Either way, AoMF is better since it can bypass DR.
Isn't this all a bit of a red herring? I mean, we have builds that hit the goalposts without this little aside.
I'm just waiting for this red herring to turn into ad hominem.
Not much can be gained from, "It was legal in a 3.5 splat book, so it exist and can be bought."
Sure, buddy. Sure.Shhhh facts will not reach this one.Facts reach me just fine Marthkus. There is no need for the hostility.<insert more personal snipping>
Sorry I'm feeling lazy today. Can you just pretend to be offended by this?
HOW DARE YOU BE OFFENDED BY MY REASONABLE CRITICISM!
This guy is clearly only vulnerable to fire or acid.
Since all potions are assumed to be made at the minimum caster level, finding one made above caster level 5 would be entirely up to GM discretion.A potion of Greater Magic Fang +5 is listed on the table of potions. Try again.
Got a page number on that?
This is the only table of potions in my CRB.
Characters aren't automatons that only do 1 thing. If Step Up is the wiser move for a monk, then the wise monk will Step it Up. The odds still favor the monk by a good long margin even if he doesn't spend ki to up his great 33 AC to insane 37 AC.
The default combat methodology vs a reach enemy would (if possible) be to trip him and then finish the flurry. If successful, the enemy cannot 5ft step, and might not even be able to full-attack. If he chooses to full attack, then he does so at -4. If he can't be tripped, cest la vie, just Step Up unless an even better tactical option presents itself.
When Stepping Up, there's the encounter area to consider too - especially in dungeons or buildings in general, it is usually possible to 5ft in such a way that in the long-run the enemy cannot keep 5ft stepping away to a position where he can consistently leverage his reach.
And the logic for a monster with reach would be to trip you on your way in for their AoO (before they are in your threatened space) causing you to miss entirely the first attack sequence, and waste actions standing up. It is a vulnerability, and only actual play with monsters will show what effects it has, but using "striking at the same time and just slugging it out" favors your build, the same that cherry picking a monster with DR you cannot bypass favors that monster. Or a monster with one single huge attack, instead of many smaller attacks.
MoMS still loses flurry, and unless you dip 4 deep you aren't getting ki.
I think MoMS is a good dip for an unarmed fighter or ranger "Kung Fu" concept, and I'm fine with that.
I am still annoyed how Brawling was designed. I am fine with it existing, but it is ridiculous it was made to specifically exclude the monk.
Depends if you want to bother with ki or just gain a +3 boost to all your saves and two free style feats, for the cost of 2hp and +1 BAB.
The spellcasting services rules cover it. All the rules are guidelines. We debate based on the rules presented. Every item availability discussion is based on DM fiat. Some like lots of items, some don't. In these discussions we go by the...
Dispel magic. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.
That's why permanent buffs aren't included even when they are easy to incorporate. A lot of people bemoan that monks can't get amulets of natural armour. So why not get barkskin and permanency cast on them? Because it can be dispelled. Same reason every other class doesn't do this instead of paying more for amulets of natural armour. Why bother with a magic sword? Just get magic weapon +5 cast on the weapon (or use an oil, in the equipment tables) and permanency - cheaper by far than a magic weapon!
Yet nobody does this. That's not because you are cleverer than everybody else, it's because IT'S A DUMB IDEA. One dispel magic and all that gold is wasted, and if you are facing a high level wizard he will scry you in advance, know all your weaknesses and strengths, and plan accordingly. Even in ordinary combat, debuffing the enemy with a greater dispel is a good idea which will nerf your monk badly. In fact the only reason this even looks like a good idea is that the monk can't get +10 equivalence any other way. And that still doesn't make it a good idea, it just means the monk is a weak class.
Even if it was legal to do this, and it's dubious that it is at best (yes, I know in YOUR game it's legal - a lot of other players have stated it wouldn't be permitted in their games, me included, and that puts you firmly in a minority of one), and even if your DM let you, how long would it last before it was dispelled? Not long, leaving you with a properties and no bonuses on your to-hit rolls.
And the logic for a monster with reach would be to trip you on your way in for their AoO (before they are in your threatened space) causing you to miss entirely the first attack sequence, and waste actions standing up. It is a vulnerability, and only actual play with monsters will show what effects it has, but using "striking at the same time and just slugging it out" favors your build, the same that cherry picking a monster with DR you cannot bypass favors that monster. Or a monster with one single huge attack, instead of many smaller attacks.Characters aren't automatons that only do 1 thing. If Step Up is the wiser move for a monk, then the wise monk will Step it Up. The odds still favor the monk by a good long margin even if he doesn't spend ki to up his great 33 AC to insane 37 AC.
The default combat methodology vs a reach enemy would (if possible) be to trip him and then finish the flurry. If successful, the enemy cannot 5ft step, and might not even be able to full-attack. If he chooses to full attack, then he does so at -4. If he can't be tripped, cest la vie, just Step Up unless an even better tactical option presents itself.
When Stepping Up, there's the encounter area to consider too - especially in dungeons or buildings in general, it is usually possible to 5ft in such a way that in the long-run the enemy cannot keep 5ft stepping away to a position where he can consistently leverage his reach.
I gave statistical results for all CR 10 creatures in Bestiary 1. This includes creatures with 1 huge attack and many small attacks. Several creatures have DR that the monk cannot bypass, a potent combatant example is the Bebilith with DR 10/good. The maths penalized the monk for that appropriately, and the monk still beat the Bebilith admirably.
Enemies that choose to attempt trips on the character will lose just as badly as those that try direct damage - because most just can't hit the AC or CMD except on natural 20s.
There are ways for the build to be rendered in-effective in combat, but the build is solid against most direct combat attempts (irrespective of the attacks, maneuvers, immunities, DR, etc).
Sunder. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.
You need a LOT to do that :
for example, you need to beat the CMD with your CMB check.
If you don't have the good feat, you take an attack of opportunity, that does damage to you AND work as a malus to your CMB check.
And when you still manage to hit that sword, you have to do a LOT of damage to do something that matters.
A two handed sword +2 in standard steel have 14 in hardness and 30 hp. So you need at least 30 damage to break it, and at least 44 damage to destroy it. Not anyone will manage to do it.
And that's a basic sword. An adamantine sword +2 will have 24 hardness and 40 hp (that means 44 damages do break, ant 64 to destroy, and such damage is not very common at 10th level, and impossible without critical). And cool, that's 11000gp (the same as your combo=.
And they can be repaired with a low level spell (Mending), or when destroyed, by Make Whole (with a limit, but at a very low cost of 240gp).
A permanency spell can be dispelled by a simple Dispel or greater dispel (the last will dispel spells in place for the group). If it is dispelled (likely), you lose all you had (as in : you had something worth 11000 gp, and you lost it permanently).
And that also means you have to find a LVL 20 caster to make a potion or cast Greater magic fang at lvl 20 for you (because no lvl 20 caster means that this object/service DOES NOT even exist, and in Golarion, that is even rarer than in Faerun). If you think that because there are no limits for items that means you can buy everything, then it is theorycrafting with no purposes, as it'll not be available in normal games.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sunder. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.
Sunder is a lot rarer as tactics go, and a lot harder to make work. For example, the melee brute is trying to sunder my fighter's +3 falchion which has a hardness of 16 and 40 hit points, and that's just to get it to the broken condition - it will take 80 damage to destroy it. To do that he has to beat my CMD of 35 vs Sunder thanks to my weapon training. Now my CMB to sunder is +16, if we assume he's 2 levels up on me (to be fair) and has Improved Sunder then we're looking at +20, which has all of a 25% chance of working on his highest attack bonus, with three attacks that's a total of 35%. If he has Greater Sunder and another jump of weapon training on top of that, he's up to +23, which gives him a 50% chance of a success every round while I'm tearing his hit points apart. If he's doing damage on the same scale as my fighter (and assuming he has an adamantine weapon to bypass hardness), we're looking at four hits to destroy my weapon, which is eight rounds in which time my DPR vs his higher AC is STILL likely to have done over 200 damage to him.
Ooooh, I'm so scared.
One dispel magic which is more likely than not to fail at level 10, with a CL 16-20 casting of permanency. Check out what a melee brute with improved sunder can do to your weapon.
Enemy spellcasters tend to be bosses so at level 10 it's more likely a level 12 caster, it's likely to be greater dispel and you also argued that the permanency was going to be cast by an 11th level caster after you bought your 20th level potion (though you still haven't answered the question of just what 20th level druid was going to waste time making such a thing).
So more likely to succeed than not, actually. However...
You can't buy a +10 amulet of mighty fists. But you can get to +10 by stacking it with Greater Magic Fang. I wonder why? These two options seem to match up perfectly.
Or possibly we should look at the spell permanency. Oh look, what does it say there, inthe first paragraph, second sentence?
"You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell."So by RAW, your tactic cannot be done. It can't be done by using a potion followed by permanency from a wizard, and it cannot be done by a druid casting magic fang and a wizard casting permanency, because both spells have to be cast by the same caster. Unless you can find a 26th level wizard/druid/mystic theurge (to be 20th level caster at druidic spells) it's not happening.
Sunder. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.
Not true. The game assumes you stay at WBL. If your GM follows this guideline you might be delaying your cash since he has to find another way to get it to you, but that is about it, and Make Whole fixes magic items so the money is still not lost, and if a party has a sundering character it would only make sense to have that spell.
For the rest of your argument you are assuming a caster is even in the party, or one that can give you the permanency back. The idea of doing so in combat is also waste in action economy so it is not a good idea. In a game world where that is the default method dispelling also becomes more popular, which means people will just get the magic item, which is where we are now.
The monk is a perfectly fine class. Could it use a boost? Sure, but it has the tools it needs to perform well in the game, as several posters have shown.
The class is far from perfectly fine, even if it is better than we thought. The about of system master needed to make it perform "decently" is way to high, and even now all I have seen are numbers. The other thread I am running will shed more light on the issue to see if those numbers work out in the game.
I gave statistical results for all CR 10 creatures in Bestiary 1. This includes creatures with 1 huge attack and many small attacks. Several creatures have DR that the monk cannot bypass, a potent combatant example is the Bebilith with DR 10/good. The maths penalized the monk for that appropriately, and the monk still beat the Bebilith admirably.
Enemies that choose to attempt trips on the character will lose just as badly as those that try direct damage - because most just can't hit the AC or CMD except on natural 20s.
There are ways for the build to be rendered in-effective in combat, but the build is solid against most direct combat attempts (irrespective of the attacks, maneuvers, immunities, DR, etc).
The problem with your "statistical results" is that combat involves strategy. Yes, in a fight which would never happen in the game, sure, your theoretical values could happen. In game you will take an AoO for moving in through the reach of all but 1 of the creatures. Creatures would realize that you do far less damage if they don't attack you with their lower to-hit attacks. Or they would utilize their reach to stay out of your threatened area while you are attacking them.
My point is, it is not realistic to say "assuming we both go at the same time and stay 5' away from each other and that is all we do".
The bebelith has a climb speed. It also has webs. It usually will be waiting in its web for someone to blunder into it. Did you also take into account their Rot(Su) ability on bite?
Sunder. Oh look, you wasted all that cash.
One dispel magic which is more likely than not to fail at level 10, with a CL 16-20 casting of permanency. Check out what a melee brute with improved sunder can do to your weapon.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every choice. If the choice provides a good enough bonus, it is probably worth doing. In a few levels, when the frequent dispel magic starts kicking in, then you can switch to a wand of Greater Magic Fang. Until then, the most cost effective way to go about it is to simply get a permanent version cast by as high a caster as you can find.
People don't get Greater Magic Weapon applied with permanency because they can't. It isn't allowed with the permanency spell. Why? Because you can buy a +10 magic weapon already. You can't buy a +10 amulet of mighty fists. But you can get to +10 by stacking it with Greater Magic Fang. I wonder why? These two options seem to match up perfectly.
A +5 magic weapon is 50,000 gold. That is the comparative target here. If it gets dispelled 5 times, you basically break even over the life of your career. At higher levels, when the dispel checks are likely to succeed more often than not, you would switch to a wand or in a cheaper situation have an ally cast it on you, since your party will likely have a high level version of this buff available.
So yes, if five of my opponents choose to dispel it in the levels from about 8-15 and succeed, then yes, I break even with a 2-handed fighter on +5 weapon costs. For a 2-weapon fighter? 9-10 times to get that same effective bonus. So yes, it is far better in the long run for the monk to go after a couple of castings of this magic fang than go for a +5 amulet of mighty fists (100,000). Not to mention that the amulet of mighty fists can be stacked on top.
If we are discussing the core monk, we use all the options available to the core monk. This includes permanency. If your house game, and others house games don't allow this ability, which is available in the rules, then that is a problem with the GMs of those games, which don't apply to this thread.
Plenty of people do this. Just not usually ones sitting in a "why is the monk terrible thread". The people coming here are looking to see that the monk is terrible. A few of us see what the monk can actually do, but many choose not to.
The monk is a perfectly fine class. Could it use a boost? Sure, but it has the tools it needs to perform well in the game, as several posters have shown.
In your example, you said the permanency would be cast at CL11, not 16-20. That is much more likely to be dispelled.
As others have said, weapons can have "make whole" cast on them, if by a high enough caster, which will restore the magic as well. Very little gold lost having someone cast that spell.
Dispelled permanency magic is just gone. Repurchase the whole package.
The argument you are making, which is "but with this item I am competitive, if the GM lets me have it" is the same as if I said "My GM lets me craft +10 handwraps which add to unarmed strike damage like a weapon, but because I am a monk who took a vow of poverty, they don't cost anything because that would break my vow, so they were free and as a result I don't suck!" In other words, the need for an item which is subject to GM fiat to allow does not show that the class is not broken.
|
This point though is why I don't really engage with the build wars - you get these hypothetical builds that rely on being allowed to have things most sane DM's wouldn't let their characters get with mere cash.
This is exactly why you have the build discussions. Because some people have GM's who have a whole style of play that completely skews how they view the game, and the only way you can even tell if you are speaking the same language is to have them put on paper what is allowed in the game they play.
At which point you can generally identify if you are both playing the same game.
If they won't, that tells you a good deal as well.
A good build discussion (as this has mostly been) has nothing to do with winning or losing.
