Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.You are apparently allergic to math.
And you're apparently allergic to optimization. And reading posts. Show me a (non-sensei) monk with 20 wisdom at tenth level and I'll show you a monk that can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Maybe you live in happy-magical-52-point-buy-land. I don't.
|
Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.You are apparently allergic to math.And you're apparently allergic to optimization. And reading posts. Show me a (non-sensei) monk with 20 wisdom at tenth level and I'll show you a monk that can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Maybe you live in happy-magical-52-point-buy-land. I don't.
I posted it.
In this thread.
Last page.
Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.You are apparently allergic to math.And you're apparently allergic to optimization. And reading posts. Show me a (non-sensei) monk with 20 wisdom at tenth level and I'll show you a monk that can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Maybe you live in happy-magical-52-point-buy-land. I don't.
I posted it.
In this thread.
Last page.
Lolwut? No, you posted nothing of the sort. You showed ashiel a bunch of feats and and magic items showing that you could have a 28 AC at tenth level (ooh, that's so impressive).
You made no mention of your attack bonus (Gee, I wonder why?), damage, HP, saves or anything other than a fragmented snapshot of gear and feats.
Try again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
20 Point buy monk
Spoiler:To keep it open, we'll remove race.
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10Throw your +2 around (or move your various racial bonuses around to make one of those 14 into a 16 and you have.
16 Str
13 Dex
12 Con
10 Int
16 Wis
10 ChaBy 10th base is (This is personal preference)
18 Str
13 Dex
12 Con
10 Int
16 Wis
10 ChaGold is 62,000
Headband of inspired wisdom +4 is 16k
Belt of Physical perfection +2 is also 16KSo we are at
20 Str
15 Dex
14 Con
10 Int
20 Wis
10 ChaWith 30k gold left.
And that is with no scores under 10.
What Ashiel understands better than most is that Pathfinder is an overlay of multiple effectiveness curves: Hit points accumulated versus damage, healing versus damage, To-Hit numbers versus AC. Ash understands the numbers behind the system as a systematic whole.Thank you AdAstraGames. That is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me on the Paizo boards. (^-^)
Welcome. If you're ever at a con I'm demoing at, you'll probably enjoy my wargames, and peer skeptically at my RPGs. :)
I have a feeling I didn't explain myself well. I didn't mean that professional rpg designers just sit around playing all day, nor that its easy to get a Playtest session happening. What I meant is that they know what kinds of feedback to give. They know the rules well enough to anticipate where problems are going to arise.Only to a point. They can anticipate where problems they've previously encountered before will arise. They can spot the obvious "problem" feats that are too good. They can miss ones that render other feats obsolete.
Compare Penetrating Strike to Clustered Shots.
There is never a situation where Penetrating Strike is better than Clustered Shots, yet it has a much steeper curve to get to (12th level is the earliest access point)
Both of these feats are good, but Clustered Shots is something that everyone just takes.
What Ashiel understands better than most is that Pathfinder is an overlay of multiple effectiveness curves: Hit points accumulated versus damage, healing versus damage, To-Hit numbers versus AC. Ash understands the numbers behind the system as a systematic whole.
Of the game devs I've interacted with at Paizo? Few do, because to them, the overlapping curves aren't The Game, they're just how things are, and they can't actually change them without doing a massive new edition...which the company is going to put off for as long as possible, and forever is something they're hoping for.
Dev teams who work with this stuff on a day to day basis really don't like dealing with either of the key ingredients of a playtest group: The annoying prick breaking the rules, and the village idiot.
What happens when they playtest is that they playtest with people they know and play styles they know, and if their friends don't experience problems, well, the problems don't exist.
Except that they do. It's a blind spot and an acknowledgement that Phases 2-3-4 are necessary...and often skipped when doing this under deadline pressure.
Well, I've never spoken to them about it, but I have read posts by Sean where he's basically nailed my view/experience far more succinctly and eloquently than I could have. I also think the Beginner Box is a sign they really get "people like me" (a view reinforced when I read the transitions document).
I'm impressed that Pathfinder has done such a spectacular job of capturing the 3.5 fans (who I consider to be non derogatory "system nuts" by default) whilst simultaneously keeping people like me interested, even if not totally sold. It seems to me they must have a pretty broad view of the market to be capturing both extremes.
I need to bust out my dwarven monk again and get more playtesting with him. Maybe he'll be my next PFS character.
Why wouldn't you play a dwarven monk?
Link for reference.20 Point buy monk
** spoiler omitted **
And that is with no scores under 10.
'Kay, I missed that. Thanks TOZ.
Here's my array, I like to actually hit.
28 (+6 belt)
10
12
10
14
7
Take dodge (monks don't need to make the prerequisites) as a bonus feat, Then the Crane style tree.
Yeesh, no thanks. I want my monk to survive to 10th level.
Crane Wing is strong, but not THAT strong.
It's not that big a difference really. AC starts out 2 points lower (not exactly a deal breaker). You could also put it all into dex instead if you are wanting to go for a defensive build.
Crane wing is also a pretty big AC boost, in addition to the deflection. I think it is that good. ;p
|
|
It's not that big a difference really. AC starts out 2 points lower (not exactly a deal breaker). You could also put it all into dex instead if you are wanting to go for a defensive build.
Crane wing is also a pretty big AC boost, in addition to the deflection. I think it is that good. ;p
Oh it's good, I just don't think it's good enough to tank Dex and Wis so much. I GMed for a Crane Style Maneuver Master, and while he did pretty good I could still paste him with the right encounter.
Oh it's good, I just don't think it's good enough to tank Dex and Wis so much. I GMed for a Crane Style Maneuver Master, and while he did pretty good I could still paste him with the right encounter.It's not that big a difference really. AC starts out 2 points lower (not exactly a deal breaker). You could also put it all into dex instead if you are wanting to go for a defensive build.
Crane wing is also a pretty big AC boost, in addition to the deflection. I think it is that good. ;p
I like to go all in with my to hit stat (STR, DEX or WIS for the sensei) when I'm playing a monk, because I'm still scarred by my experience with flurry of misses.
Crane style has certain weaknesses, but there are tricks and tactics you can use to minimize them.
My first character ever was a 3.5 Monk with 10, 16, 10, 10, 13, 10. I know about flurry of misses.
Yeah. I've seen that before. It ain't pretty.
Now that I mentioned Vital Strike, I would like to say that I do agree it should be applied to charges. Unsure on Spring Attack, but definitely charges.I like the idea of Vital Strike. Unfortunately it diminishes the benefit of class features like Weapon Training and favors big weapons in the extreme. It also generally means you move, attack, get ravaged by someone else's full attack (but then this is a general problem with the move+attack situation).
Thing about the full attack action for the enemy is that luckily, your AC is good enough to dodge many of the iterative attacks, since (generally) they hit on more penalized attacks. Natural attacks work a tad bit differently, with -5 for secondary attacks, so admittedly, a creature's secondary natural attacks will probably hit more often than a humanoid's iterative attacks. But usually, those secondary attacks do less damage (claws, hooves, tail slaps).
As for Vital Strike, I feel that yes, assuming you hit with every iterative attack, you'll benefit with Weapon Specialization more often. But when you can't make the full-attack for whatever reason, being able to add double your weapon damage in one hit (or more with the feat chain) is still nice. I understand the importance of flat bonuses to attack damage. it is, generally, more reliable and stacks with critical hits. But, I also value adding more dice much more than many others do. It is more of a luck-based risk for more damage, but I find that the probability of landing higher amounts of damage is worth it. And I also find that only looking at the average roll on a dice isn't the only thing one should look at when deciding on damage. For example, with a long sword, you'll go from 4.5 average damage to 9 average damage on the Vital Strike. Furthermore, on the Vital Strike, you'll have a 90.63% chance of doing more than the 4 damage average on 1d8. So for the majority of the time, you'll be doing more damage in that one hit than without it. Now granted, bigger weapon dice will benefit more from this, since we are doubling greater values. It's unfortunately the nature of higher numbers. But usually, I tend to stack Vital Strike with other magical weapon abilities, like the energy dice (flaming, shocking) and also the burst weapons.
As a thinking exercise, I wonder what would happen if you allowed Vital Strike dice to be multiplied along with the crit? Usually, lower dice values have higher crit values. It would probably favor the higher crit values and (possibly) make x4 weapons unsurvivable.
Also... at first glance, Penetrating Strike is either pretty mediocre, or Clustered Shots is too good. But, generally speaking, when it comes to adding bonuses to damage, melee will be able to add more flat bonuses to their damage than ranged attackers. Power Attack's +50% damage as well as two-handed damage are two things that ranged attackers do not get. So, assuming that an archer and a swordsman are both able to hit all of their attacks in a full-attack regiment, and the archer had Clustered Shots while the Swordsman had Penetrating Strike, would the damage that bypasses be about equal?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*stuff concerning vital strike*
I'm really interested in this conversation about vital strike with you, but it's 12:48 am here and I need to hit the hay. So I'll come back and continue on next chance I get. Have a good one in the meantime.
*stuff concerning vital strike*I'm really interested in this conversation about vital strike with you, but it's 12:48 am here and I need to hit the hay. So I'll come back and continue on next chance I get. Have a good one in the meantime.
I would, but I just got my copy of Ultimate Campaign...
... so I'm going to be a while :)
Actually Vital Strike is only good for eidolons, druids, and anyone else that can get obscenely high base weapon damage, usually through the use of a twinked out natural weapon w/ strongjaw spell and being a very big size.
I made a fixed version a long time ago that simply added BAB and capped at certain amounts of BAB, with the latter feats extending the cap and giving x2 and x3 BAB to damage, respectively (iirc, VS capped at +10 damage (BAB 10), Imp. VS at +30 (BAB 15) and Greater VS at +60 (BAB 20)). As well as explicitly allowing one to use the VS feats with Spring Attack. That way VS at least would work like you expect it to; better the more martially skilled you are, doing enough damage to actually matter, and being good on a skirmisher build.
The suggestion was promptly ignored. :(
At first glance, it's definitely not half bad. Though Rogues and Monks wouldn't get any usage from Greater Vital Strike admittedly. My only concern is it favoring high crit builds more, and in addition, escalating critical hit damage to an abnormally high point. +30 damage on a critical hit would be nasty, especially on x3 and x4 weapons. I'd personally lower the scaling on that damage a bit for the Improved and Greater options.
At first glance, it's definitely not half bad. Though Rogues and Monks wouldn't get any usage from Greater Vital Strike admittedly. My only concern is it favoring high crit builds more, and in addition, escalating critical hit damage to an abnormally high point. +30 damage on a critical hit would be nasty, especially on x3 and x4 weapons. I'd personally lower the scaling on that damage a bit for the Improved and Greater options.You could just make it precision damage no concerns with crit builds that way.
Considering it is you hitting a creature in the vitals, I could see that thematically making sense. Although there would be some added negative baggage to the feat, with some creatures immune to precision damage. Although that list is fairly small. Off the top of my head, Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporeal, with Proteans having a 50% chance to ignore sneak attacks*. So overall, not actually that bad. Very specific cases I feel, so I can dig it.
*It actually specifically states Sneak Attacks, so by RAW, precision damage would be unaffected. Although I personally feel the intention would be precision damage due to the ever-changing body of a protean. YMMV
In much the same, there was a thread where someone collected some data about unbalanced classes and as it turned out the general consensus is that X, Y, and Z were commonly considered underpowered and at least one class was commonly considered overpowered.
I'm glad that you found that to be interesting.
*stuff concerning vital strike*I'm really interested in this conversation about vital strike with you, but it's 12:48 am here and I need to hit the hay. So I'll come back and continue on next chance I get. Have a good one in the meantime.I would, but I just got my copy of Ultimate Campaign...
... so I'm going to be a while :)
As finer reason than most. Enjoy your book sir. :)
Sadly Monk is a trap for begginers.
Not if they have fun. Even if a class is sub-optimal (and monk is no longer so bad) or requires system mastery (and monk is not as bad as Wizard in that regard), folks can still have fun playing it. Despite all the wailing about the rogue, it’s still on of the most popular classes in PF. And, the rogue can definitely contribute to a group, even if a hyper-optimized bard or ranger might do a little better. Is it really “better” if the player has fun playing a rogue and just plain doesn’t want to play a bard? D&D is a Game. Games should be fun.
Actually Vital Strike is only good for eidolons, druids, and anyone else that can get obscenely high base weapon damage, usually through the use of a twinked out natural weapon w/ strongjaw spell and being a very big size.
I made a fixed version a long time ago that simply added BAB and capped at certain amounts of BAB, with the latter feats extending the cap and giving x2 and x3 BAB to damage, respectively (iirc, VS capped at +10 damage (BAB 10), Imp. VS at +30 (BAB 15) and Greater VS at +60 (BAB 20)). As well as explicitly allowing one to use the VS feats with Spring Attack. That way VS at least would work like you expect it to; better the more martially skilled you are, doing enough damage to actually matter, and being good on a skirmisher build.
The suggestion was promptly ignored. :(
Sounds like the one I made:
5. Vital Strike (Combat) You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When you make a single melee attack like the end of a charge or spring attack, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage equal to your Base Attack Bonus, up to a maximum of +10 damage. This extra damage, unlike most flat (or "non-dice") damage bonuses, is not multiplied on a critical hit, but is merely added to the total damage dealt.
Improved VS: Requires BAB +9, instead add double your BAB in damage, up to a maximum of +30 damage.
Greater VS: Requires BAB +14, instead add triple your BAB in damage up to a maximum of +60 damage.
I improved it so it qualifies for every single melee attack events even AoO's. So while you may want Full attacks boosting AoO is also useful.
I also lowered BAB requirements to qualify.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this would be merciless flamewar, but it turned out to be a very interesting thread...
Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.
It's not.
The problem is that non-damaging options are usually terrible.
From all Combat Maneuvers to feats like Stand Still, every mundane action other than "deal damage" has been significantly nerfed from 3.X.
CMB/CMD is a great system, IMHO, it's very simple and intuitive. But it's badly calculated. CMD outpasses CMB rather early... And maneuvers are plagued by arbitrary restrictions that apply nowhere else in the game.
How come I can have a Str modifier of +5000 and still be unable to trip something because it's too big? I'm strong enough to throw it at the sun, but tripping it is too much? I can one-shot it with a bite attack, but I can't make it lose its balance?
This is something that really bothers me. IMHO, if a player manages to have a high enough CMB to surpass the Storm Giant's size bonus and huge Str modifier to its CMD, she derserves the chance to trip the Storm Giant!
This is something that really bothers me. IMHO, if a player manages to have a high enough CMB to surpass the Storm Giant's size bonus and huge Str modifier to its CMD, she derserves the chance to trip the Storm Giant!Amen brother.
That would be unrealistic. What next, dragons? Oh wait...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.yeah to move a swing a sword twice is absurd, but to move and realize the very complex movement and gesticulations to cast a spells is just fine, :p
And let's not forget that you can move and still cast TWO spells.
It's pretty weird, actually, (and equally unfair) that this bizarre notion of "realism" is such an problem for some classes, while others get a complete free-pass and can defy logic as much as they like.
Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.
It's like saying a 20th Fighter should have the same limits of a 1st level commoner.
(If I am not wrong rembebering the rules) you are right, warrior could grapple the T-Rex, maybe even pin it...what would have been the reason to disallowthe trip maneuver?Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.
You're right.
The reason? Well... I'd say arbitrary restrictions from 3.X that got ported to PF.
To be fair, the size modifiers are not as big as they were before. And I think PF allows you to trip creatures 1 size category bigger than 3.X did. Not sure, though...
I really dislike the size mods in PF, how they grow exponentially from a nearly pointless +/- 1 up to 8 by 1-->2-->4-->8.
It'd be much more sensible and balanced if it was an even progression of 2-->4-->6-->8. And 3E, with its bigger size numbers (capping at +/- 16!) still followed a linear progression so don't act like scaling it evenly is some absurd new concept.
But yeah, I've ALWAYS hated the size cap on maneuvers*, it's always been stupid. That one issue actually is pretty much single-handedly the reason the entire setting sun discipline in Tome of Battle is a complete and utter failure of mechanics matching fluff (that and the size mods still applying as normal), which is a shame, because all the stories about the Halfling defeating giants by using their size against them was really cool, it'd be nice if that was *actually* emulated.
*Lemmy, it's the same in PF as 3E, the only change was removing it entirely from grapple. Which I will credit PF for doing, good on them. Shame they didn't do that for all the maneuvers. (Some maneuvers like disarm never had size restrictions in 3E, either).
*Lemmy, it's the same in PF as 3E, the only change was removing it entirely from grapple. Which I will credit PF for doing, good on them. Shame they didn't do that for all the maneuvers. (Some maneuvers like disarm never had size restrictions in 3E, either).
Ah I see... i wasn't sure about that.
The idea is pretty simple. Roll, add CMB modifier, beat CMD. That's easy to remember, and is very similar to rolling attacks against AC, which we do all the time, that makes it even more intuitive...
That said...
If you pay attention, you'll see I also said it was badly calculated.
CMB/CMD numbers are wonky and don't work very well... As we can see through your examples and the fact that is so freaking difficult to trip anything by mid/high levels.
I think it needs some calibrating, but completely discarding the mechanics may not be necessary. Reducing size bonuses and removing immunity to maneuvers would be a great step.
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.why is people so exaggerated? you do not need feats chains for spellcastings :P
True, but if you want to do something complicated like trip someone you need at least a feat. Probably more to be viable or effetive. Otherwise you need to be penalized for doing something mundane but cool.
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.why is people so exaggerated? you do not need feats chains for spellcastings :P
That's true... In fact, if you're a spell-casters, there's maybe... 4 feats you might want that even have prerequisites. And half of the time, the prerequisite is the same feat, only with a smaller bonus...