| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks have a fob... Effectively full bab with all of the Twf, improved, greater, etc... For free.
Just some things that have always bugged me, I'll just start with it...
1. Funky Bardic Music In Rounds
Was there ever really any reason to do the weird 4+Charisma Modifier+2 Rounds Per Bard level change? Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible and that bizarre change instead of the former way of counting out Bardic Music is strange because it negates so many spells, feats and equipment. This formula introduces more math and book keeping into the game and also shuts down lots of feats and equipment that helped the old way of business out. Also, why can you only have 1 form of Bardic Music up? Was Inspire Courage and Greatness up at the same time just too BROKENZORS? I ain't seeing it. Does have multiple songs up really need to be a 4th level spell?
Because it sucked for low level bards. If you started a performance and the encounter lasted 2 rounds, thats it you're done. This way you can spread it out over many encounters even at low levels. A big effort in pathfinder was to make lower levels less of an all or nothing affair.
2. Why don't monks have Full BAB?
This has been a question puzzling people since 2000 with 3.0 Dungeons and Dragons. It doesn't have Rogue stuff or Bard stuff to be viable out of combat, really, and it doesn't cast spells like a Druid or a Cleric. It has an okay skill list and 4 skill points but that doesn't mean somebody is 3/4 BAB. Look at the Barbarian and the Ranger.
All the monk can really do is punch, kick or stab somebody in the face with a Temple Sword. Why not full BAB? I heard the justification for not having it was prestige class concerns. Wow. How stupid.
Another design choice, bab and hit die are tied together. That said, See the super genius games 3rd party product the Talented Monk. It fixes a whole heck of alot of the issues you mention. Particularly since there are rules to mix it with the talented rogue.
3. If the game was designed for the Rogue to be able to Sneak Attack more often, why were ways to qualify for Sneak Attacks negated?
Splash weapons and Blink spells not providing SA anymore sucks the high hard one. I don't know why that happened.
Splash weapons was a general (and rational) change to presicion damage. You cant be precise with an alchemist fire.
As for blink, its a power down of the spell, not a nerf of the rogue. Lots of spells got powered down, and again this only affects high level characters that can afford rings of blinking. If you are worried about the rogue, again see super genius games talented rogue again particularly when mixed with the talented monk.
Yes, precision damage from SA is from the rogue being able to pinpoint neck, inner thigh, back, which is where people bleed out in seconds. Splash damage is completely and utterly random where it hits, and even then it wouldn't deal more damage, it would just hurt a little more and be painfull.
Mostly what Kolokotroni said.
As regards monks -- a lot of people see monks as a combat focused class. I think Pathfinder sees monks as more of a broad-based class; they are skilled with some forms of combat, but also have decent skills, strong defensive abilities, and some interesting mystical abilities. This broad-based concept is better reflected as a d8 class.
There ARE problems with how monks are designed--and even with some "fixes" in Ultimate Combat there are NOT good ways to build a d10/full BAB unarmed combat focused warrior (no I think unarmed fighter kind of sucks) and there should be--but I a) do not think monks should be a d10/full BAB warrior, and b) do not think the problems monks have are holdovers from 3.5, with the possible exception of flurry of blows, which I am just never happy with how it works, especially in synergy with other monk abilities.
I do miss splash weapons not doing sneak attack damage but I can also see ways that can be grievously exploited (especially now that we have the alchemist... a rogue/alchemist dealing sneak attack with bombs would be awful), so I let that lie.
The whole "BAB is tied to HD" is a bad argument. There are exceptions to this "rule."
For example, the Barbarian has a d12 HD. Shouldn't it be a d10?
Using the same logic, there's no reason the Monk couldn't also be an exception, except going in the other direction, down to a d8.
As for the argument that the class offers a "mix of defensive and utility abilities, and therefore shouldn't have full BAB" that's also a bunk argument.
Here is all the "utility" abilities a Monk offers:
•Abundant Step, lvl 12: Casters can do the same thing as many as 5 levels earlier. Even Bards, who do not get early access, can get Dimension Door a whole two levels earlier.
...And that's it.
The next time you get anything that could even be considered "utility" is level 17, and games just typically don't go that far.
But for the sake of argument:
•Tongue of the Sun and Moon, lvl 17: Tongues has been available to every caster that can cast it for *at least* 10 levels. Also, Tongues can be made permanent with Permanency.
•Empty Body, lvl 19: It's just like the spell Etherealness except you get it late, it never lasts more than a minute, and you can't take anyone with you. So honestly, this should be considered a "Defensive" ability, and not a "Utility" ability.
And that's it for all 20 levels.
Face it, the class is not a mix of "Defensive and utility." ;P
@death Quaker, a rogue/alchemist taking each one every other level wouldn't be op except at level 1/1 (level 2 total)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I never liked from 3.5 was weapon size rules. I liked that a halfling would use a human short sword, and that was basically his longsword in every other version of D&D. Now you have to find separate category weapons if you have gnomes and halflings in the party. It's really pointless.
The thing about "Sorcerer vs Wizard" is that, simply put, the Sorcerer's style of casting is more powerful than the Wizard's.
Even Schrodinger's Wizard can only cast what he has prepared. So even if you know exactly what you need to get the best preparation possible (scrying, spies, etc.) you still run the risk of the "perfect spell" failing. Maybe the BBEG made the DC. Maybe an AoO cost you your concentration. Maybe SR paid off for once.
A Sorcerer might be less likely to know a certain spell, but they'll never get caught with their pants down as in the above example, and they're never stuck with a useless preparation (ie: You thought you needed X prepared, but it turns out you didn't).
3.X/Paizo seem to think that is worth the slight slowing of casting progression. I have a hard time disagreeing.
The thing about "Sorcerer vs Wizard" is that, simply put, the Sorcerer's style of casting is more powerful than the Wizard's.
Even Schrodinger's Wizard can only cast what he has prepared. So even if you know exactly what you need to get the best preparation possible (scrying, spies, etc.) you still run the risk of the "perfect spell" failing. Maybe the BBEG made the DC. Maybe an AoO cost you your concentration. Maybe SR paid off for once.
A Sorcerer might be less likely to know a certain spell, but they'll never get caught with their pants down as in the above example, and they're never stuck with a useless preparation (ie: You thought you needed X prepared, but it turns out you didn't).
3.X/Paizo seem to think that is worth the slight slowing of casting progression. I have a hard time disagreeing.
I'd not say it's a "slight" slowing of casting progression. There is no telling how long you can stay in any given level.
Sorcerers know very few spells. Getting 1 spell of your highest level each level is not only very limited, but also incredibly boring.
Add to that the delayed spell progression and slow metamagic, and spontaneous casting is made considerably inferior. Especially when getting more spell slots are so much easier than getting spells known.
Pearls of Power, scrolls, wands, high attribute... All of greatly increase your number of spell slots. For Sorcerers, either they have a favored class option, extremely expensive items or a feat that becomes obsolete a level or two later.
In the long run, greater spell variety is much more powerful than more spells per day.
Personaly, I give Sorcerers and Oracles the same spell progression of Wizards and Clerics, and give them 2 spells known each level. The player choose any 2 spells from any level the character can cast. In the end, Sorcers and Oracles have fewer spells known, but better spell lists.
They are still not as powerful their vancian counter-parts, but they not overshadowed as easily.
Of course, before buffing spell casters, I nerfed more than a few spells. I don't want to increase caster/martial disparity. SoL spells are less powerful and permanent magical minions are far more limited.
I'd not say it's a "slight" slowing of casting progression. There is no telling how long you can stay in any given level.
Sorcerers know very few spells. Getting 1 spell of your highest level each level is not only very limited, but also incredibly boring.
Add to that the delayed spell progression and slow metamagic, and spontaneous casting is made considerably inferior. Especially when getting more spell slots are so much easier than getting spells known.
Pearls of Power, scrolls, wands, high attribute... All of greatly increase your number of spell slots. For Sorcerers, either they have a favored class option, extremely expensive items or a feat that becomes obsolete a level or two later.
In the long run, greater spell variety is much more powerful than more spells per day.
Personaly, I give Sorcerers and Oracles the same spell progression of Wizards and Clerics, and give them 2 spells known each level. The player choose any 2 spells from any level the character can cast. In the end, Sorcers and Oracles have fewer spells known, but better spell lists.
They are still not as powerful their vancian counter-parts, but they not overshadowed as easily.
Of course, before buffing spell casters, I nerfed more than a few spells. I don't want to increase caster/martial disparity. SoL spells are less powerful and permanent magical minions are far more limited.
But it is slight. It's a single level. Without totally redesigning the progression, the discrepancy doesn't get smaller than that.
And, to keep the discussion "pure," I avoided bringing magic items into the comparison. You can mention how Pearls of Power make Wizards better, but at the end of that line of thought, both casters have enough staves/wands/wonderous items/etc. that they're both fully prepared for anything, and both have nearly identical spells per day. :P
Besides, having more spell options isn't all it's cracked up to be when more than half the spell list is a bad option. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the skill-heavy "strikers" have 3/4 BAB. The monk should be compared to a rogue rather than a fighter. However, the mechanics never suited the flavor, which was Bruce Lee, the guy who fought with his fists.
Monks are not "skill-heavy." When the options are "2, 4, 6, and 8," 4 isn't "on the high side."
All the "skill-heavy" classes (6+int) either have full BAB (Ranger) or at least 6 levels of spell-casting progression (Bard and Inquisitor).
All of the "skill-light" classes (4+int) have either full BAB (Barbarian and Cavalier), full spell-casting (Druid and Oracle), and then the two outliers (Monk and Alchemist). And Alchemist offers much more potential than Monk does, with it's 6-level "casting."
But it is slight. It's a single level. Without totally redesigning the progression, the discrepancy doesn't get smaller than that.
My point is that one level is quite the difference. Especially when you have 1 single spell of your highest level. Which you can cast 3 times epr day.
And, to keep the discussion "pure," I avoided bringing magic items into the comparison. You can mention how Pearls of Power make Wizards better, but at the end of that line of thought, both casters have enough staves/wands/wonderous items/etc. that they're both fully prepared for anything, and both have nearly identical spells per day.
Prepared casters have a much easier time crafting, using and benefiting from scrolls and other consumables, though. And simply increasing your casting attribute (which is something all casters do as much as they can!) also provides more spell slots per day.
Besides, having more spell options isn't all it's cracked up to be when more than half the spell list is a bad option. :)
Thankfully (or sadly, depending on who you ask), most casters have a great variety of awesome spells. Picking a single one each level and casting it 3~5 times is not nearly as good as having a much greater variety of spells. Especially when so many great spells are very powerful, but not something you use very day. (Plane Shift, Miracle, Simulacrum, Raise Dead, etc). And of course, there are those spells who are useful like 90% of the time. Not sure what to prepare? Go with Haste, Summon Monster or Wall of Stone. If you go a whole adventuring day without finding an use for those spells, you're not thinking hard enough. :)
Don't get me wrong, Sorcerers are still very powerful. All full casters are. But they do get overshadowed by Wizards.
IMHO, there is no problem buffing casters if we nerf overpowered spells. I've seen so many "caster fixes" that try to fix things by imposing a bunch of concentration checks, turning spells into full-round actions and similar ideas. But the spell-casting system is not the problem, overpowered spells are.
I'm not a big fan of vancian spell-casting, but it's not what makes casters so powerful.
All the "skill-heavy" classes (6+int) either have full BAB (Ranger) or at least 6 levels of spell-casting progression (Bard and Inquisitor).
Except Rogues... Poor guys... :(
All of the "skill-light" classes (4+int) have either full BAB (Barbarian and Cavalier), full spell-casting (Druid and Oracle), and then the two outliers (Monk and Alchemist). And Alchemist offers much more potential than Monk does, with it's 6-level "casting."
Not to mention Alchemists' "casting" is Int-based. So they'll most likely end up with 8~10 skill points per level. :)
I don't count Rogues as "skill-heavy." I count them as the next step up. ;)
I don't count Rogues as "skill-heavy." I count them as the next step up. ;)
More likely Next Step Down, then, as Bards get more skill points thanks to Versatile Performance.
I figure it like this:
2+Int = Skill Minimum
4+Int = Skill-light
6+Int = Skill-heavy
8+Int* = Skill Maximum
*-Bards break the "rule" and go here.
I absolutely won't deny that Rogues get the short end of the stick in PF, but honestly it has less to do with Rogues being bad and more to do with getting killed by the skill fix.
Back when you had Cross-Class skills, Rogues shined with their huge list of class skills and their high number of skill points. Taking away cross-class penalties without giving the Rogue class an upgrade just hurts. (While yes, they did get upgrades to Rogue Talents, those largely don't address the core function of the class - Skills. So that "upgrade" is really more of a "sidegrade.")
(Bards getting a skill upgrade is just salt on the wound really. :P )
I'm extremely happy that they removed the horrid cross-class skill rule from 3.5. That didn't make Rogues good, it simply gimped all characters and made all of them invest in the exactly same skills.
Gimping everyone is not a good way to make a class relevant. (Although Paizo does like to do it sometimes, like when they nerfed Animal Companions to make Cavaliers look less terrible).
Instead of screwing everyone with cross class skill, it would be much better to buff Rogues. Rogues have never been a good class. Ever. Cross class skills ddn't make them good, they just crippled everyone. Including Rogues, just not as badly.
Trapfinding is either useless or boring (roll Perception, roll Disable Device. The end. Wasn't that fun?) and "skill guy" shouldn't be the whole niche of the class. It should be just an extra.
Rogues could be fixed by giving them better Rogue Talents. Unfortunately, I doubt the devs are willing to create a bunch of good Rogue Talents to obsolete the old ones, despite the fact that the vast majority of those old talents is worthless.
I'm extremely happy that they removed the horrid cross-class skill rule from 3.5. That didn't make Rogues good, it simply gimped all characters and made all of them invest in the exactly same skills.
Gimping everyone is not a good way to make a class relevant. (Although Paizo does like to do it sometimes, like when they nerfed Animal Companions to make Cavaliers look less terrible).
Don't get me wrong: I totally agree with you! Cross-class skills (and "half-ranks" ... *shudder*) were a flippin' awful idea and I'm super-glad Paizo said "no way" and fixed them.
They just forgot to update the Rogue to account for their skill fix, and it hurt them in the end.Trapfinding is either useless or boring (roll Perception, roll Disable Device. The end. Wasn't that fun?) and "skill guy" shouldn't be the whole niche of the class. It should be just an extra.
On this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For example, combat can be just as boring as you describe trapfinding: "Roll Attack, maybe roll Damage, Repeat. The end. Wasn't that fun?"Simply put, ya gotta use your imagination to make dice rolling fun, regardless of what you're rolling for.
As far as "class niche" goes, gotta disagree there too. A Fighter's niche is combat, and a Rogue's niche is skill-use. The Fighter can skill use skills and the Rogue can still fight, but that's not their niche.
Don't get me wrong: I totally agree with you! Cross-class skills (and "half-ranks" ... *shudder*) were a flippin' awful idea and I'm super-glad Paizo said "no way" and fixed them.
They just forgot to update the Rogue to account for their skill fix, and it hurt them in the end.
Indeed, they did.
Trapfinding is either useless or boring (roll Perception, roll Disable Device. The end. Wasn't that fun?) and "skill guy" shouldn't be the whole niche of the class. It should be just an extra.On this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For example, combat can be just as boring as you describe trapfinding: "Roll Attack, maybe roll Damage, Repeat. The end. Wasn't that fun?
Exactly. And that's why I find Fighters rather boring.
Because the games has incredibly long feat chains, often with unreasonable prerequisites, instead of scaling feats, martial characters are usually restricted to being good in 1~2 things in combat, and fail and/or provoke AoO when doing anything slightly different. I don't play Fighters anymore because they're pretty much worthless out of combat, and repetitive in combat. Rangers, Paladins, Gunslingers and Barbarians all have more variety and versatility both in and out of combat. Fighters have higher DPR and AC.
Simply put, ya gotta use your imagination to make dice rolling fun, regardless of what you're rolling for.
Imagination is cool and all, but when you're reduced to repeating the same 3 words turn after turn, it gets repetitive. I can fluff my full attack a thousand different ways, but if in the end, all I do is full attack, it grows boring anyway. Even when I build Fighters, I try to avoid the way-too-common weapon focus/specialization feat chain in favor or stuff with more.... let's call it "interactivity". Power Attack gives you a new decision every round, that's a good thing. Cornugon Smash, Lunge and maneuvers give you new options and variety. Combat Reflexes give you more opportunities to act. These are cool feats. Weapon Focus is effective, but so freaking boring...
As far as "class niche" goes, gotta disagree there too. A Fighter's niche is combat, and a Rogue's niche is skill-use. The Fighter can skill use skills and the Rogue can still fight, but that's not their niche.
That's the thing. "Combat" is not a niche. Everyone does it. Most classes do it pretty well. Many of them do it just as well, if not better than Fighters. Same goes for Rogues and skills. They are simply not good enough to say skills is their niche. Except for 4~6 of them, skills are not even that good. Many of them are pretty useless beyond 3rd level.
Trapfinding is even worse. The traps where Rogues have an advantage are those where all that is required are 2 skill rolls. Those are boring.
Fun traps, the ones that force players into a situation where they have to make choices and be creative are traps where Trapfinding is basically useless.
A good example is the classic room where the floor is receding. You have 3 rounds to come up with a way to escape or survive falling on the spiked pit. What do you do? Cast Fly? Use daggers to Climb up the walls? Try to unlock the door and escape? Use Acrobatics to try and fall without getting impaled?
This trap is fun, because players interact with it. They can come up with different and creative ways to overcome the obstacle. It's not just the old Perception -> Disable Device -> Move Forward, where only 1 player does something, and only for about 3 seconds. Either he succeeds and the players forget about it 1 second later, or he fails, the players pay the healing tax, and then forget about it 1 second later...
Unfortunately for Rogues, Trapfinding doesn't help them at all in this situation. Being able to disarm magic traps will not help him survive the fall on the spiked pit. So the Trap-centric ability is useless in the situation it was supposed to shine. :(
A character's niche should not be based on what part of the adventure you're in. That is to say, giving the fighter the niche of combat gives the fighter's player the niche of making a Taco Bell run as soon as the Bard's player gets back so the social scene can begin.
Indeed. All classes should be able to meaningfully contribute in all situations. They don't have to be equally good at everything, but they should never feel useless because their class offers nothing significant to do in the current situation.
Fighters don't need to be great diplomats, but they should have other ways to help around when swing a sword is not a good solution to the problem.
Abundant Step, lvl 12: Casters can do the same thing as many as 5 levels earlier.Are you remembering to apply the spell level adjustment the casters have to take to match the fact that the monk casts this as a spell like ability? And the feats they have to take as well? And then looked into how many duplicate slots the Wizard has to reserve for this spell to factor in how many times the Monk can spam this?
Have you done that for any of the monk's powers?
The things you mention are a wash when compared to the fact that the Monk's SLAs only work for themselves (even with spells designed to work for multiple people, such as Dimension Door and Etherealness), and at least in the case of Etherealness you don't get to count your Monk level as your caster level. Also, while Ki and Spell Slots are different mechanics, it would be a mistake to say, "My 12th level Monk can Abundant Step 5 times today," because that's assuming you spend no Ki on any other abilities that rely on having or spending Ki, which is unrealistic. (Besides, a Mage's wand of DD totally trumps however many Ki points any Monk has.)
(Edit - Besides, even if you totally count Abundant Step and Empty Body as utility abilities, that doesn't make them a "Utility Class." If it did, then every class in the game, short of Fighter, would be a "utility class.")
I also think it's important to point out that a "niche" is not a synonym for "the one and only thing I can do to be useful."
It's intended to mean, "the role you're best at."
Abundant Step, lvl 12: Casters can do the same thing as many as 5 levels earlier.Are you remembering to apply the spell level adjustment the casters have to take to match the fact that the monk casts this as a spell like ability? And the feats they have to take as well? And then looked into how many duplicate slots the Wizard has to reserve for this spell to factor in how many times the Monk can spam this?
Have you done that for any of the monk's powers?
I thought the Monk was busy spending his Ki pool on trying to keep up in combat. At level 12 the Monk would probably have at least 10 ki points so he could Dim Door 5 times per day if that's all he used them on. I've never been fond of prepared casters, but hey a 12th Sorcerer could cast it 6 times at least (or 14 times if he really needed to). He probably wouldn't though because he has better things to use his spells on.
Also I don't understand what "spell level adjustment" and feats (beyond Dimensional Agility, which a Monk would need if he ever wanted to Standard action after Dim Door instead of just before) you are specifically referring to; could you elaborate? Abundant Step is also a supernatural not SLA.
I'm assuming they are referring to the fact that SLA/Sup abilities don't have casting components, and that the Monk can activate their versions as Move actions rather than Standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think it's important to point out that a "niche" is not a synonym for "the one and only thing I can do to be useful."
It's intended to mean, "the role you're best at."
That should be always true... Sadly, designers seem to forget it sometimes...
cough... Fighters... cough cough...
Fighters crappy skill list and 2 skill points. Tweak skill list and bump it up to 2.
Most of the other problems are more or less endemic to the 3.x system and you would need a rewrite. COmbat chapter, spells and the classes could be tweaked.
Or you could burn it all down and make an entirely new system a'la WoTC erm scratch that idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Nerfing/Removing OP spells
- Setting 4 + Int modifier as the minimum number of skill points to PC classes. Also, make skills more useful at higher level. Allow skills to do fantastic stuff when they are supposed to mirror fantastic characters.
- Remove SoL and SoD effects. Or, at the very least, make it so they are only SoL against weak opponents (at least 4 HD less than the caster).
- Scaling Feats instead of feat chains.
- Better Combat Maneuvers (e.g.: Only provoke when you miss, can be used against opponents of any size, don't require 2~3 feats just to be usable, etc.)
- CMB & CMD is a great system. Simple and intuitive. It just needs to be recalibrated so that CMD doesn't scale so much faster than everything else!
- Give characters a way to move and still make more than 1 attack. Doesn't have to be a full attack, but say... Up to 2 attacks for BAB +6 and up to 4 attacks for BAB +11. Half of these attacks must be provided by BAB, and the other half must be provided by something else (TWF, Haste, natural weapons, etc.)
- Reduce the Christmas tree effect by giving innate bonuses instead of requiring a bunch of obligatory items.
Those would be good tweaks that don't require a full rewrite, IMO. At least, not one that makes the game almost unrecognizable, such as 4th Ed.
My rewrites for a 3.75 would be going back to AD& magic items (WBL can go away), spell DCs would be capped at 20, abilty scores capped at 20 or 25 and saving throws bumped up a lot so a level 20 fighters base saves would be +15/+12/+12. Actually for magic items I would do WBL or use what you find. If you want to use eat to creat items do it that way, or you can use the 2nd ed method one of them).
Basically replace a little of what was lost in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over but the game would still look like a 3.x game. More SWSE less 4th ed.
That basically means a high-level fighter with stats and any decent gear gets immune to any effect that allows a save. I find that a bit too much. Fighters should get a bit more to their saves, but right now paladins and monks are supposed to be the best at resisting enemy magic, and it sort of fits their idea a fair bit (paladins via their divine protection, monks as paragons of physical and spiritual perception).
I´d like to see fighters being the undisputed masters of combat, above and beyond paladins, rangers or barbarians. That doesn´t mean they have to only be good at that, just that I think they should get a bit better at it yet.
Speaking of faulty assumptions, I still find the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" quote valid. I think some of the warrior classes don´t get enough to scale so well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't have any one class be the "undisputed master" of combat.
What about Barbarians? What are they the master of?
Or Paladins, or Monks, Rangers, Cavaliers, etc. etc. etc.
And when you say "combat," that's an incredibly broad term. What exactly do you mean?
If Fighters are the "undisputed masters of combat" and Barbarians are the "undisputed masters of savagery" then is the Fighter better at savage combat than the Barb? I'm confused...
@ Neo - rangers and paladins are sort of hybrid classes with various other abilities. Generally, the more and more developed side jobs a class has, the less it should have in its main function. Even cavaliers have other abilities, such as their leadership/coordination schtick.
I admit, barbarians are a bit of an odd case, because like fighters they don't get much except for personal combat abilities. I think the two should be quite close - at the moment, barbarians are more resilient, with spiking damage and some anti-surprise abilities. Then again, in most situations, the barbarian's rage lasts long enough - I haven't seen many cases where a combat lasted long enough for a barbarian to "peter out".
Overall, I expect fighters to be the premier warriors with a lot of always-on modifiers - to attack, damage, AC, CMB, etc. They are going there, but do not go far enough imo.
An ability that gauges combat effectiveness is ok (though I think it might be more appropriate as a bonus to certain sense motive/perception checks) but in general, If you want to have an organic character with abilities in different situations and mixing from various archetypes, 3.5 and thus PF have the option to multiclass. That is what it is for, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't count Rogues as "skill-heavy." I count them as the next step up. ;)More likely Next Step Down, then, as Bards get more skill points thanks to Versatile Performance.
Like for like on intelligence, they only break even at 6th level. That is a sizable chunk of the game that the rogue beat the bard on skill, and that is before you take into account that rogues focusing as a skill monkey can relatively easily boost their int at creation(points that really cannot be spared by the bard who need Dex, Str and Cha already)
This means that in practice a Bard may well not be breaking even til level 14.
Add to this that rogues get a better skill list and a bunch of ways of changing the way skills work, and no Bards are not better skills monkey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't count Rogues as "skill-heavy." I count them as the next step up. ;)More likely Next Step Down, then, as Bards get more skill points thanks to Versatile Performance.Like for like on intelligence, they only break even at 6th level. That is a sizable chunk of the game that the rogue beat the bard on skill, and that is before you take into account that rogues focusing as a skill monkey can relatively easily boost their int at creation(points that really cannot be spared by the bard who need Dex, Str and Cha already)
This means that in practice a Bard may well not be breaking even til level 14.
Add to this that rogues get a better skill list and a bunch of ways of changing the way skills work, and no Bards are not better skills monkey.
Thank you for this. I love bards, and bards are great skill monkeys, but the "bards get more skill points because versatile performance" argument is so flawed for the very reasons you state. The argument only really works in theorycraft where you have two optimally built characters at high level out of the gate, not in practice where most campaigns start at low level and it is easier to set up a more organic skill advancement, which versatile performance does not really allow.
Versatile Performance is irritating in the way it is set up, and feels very "gamey." If you want to be good at a skill Versatile Performance boosts BEFORE you are able to level into versatile performance, do you spend skill ranks in those skills? Or do you wait till you level and then are suddenly and instantly supremely good at these things you weren't good at before? If you do spend skill ranks into the skills before you got them via versatile performance, have you not in fact wasted those skill points? The ability looks good on paper but in practice is fiddly, annoying, metagamey, and the benefits do not kick in until later.
And of course most bard archetypes--a lot of the best bard archetypes even--do away with the ability. And having played several bard archetypes, I've never missed it. I've wanted to have more skill points at times, but from level 1, so versatile performance wouldn't have made me feel better (especially since I often vastly prefer its tradeoffs).
(snip)Face it, the class is not a mix of "Defensive and utility." ;P
I don't think anyone said it was. As your post comes after mine I feel like you're responding to me, but I don't think I used those words at all. I just said it was a broad-based class, and not one solely specialized around combat.
I will try to be clearer:
- I absolutely believe there should be a d10, full BAB class that is designed around martial arts. I do not believe Pathfinder has satisfyingly provided such a class, not even with the unarmed fighter archetype.
- I do not think this d10, full BAB martial arts class should be the monk.
- I think the monk should be more of a skilled mystic with some martial arts skills.
- I think the monk tries to be a skilled mystic with some martial artist, but it is a very poorly, inconsistently designed one. Some of the monk archetypes get much closer to what I personally think the monk should be.
- But if I saw the monk I really wanted, it would still be a d8/3/4 BAB class (that would also exist alongside a separate d10/full BAB martial artist class).
That you think the monk SHOULD be a d10/full BAB martial artist is where we disagree. You're entitled to that opinion as much as I am to mine, which is that there should be two different classes one d10 full BAB martial arts, AND the d8 monk.
I also disagree to an extent that monk is the way it is because of 3.5 (which was the thesis of the OP), although I do think they could have revamped the Pathfinder monk more than they did, even if we differ on how we think the monk should be revamped.
@death Quaker, a rogue/alchemist taking each one every other level wouldn't be op except at level 1/1 (level 2 total)
First, I never suggested a 50/50 split specifically, so I don't know why you're particularly objecting to that idea.
Secondly, the idea was that IF YOU COULD SNEAK ATTACK WITH SPLASH WEAPONS, that is where some crazy things could happen, because the sneak attack damage could be dealt to multiple creatures at once.
You could dip into alchemist for better skill with splash weapons and a basic low level bomb, then take rogue the rest of the way... at high levels you could be doing things like dealing 1 splash damage to 6 creatures... plus 5d6 sneak attack to each of those 6 creatures. That could get a little crazy, depending. Honestly, it probably wouldn't so bad in practice, but I can see why the developers might want to move away from allowing for that kind of build.
I can respect the developers' decision even if I don't agree with it.
Why should the Monk's SLAs and Su powers work for anyone else? They aren't casters.
Also, there are a lot of feats which synergize with abundant step (ex. the chain that ends with Dimensional Savant and Dimensional Manuevers) which the casters of DD get much less use out of.
The fact that Dimensional Agility is a must-have for any Monk who wants to make good use of Abundant Step is just proof that Abundant Step is a lackluster ability. (Also, by the time the feat chain reaches Dimensional Dervish, the Caster is equally good with Dimension Door as the Monk is with Abundant Step, each one of them getting to use it as a Swift action.)
Ya know which version of Monk I really want Abundant Step on? A Tetori. Ya know what ability Tetori gives up? Abundant Step. :(
The sorcerer's ability to spam a useful spell only gets more useful with level, not less.
Keep in mind that a wizard will, by default, NOT have more overall spells then a sorcerer. He gets his few at first level, then two per level, working out to 40ish spells. A Sorc can easily end up with more then that, especially if human.
If you suddenly bring into play the fact the wizard can BUY spells, then the sorcerer can spend gold on Pages of Spell Knowledge, etc, and ALSO increase his numbers of spells...with the caveat that his aren't buried in a book, they are always available. It may be more expensive then the wizard, but an additional 5-10 spells can do wonders for the all-around versatility of a sorc, while similar things generally just take up space in a wizard's book.
Sorcerors also make better overall use of metamagic. Indeed, some of the best wizardly feats are ones that emulate sorcery (preferred spell allowing you to dump a spell to cast your favorite, for example), just like some of the best sorcerer feats are those that allow them to work like wizards (like the new PFS one that allows them to study spells from a spellbook!)
---
Note that the monk's various immunities and high saves are considered defensive, while utility also includes the fact they are FAST and don't need to have armor to have a high AC.
I agree less on monks needing a high BAB then they should be able to flurry more easily. If they could flurry as a Standard Action and lost the increased BAB, that would be a great balancer in my book.
------
Also like to point out that 1E had absolute limits on how many spells a wizard could know, until he passed human intelligence (got a 19). Place caps on the maximum number of spells a wizard can know by level, and that forces them to start cherry-picking spells too, even if they have 2-3 times the number available that a sorcerer does.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming a starting Int of 18 is a fair assumption, and ignoring Cantrips and spell-gaining feats:
A level 20 Human Sorcerer will know 51 spells of levels 1-9.
A level 20 Human Wizard who has never paid to scribe a spell into his spellbook, will know 53 spells of levels 1-9.
Cantrips jump a Wizard way into the lead, but they're cantrips, so meh.
It's worth noting, however, that a DM that doesn't allow a Wizard access to extra spells to put in his spellbook is purposely denying a player one of the biggest strengths of their class, and should have just told the player to roll a Sorcerer if he/she was going to be so stingy. ;)
If you suddenly bring into play the fact the wizard can BUY spells, then the sorcerer can spend gold on Pages of Spell Knowledge, etc, and ALSO increase his numbers of spells...with the caveat that his aren't buried in a book, they are always available. It may be more expensive then the wizard, but an additional 5-10 spells can do wonders for the all-around versatility of a sorc, while similar things generally just take up space in a wizard's book.
Understatement of the year? ;)
It's literally 100x more expensive for the Sorcerer to learn a new spell than it is for a Wizard.
Well, sure. But it's 100x more effective for the Sorc to learn new spells and always have them at his fingertips, then it is for the wizard to be wishing he had The Perfect Spell in memory instead of sitting in his books.
---------------------
People may rightfully hate the 3e skill point system, but it was a hardcore nerf to the Rogue, the same way granting multiple attacks, higher BAB, and higher HP to all the other classes was a hardcore nerf to the FIghter.
If you wanted skill points in 3.5, you took a level in Rogue. You did it because you had to. It was like if you wanted to learn wizard spells, you took a level in wizard.
Skill points were VALUABLE. Just because every class got them, everyone screamed they wanted more. ANd rogues had more of that precious resource then anyone, and could use them to full strength.
In PF? Meh. There are no skill monkeys, because anyone can have the skill. Rogues completely lost their 'sweet spot'. Skill points are only valuable in passing, and access to skills even less so.
You may not like it, but cross-class skills made Rogues IMPORTANT. They don't have that, now.
I consider cross-class skills no different then not getting free caster levels when you take another class. What do you mean, my caster level in cleric doesn't go up because I took 4 levels in fighter! His BAB went up, why shouldn't my caster level?!?
I looked at Cross-class skills the exact same way. You had limited skill points, the same way you had limited BAB, or limited caster level if a paladin or ranger. If you were a Rogue, you got Full Skill Points and Skills. It was no different.
Do me a favor and look at your PF characters with Cross-class skill point penalties. You'll probably be looking at the rogue a bit differently again, won't you? exactly as it should be.
==Aelryinth
We totally agree on Rogues and skills, but I'm gonna fight ya on this one. ;)
Well, sure. But it's 100x more effective for the Sorc to learn new spells and always have them at his fingertips, then it is for the wizard to be wishing he had The Perfect Spell in memory instead of sitting in his books.
Wizards get Scribe Scroll at first level for free. They can have the spell "at their fingertips" just like the Sorcerer can.
In fact, taking a 9th level spell for example, a Wizard can copy a Time Stop into his spellbook, and then make 40 scrolls of it, and still have paid slightly less money than the Sorcerer paid for just a single Time Stop Page of Spell Knowledge. (And for every spell level you drop, the number of scrolls that Wizard can make for the same price goes up. ;) )