only have ONE summon out at a time. Compare that to a Druid.

Same HD
Same Armored Casting
9th level spellcasting vs 6th level spell casting
More spell slots
Full powered Animal Companion while still able to Summon
Wildshape thrown on just cause

Thats my point. On paper the two dont even compare. But you cant balance a class vs other classes. Does it fill a role. Can it meet the requirements of that role. Is it fun. Thats about all you need to ask when looking at a class. It doesn't really matter if another class can fill the same role but better. It isn't a competition between classes. Its a team based game.

Now if you are argueing that a class can't fundamentally fill the role it was intended for... then I will listen to your arguement. Otherwise I just see it as whining. The only class I have seen have a legit arguement is the Monk. It really cant fill the "Mobility Fighter" roll considering you need to Full attack with a flurry. Making the Flurry a standard action would solve that imo. Otherwise there are great archtypes that bring the monk up to par with other melee and make it able to fill a role. Its AC is fine. Its magic item use is fine. Is it a challenge... yes. That doesn't mean its impossible. It just lacks the mobility it is supposed to have.

I place the monk somewhere between a rogue and a fighter.

I would consider the monk a "fast fighter". They can move very fast, but when standing still they turn that speed into extra attacks.

Monks are a weird martial class that decided instead of learning how to hit harder that they would use their combat prowess to defend themselves against things like poison, disease, and spells.


Marthkus wrote:
Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).

Well... that would be just right if only AC wasn't the most common defense monsters target.

Silver Crusade

Dragonamedrake wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.

Summoner's cant summon AT ALL while they have their Eidolon out unless they are playing a Master Summoner and then they have a glorified familiar for a Eidolon pet. Even then they can only have ONE summon out at a time. Compare that to a Druid.

Same HD
Same Armored Casting
9th level spellcasting vs 6th level spell casting
More spell slots
Full powered Animal Companion while still able to Summon
Wildshape thrown on just cause

Thats my point. On paper the two dont even compare. But you cant balance a class vs other classes. Does it fill a role. Can it meet the requirements of that role. Is it fun. Thats about all you need to ask when looking at a class. It doesn't really matter if another class can fill the same role but better. It isn't a competition between classes. Its a team based game.

Now if you are argueing that a class can't fundamentally fill the role it was intended for... then I will listen to your arguement. Otherwise I just see it as whining. The only class I have seen have a legit arguement is the Monk. It really cant fill the "Mobility Fighter" roll considering you need to Full attack with a flurry. Making the Flurry a standard action would solve that imo. Otherwise there are great archtypes that bring the monk up to par with other melee and make it able to fill a role. Its AC is fine. Its magic item use is fine. Is it a challenge... yes. That doesn't mean its impossible. It just lacks the mobility it is supposed to have.

OMG. There's at least one other person that can see how stupidly overpowered the druid is!

However, I really think it's a function of how much static armor class can be stacked up on an animal companion because of barding. The animal companion chart just makes them too much badass imo.


Marthkus wrote:
Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).

So do other combat classes. If the enemy is dead before they can finish killing you, you survived. Offence is a very good form of defence.

Dragonamedrake wrote:

Thats my point. On paper the two dont even compare. But you cant balance a class vs other classes. Does it fill a role. Can it meet the requirements of that role. Is it fun. Thats about all you need to ask when looking at a class. It doesn't really matter if another class can fill the same role but better. It isn't a competition between classes. Its a team based game.

Now if you are argueing that a class can't fundamentally fill the role it was intended for... then I will listen to your arguement. Otherwise I just see it as whining. The only class I have seen have a legit arguement is the Monk. It really cant fill the "Mobility Fighter" roll considering you need to Full attack with a flurry. Making the Flurry a standard action would solve that imo. Otherwise there are great archtypes that bring the monk up to par with other melee and make it able to fill a role. Its AC is fine. Its magic item use is fine. Is it a challenge... yes. That doesn't mean its impossible. It just lacks the mobility it is supposed to have.

I agree with you to the extent that a class has to be measure by how well it fills it's role. However, you CAN compare classes that fill the same role.

For example, barbarians, fighters and paladins can fill the same role, but they do it slightly differently with different strengths and weaknesses. If the fighter lacks in comparison with the others, it's in his inability to do "other stuff" outside of his role, which the other two can do and do well. However, it's not a huge difference, it just needs a tweak.

In the case of the rogue, both rangers and bards can fill the rogue's role of scout as well as the rogue can. However, they can do more than the rogue in other areas, and that's why the rogue gets sidelined. Why take a class that can do X, when another class can do X along with Y or Z as well? What the rogue needs is something else in his arsenal, something special only he can do.

The monk has the added problem of not even being able to fulfil the role he is meant to do, on top of the fact that other classes can do it better than he can, and more besides. What the monk lacks is the ability to hit reliably and get through DR with his primary weapon, the unarmed strike. It's not so much about DPR as it is about actually getting the accuracy to add up...
He's either 3/4 BAB or full BAB-2, maximum.
He's got MAD badly, so he's down a few points there.
He's reliant on one expensive item with a low cap for enhancement, so he's behind there by at least a point.
Then if he does hit, his ability to bypass DR is sketchy and his often lacklustre damage output conspire against him.

Hence the monk's ability to "strike enemies where are vulnerable" and the assertion the monk is "skilled in combat" fall short of the mark.

However, it doesn't take much to fix: You can take MAD out by (for example) giving monks their wisdom bonus to hit instead of strength or dexterity, and modifying ki-strike to grant them an actual enhancement bonus rather than a DR-bypass.


Avh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).
Well... that would be just right if only AC wasn't the most common defense monsters target.

Well I went back and checked that statement. Monks can/will have equal or better AC than a fighter.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Any class packing an animal companion and/or the ability to summon I feel has a major advantage over other classes, even the summoner, since the summoner can not summon more critters with the eidolon in play.

Summoner's cant summon AT ALL while they have their Eidolon out unless they are playing a Master Summoner and then they have a glorified familiar for a Eidolon pet. Even then they can only have ONE summon out at a time. Compare that to a Druid.

Same HD
Same Armored Casting
9th level spellcasting vs 6th level spell casting
More spell slots
Full powered Animal Companion while still able to Summon
Wildshape thrown on just cause

Thats my point. On paper the two dont even compare. But you cant balance a class vs other classes. Does it fill a role. Can it meet the requirements of that role. Is it fun. Thats about all you need to ask when looking at a class. It doesn't really matter if another class can fill the same role but better. It isn't a competition between classes. Its a team based game.

Now if you are argueing that a class can't fundamentally fill the role it was intended for... then I will listen to your arguement. Otherwise I just see it as whining. The only class I have seen have a legit arguement is the Monk. It really cant fill the "Mobility Fighter" roll considering you need to Full attack with a flurry. Making the Flurry a standard action would solve that imo. Otherwise there are great archtypes that bring the monk up to par with other melee and make it able to fill a role. Its AC is fine. Its magic item use is fine. Is it a challenge... yes. That doesn't mean its impossible. It just lacks the mobility it is supposed to have.

Come back to me when your druid can drop summon monster IX 15 per day (+10 modifier at 20 isn't that hard) that all have +4 strength/con and can cast Summon Monster VIII 6 times. Oh and just abotu EVERY master summoner has the Superior Summoning feat. Oh and each of those creatures have pretty useful SLAs/spells avaliable. And each one you summon increases your action economy (you are "casting" mutiple spells a round now). Oh and Master summon can use his SLA as a standard action. So yeah... just saying, summoners are pretty disliked for a reason.


Noireve wrote:


Come back to me when your druid can drop summon monster IX 15 per day (+10 modifier at 20 isn't that hard) that all have +4 strength/con and can cast Summon Monster VIII 6 times. Oh and just abotu EVERY master summoner has the Superior Summoning feat. Oh and each of those creatures have...

So you are talking about the Master Summoner? Because they do get 5+cha bonus of Summon Monster each day, though 3+cha bonus is not bad either.

But how do you get the summoned creatures to summon other creatures? Or are you using Gate here?
And Druids do have several nice summing boosting feats as well, like something that makes the summoned creature overcome that pesky damage reduction.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

Im sorry but I disagree. Magic items can cure alot of the weakness vs enviroment when it comes to most classes. And that isn't even an issue just facing rogues and ninja's. Thats every non casting martial in the game.

I could understand an arguement against a class not having the power to face an enviroment or having no abilities that affect things outside of combat but thats not what most of the arguements I see on this thread and others are stating. They are complaining about class balance vs other classes. And as for certain classes being useless outside of combat... thats because you build him or RP him to be useless outside of combat. Nothing says you have to effect the out of combat situations with spells or abilities. Feats, Skills, Magic items, and just good old fashion RP can be almost as effective in most cases.

I have played high level rogues. I have seen High level Monks. With magic items and sound decisions on the battle field they are fine. Could they be tweeked here and there. Possibly. But then you would have the masses come in and scream they became broken. My personal opinion is that the classes are fine as is(Expecially with the addition of archtypes). To say there are massive imbalances is a large exaggeration.

They were fine as is until Paizo started with the two good saves and tons of abilities for the 3/4 BAB classes and the ranger. They are no longer fine as is when compared to the Magus and Inquistor versus the environment. Only a player that likes the concept would ever play a rogue or ninja over either of the other two classes.

Rogue and ninja are not competitive with the Magus and Inquisitor who do as much or more damage as either class and have much better defenses.

The rogue/ninja should be rebuilt to be competitive versus the environment with the Inquisitor and Magus. They are not at all competitive, not even close.

Right now I have a ninja player wanting to quit his character because he is so tired of every single will and fort save ability draining his abilities, causing him to run in fear or be shaken, taking over his mind, causing him to be blinded, and generally being out of nearly every meaningful combat. His invisibility has become less useful because creatures at this level tend to have permanencied see invis, true seeing, blindsight, and other such abilities for countering invis. He really loves it when concealment makes his sneak attack useless, which is very, very common at this level.

The ninja was a lot of fun for him the first 5 to 7 levels. Not so much at level 10 where the fort and will saves against nasty, nasty effects are causing him to be useless in many major battles. Sometimes he's useless in minor battles too. It's pretty lame for him. Darkvision often defeats his ability to stealth as well. Rogue/ninja in pretty sad shape.


Marthkus wrote:
Avh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).
Well... that would be just right if only AC wasn't the most common defense monsters target.
Well I went back and checked that statement. Monks can/will have equal or better AC than a fighter.

Depends on the monk and the fighter, really. A sword & board fighter can have a VERY high AC indeed, a strength-based monk can have an AC that sucks donkey-balls in comparison. A qingong monk can stack barkskin with their AC, other builds cannot. On the whole, a dex/wis based monk can have an AC a few points ahead of a non-shield using fighter, but it's not set in stone. Further, the monk has a poor flat-footed AC, and the fighter a poor touch AC. Which is better? It's a toss-up.

Generally, though, the issue with AC is that it gets progressively less effective as you go up levels, and you reach the point where you are going to get hit regardless. When you are, the fighter generally has better hit points as he has d10 dice, more feats, and is less MAD.


Dabbler wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Avh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Idk I say monks are better at high levels than Fighters. Sure the DPR is WAY less, but monks survive tough fights (where the enemy targets something other than AC).
Well... that would be just right if only AC wasn't the most common defense monsters target.
Well I went back and checked that statement. Monks can/will have equal or better AC than a fighter.

Depends on the monk and the fighter, really. A sword & board fighter can have a VERY high AC indeed, a strength-based monk can have an AC that sucks donkey-balls in comparison. A qingong monk can stack barkskin with their AC, other builds cannot. On the whole, a dex/wis based monk can have an AC a few points ahead of a non-shield using fighter, but it's not set in stone. Further, the monk has a poor flat-footed AC, and the fighter a poor touch AC. Which is better? It's a toss-up.

Generally, though, the issue with AC is that it gets progressively less effective as you go up levels, and you reach the point where you are going to get hit regardless. When you are, the fighter generally has better hit points as he has d10 dice, more feats, and is less MAD.

Touch AC versus flat-footed is definitely not a toss up. Don't hurt your argument with false claims.

Flat-footed lasts a round or two at most in 99% of encounters. That only if you miss your Perception checks and monks usually have a good perception.

Touch AC is what is often used against energy drain attacks (some of the most dangerous attaks in the game), no save ray attacks like scorching ray, ray of exhaustion, enervate, incorporeal attacks, and some very dangerous spells like calcific touch, temporal stasis, and harm.

It's not really a contest. Touch AC is much more beneficial than flat-footed. A monk's flat-footed is still better than average because he gets his wisdom. A monk should have a flat-footed on par with a fighter with no shield, which is the highest damage figter.


Dabbler wrote:

Depends on the monk and the fighter, really. A sword & board fighter can have a VERY high AC indeed, a strength-based monk can have an AC that sucks donkey-balls in comparison. A qingong monk can stack barkskin with their AC, other builds cannot. On the whole, a dex/wis based monk can have an AC a few points ahead of a non-shield using fighter, but it's not set in stone. Further, the monk has a poor flat-footed AC, and the fighter a poor touch AC. Which is better? It's a toss-up.

Generally, though, the issue with AC is that it gets progressively less effective as you go up levels, and you reach the point where you are going to get hit regardless. When you are, the fighter generally has better hit points as he has d10 dice, more feats, and is less MAD.

Weirdly in the monk vs fighter I made, the monk has been having HIGHER health than the fighter builds.

Monk's flat footed AC is actually very high "These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed" Both wis and monk bonus are not lost. Only dex would be lost (like a fighter).

851 to 900 of 940 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What classes do you feel are imbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.