I agree with you, Marthkus, in fact I just fully absorb Agile Maneuvers into Weapon Finesse. But if we're playing by RAW, only the listed maneuvers (and possibly reposition and drag, as per the blog that changed how trip weapons worked) definitely let you use dex if you have finesse.
If we were playing the way things should be, monk wouldn't be nearly as bad...
SKR said that if you use the weapon to perform the maneuver in a non incidental fashion, you get the enhancement bonus.
Actually the Balor does have combat reflexes.
Eh, I'd still take the attacks, to be honest.
Luring him in is good, but your fighters contribution after that has dropped. (Question: Doesn't the AOO connecting prevent the attack?)
No, AoOs may interrupt spells, but not any other action that provokes that I'm aware of.
To your second point, I would suggest the monk. Who contributes out of combat just fine.
This is something it seem we will agree on. The monk absolutely can't contribute meaningfully out of combat, because skills, the only non-combat advantage the monk has, are irrelevant at level 20. Spells are basically the only way to contribute out of combat at the end game, and the Fighter and Monk are equally worthless in that regard.
Some skills remain useful at end game. If a creature or item is well guarded against scrying you can still gather information on it. The really useless skills just become even worse.
This is something it seem we will agree on. The monk absolutely can't contribute meaningfully out of combat, because skills, the only non-combat advantage the monk has, are irrelevant at level 20. Spells are basically the only way to contribute out of combat at the end game, and the Fighter and Monk are equally worthless in that regard.
Stealth, perception, Sense motive.
The ability to walk through walls and teleport (short distances).
The monk can also talk with any living creature including plants and animals.
Functions: Scout, Information gatherer, Gets around any and all obstacles, Can sense ill-intent from someone.
Lomyr, just so you realize PFS characters are often grossly ahead on WBL (from what I understand) and this thread is specifically about using only core material. So of course your monk will look nice in comparison to fighters posted in this thread.
They're also not using large amounts of expendables or buffing before combat either.
I pointedly missed the CRB only discussion for this. My bad there. His WBL is right on though at 675,996 gp and his few potions and wands free from prestige spends.
Core Monk is a little bit rougher to work with, admittedly. Breaking past core I'd still put my money on the monk every time.
I thought PFS capped out at level 12?
|
Well, you havea lots of boons, I do not know how much that change a build.I personally would put my pure PFS monk up against any pure fighter. This is a link to the build: Monk
Most of that particular character's boons are situational bonuses on skill checks with Pathfinders and people from certain regions, and bonuses on saves against certain effects. All irrelevant in a non-spell battle.
Good stuff that is hard baked into his stats would be a +2 profane bonus on Fort saves, a +2 morale bonus on disarm checks, and a +1 Dex. Nice boons to be sure, but their reduction bares minimal overall impact.
Somewhat irrelevant though, as I realized too late it was a strict CRB comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and I may not have an FAQ reference but I know you don't add weapon focus or the AoMF bonus to grapple checks, because you are not grappling with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. And you DO have to subtract the flurry penalty to your pseudo-full BAB for maneuvers.I'm sorry, you need facts to back up your arguments. "Knowing" the right answer isn't a rules citation.
Those two issues are minor for a high level monk, but I enjoy playing by the rules. SO if you can figure out how someone can grapple without using their fists, elbows, hands, or feet, please let me know.
Keep in mind that a monk pulling a weapon out of someones hands is considered using their fist in a disarm maneuver.
And your second argument just doesn't have a rules bases. I'm not going to play with house-rules just because that is "how things should work".
So what your saying is that you are right despite the fact that YOU have not provided ANY proof or backing as to your interpretation and YOU have been disproved by RAW plenty of times thus far.... riight...
So what your saying is that you are right despite the fact that YOU have not provided ANY proof or backing as to your interpretation and YOU have been disproved by RAW plenty of times thus far.... riight...Oh, and I may not have an FAQ reference but I know you don't add weapon focus or the AoMF bonus to grapple checks, because you are not grappling with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. And you DO have to subtract the flurry penalty to your pseudo-full BAB for maneuvers.I'm sorry, you need facts to back up your arguments. "Knowing" the right answer isn't a rules citation.
Those two issues are minor for a high level monk, but I enjoy playing by the rules. SO if you can figure out how someone can grapple without using their fists, elbows, hands, or feet, please let me know.
Keep in mind that a monk pulling a weapon out of someones hands is considered using their fist in a disarm maneuver.
And your second argument just doesn't have a rules bases. I'm not going to play with house-rules just because that is "how things should work".
Go ahead and cite that RAW.
Oh, and I may not have an FAQ reference but I know you don't add weapon focus or the AoMF bonus to grapple checks, because you are not grappling with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. And you DO have to subtract the flurry penalty to your pseudo-full BAB for maneuvers.I'm sorry, you need facts to back up your arguments. "Knowing" the right answer isn't a rules citation.
It's all you've presented to back up your position so far. By all means, find a rules citation that says that you can use full level as BAB WITHOUT subtracting for iterative hits or TWF the way everyone else has to, or that the AoMF specifically enhances your grapple attack rather than just your unarmed strike/natural weapons (which are not used to grapple), and then we have something to discuss. Until then these are your house-rules.
Those two issues are minor for a high level monk, but I enjoy playing by the rules.
So do I, but your interpretations of such rules is very...unique?
SO if you can figure out how someone can grapple without using their fists, elbows, hands, or feet, please let me know.
Easy, you use your hand and grasp. That's not a fist, not an elbow smash, not a kick. This is elementary, you do not "strike" with a grapple, you "grab" so to speak. The AoMF enhances unarmed strike, not unarmed grab.
I agree, I'd like it to work the way you suggest, but by the RAW it doesn't, and you are the only person who seems to think it does as anything but a house-rule.
Keep in mind that a monk pulling a weapon out of someones hands is considered using their fist in a disarm maneuver.
"Pull"? You'd grab a razor sharp blade and pull on it to disarm somebody? He won't be disarmed, but you'll be dis-fingered!
To disarm somebody you usually have to strike the weapon or the limb that holds it in an unexpected direction. That's how swordsmen disarm their opponents (can't "pull" with a sword, can you?). That's also how martial artists disarm their opponents (something I can verify first hand). You can take control of the weapon afterwards, but that's a secondary move and taking the weapon is not the same as the act to loosen the target's grip on it.
The rules are pretty clear on this, it seems that you just don't understand them.
And your second argument just doesn't have a rules bases. I'm not going to play with house-rules just because that is "how things should work".
How they DO work, you mean. The monk replaces their 3/4 BAB with their level, and treats this as their BAB just as they treat their level as their BAB for a flurry of blows attack. Last time I looked, FoB applied the normal iterative and TWF penalties, is there any reason (other than wishful thinking) to assume that a maneuver would NOT do likewise?
From what everyone else has written there are two interpretations here...yours, and everyone else's. In your position I would seriously start considering the possibility that I was wrong.
Go ahead and cite that RAW.
After you, good sir.
Just as a math thing...
I crit 10% of the time, automatically confirmed, with a x4 multiplier, so with 5 attacks per round there is a 50% chance of a critThe way to do these is:
- the chance to not crit is 100% - 10% = 90%
- what is the chance of 5 attacks in a row without a crit?
90% * 90% * 90% * 90% * 90% = 59%
- so the chance you will get at least one crit in 5 attacks is:
100% - 59% = 41%
You are absolutely correct, jerrys, I was ball-parking my figures.
Vorpal has to confirm the hit to work.
You are correct, that was errata'd from my old CRB. However, comfirming isn't hard. Point remains, because your monk takes longer to kill the balor, the balor gets more chances to insta-kill your monk. The fighter isn't just going to kill the balor quicker, he's more likely to win.
This is because offence IS defence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself in an odd position. I completely agree with Marthkus logically, and I have often griped about how STUPID the Agile Maneuvers feat is. It makes absolutely no sense that you're not considered to be using unarmed when making a bull rush, grapple (hand strikes can also include palm strikes, chops, backhands, nerve pinches... it's not just "punching"), etc... It SHOULD work.
But, RAW, it does not. It's utterly wrong and infuriating and insulting and unnatural and illogical that it does not. But RAW, it does not. SKR re-stating rule 0 doesn't really change anything.
I find myself caught between enforcing paizo's idiotic rules or whitewashing how bad monks have it in an actual PF game w/o a DM willing to houserule things intelligently.
It's a very uncomfortable feeling.
If you disarm someone with your fist, you can keep the weapon in your hand.
Dabbler made a good point, but if arm-baring and taking a weapon is disarming or grabbing the weapon by the hilt and pulling it out is disarming, then you can grapple with monk IUS.
Now if disarming is only "punch weapon and catch it as it is falling" then sure. But there are plenty of weapons that catch other weapons to pull and twist them out of their opponents hands.
I find myself in an odd position. I completely agree with Marthkus logically, and I have often griped about how STUPID the Agile Maneuvers feat is. It makes absolutely no sense that you're not considered to be using unarmed when making a bull rush, grapple (hand strikes can also include palm strikes, chops, backhands, nerve pinches... it's not just "punching"), etc... It SHOULD work.
But, RAW, it does not. It's utterly wrong and infuriating and insulting and unnatural and illogical that it does not. But RAW, it does not. SKR re-stating rule 0 doesn't really change anything.
I find myself caught between enforcing paizo's idiotic rules or whitewashing how bad monks have it in an actual PF game w/o a DM willing to houserule things intelligently.
It's a very uncomfortable feeling.
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll."Normally is the key word their.
Monk IUS is not normal.
Somewhat irrelevant though, as I realized too late it was a strict CRB comparison.Well, it is not that strict since we are using belt of physical perfection.
Which is in the CRB...
I find myself in an odd position. I completely agree with Marthkus logically, and I have often griped about how STUPID the Agile Maneuvers feat is. It makes absolutely no sense that you're not considered to be using unarmed when making a bull rush, grapple (hand strikes can also include palm strikes, chops, backhands, nerve pinches... it's not just "punching"), etc... It SHOULD work.
But, RAW, it does not. It's utterly wrong and infuriating and insulting and unnatural and illogical that it does not. But RAW, it does not. SKR re-stating rule 0 doesn't really change anything.
I find myself caught between enforcing paizo's idiotic rules or whitewashing how bad monks have it in an actual PF game w/o a DM willing to houserule things intelligently.
It's a very uncomfortable feeling.
I know EXACTLY what you mean, truly I do, and I sympathise with both you and Marthkus. I can see that he really, really wants the monk to be fulfilling it's promise...but I also know that it doesn't. Arguing it does doesn't make it so, it just stretches out the debate endlessly before Paizo get convinced and do something about the problems so the the monk IS what it should be.
I know EXACTLY what you mean, truly I do, and I sympathise with both you and Marthkus. I can see that he really, really wants the monk to be fulfilling it's promise...but I also know that it doesn't. Arguing it does doesn't make it so, it just stretches out the debate endlessly before Paizo get convinced and do something about the problems so the the monk IS what it should be.I find myself in an odd position. I completely agree with Marthkus logically, and I have often griped about how STUPID the Agile Maneuvers feat is. It makes absolutely no sense that you're not considered to be using unarmed when making a bull rush, grapple (hand strikes can also include palm strikes, chops, backhands, nerve pinches... it's not just "punching"), etc... It SHOULD work.
But, RAW, it does not. It's utterly wrong and infuriating and insulting and unnatural and illogical that it does not. But RAW, it does not. SKR re-stating rule 0 doesn't really change anything.
I find myself caught between enforcing paizo's idiotic rules or whitewashing how bad monks have it in an actual PF game w/o a DM willing to houserule things intelligently.
It's a very uncomfortable feeling.
We're going to have to disagree there. The last monk I played worked for the first 6 levels. After that he turned into a vampire, so I stopped counting my experience as valid.
At high levels he falls behind in DPR, but still keeps ahead of all non-martial classes.
Honestly its mid-levels I am worried about now
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll."Normally is the key word their.
Monk IUS is not normal.
Your own quote disproves your point. Weapon Finesse applies to normal Unarmed Strike, even unmodified by IUS. Even a normal unarmed strike, unmodified by any other feat at all, even in a non-Monk, can use Weapon Finesse to hit, though they still eat an AoO since it doesn't count as being specifically "armed", which is the key distinction.
Thus, if you actually use Unarmed Strike to grapple, then "normally" has nothing to do with it. Any character with Weapon Finesse could always apply their DEX bonus to grapple, every time.
So you say no one can use their fist to perform a bullrush?
A monk can IUS with more than just his fist.
(by the way unarmed strike is 1 weapon out of dozens. Using IUS at all can be considered non-normal)
We're going to have to disagree there. The last monk I played worked for the first 6 levels. After that he turned into a vampire, so I stopped counting my experience as valid.
Around 2-7 is the monk's sweet spot before his disadvantages compared to other classes really kick in. My last monk did OK around these levels too, using grapple to shut down enemies, multiple attacks to break faces etc. Soon as you started getting non-humanoid foes with a decent CMD, the maneuvers died. Then the attacks were falling behind in damage and accuracy, and I wasn't contributing much in combat at all.
At high levels he falls behind in DPR, but still keeps ahead of all non-martial classes.
I must point out that this isn't saying much.
Honestly its mid-levels I am worried about now
Low level: sweet spot, you're actually decent as a back-up fighter (not a Fighter type of fighter, I mean a "combat class" here) and maneuvers actually work.
Mid Level: Suffering a lot; everything costs you more, and you are always falling behind in accuracy and damage.
High level: Not brilliant, but you can at least capitalize on your MAD to get something out of all the stat boosts you can buy.
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll."Normally is the key word their.
Monk IUS is not normal.
Your own quote disproves your point. Weapon Finesse applies to normal Unarmed Strike, even unmodified by IUS. Even a normal unarmed strike, unmodified by any other feat at all, even in a non-Monk, can use Weapon Finesse to hit, though they still eat an AoO since it doesn't count as being specifically "armed", which is the key distinction.
Thus, if you actually use Unarmed Strike to grapple, then "normally" has nothing to do with it. Any character with Weapon Finesse could always apply their DEX bonus to grapple, every time.
I think you made a good point in the sentence I bolded.
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll."Normally is the key word their.
Monk IUS is not normal.
Your own quote disproves your point. Weapon Finesse applies to normal Unarmed Strike, even unmodified by IUS. Even a normal unarmed strike, unmodified by any other feat at all, even in a non-Monk, can use Weapon Finesse to hit, though they still eat an AoO since it doesn't count as being specifically "armed", which is the key distinction.
Thus, if you actually use Unarmed Strike to grapple, then "normally" has nothing to do with it. Any character with Weapon Finesse could always apply their DEX bonus to grapple, every time.
Monk IUS allows things that other characters with IUS cannot do. So any random schmuck taking IUS is never the same as a Monk's IUS. That's one.
Two, using a Light Weapon with Weapon Finesse to make a combat maneuver check using Dex requires the Agile Maneuvers feat for it to function, since the Weapon Finesse feat does not allow you to apply your Dexterity modifier to CMB checks.
At high levels he falls behind in DPR, but still keeps ahead of all non-martial classes.I doubt that to be honest. Maybe against a single target that lets you stand still and full attack from first turn on, but against multiple targets or a mobile target I greatly suspect even non-martials will out DPR you. Blasting has been proven to be significantly better than people gave it credit for.
But I'm biased in that argument, I really like the guide to blasting that recently turned expectations upside down.
I'm still using CRB only comparisons.
@Dabbler
I'm not sure you love monks the way you say you do.
I'm a realist: the class is weak. I know it's weak because I've played them through from low to high level and hit all the problems. I do love the monk, I want it to be a good class people can enjoy playing, but that isn't the class as is right now. It needs a boost - check out the changes I am suggesting here, that I think just about fix up the monk's problems without making him brokenly good.
I've not read every one of your posts, I'm sure; but I have never seen you say anything that would make me think you want people to enjoy their monk. You always seem to want to be sure that no one anywhere is at all possibly enjoying their monk. I dread your appearance in any thread discussing the monk.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've not read every one of your posts, I'm sure; but I have never seen you say anything that would make me think you want people to enjoy their monk. You always seem to want to be sure that no one anywhere is at all possibly enjoying their monk. I dread your appearance in any thread discussing the monk.
That's because, if they are following the rules and don't enjoy being weaker than other classes, then they are not possibly enjoying their monk after the early levels.
If you use houserules, or play with different expectations than the core rules (i.e. different wealth, different number of encounters per day, more open ended skill usage, more or less combat, etc.), or if you're unconcerned with mechanical power or don't understand the game's math, then you're outcome will be different, of course. One can enjoy any class in the game if they don't care about mechanics, for example, and one can houserule/alter the game to fit any class's "strong suits" just fine. But by the real actual rules, monks (and rogues, and fighters, and cavaliers, etc.) suck. It's sad, but true.
Keep in mind I am totally in favor of changing the rules and expectations and do all the time, but when I have a forum discussion, I don't assume my changes are in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not read every one of your posts, I'm sure; but I have never seen you say anything that would make me think you want people to enjoy their monk. You always seem to want to be sure that no one anywhere is at all possibly enjoying their monk. I dread your appearance in any thread discussing the monk.@Dabbler
I'm not sure you love monks the way you say you do.
I'm a realist: the class is weak. I know it's weak because I've played them through from low to high level and hit all the problems. I do love the monk, I want it to be a good class people can enjoy playing, but that isn't the class as is right now. It needs a boost - check out the changes I am suggesting here, that I think just about fix up the monk's problems without making him brokenly good.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Durngrun, but I can't help that the monk is a weak class. Where people ask for advice I give it. I never say "the monk sucks, don't play it"; I tell them what the weaknesses are and what they need to watch for, and how to play to the monk's strengths. People can, and do, enjoy playing monks - me included - but if you go in with eyes closed it can be an exercise in frustration and no-one I know enjoys that.
I've had a lot of players love the idea of the monk, start playing them and quickly get disillusioned with them when they do not live up to their hype. That's not fun for them, so sorry if telling people honestly what to avoid is wrongbadfun, or offering suggestions on how to make a weak class better is upsetting, but in the long run being honest with people about this kind of thing is best.
In threads like this one, where somebody makes an assertion that is questionable at best, I do take the challenge, yes. Why? BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVEN WRONG. So far, though, that hasn't happened in any major way. At high level, the fighter brings more to the party than the monk, because the monk is essentially a combat class that doesn't fight very well. Sorry. Wish it wasn't so, but it is. I don't want to be a doom and gloom merchant, but you don't fix problems by pretending they aren't there.
I'm picturing the group is LoL terms now.
ADC: Archer
APC: Arcane caster
Support: Divine caster
Jungle: Skillmonkey
Top lane: Tank (monk)
I'm picturing the group is LoL terms now.
ADC: Archer
APC: Arcane caster
Support: Divine caster
Jungle: Skillmonkey
Top lane: Tank (monk)
I have no idea what those things mean.
if you're unconcerned with mechanical power or don't understand the game's math...
So if you play wrong or you're dumb...
I'm picturing the group is LoL terms now.
ADC: Archer
APC: Arcane caster
Support: Divine caster
Jungle: Skillmonkey
Top lane: Tank (monk)
Paladin would be a better tank than a Monk. More immunities, more means to heal, access to spells, etc. Plus quite an easy means to keep threat (LOLSmite).
A Jungle would probably suit the Monk more since he does have better suits in that regard (mobility, lockdown, etc.)
Back on topic, @Nicos, The second part you cited was what I was talking about. In order for them to use Dex for their Grapple regarding IUS, they must have the Agile Maneuvers, since Weapon Finesse does not allow them to substitute Dex for combat maneuvers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you're unconcerned with mechanical power or don't understand the game's math...So if you play wrong or you're dumb...
No. Different people play different games. For one group of people, the mechanics do not really matter, they just have fun, and good for them. For another, the mechanics help them have fun, and good for them. Why do discussions of this type always go with the mechanics? Because they are quantifiable; you can compare attack bonuses and damage averages, you can't compare funness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you're unconcerned with mechanical power or don't understand the game's math...So if you play wrong or you're dumb...
No, it's not playing wrong to be unconcerned with mechanics--it's a perfectly viable way to play and you'll probably end up happier with Pathfinder.
But if you do play that way, why engage in a discussion about which class is mechanically better?
I also don't think it's dumb to not understand the game's math. It's designed to not be readily apparent or easy, so mastering it is a challenge. 3rd Edition was deliberately designed to reward optimization--did you know that? Anyway, it's not dumb, just a different kind of mind, which is fine.
Again, though, if you don't really understand the mechanics, why are you in a discussion about which is mechanically better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read - and partially participated in - a lot of monk threads so I am well aware of the arguments in favor and against the monk.
I disagree with the notion that the monk is weak. All the math and all the "evidence" I have seen always assume some kind of scenario where the role of the monk is shown not to be "the best" or "the strongest", followed by a reasoning that since class X can be better at actions A&B and class Y better at B&C the monk "sucks" and is "weak". The discussions usually also focus on unarmed strike and the disadvantages and costs of amulet of mighty fists, since using weapons (or a single weapon which only the monk can do TWF with by the way) is not what "people" want the monk to be.
It is really funny that one of the other classes which is claimed to be useless out of combat and less relevant in combat - the fighter - is used as a benchmark vs. the fighter in this thread. Incidentally, I also find that statement not to be true.
What I believe is that there are different roles that classes can assume in a game and that largely decides upon the usefulness and players' satisfaction with them.
So I think that Marthkus already has been proven wrong with his initial assertion; the fighter definitely blows the monk away in terms of damage. So will the barbarian and - in many instances - the ranger and the paladin. And that is good, after all the fighter (and the other full BAB classes) is supposed to be good at his job.
However, Marthkus would be right when he had advertised the monk as being a better multiplier of groups abilities, annoying to the opponents of a party.
The monk is not designed to be standing still, flurrying away to take out opponents in one on one fights. He is however very well suited to
- provide flanking to make sneak attacks a real threat and help the fighter to hit even better, maybe even with that last attack
- not be taken out easily: spells (at least from items or creatures that have spellcasting that can hurt but not at full caster level) will fizzle or be saved against, maneuvering will be countered with the monk's high mobility and abilities like abundant step, disease and poison immunity negate major threats of high CR monsters
- chip away damage consistently to make sure the Balor or other opponents have lost just enough HP so the fighter can kill them - after all, they fight as well at 1 HP as with 370 HP
- provide debuffs like stunning, speed reductions or even making them shaken or flat-footed (those last two not really in CRB though), thus - again - enabling sneak attack and reducing their AC
- assume the role of a backup fighter or a backup skill monkey. This is due to the monk 4 skill points (not so much, but OK) and the many useful bonus feats he gets that open up slots for skill focus feats and the like (this is more important).
I think Marthkus has proven with his build and the arguments that the above is true :-)
Something that I find curious is that spell resistance is considered to be such a disadvantage. I have played monks with spell resistance before and I do so currently. We play by the rules, and I can honestly say that there has not been a single instance where spell resistance has been a problem:
- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made.
- SR is supposed not be relevant for enemy casters since "they will make the caster level check anyway". Well, the same is true for player parties: You have full-CL wizards, clerics, bards etc. Particularly wizards will want to invest in spell penetration or other CL increasing feats or items anyway, so they will succeed with haste and other in-combat buffs.
- Many buffs can be applied before combat, so lowering the SR is not a problem. And if for some reason the attack should come at exactly that moment, the monk will likely save and is protected next round.
The monk has an excellent defensive package and abilities that enable him to be quite self-sufficient, in turn allowing him to compensate for weaknesses in the party or adding weight to certain tactics.
To put it into a short statement wrt. the title of this thread: Monks are not "better" than fighters at high levels, but they are "better" than a second martial - be it ranger, barbarian, paladin or ranger :-)
Again, though, if you don't really understand the mechanics, why are you in a discussion about which is mechanically better?
So I'm not dumb, I just don't understand? Ok, got it.
And I've actually tried to stay out of the discussion. I just disagree with the premise that a monk sucks because he might not be able to solo a balor at 20th level.@Dabbler
Please don't take this the wrong way. You're free to discuss the monk in any which way you prefer. However, when every post I've seen of yours is about how much the monk sucks, and is trying to convince others who enjoy the monk that nope the monk sucks, then don't expect me to believe you when you say, "I love the monk."
"- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made. "
QQ: Why is this true?
"- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made. "
QQ: Why is this true?
Read this thread here.
Or just read the spell, look at the SR entry and read the last sentence of the description at least twice wrt. who "can apply" it - and thus who cannot or at least does not have to ;-)
"- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made. "
QQ: Why is this true?
Read this thread here.
Or just read the spell, look at the SR entry and read the last sentence of the description at least twice wrt. who "can apply" it - and thus who cannot or at least does not have to ;-)
Now people accuse me of being shaky on the rules, but I wouldn't agree that CLW bypasses SR.
Although I'm not saying it can't, but until there is an FAQ otherwise, I would lean towards SR applying to CLW.
Honestly, that's a rules question with shaky RAW regardless of what side you're on. Its just poorly worded."- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made. "
QQ: Why is this true?
Read this thread here.
Or just read the spell, look at the SR entry and read the last sentence of the description at least twice wrt. who "can apply" it - and thus who cannot or at least does not have to ;-)Now people accuse me of being shaky on the rules, but I wouldn't agree that CLW bypasses SR.
Although I'm not saying it can't, but until their is an FAQ otherwise, I would lean towards SR applying to CLW.
Not really. The RAW is cut and dry, SR makes you have a "shield" against all spells, even those that heal or are considered "harmless." You have to bypass the SR in order to affect the creature, just like any other spell in question.
It's really only good if you're a nasty non-magical melee dealing against a bunch of magical/spell things. Greater Giant Fiendish T-Rex with insane SR? Look out, those Save or Suck spells aren't going to help you. Little Humanoid with Pig Sticker? He's screwed himself with having SR, because his little gadgets won't work for him 90% of the time (since he has to bypass his own SR using the item's stats in order for the item activation abilities to affect him).
Back on Topic, Monks can actually last against a Fight with a Balor or similar creature. They'd lose, but at least they could fight back. Fighters just become HURR DURR minions for the Balor.
Honestly, that's a rules question with shaky RAW regardless of what side you're on. Its just poorly worded."- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made. "
QQ: Why is this true?
Read this thread here.
Or just read the spell, look at the SR entry and read the last sentence of the description at least twice wrt. who "can apply" it - and thus who cannot or at least does not have to ;-)Now people accuse me of being shaky on the rules, but I wouldn't agree that CLW bypasses SR.
Although I'm not saying it can't, but until their is an FAQ otherwise, I would lean towards SR applying to CLW.
Well, it's pretty clear to me since there is specific text describing it further. It's just that when you only look at the SR entry instead of the text where it becomes shaky. Nevertheless, I FAQed it as well and hope they will give us a clear answer one day - it's not the first FAQ thread regarding the SR (harmless) entry :-)
...
Not really. The RAW is cut and dry, SR makes you have a "shield" against all spells, even those that heal or are considered "harmless." You have to bypass the SR in order to affect the creature, just like any other spell in question.
Not really as clear as you seem to think. Read the specific text in CLW and what (harmless) means. This is different from other spells that just would have the (harmless) entry - if there are any at all?
But this is not something for this thread....
It's really only good if you're a nasty non-magical melee dealing against a bunch of magical/spell things. Greater Giant Fiendish T-Rex with insane SR? Look out, those Save or Suck spells aren't going to help you. Little Humanoid with Pig Sticker? He's screwed himself with having SR, because his little gadgets won't work for him 90% of the time (since he has to bypass his own SR using the item's stats in order for the item activation abilities to affect him).
...
Wrong. SR ability specifically states:
A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.
So no, there is no problem with your items :-)
...
Not really. The RAW is cut and dry, SR makes you have a "shield" against all spells, even those that heal or are considered "harmless." You have to bypass the SR in order to affect the creature, just like any other spell in question.
Not really as clear as you seem to think. Read the specific text in CLW and what (harmless) means. This is different from other spells that just would have the (harmless) entry - if there are any at all?
But this is not something for this thread....
It's really only good if you're a nasty non-magical melee dealing against a bunch of magical/spell things. Greater Giant Fiendish T-Rex with insane SR? Look out, those Save or Suck spells aren't going to help you. Little Humanoid with Pig Sticker? He's screwed himself with having SR, because his little gadgets won't work for him 90% of the time (since he has to bypass his own SR using the item's stats in order for the item activation abilities to affect him).
...Wrong. SR ability specifically states:
A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.
So no, there is no problem with your items :-)
The intent should be obvious, but the RAW is just as much obvious. They just enforce different ideals. While I would lean towards the RAI, the RAW is just as cut and dry.
And that makes no sense; SR can apparently make your own items and spell and abilities all work fine, but if it's from any other source it has to bypass it? Seems legit...
Although, it doesn't change the fact that if you have a dying Wizard with a familiar force-feeding the potion, the potion won't work because it's from the familiar, not the Wizard. Stupid mechanics are stupid it seems.
So are we going to have a PbP Monk v.s. Fighter duel or what?