"builds show nothing of a classes merit."
Direct quote. First line.
Both of you can feel free to leave and let the rest of us to work if you don't care for the discussion.
they merely show how skilled the builder is at character creation.
that isn't the merits of the class itself, but the merits of the builder constructing the character.
Edit; a skilled builder can take the weakest of classes and make it look far stronger than a much weaker builder can tweak the weakest class.
Edit; "it's not about what comes innately under the hood, it's about what customizations you make, and how well you can drive the car." ~ Homage to Fast and the Furious
To be fair, builds are pretty good to demonstrate what can be done.
They can't prove a class is weak because anyone can simply take the worst possible combination of attributes/feats/spells and blame the class, but if you can produce an effective build, then we can say the class can be effective. If you can produce a variety of (significantly different) effective builds, then you can reasonably say the class is trully effective.Either way, one should always analyze the cost/benefit of each build. If takes too much investment to still be bad/mediocre, it's not a good point.
e.g.: I can make a skilled/diplomatic Fighter, but need a disproportionately high amount of resources.
I can make combat-effective Monks, but it takes many more resources and much greater system mastery than with most (if not all) other classes. And such resources may not be available.
|
My initial position was that monks were viable but required significant system mastery to use effectively. I stand by that position.If monks were effective, they wouldn't need significant system mastery. Splats don't fix the class. Archetypes don't fix the class. The fact you need this sort of thing only helps prove the point. They help the class, don't get me wrong, but it didn't mean there was nothing wrong with the class. It requires someone going out of their way to find something to fix it.
You can't produce any build for any class that is of a high quality without system mastery.
Hell, you can't seem to produce any kind of build...
Better than the person not posting any build at all...builds show nothing of a classes merits
all they show is the following
- how good you are at crunching numbers
- how much familiarity you have with splatbooks
- how good you are at parroting top tier builds
- how good you are at covering weaknesses
- how much you know about little known rules
- how much free time you possess for researching said builds
- and how good you are at maximizing the numbers you crunch
Most of this boils down to one thing: System Mastery.
My initial position was that monks were viable but required significant system mastery to use effectively. I stand by that position.
As for parroting top tier builds? I parrot nothing. I sat up half the night testing alternatives, running numbers and challenging my own assumptions. It is the type of exercise I enjoy. Call it a hobby.
indeed, it all boils down to system mastery
though anyone can parrot system mastery on paper by stealing a powerful build online as a chassis, unless they truly know the character, they lack a means to effectively utilize it as well as somebody who did the research. and a lot of the DMs i know tend to be more afraid of absurd martial damage than they are of a lucky spell. unless the the spell ends a fight.
Weekly William is more afraid of the Barbarian who deals 2d6+9 damage at 1st level without rage than he is the slumber happy witch who sets up the easy kills.
and towards level 10, he fears the martial guy that can break 20 points per swing on a full attack more than the bard who inspired the martial army.
Just for fun, I statted up a Druid level 10 animal companion Big Cat (Tiger). I think he does equally as well as most of the non-archetype monks posted. And that isn't even counting the possible druid buffs, or even the druid character. Would one of the numbers guys (ciretose, wraith) check the DPS/whatnot of this guy? Could also split skills between acrobatics and survival, but I figured I'd focus on his ability to scent things out.
** spoiler omitted **...
I have the tiger at 22.1 when it just stands and full attacks.
PA moves it up to 25.57
If you charge with no power attack you get 35.91
If you charge and power attack you get 43.0
I'm trying to duplicate this, and not quite getting the same numbers as you.
Standing and full-attack I get 21.02625 without factoring in grab/rakes.
PA moves it to 16.35375.Plain charge is: 32.05125
With PA on the charge: 34.72875What am I missing?
Here is my google doc sheet I am running numbers in:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsrIlKyeE8cedGJ4TG9DZ0gyT0c4eT RoSGJjMFJfWWc&usp=sharing
I have a different spreadsheet, and it constantly matches what other people come up with.
I also have one modified for Furious Focus, and Medusa's Wrath. I need to combine them one day, but to get back on target.
I did make an error though. I had an extra bonus to attack in from another character.
I also don't see you accounting for a 2nd bite attack at -5 from multi-attack. That is what you get at level 8.
Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.
My new numbers
+13 Bite 1 1d8+7
+8 Bite 2 1d8+7
2 claws at +13 1d6+7
PA
+11 Bite 1 1d8+13
+7 Bite 2 1d8+13
2 claws at +11 1d6+13
When charging add +2 to the attack rolls.
PS: Your table is off by 5 percent. You made the same mistake Tejon make when he made his DPR calculator the first time.
You can hit on a 9 when charging.
If you can hit on any number between 9 and 20 and each one is 5% then it should be 60%.
That is ok. Once the caster realizes how fast the monk he is does something else. What that is depends on the build however. Well the monk did make the caster waste a round, so that is not such a bad thing.The caster can DD and still be within the range for medium spells. If he is outside he can hope the monk can't ignore difficult terrain on a charge. A monk running up to caster and not charging is preferable. I think better options than the Run feat can be chosen, since the caster can still cast defensively instead of playing keep away. If a caster goes 800 feat away he is probably trying to escape anyway. Yeah I know that counts as XP for the players if he does run away.Ok so by lvl 10 DD can port a wizard 800ft away.
A lvl 10 monk has a move of 60ft
120ft charge
240ft run or 300ft run with the run featBy the time the caster ports out of the monks range the caster is outside the range needed for his close (50ft) and medium (200ft) spells.
Long range spells do not pack nearly the same punch as the closer range spells to the point that an archer would be more useful at that distance.
If as the monk you can make the enemy caster DD out of combat, you have done your job. The party is safer than it would have been.
If he is in medium range the monk is right next to him after his turn is up. Difficult terrain means nothing to monk when he can just do a series of jumps through it.
You can't outrun the monk.
Except he can't ignore the monk without dying...
If he is anywhere near the party the monk can get him.
The caster is locked down for the entire combat until someone else gets the monk.
The monk just shut down the caster. No fighter build comes close to being able to do that.
Actually the caster in only locked down in certain situations. It all depends on how easy it is to get to him, and what other options(spells) he has.
You can't just assume the monk locks the caster down, any more than I can assume the wizard has spell X ready unless it is a spell that everyone takes anyway. I did it with mirror image because I always take that spell, but despite everyone suggesting fly I dont always take it so it would be unfair for me to assume the wizard has access to it. Yeah I know monks jump high, but if this fight is outside he wont be that jumping high up. However like I said I dont always prepare fly so I can't use it as a get away method.
Better than the person not posting any build at all...builds show nothing of a classes merits
all they show is the following
- how good you are at crunching numbers
- how much familiarity you have with splatbooks
- how good you are at parroting top tier builds
- how good you are at covering weaknesses
- how much you know about little known rules
- how much free time you possess for researching said builds
- and how good you are at maximizing the numbers you crunch
i never post a build personally, but i do make recommendations to help other peoples builds.
and i do know that a 42 point monk with 10 constitution, is not a viable tank. such a monk, is dependant on his 42 point buy. and thus shouldn't be considered a serious character.
plus, i tend to play in high risk campaigns in parties of 12-15 PCs before cohorts and pets with 25 point allotments (cohorts are treated as PCs for the purpose of wealth, trait, and point allotment) and semi open access to 3rd party PF Material, WotC 3.0/3.5 material and custom items, which drastically skews my ability to build.
so i do not post proper pathfinder builds, because i lack the ability to do so without accidentally mixing in 3.5 content.
yes, the campaigns tend to be low on wealth, but we function because we have a raiding crew of 25-30 members easily and fight such things as armies, warbands, mercenary companies and the like. usually our 25-30 members have to fight off groups of 60-75+ similarly leveled and geared NPCs.
They also show what a class is capable of, but yeah a lot of it is system mastery, and how much time one is willing to devote to looking through several books for the "perfect" build.
Nothing here can't be replicated by anyone. There is no "skill" involved, just time and effort.
If there were no skill, everyone's would look the same.
You also have to remember you don't make a "perfect build" by consonantly changing what's in it. There are a finite number of traits and feats and point buy. Some builds are radically different. A strength based monk using a temple sword is going to look different from a dex based monk with agile enchant(which isn't a class feature...) which is going to look different from a monk specializing in defense/styles which is going to look different from a Zen Archer etc.
I'd still like someone to help me make a comparison of my Ranger vs one of these Monk builds as far as DPR to AC ratio and such goes, or at least tell me the formula so I can work it out myself.
So to sum up, the Dex build is the only one that seems to be lacking, but even the unarmed builds have been shown to be able to do good damage with decent AC, so long as you aren't held to strictly core.
Is that where we are at?
close enough for now
but still, it requires a lot of noncore content to make a monk effective.
now, bring in the 3.5 content and while the monk becomes viable at encounters, everything else becomes trivially overpowering.
in fact, 3.5 content makes the gap even worse.
You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to sum up, the Dex build is the only one that seems to be lacking, but even the unarmed builds have been shown to be able to do good damage with decent AC, so long as you aren't held to strictly core.
Is that where we are at?
So far yes, but that is until the field test. :)
I still would like to see dex build made to participate.
So to sum up, the Dex build is the only one that seems to be lacking, but even the unarmed builds have been shown to be able to do good damage with decent AC, so long as you aren't held to strictly core.
Is that where we are at?
No, see my Dex build
|
|
Nothing here can't be replicated by anyone. There is no "skill" involved, just time and effort.If there were no skill, everyone's would look the same.
If everyone had the same goal.
If you an I can both have the exact same outcome if we put in the same input, it isn't a skill based proposition.
Again, if you don't want to participate, no one is asking for you to stick around.
in fact, 3.5 content makes the gap even worse.
Unarmed Swordsage says hi.
In 3.5 anytime someone mentioned monk I usually spotted someone suggesting unarmed swordsage. Shadow Hand school had some nice maneuverability.
Good Irori! Stupid link. Here it is
You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
Who said Fighter fall behind in combat?
Now, granted, they're not MUCH above Rangers and Barbarians can match and sometimes overtake them (especially factoring in Pounce), but all of the Fighter's issues are that he utterly fails OUT of combat.
You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
Who said Fighter fall behind in combat?
Now, granted, they're not MUCH above Rangers and Barbarians can match and sometimes overtake them (especially factoring in Pounce), but all of the Fighter's issues are that he utterly fails OUT of combat.
And the monk is any better at that?
|
|
So to sum up, the Dex build is the only one that seems to be lacking, but even the unarmed builds have been shown to be able to do good damage with decent AC, so long as you aren't held to strictly core.
Is that where we are at?
close enough for now
but still, it requires a lot of noncore content to make a monk effective.
now, bring in the 3.5 content and while the monk becomes viable at encounters, everything else becomes trivially overpowering.
in fact, 3.5 content makes the gap even worse.
I did it with one Quiggong swap.
Everything else was core.
And actually, I still made the 22 goalpost without the barkskin.
Again, if you don't want to participate, no one is asking for you to stick around.
Again with the telling people to leave. No. Stop being a jerk. Because I don't want to post builds, doesn't mean I'm not participating or don't want to.
You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
the fighter is at least, good at dealing HP damage with their signature weapon, which is worth some credit. even if it isn't the best option, they can be effective at archery enough to kill stuff
monk doesn't truly have that without the help of feats, archetypes, and maybe splatbook equipment.
while a mostly core fighter is a one trick pony designed for killing things, the monk doesn't have as many synergies.
You can't produce any build for any class that is of a high quality without system mastery.
Hell, you can't seem to produce any kind of build...
Well, Mt.Sin is saying that Monks are weak, so what kind of build would you ask of him?
He could simply build an ineffective Monk and say the class is weak. To prove a class is effective, we'd need a good variety of effective builds. And these builds should be considerably different from each other, if a class needs a specific build to work, then it's not a very effective class.But what makes an effective build? Well... Defensive Monks are not very useful, IMHO. Monks can't heal or buff their allies. They can't debuff enemies or talk their way out of trouble. The only thing Monks add in combat is damage/maneuvers, so if they can't consistently bring that to the table, all they're doing is bouncing around the battlefield while his friends do all the hard work, and then they demand an equal share of whatever loot the party finds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the monk is any better at that?You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
Who said Fighter fall behind in combat?
Now, granted, they're not MUCH above Rangers and Barbarians can match and sometimes overtake them (especially factoring in Pounce), but all of the Fighter's issues are that he utterly fails OUT of combat.
He has the benefit of having a better class skill list and a couple more skills per level.
Of course Rangers still laugh at him.
|
|
Good Irori! Stupid link. Here it is
Nice.
So at this point we have found many assumptions made at the beginning were false.
Go us.
And the monk is any better at that?You can make an effective monk build?
If fighters aren't effective and monks fall behind fighters, how can the monk be effective?
Who said Fighter fall behind in combat?
Now, granted, they're not MUCH above Rangers and Barbarians can match and sometimes overtake them (especially factoring in Pounce), but all of the Fighter's issues are that he utterly fails OUT of combat.
He has the benefit of having a better class skill list and a couple more skills per level.
Of course Rangers still laugh at him.
bards laugh at the monk in ranged combat. while inspiring all their allies to boot.
|
|
Well, Mt.Sin is saying that Monks are weak, so what kind of build would you ask of him?You can't produce any build for any class that is of a high quality without system mastery.
Hell, you can't seem to produce any kind of build...
A build from another class that he believes isn't weak for comparison.
Like everyone else is doing.
You can make an effective monk build?
Of course! All I need is extra 40-point buy and double WBL! Maybe a few templates too!
Anything can be awesome at anything with enough resources invested.
But like I said, those resources are not always available. And sadly, Monks usually need considerably more than they can be reasonably expected to have access to.
|
|
You can make an effective monk build?Of course! All I need is extra 40-point buy and double WBL! Maybe a few templates too!
Anything can be awesome at anything with enough resources invested.
But like I said, those resources are not always available. And sadly, Monks usually need considerably more than they can be reasonably expected to have access to.
Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.
You should go back and look at what has been produced so far with a 20 pt build and WBL.
|
|
Again, if you don't want to participate, no one is asking for you to stick around.Again with the telling people to leave. No. Stop being a jerk. Because I don't want to post builds, doesn't mean I'm not participating or don't want to.
Dude, you are basically badmouthing the work everyone in this thread is doing, while being unwilling to do any work yourself.
You are the one being a jerk. It is like walking into a party where everyone is having a great time and telling them how stupid the party is.
Just leave if you don't want to be here.
Seriously if it's bad just tell me you won't hurt my feelings.
Slyss E Dyss:Human Ranger 10Saves: Fort +10, Ref +13, Will +7
AC: 25 (+9 Armor, +5 Dex, +1 Deflection)Str: 18
Dex: 20
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 7Feats:
1.) Two-Weapon Fighting
1.) Weapon Focus: Kukri
2.) Double Slice
3.) Endurance
3.) Weapon Finesse
5.) Iron Will
6.) Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7.) Power Attack
9.) Improved Critical (Kukri)
10.) Two-Weapon RendMelee: Kukri +18/+13 (1d4+7, 15-20/x2)
OR
Kukri +16/+16/+11/+11 (1d4+7, 15-20/x2), Rend (1d10+4)
Special Abilities: Favored Enemy (+6/+4/+2), Track, Evasion, Favored Terrain (+4/+2), Hunter's Bond, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker
Equipment: Belt of Physical Might +2 (Str and Dex, 10k), +3 Mithral Breastplate (13k), 2 +3 Kukris (36k total), Cloak of Resistance +1 (1k), +1 Ring of Protection
Not sure how good this is. To-hit/Damage does not include Power Attack or Favored Enemy bonuses/penalties.
I thought about doing one with something like 20+ Str and 16 Dex instead but wanted to keep it simple since I didn't want to take more than 15 minutes or so putting this together and that has some logistical difference I'd need to work out.
I figured a guaranteed 1d10+4 damage if two attacks hit would be better than another attack at a much lower bonus but correct me if I'm wrong.
I have no clue what the DPR formula is so I dunno what this guy's numbers are. Next level he'd snag a Headband of Wisdom for saves and casting. Something else I didn't include actually.
Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.
That's clearly an assumption. Can you show me a build to prove me otherwise? I can name a goalpost if you want.
Really though, stop being insulting. It doesn't add to the conversation at all. Inferring someone hasn't read any of the thread isn't nice. I also think you missed the point. The part about needing more resources. Which was a thing I remembered from 3.5, because of their MADness.
|
|
Does that mean in posts that don't have builds you'll politely stay out.Only statements without evidence are useful in these discussions...No need to be so hateful. Someone was just explaining builds have problems. That's not saying "Evidence is useless!" or "Don't back your statements!"."builds show nothing of a classes merit."
Direct quote. First line.
Both of you can feel free to leave and let the rest of us to work if you don't care for the discussion.
If there were a "No builds" thread, sure.
But such a thread would be rather idiotic, given the format of the game including players creating builds and then playing them.
|
|
Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.That's clearly an assumption. Can you show me a build to prove me otherwise? I can name a goalpost if you want.
Really though, stop being insulting. It doesn't add to the conversation at all. Inferring someone hasn't read any of the thread isn't nice. I also think you missed the point. The part about needing more resources. Which was a thing I remembered from 3.5, because of their MADness.
Lorekeeper linked to one above. I did so earlier.
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, why are you here?
You can make an effective monk build?Of course! All I need is extra 40-point buy and double WBL! Maybe a few templates too!
Anything can be awesome at anything with enough resources invested.
But like I said, those resources are not always available. And sadly, Monks usually need considerably more than they can be reasonably expected to have access to.
Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.
You should go back and look at what has been produced so far with a 20 pt build and WBL.
Actually, I've been lurking from the very beginning... But you are taking my comment too literally. I know Monks don't need 40-point buy, templates and double WBL to work. That was just humorous hyperbole.
Let me try and speak more clearly: "Monks need considerably higher investment to achieve the same degree of effectiveness as most other classes with similar roles".
So far I'm not impressed by any vanilla Monk build, although some of them do seem like they would make decent characters.
Good Irori! Stupid link. Here it isNice.
So at this point we have found many assumptions made at the beginning were false.
Go us.
That monk needs a higher AC if he wants to function as a frontliner, since that potion won't always be active and they are expensive. If he wants to be a secondary combatant, what else is he going to do?
I am not up to date all of the new changes to monks. Did they get new ways to bypass DR or than the amulet of mighty fist being allowed to do so?
Once again it must still pass the field test, which is why full builds are better than just numbers.
If he has money to buy items we can help with that as a collective to make sure several contingencies are covered.
The next time I run a game I would like to be able to tell my player to do _____ for his unarmed monk. Things are looking good however. :)
Does that mean in posts that don't have builds you'll politely stay out.Only statements without evidence are useful in these discussions...No need to be so hateful. Someone was just explaining builds have problems. That's not saying "Evidence is useless!" or "Don't back your statements!"."builds show nothing of a classes merit."
Direct quote. First line.
Both of you can feel free to leave and let the rest of us to work if you don't care for the discussion.
i will offer critique, help pick out a series of "Challenging" monsters for our martial heroes from the CR 6-14 range (all valid at 10th level), and pick apart builds based on perceived flaws. being especially harsh both on monks and one one trick ponies.
CR 6 foes will be in groups of 4, Cr 7's in Trios CR 8's and Cr 9's in Pairs and CR10+alone.
I have a different spreadsheet, and it constantly matches what other people come up with.
I also have one modified for Furious Focus, and Medusa's Wrath. I need to combine them one day, but to get back on target.
I did make an error though. I had an extra bonus to attack in from another character.
I also don't see you accounting for a 2nd bite attack at -5 from multi-attack. That is what you get at level 8.My new numbers
+13 Bite 1 1d8+7
+8 Bite 2 1d8+72 claws at +13 1d6+7
PA
+11 Bite 1 1d8+13
+7 Bite 2 1d8+132 claws at +11 1d6+13
When charging add +2 to the attack rolls.
PS: Your table is off by 5 percent. You made the same mistake Tejon make when he made his DPR calculator the first time.
You can hit on a 9 when charging.
If you can hit on any number between 9 and 20 and each one is 5% then it should be 60%.
I made this one myself.
Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Tigers have 3 attacks (bite, claw, claw) and thus don't get the second bite at -5. Unfortunately, since all 3 attacks are primary, they don't get much out of this bonus feat.
I fixed the to-hit chance, and now my numbers are lining up.
Now the only thing is to figure out how the grab chances would work... offhand, which attack(s) does the tiger get to grab with? Claws? Bite? All?
Seriously if it's bad just tell me you won't hurt my feelings.** spoiler omitted **
Not sure how good this is. To-hit/Damage does not include Power Attack or Favored Enemy bonuses/penalties.
I thought about doing one with something like 20+ Str and 16 Dex instead but wanted to keep it simple since I didn't want to take more than 15 minutes or so putting this together and that has some logistical difference I'd need to work out.
I figured a guaranteed 1d10+4 damage if two attacks hit would be better than another attack at a much lower bonus but correct me if I'm wrong.
I have no clue what the DPR formula is so I dunno what this guy's numbers are. Next level he'd snag a Headband of Wisdom for saves and casting. Something else I didn't include actually.
Your will save is to low IMHO. I would like to at least seen a 9 to give you a 50% chance to not be some bad guy's new pet.
There is a trait you can take to get +1 to will saves, and you can get the +2 headband for wisdom instead of the +4 version.
You also don't have skills listed.
|
|
I'd still like someone to help me make a comparison of my Ranger vs one of these Monk builds as far as DPR to AC ratio and such goes, or at least tell me the formula so I can work it out myself.
I'm not sure how to calculate the rend part, but the general formula is generally
h(d+s)+tchd, whereas:
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, why are you here?Lemmy...you clearly have come to the thread late.Really though, stop being insulting. It doesn't add to the conversation at all. Inferring someone hasn't read any of the thread isn't nice.
Irony. Ciretose, you work to hijack threads I think. You accuse people who don't do it your way of doing it wrong and tell them to get out. Even not reading the thread. If someone brings up a point its something that won't always happen. You even accused me of being insulting, when all I do is critique the monk in a thread about monks. Meanwhile, your accusing people of not reading, selecting chunks of text based on forum post ages ago to try and prove a point form a dead thread, and actively make comments that are aggressive.
Everyone has a right to speak up and give their opinion. You don't decide who's here and who's productive or not.
Except he can't ignore the monk without dying...
If he is anywhere near the party the monk can get him.
This is based on two assumptions:
1) the monk can locate the mage2) the monk is capable of the locomotion required to reach the mage once he is located.
Wizards are not stupid, by definition. They know any half-trained fighter can beat them senseless if he gets close, and an archer can fill them with arrows if he can locate them. That's why the flying invisible wizard is not just a theorycrafting cliché, it's where a sane wizard will be when facing a dangerous bunch of adventurers he will surely have gained advance intelligence of - out of reach and out of sight.
Also, how many encounters per day involve a mage? One out of four, maybe. So the monk is useful 25% of the time, assuming the caster is foolish enough to let him close, or the party caster's debuff him first.
So to sum up, the Dex build is the only one that seems to be lacking, but even the unarmed builds have been shown to be able to do good damage with decent AC, so long as you aren't held to strictly core.
Is that where we are at?
I wouldn't call the AC good by any stretch (OK, it's past 22...but that is is LOW at level 10, and the monk has less HP than counterparts), and DPR is subjective to AC of the target. I'd like to see the calculations vs a CR+2 threat, compared to a full BAB build. I think that's where the monk builds will unravel - at low AC their many attacks really count, against high AC the higher attack bonuses of a full BAB class will count. The monks lower damage-per-hit will founder vs DR, while the full BAB's higher damage can still be effective even if he can't bypass the DR.
unfortunately, i don't have the funds for such advanced templates, so i may have to ask if i have permission to use links to Myth-Weavers as my building medium.
it's not a perfect solution, but give me a bit, and i will work on a 10th level 20 point human fighter focused on archery for comparison.
Your will save is to low IMHO. I would like to at least seen a 9 to give you a 50% chance to not be some bad guy's new pet.
There is a trait you can take to get +1 to will saves
Ah, I completely forgot about Traits.
and you can get the +2 headband for wisdom instead of the +4 version.
Couldn't afford it, I only had 3k left over after the other stuff.
You also don't have skills listed.
Eh, it's not particularly relevant as far as this particular thread goes.
"Perception, Survival, pick 4 others" basically.
I'm not sure how to calculate the rend part, but the general formula is generally
h(d+s)+tchd, whereas:
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
Ah, I see. We're targeting AC 24 I believe? Lemme get right on that.
Wait, do you do the percentage for each hit or...?
|
|
@Rynjin - Quick and dirty, so check the math
Reg
.65 X 9 + .25 * .65* 9 (2 times)
.40 X 9 + .25 * .65* 9 (2 times)
Which was around 29.
Power attack I came up with 34 (more damage/lower hit)
For my personal "viability" goalpost (1/4 of HP for equal CR creature) you are on target. For Wraith's, you are very low.
I went through this thread too. I haven't seen a "good" monk. Any similarly opt fighter still does a better job in most situations and the fighter isn't all that great either.