|
For further comparison, some barbarian fun. I went with a slightly off build. A human or half-orc would have +4 str more damage potential, but would not have been able to hit that DR 22/- without having to spend build points on Int.
This stat block already includes the effects of rage, rage powers, Power Attack, and Raging Brutality.
Halfling Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager) 20; AL CG
Small Humanoid (halfling)
Init +10; Senses low-light vision; Perception +27
DEFENSE
AC 32 (+8 Dex, +8 armor, +5 deflection, +1 insight, +2 luck, +5 natural, +1 size, -2 rage, -6 reckless abandon), touch 26, flat-footed 24
hp 365 (20d12+220)
Fort +31, Ref +23, Will +19; +7 vs. spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities; +4 vs. enchantment effects; +2 vs. fear and fire energy type
DR 12/-; Defensive Abilities evasion; Resist fire 6
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee +5 naginata +42/+37/+32/+27 (1d6+60/20 x4)
Ranged +1 adaptive composite longbow +37/+31/+26/+21 (1d6+16/20 x3) w/o Power Attack and Raging Brutality as they cannot apply
Special Attacks mighty rage (48 rounds/day), rage powers (beast totem, greater beast totem, lesser beast totem, come and get me, ghost rager, increased damage reduction (x2), reckless abandon, spell sunder, superstition +7)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 20th; concentration +19)
2/day- soften earth and stone
1/day- earthquake (DC varies)
STATISTICS
Str 40, Dex 26, Con 30, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9
Base Atk +20; CMB +37 (+42 with weapon); CMD 62
Feats Cautious Fighter, Celestial Obedience, Combat Reflexes, Dazing Assault, Diehard, Endurance, Improved Stalwart, Power Attack, Raging Brutality, Stalwart
Traits Fate's Favored, Reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +33, Intimidate +24, Perception +27, Stealth +34
SQ celestial obedience, elemental arcana, extreme endurance, fast movement, fearless, fleet of foot, halfling luck, indomitable will, invulnerability, keen senses, quake, tireless rage, wrath of nature
Combat Gear potion of fly (x3); Other Gear +5 naginata, +5 colossal nodachi, +1 adaptive composite longbow, amulet of natural armor +5, bag of holding (type II), belt of physical perfection +6, boots of speed, bracers of armor +8, cloak of resistance +5, cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone, cracked pale green prism ioun stone (attack rolls), cracked pale green prism ioun stone (saving throws), dusty rose prism ioun stone, jingasa of the fortunate soldier, ring of evasion, ring of protection +5, stone of good luck, wayfinder
Manuals and Tomes Barbarian has read a manual of bodily health +4, manual of gainful exercise +5, and a manual of quickness of action +4.
Further combat options:
fight defensively w/Improved Stalwart (DR becomes 22/-; -4 on attack rolls and CMB)
drop Power Attack and Raging Brutality (-33 damage; +6 on attack rolls and CMB)
boots of speed (+1 attacks; +1 on attack rolls, AC, reflex, and CMB
Combat buff:
1). Open bag of holding. Drag out colossal nodachi and leave on ground.
2). Use wrath of nature to become a gargantuan earth elemental for 1 hour.
3). Pick up nodachi from ground.
4). Wreck face.
Stat block as such including the effects of rage, rage powers, Power Attack, and Raging Brutality.
Init +8; Senses darkvision 60ft., low-light vision; Perception +27
AC 33 (+6 Dex, +8 armor, +5 deflection, +1 insight, +2 luck, +13 natural, -4 size, -2 rage, -6 reckless abandon), touch 19, flat-footed 27
hp 425 (20d12+220)
Fort +34, Ref +23, Will +19; +7 vs. spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities; +4 vs. enchantment effects; +2 vs. fear and fire energy type
DR 12/-; Defensive Abilities evasion; Immune bleed, critical hits, sneak attack; Resist fire 6
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +5 colossal nodachi +42/+37/+32/+27 (6d6+72/18-20 x2)
Str 50, Dex 22, Con 36, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9
Base Atk +20; CMB +45 (+50 with weapon); CMD 70
Skills Acrobatics +31, Intimidate +24, Perception +27, Stealth +20
Further combat options:
fight defensively w/Improved Stalwart (DR becomes 22/-; -4 on attack rolls and CMB)
drop Power Attack and Raging Brutality (-37 damage; +6 on attack rolls and CMB)
Those are awesome characters Lormyr. Very entertaining to read, and I don't even know what half the stuff you have listed does! :)
Honestly any one of those characters would be equal to the entire party that I GM for. I am the optimizer of my group, but I don't consider my characters really optimized, just efficient.
In groups without much optimizing at all I can usually keep a standard Monk relevant with just a little bit of effort. A Monk's skills are useful at higher levels, despite what the nay-sayers think. Our spell casters just aren't willing to spend spells for things that skills can do perfectly fine.
All that said I do add some house rules to help out Fighters, Rogues and Monks. Because even with a non-optimized group I like things to be a little more balanced.
*Snipped irrelevant part*
So no there has been no debunking on the monks skill advantage. Their DPR is still greater than 9th lvl spells. And they have solid defenses.
I cannot even begin to understand what sort of games you are playing where that is weaksauce and needs improving.
Better damage than 9th level spell? Well I guess if you take run of the mill caster that is wasting their spellslots sure. But since the monk is most certainly optimized to an extenct let's do the same to the spellslot. Battering blast(3rd)+intensify(+1)+Empower(+2)+Maximize(+3), with spell perfection, spell specilization, and Varisian(mage's) tattoo, Spell penetration, Greater spell penetration, Elf.
Damage on average 265.025, assuming 95% chance of hitting the touch AC. And with 1d20+32 against SR auto success.
Yes it is rather specilized but that is not even the best you can do, just something of the top of my head. My basic point is that you can't compare apples to oranges in this case Meteor shower(Assumption on my part) and monk dpr, when the monk is optimized and the 9th level slot could be used a lot better for damage.(added insult injury is that the spell would actually only use 6th level slot, spell perfection is there to just raise the CL or that you could use quickened in the same round for even more damage.)
On the basic idea that Monk>Fighter at high levels, in a vacuum sure. In a party context however fighter all the way, even that said fighter is pretty lackluster too and needs work.
You can use either class to make a character that contributes, but in far fewer ways and with far more effort than with others. If same effort is placed on "better" classes they would knock the fighter and monk out of the park.
I make these statements for core only. Outside of core, a monk is doing ridiculous damage as Lormyr has shown.
Inside core monks do more damage than 9th lvl spells. Outside core, they still do more damage than 9th lvl spells....
Ok, the very fact that you are comparing the the monk to blast with 9th level spells is irrelevnt. Ok, the monk can do more damage than a 9th lvl spell (assuming not metamagic lower level spell), but everyone and their mother knows blasting is a poor choice. In fact, the wizard has a million and a half ways to kill you without having to damage you at all. Not that hard to kill a lone monk as a lvl 20 wizard. There is a reason why people complain wizards are over powered.
Not that hard to kill a lone monk as a lvl 20 wizard.
Oh, you clearly do not know what you are talking about if you think this is true inside core (I'm not arguing outside core, other posters do a better job at that).
Not that hard to kill a lone monk as a lvl 20 wizard.Oh, you clearly do not know what you are talking about if you think this is true inside core (I'm not arguing outside core, other posters do a better job at that).
I am going to have to disagree--a core only wizard would have a very easy time beating any other core only class one on one, except another full caster (at which point, we're in rocket tag territory).
I am going to have to disagree--a core only wizard would have a very easy time beating any other core only class one on one, except another full caster (at which point, we're in rocket tag territory).Not that hard to kill a lone monk as a lvl 20 wizard.Oh, you clearly do not know what you are talking about if you think this is true inside core (I'm not arguing outside core, other posters do a better job at that).
Beating and killing are two entirely different things.
Killing a monk is no easy task as a wizard.
The thing about PvP is that characters are built to overcome high DCs and SR.
So the strengths of the Monk exist, but they aren't going to be so good that a Caster couldn't overcome them.
(And no, I'm not trashing on Monks here - It's that way for all 'Caster vs. X' scenarios.)
A level 20 wizard is only really matched by another lvl 20 full caster. To suggest otherwise is stupid.
|
|
Lormyr, how can you use a colossal nodachi?
Because of his Celestial Obedience feat and worship of Valani, the barbarian can polymorph into a gargantuan earth elemental for 1 hour each day.
As long as the colossal nodachi was not on his person before he polymorphed, it does not meld into his form. So he removes it from his bag of holding, leaves it on the ground, polymorphs, and then picks it up.
|
|
This may seem like a weird question for this thread, but it directly affects something I want to bring up. How easy is it to customize your magic items in PFS play?
If you mean the ability to hand pick exactly what items you wish to purchase, it is extremely easy in PFS.
If you mean the ability to create custom items (meaning anything other than the items exactly as they are printed in the book), it is impossible in PFS.
|
Because of his Celestial Obedience feat and worship of Valani, the barbarian can polymorph into a gargantuan earth elemental for 1 hour each day.
As long as the colossal nodachi was not on his person before he polymorphed, it does not meld into his form. So he removes it from his bag of holding, leaves it on the ground, polymorphs, and then picks it up.
But if you are gargantuam how is it possible wield a colossal two-handed weapon? I mean, I always though that is just possible wield a one-handed weapon 1 size bigger than me like it was a two-handed weapon with -2 on attack. In other hand it's not possible for a medium creature wield a large greatsword because it's one step bigger than two-handed for that medium creature. In other case, a large katana its possible, because is a one-handed weapon for a large creature and two-handed weapon for medium creature. Well, correct me if I'm wrong because if I am, my fighter with scythe will wield a large scythe and be fancy as hell. ^^
|
|
But if you are gargantuam how is it possible wield a colossal two-handed weapon? I mean, I always though that is just possible wield a one-handed weapon 1 size bigger than me like it was a two-handed weapon with -2 on attack. In other hand it's not possible for a medium creature wield a large greatsword because it's one step bigger than two-handed for that medium creature. In other case, a large katana its possible, because is a one-handed weapon for a large creature and two-handed weapon for medium creature. Well, correct me if I'm wrong because if I am, my fighter with scythe will wield a large scythe and be fancy as hell. ^^Because of his Celestial Obedience feat and worship of Valani, the barbarian can polymorph into a gargantuan earth elemental for 1 hour each day.
As long as the colossal nodachi was not on his person before he polymorphed, it does not meld into his form. So he removes it from his bag of holding, leaves it on the ground, polymorphs, and then picks it up.
Oh, I see your meaning.
What happened was user error there. That stat block did not intend to go above the appropriate size catagory of the weapon, so no shenanigans in that department. I was (incorrectly) under the impression that two-handed weapons counted as a size larger than the user. A quick double check just confirmed they are equal size.
I also bad-mathed the damage die increase all the way from base small size nodachi from all the halflingness sizing on brain:
1d8 (small nodachi) --> 2d6 (medium) --> 3d6 (large) --> (4d6 huge) --> (6d6 gargantuan)
It should have started from a base medium nodachi, so the correct damage should be 4d8:
1d10 (medium) --> 2d8 (large) --> 3d8 (huge) --> 4d8 (gargantuan)
I actually kind of like that build. The DR 22/- from a little angry guy in a bathrobe just cracks me up. Too bad for him clustered shots would eat right through that. Someone bumped their head on that feat.
|
|
Hummm ... thank you for the reply. Ahhhh I could imagine my fighter with a large scythe ... He would be like the Death from Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen http://goo.gl/e8uF8I ... but the dream was gone. hahahaha
Well, running a cracked vibrant purple prism ioun stone + wand of enlarge person is only a mere 2,750 gp. That's good for 50 mins of enlargement. Pretty easy way to wield a large scythe. Won't even need to buy a separate one like our poor halfling since enlarge will resize it for you.
The monk is a weak generalist in a game that rewards specialisation. That doesn't mean they cannot contribute, and are not fun to play, but mechanically they are weaksauce and need improving.I disagree.
The mechanical advantages are there.
It's there, it's just not significant. The monk has a 2 point advantage, and we are talking a level where few skills are still relevant.
I think most of you want to play class either with the best DPR, the best skill set, or spells. The monk has OK DPR and decent skills. Aside from their list and skill points, a monks class features help make their skills better (no armor check penalty, fast movement, dimension door, etherealness, tongues).
And I think you just ignore everything that contradicts what you have already concluded at the outset of the thread.
It's not all about DPR, but if melee is all you got, DPR needs to be present, or else some other trick to make an enemy sit up and take notice.
So no there has been no debunking on the monks skill advantage.
You have asserted it is a big advantage, it has been demonstrated that the monk is no skills-monkey and that this is not significant.
Their DPR is still greater than 9th lvl spells.
Sadly, even that isn't true.
And they have solid defenses.
Agreed. But defences do not win combats.
I cannot even begin to understand what sort of games you are playing where that is weaksauce and needs improving.
Yes, we call them "normal."
Actually, most parties would benefit more from the fighter.Very generally speaking, for a typical 4 man party of 1 martial, 1 arcane, 1 divine, 1 specialist, I would be inclined to agree.
Do many people still play this way? I can't remember that last time I sat down and made a balanced party. We all typically just roll up what we think sounds fun, and just make sure we are very self sustaining in whatever we build.
That's one way to play, there are many others. Problem is, in my experience some of the parties I have had monks in are even harder on the monk than the standard 4-up party.
As for role...which role, exactly, other than "guy who runs away and survives the TPK"?I personally like the story of the "guy who was the last man standing after the rest of the party got smoked, and proceeded to wipe the floor with the remaining baddies over the course of the next couple rounds because they just couldn't affect him, thus being able to carry his dear friend's corpses back to town for resurrection". :p
Wouldn't it be great if the monk could actually do this? Problem is, the monk's poor offence (in most builds, I know you can make some that do pretty well under some circumstances) means that they not only take a lot longer than a "couple of rounds" to end the fight, they also don't end well for them: the monk has to get lucky every hit, the enemy usually only has to get lucky once.
Ya know my favorite part about this thread?
I'm pretty sure that Marthkus is the only one to actually include the extra HP from "Toughness" in his stat-blocks.Which is why stat-blocks are dumb. People tend to forget to math. :P
That's why I use HeroLab.
The problem with a class that requires such levels of optimization is that you end uop with only a few viable options. There's no scope for representing personality by different build decisions. That's why I still maintain the monk needs fixing; it needs to be viable without the mega-optimization, and this does not mean that an optimized monk then becomes broken.
And I think you just ignore everything that contradicts what you have already concluded at the outset of the thread.
0_0
The pot calling the kettle black
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if the monk could actually do this? Problem is, the monk's poor offence (in most builds, I know you can make some that do pretty well under some circumstances) means that they not only take a lot longer than a "couple of rounds" to end the fight, they also don't end well for them: the monk has to get lucky every hit, the enemy usually only has to get lucky once.
Please understand the comment that follows is not a general comment, but one spoken from my personal experiences:
I'd like to tell you a story from one of our PFS sessions some months ago. I was playing my monk at 9th level through the Curse of the Riven Sky module. Spoilers from that module to follow, do not read if you intend to play:
Being the "devil may care" players we are, we boldly decided to take on this optional encounter. Long story short, though the gunslinger got off an ugly full attack dealing nearly 100 hit points of damage to the linnorm, after eating the linnorms breath weapon on the way in, the following round's full attack saw the gunslinger unconcious, the oracle completely mangled, and the fighter dead dead dead, and his corpse still grappled by his tail as it flew off to enjoy it's supper.
The oracle and gunslinger profess we can't handle this thing. The fighter resigns to the loss of dozens of prestige points to have his body retrieved. I tell the rest of the party "Look, we saw it fly off over to that cave yonder - you guys wait here, I'll go get our friend back."
By this time, the linnorm has completely regenerated it's missing hit points. I pop my mage armor, shield, and lead blades outside the cave, run in, and kill the thing all by myself in the course of 7 rounds. I didn't take one point of damage in the process, and our oracle raised the fighter.
It made a couple good grapple attempts, and had a few lucky natural 20's on it's attack rolls, all of which got crane winged off. The point is, with the right build, these moments can and do happen, the monk does not need to get lucky every hit, and the baddie absolutely needs to get lucky more than once (in some cases, more than once per round to even have effect).
the monk's poor offence (in most builds, I know you can make some that do pretty well under some circumstances)
You know every class can be poorly built right? Statement like "well most builds X" are ridiculous points that say nothing about the class.
If most people built clerics with 10 wis, that doesn't make the cleric a bad class.
I would really appreciate it if you could tone down the BS.
|
|
No worries proftobe, no offense taken.
I wondered if anyone would notice and/or comment on the similarity of the magic item selections. What you have observed is very true - itemization tends to be most efficient by desired role and not so much by individual character build. For the most part, what is good for a melee is good for a melee regardless of defensive role, dpr role, skirmisher, ect.
While race does play a role, it is of far lesser concern than magic item selection. Magic item selection is the single most game breaking tool for any non-spellcaster character.
I would offer this consideration, however. Where you say that magic items are entirely out of hand, I instead say PCs are considered entirely too much WBL. Being able to afford all of those things is overbearing. But if your big shiny is that +4 agile amulet of mighty fists, and everything else is +1, +2, or +3, things tone down considerably.
You are also mistaken regarding the fighter being able to reach monk level AC (outside of tower shield specialist with huge dex and/or a stalwart defender splash). That monk begins at 53 AC, but it can increase as follows:
53 starting
5 natural (self-barkskin)
6 dodge (fighting defensively)
6 dodge (combat expertise)
4 shield (spell from staff)
4 dodge (ki dodge)
Thus finishing at AC 78. A non-tower shield specialist/stalwart defender would instead be looking at:
10 base
7 dex
14 armor
9 shield (with shield focus and greater shield focus)
1 dodge
5 deflection
5 natural
2 luck
1 insight
6 dodge (combat expertise)
AC 60. A tiefling can inch out +2 more from armor of the pit.
18 is a big gap. The fighter can more easily afford to employ a defending weapon, however, so we'll go ahead and call the gap 13 to be sporting.
|
|
I love the idea of the monk standing at the end of the fight finishing off the bad guys and saving his friends. I was playing a druid/monk in a high level scenario in PFS and the last fight was horrendous, 6 incorporeal bad guys with some nasty attacks. We had started with 6 people, lost one to the first fight, full to fully dead in one round, then went through the rest of the scenario fine, come to the last fight and 3 of the players go down leaving me and monk. Fighting back to back we finished off the last few monster, brought our fallen comrades (cept the first) back to the land of the living and headed out.
A monk may not be the best DPR in the group but I have seen plenty of groups in PFS where you are hoping someone can handle the front line and monks can handle the job.
|
|
Sorry man You're actually mistaken. The only advantage the monk has is a +5 for being a monk, ki dodge, and his wis add. A fighter can take crane wing and fight just as defensive as you can while shield bashing so...
Unless that fighter is a halfling, an aldori swordlord, or gives up a hand for his rod of balance, he is only getting +4 from fighting defensively. Without the above and/or some combination of splashing monk or duelist, plate and shield fighters cannot reach monk AC high end potential.
But no one needs to take my word for it. Throw up a stat block and show me mistaken.
For funsies and to blow some minds in the meantime, this is the highest AC potential build I've put together:
Halfling Fighter [Aldori Swordlord] 7/Monk 1/Aldori Swordlord 1/Duelist 9/Stalwart Defender 2
Base Attributes: Str 7, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 9
Level Raises: Dex +5
Tomes: Dex +5, Int +4, Wis +4
Belt/Headband: Dex +6, Con +6, Int +6, Wis +6
Final: Str 7, Dex 34, Con 20, Int 24, Wis 24, Cha 9
Feats Aldori Dueling Mastery, Cautious Fighter, Combat Expertise, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge
Traits Fate's Favored
Items amulet of natural armor +5, bracers of armor +8, dusty rose prism ioun stone, jingasa of the fortunate soldier, monk's robe, ring of protection +5
Armor Class
10 base
1 size
1 monk
12 Dex
7 Wis
7 Int
8 armor (bracers of armor +8)
5 dodge (Combat Expertise)
1 dodge (Dodge)
1 dodge (Stalwart Defender)
2 dodge (Defensive Stance)
13 dodge (fighting defensively - see math breakdown below)
5 dodge (defending weapon)
1 insight (dusty rose prism ioun stone)
2 luck (jingasa + fate's favored)
5 natural (amulet of natural armor +5)
4 shield (Aldori Dueling Mastery is 2 all the time, but we like the shield spell better anyhow)
AC 85, touch 68, flat-footed 39. You can run haste to squeeze out 1 more point, or completely dump Str and Con for 2 more points.
Fighting Defensively Insanity
-4 to hit, +3 AC: 3 ranks of acrobatics
-2 to hit, +4 AC: Crane Style
-2 to hit, +6 AC: Cautious Fighter
-0 to hit, +8 AC: steel net class feature from aldori swordlord fighter achetype
-0 to hit, +11 AC: elaborate defense class feature from duelist
-0 to hit, +13 AC: rod of balance
hmmm 85 AC
It sucks that nat 20s still auto hit.
|
|
Ok I forgot about the Rod so its within 2 or 4 which was what I said at the beginning.
How about this. I will go ahead and work up your stat block for you, and you tell me what you think is missing from it.
Fighter
10 base
7 dex
14 armor
6 dodge (Combat Expertise)
1 dodge (Dodge)
4 dodge (fighting defensively)
5 dodge (defending weapon)
5 deflection
1 insight
2 luck
5 natural
9 shield (with shield focus and greater shield focus)
1 trait (defender of the society)
AC 70
Monk
Swap around the gear some for a +5 defending body wrap of mighty strikes and the monk won't even lose out on his attack bonus to use defending.
10 base
12 dex
9 wis
5 monk
8 armor (bracers of armor +8)
6 dodge (Combat Expertise)
1 dodge (Dodge)
6 dodge (fighting defensively)
4 dodge (ki dodge)
5 dodge (defending weapon)
5 deflection (ring of protection +5)
1 insight (dusty rose prism ioun stone)
2 luck (jingasa + fate's favored)
5 natural (barkskin)
4 shield (spell from staff of minor arcana)
AC 83
13 points is not 2 or 4. It also bears pointing out that once that fighter picks up that shield, he is no longer doing the soul crushing amount of damage the standard two-handed archetype allows him. His damage is still very respectable, most likely around 1d6 or 1d8+28ish before power attack.
|
|
hmmm 85 AC
It sucks that nat 20s still auto hit.
I can't imagine a game where you would actually need an AC that high anyhow, so it's mostly a theory craft exercise. Funny thing is that build still remains somewhat combat viable.
Attack Bonus
19 BAB
1 size
12 dex
3 weapon training (with gloves of dueling)
1 weapon focus
5 weapon
1 competence (pale green prism ioun stone)
4 morale (Celestial Obedience)
+46
Damage
12 dex
3 weapon training
2 weapon specialization
5 weapon
7 duelist
+29
So after taking his attack penalty for Combat Expertise and defending, he's looking at:
+5 defending aldori dueling sword +36/+31/+26/+21 (1d6+29/17-20 x2)
+5 defending aldori dueling sword +36/+31/+26/+21 (1d6+29/17-20 x2)
Idk, there are many people throughout this thread that are convinced that if your DPR isn't greater than 250, your character is a waste of space that can't even cast spells.
|
|
Idk, there are many people throughout this thread that are convinced that if your DPR isn't greater than 250, your character is a waste of space that can't even cast spells.
+5 defending aldori dueling sword +36/+31/+26/+21 (1d6+29/17-20 x2)
I have observed the same. They have the luxury to prioritize character capability as they see fit however, so I don't feel the need to argue the point with them.
All I have to say on that matter is that in any scenario of me vs. the world, I'd rather be the defensive monk than any flavor of fighter.
In a party environment, one could rightly argue that the typical fighter adds more to the group's success than the typical monk. I am not a typical monk player, however, so I do not think as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 20 wizard is only really matched by another lvl 20 full caster. To suggest otherwise is stupid.
AM Barbarian.
|
|
Well you altered your build for one.
Only to highlight that the defending property is equally accessible for either character, and therefore is definitely not a "leg up" so to speak for the fighter. The same applies to armor of the pit. Aasimar variant can be replaced with Tiefling variant at no racial loss to Dex or Wis.
Perhaps we misunderstood one another. You were stating a fighter can get close to the AC of "that" monk. I was saying that the high potential for the fighter "class" is well short of the high end potential for the monk "class".
Ditching his +1 brilliant energy wraps for the +5 defending wraps would cost him an additional 33k. Not that bad considering the 880k scale.
I'm unaware of any monk ability that would grant him an advantage over a gauntlet(which doesn't count as an unarmed strike, but does count as an empty hand) and shield bashing fighter who took similar feats, a few ranks in acrobatics, and wasn't carrying anything in his other hand.
If you only fought with the shield in hand A, and held the rod in hand B, then they would be the same bonus bonus: -1 to hit, +6 AC.
That would bring it down to 6 +2 from two weapon defense takes it to 4.
Two-Weapon defense is a shield bonus, and thus will not stack in.
I am also unsure if you can actively fight with a gauntlet while it's hand manipulates another item. I'll have to look into that later.
The problem I see is that Fighters have equal or better "all the time" AC, while you have more AC under special circumstances.
For example, what happens when you can't attack in melee? No Fighting Defensively or Expertise bonus then (and while we're on the subject, how is the Monk getting the same Expertise bonus as the fighter despite having 5 less BAB?). What about when you don't have access to Barkskin? When you can't get a Shield spell? In your experience, do you really spend a ki point every round on AC? You never use the vastly-more-efficient-for-winning-fights extra attack?
How about the fact that both have AC so far beyond normal attack bonuses that the higher Monk AC doesn't really matter (you're in only on a natural 20 territory for both), so the extra offense the fighter has means significantly more?
I mean, trust me, I want to play the game you're theoretically playing, where defense matters and is useful and awesome for the party, but in my experience PCing, that's just not Pathfinder (my experience GMing says otherwise, but I run such an atypical game, I can't use that as real evidence).
The problem I see is that Fighters have equal or better "all the time" AC, while you have more AC under special circumstances.
And fighters have better "all the time" DPR than paladins, barbars, and rangers, but you would be the first to say how that doesn't matter.
I think you need to define in terms of DPR, not per hit for it to be meaningful. Otherwise you are taking out very high end builds by using an odd criteria. Monks rely on flurry for example with more hits of less damage (as do archers).
I think you need to define in terms of DPR, not per hit for it to be meaningful. Otherwise you are taking out very high end builds by using an odd criteria. Monks rely on flurry for example with more hits of less damage (as do archers).I thought about DPR, but that doesn't factor in DR.
DR doesn't matter.
+5 anything bypasses 90% of all DR types. In this case no-one is being effected by the Balor's DR.
|
|
The problem I see is that Fighters have equal or better "all the time" AC, while you have more AC under special circumstances.
Agreed, they are very comparable numbers at "base". The monk does not take considerable time to prep, however. Possibly one round to cast shield, if he even really needs too.
For example, what happens when you can't attack in melee?
Outside of extreme range combats, this will almost never happen to the monk. For 1 ki, he can active blood crow strike and make a full unarmed attack up to 300 ft.
The fighter is much easier to bone in that regard.
In such a case, either can choose total defense while moving to close distance as well. It's not as good, but acceptable for the circumstances.
how is the Monk getting the same Expertise bonus as the fighter despite having 5 less BAB?)
What about when you don't have access to Barkskin
If you are qingonng, you always will unless in an antimagic field.
When you can't get a Shield spell?
Considering he can't fail the use magic device check on his staff to cast it, while this situation can certainly occur, it is extremely uncommon.
In your experience, do you really spend a ki point every round on AC
Good lord no, I almost never needed too playing the PFS version of that character. It's included for sake of completeness.
How about the fact that both have AC so far beyond normal attack bonuses that the higher Monk AC doesn't really matter (you're in only on a natural 20 territory for both), so the extra offense the fighter has means significantly more?
That is a valid perception. Personally tastes to what you want your character to be able to do take precedence at that point.
I mean, trust me, I want to play the game you're theoretically playing, where defense matters and is useful and awesome for the party, but in my experience PCing, that's just not Pathfinder
It makes me wonder what sorts of games others play.
PFS is generally designed to be challenging to the standard gamer, so we rarely have deadly moments with it. There are exceptions though, see my post above.
Our home games are nasty, though. Casters use metamagics and buff their allies, and can and will counterspell. Melee and ranged characters focus fire. In such situations if you don't have a strong defense, you may not live to employ any of your offense.
Not saying there is a right or wrong way to play. Everyone's perceptions are shaped by their experiences, though.
And fighters have better "all the time" DPR than paladins, barbars, and rangers, but you would be the first to say how that doesn't matter.
Paladin's DPR is Smite based, which is per day (and with Oath of Vengeance, essentially "whenever you need it), not a "are you able to make a melee attack" basis. It's shut down by non-evil enemies, but those are very rare (usually constructs), and I wager they're far less likely to come up than situations where the monk can't make a melee attack.
Barbarian DPR is lower than Fighters all the time (and lower than Paladins when smiting), but not "monk lower." Plus, they end up with better defenses than most Fighters, and better saves than everyone but Paladins. And rage rounds are so extensive and rage cycling is so easy--I don't see them ever running out in a realistic scenario.
Rangers DPR is only limited by their 3rd level spell slots (though in core, they're pretty weak in the DPR department).
Anyway, my point is, all of the classes you listed have enough uses of their key abilities that they are effectively "all the time." That means, while the Monk's AC was situational (i.e. when you could make a melee attack), Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian DPR is all when they choose--you choose to smite, to rage, or to cast Instant Enemy. The Monk doesn't get to choose when the enemy allows them to make a melee attack on them. Well, ok, your allies might be able to help, but there's little the monk himself could do command their own destiny. That's one big reason I think ranged attacks are required.
Note that I think the Zen Archer is a perfectly viable and powerful archetype of Monk. I also have had great success with a Sensei support build. It's only the normal, flurrying, melee monk that I think is awful (and non-archer Fighters are only marginally less awful).
Of course, the real point of all my comments there was that AC doesn't really matter (and especially not past a certain threshold where all enemies are only hitting on a 20 anyway). Pathfinder (really 3rd edition D&D) at high levels make DPR inherently more valuable than defense. It's just an unfortunate part of the game.
Barbarian DPR is lower than Fighters all the time (and lower than Paladins when smiting), but not "monk lower." Plus, they end up with better defenses than most Fighters, and better saves than everyone but Paladins. And rage rounds are so extensive and rage cycling is so easy--I don't see them ever running out in a realistic scenario.
Not to mention Barbarians get pounce, which means they don't lose a ton of DPR whenever they need to move more than five feet.
Outside of extreme range combats, this will almost never happen to the monk. For 1 ki, he can active blood crow strike and make a full unarmed attack up to 300 ft.
The fighter is much easier to bone in that regard.
For clarification, I consider melee to generally be irrelevant at high levels, so to me, the Fighter's ability with a Longbow is really most relevant (hence why I posted an archer fighter) and mentioned preferring the two-handed Fighter to the original monk because the two-handed fighter could at least pull a bow.
In such a case, either can choose total defense while moving to close distance as well. It's not as good, but acceptable for the circumstances.
I don't think distances are realistically closeable using a total defense unless high level enemies allow it.
What about when you don't have access to BarkskinIf you are qingonng, you always will unless in an antimagic field.
I keep getting mixed up in this thread between core and non-core options. Qinggong did a lot to make monks slightly less awful.
Considering he can't fail the use magic device check on his staff to cast it, while this situation can certainly occur, it is extremely uncommon.
I was talking about not having access to the item, but realize now that I need to leave my own games out of this--in a normal Pathfinder game, you're right, it'd be impossible not to have access to such a simple magic item.
That is a valid perception. Personally tastes to what you want your character to be able to do take precedence at that point.
I wish that were true. If I had my personal taste fulfilled, I'd play totally non-magical (maybe even non-supernatural) characters focused on defense that fought smart and won with superior tactics. The rules of Pathfinder don't really allow that, though. If I want to be non-magical, the only thing I can really provide at high levels is DPR, which I find boring. So, I pretty much have to cast spells if I want to PC Pathfinder (at least 4e had the Warlord).
It makes me wonder what sorts of games others play.
My games have historically featured no full spellcasters (by player choice, since they've hated the way Vancian magic works) with zero magic items and me custom designing all enemies, rather than using Monster Manuals. One such game actually reached level 31 and Divine Rank 2, using 3rd edition Epic and Deity rules. If I can convince people, though, in order of preference, I'd rather run Savage Worlds, some other rpg, AD&D, Iron Heroes, E6, or E8.
In games I've PC, things are crazy dangerous and complicated at high levels, and only spells have any meaningful impact. Melee combat almost never happens unless the enemy allows it because they know they have an advantage. Archers stay relevant, but it's generally just rocket tag with spell casters racing each other to control the battlefield so the non-casters can mop up. In other words, pretty much by the way the book is written.
Anyway, my point is, all of the classes you listed have enough uses of their key abilities that they are effectively "all the time." That means, while the Monk's AC was situational (i.e. when you could make a melee attack), Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian DPR is all when they choose--you choose to smite, to rage, or to cast Instant Enemy. The Monk doesn't get to choose when the enemy allows them to make a melee attack on them. Well, ok, your allies might be able to help, but there's little the monk himself could do command their own destiny. That's one big reason I think ranged attacks are required.
As Lormyr has pointed out the monk's AC was not situational in the least. Nor was range an issue for his monk.
I just find it funny that you are so quick to point out how something is "limited" when it is just as much if not more so effectively "all the time" like barbar, pally, or ranger DPR compared to the fighter.
You have displayed the tendency to believe: Summoner > Full casters > 6th level casters > Barbar, pally, ranger > Fighter > Rogue, Monk
I just find it hypocritical that you will jump to the same arguments you normally dismiss to defend the fighter when compared to the monk. Which seems to me, is only done because the monk being good at something flies in the face of what you want to believe about the game.
You have displayed the tendency to believe: Summoner > Full casters > 6th level casters > Barbar, pally, ranger > Fighter > Rogue, Monk
Not true. If we're talking about high level play, I think it's:
9 level casters and Master Summoner >> regular Summoner >>> 6 level casters >> Paladin, Ranger >> Barbarian > Fighter, Gunslinger, Cavalier > Monk > Rogue
9 level casters and the Master Summoner are definitely the best, and are a bit better than Summoners. All of the above are significantly better than 6 level casters, which are, themselves, quite a bit better than the 4 level casters.
All the non-casters are terrible, but Barbarians are the least bad because they have some reality-bending supernatural power and their anti-spell defenses can actually benefit the part (spell sundering control effects). Monks have weaker DPR than the awful full BAB classes, so they're a little bit behind, because DPR is the only thing non-casters bring to the table at high levels.
Rogues have weak accuracy, weak damage, weak AC, AND weak saves, so thay're a joke in combat all around. Even without that, though, they are 100% obsolete by various archetypes on casting classes. Plus, I think the idea of a "skill class" is a bad one anyway.
All of these opinions definitely change, though, when you talk about E6, E8, or your "typical" game where most of the game is played from levels 6-12 or so, and you might ultimately reach 15 or 16 by the very end.
I just find it hypocritical that you will jump to the same arguments you normally dismiss to defend the fighter when compared to the monk. Which seems to me, is only done because the monk being good at something flies in the face of what you want to believe about the game.
No, I have repeatedly stated both classes are bad and ultimately irrelevant at the end game. I just think the Fighter is slightly less bad because their DPR, the only thing either can realistically contribute to a party, is better.
Bloodcrow Strike definitely helps--it was something I had not though of--though the fire damage does make it significantly less useful, since each hit is going to be reduced by fire damage.
But yeah, remember we're talking about a team scenario. The super defense monk probably will survive better than the Fighter, but just surviving doesn't help your team--the monk's lower damage makes it so that your allies are more likely to drop because the enemy is standing longer and you can't contribute any control or party defense (only self-defense).
@mplindustries
Seems you are of the opinion that Spells > anything not spells.
Many players and myself do not find that true, playing 1-20 or even in mythic tiers.
If that is truly how you view the game, then neither the fighter nor the monk have any relevance to you as they lack spells. The only reason you like archers is because they can attack from range like spells.
I don't see this as a valid view and the examples you have provided do nothing to sway me from that notion. General statement like "fighter better in party" mean little coming from you, since we value team contribution on obviously alien scales.