The Pathfinder Touch

[codeGlaze]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT FIRES BEARS

Fixed it for you.

But how do you get the bears to work for you in the first place?

Haha, dammit you beat me to it!

'The Apprentice : BEAR EDISHUNZ!'

[RobbyPants]

The sad thing is I actually felt the need to run a search for that. It is a joke (nonexistent) product, but I honestly wasn't actually sure, which says a lot about how I view 4e products.

Hell, until I read your post, I assumed it was a real product. I thought the phrase "leave nothing to imagination" was a bit of an unaware self parody, but my opinion of 4E and Mearls is low enough that I took it seriously.

[Voss]

The sad thing is I actually felt the need to run a search for that. It is a joke (nonexistent) product, but I honestly wasn't actually sure, which says a lot about how I view 4e products.

Hell, until I read your post, I assumed it was a real product. I thought the phrase "leave nothing to imagination" was a bit of an unaware self parody, but my opinion of 4E and Mearls is low enough that I took it seriously.

It was the last line that made me search... it seemed a bit too droll.

But really, since this http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons- ... 0786954884 really does exist, my 4e expectation bar is set really low. Though glancing over the customer reviews made me revise my opinion downwards.

[ishy]

Sorry about that, thought people would remember it was not a real product.

It was an April's fools article, created to troll everyone who was complaining, about the lack of support the 4e rules had for roleplaying, at the time.

[TiaC]

Speaking of Pathfinder, they're publishing a strategy guide. I can't wait to see how badly they understand their own game.

[ishy]

I doubt it is going to be worse than:

Jason Bullman during PF beta[/url]]The monk, as I stated before, fills a different role than a fighter. They hit more like a rogue, with a different sort of damage potential. For some reason, and I am wondering why, there seems to be an opinion that the monk does not work, but the rogue, who is based off the same progression, does. The monk has access to some of the same bonuses as a rogue (to hit at any rate), but the monk has quite a bit more defenses (good saves, some immunities, and, in the right build, a better AC).

So, to help me understand the arguments being thrown about here. I am wondering. Where is the flaw with the monk? And, as a secondary question, why are these not the same problems with the rogue?

I have seen a large number of monks played over the past few years, and every one of them has been pretty solid at their role in the party. They are great at harrassing spellcasters (clerics, bards, wizards, and sorcerers) and other, equally classed, combatants (rogues and other monks). They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.

[TiaC]

Well yes, but they're asking for money for this one. Also, over a few hundred pages, they could easily surpass their prior stupidity.

[K]

It can't be worse than the DnD for Dummies-style book that came that suggested such gems as "level 1 Sorcerers should take Toughness."

[TiaC]

Well, that's not horrible advice for a game that dies before level 3.

[RobbyPants]

It was the last line that made me search... it seemed a bit too droll.

Yeah, looking back on the actual text made it more obvious. Still, that didn't heighten my opinion of either 4E or Mearls.

[OgreBattle]

Fuck, that monk thread actually gave me a headache.

Is there a prior edition of D&D where monks worked? Like AD&D or 2e or something. Though I feel that monk is really what a high level fighter is, leaping and resisting magic and feats of athleticism and secret techniques are all things legendary european warriors could do too.

[PoliteNewb]

Is there a prior edition of D&D where monks worked? Like AD&D or 2e or something.

No. There was no edition where monks actually worked. 1E had them, and they were horrible unless you houseruled the crap out of them. 2E didn't have them for a while, then introduced them as a variant subclass for CLERICS, so they were sort of okay, but you mostly did cleric things not kung-fu things (and your cleric stuff was worse than standard cleric stuff, because you got shitty spheres).

Maybe Blackmoor? I can't even remember what the original monk that Arneson cooked up looks like...I think it was also a cleric variant.

[Voss]

Fuck, that monk thread actually gave me a headache.

Yeah, I like the 'monks are mage killers' shit particularly. First it means that one of the opponents has to actually be a mage (spellcaster with low AC and hp), and needs to be less than level 5, where it can cast 'fuckyou' (also spelled 'fly'). But either way, designing a class to go after a very specific type of enemy is a fucking terrible idea.

Is there a prior edition of D&D where monks worked? Like AD&D or 2e or something.

No. People would get really excited about quivering palm, but it was a fairly shitty save or die at high level. The normal attack routine spawned a lot of really bad attacks.

2nd edition took it out. Various ways of slipping it back in were tried. This included: fighter kits (fighters without armor; failed); cleric variants (without spells; failed) and eventually (quite a few years down the line) they just reprinted the 1e class with some minor changes in a really obscure Greyhawk supplement that almost no one bought because they weren't really supporting Greyhawk any more.

Effectively monks were a 1e thing. And then they brought it back for 3e for...reasons. And pathfinder kept it for 'compatibility.' But it has always been a shitty class that doesn't fit the paradigm of the game (which pretty specifically involves strapping a shitload of magical crap on, throwing spells, or both. It does neither, so fails horribly all the time.


Sadly the 5e playtest monk is the most viable monk to date, and it isn't all that fantastic. Particularly since the other fighting classes get a 2nd attack innately at level 5(and fighters get a third, and a 1/enc additional attack); but monks have to spend ki to make additional attacks. In short fights, this is fine (and they do multiple attacks at levels lower than 5); but in longer fights the monk becomes increasingly worse.

[hogarth]

People would get really excited about quivering palm, but it was a fairly shitty save or die at high level.

In my experience, people would get all excited over the idea of 4 attacks for 8-32 damage, but (a) that was before the phrase "flurry of misses" was invented and (b) people would overlook the fact that you needed to accumulate 3.25 million XP as a human punching bag before you reached that level.

[tussock]

There's an improved Monk in one of the early Dragon mags that made them good, for the time, at least compared to the pre-specialisation Fighters (which isn't good at all). Dragon #53, and Best of Dragon #3.

d20's problem seems to be they can't front-load the classes or everyone just takes one level, the 3.0 Ranger being a good example there (as compared to the 3.5 Ranger, where you don't take any levels in it). But Monks need crazy amounts of front-loading to get anywhere without a decent starting weapon and armour. Thus, d20 Monks suck.

[Voss]

People would get really excited about quivering palm, but it was a fairly shitty save or die at high level.

In my experience, people would get all excited over the idea of 4 attacks for 8-32 damage, but (a) that was before the phrase "flurry of misses" was invented and (b) people would overlook the fact that you needed to accumulate 3.25 million XP as a human punching bag before you reached that level.

Well, that too, I suppose. But surviving to that point is really fucking hard- close to impossible in actual play.
Especially when they can't wear any armor, don't get the dex bonus to AC (AC drops 3 points every 4 levels, more or less, starting at 10, and hitting -3 at level 17), and the attack progression is even weirder (at 4th and 5th level, monks have 5 attacks every 4 rounds, meaning every 4th round they can make 2 attacks).

Oh yeah, and hit dice are d4s, with 2d4 at level one. And very unlikely to have a con bonus, because Str, Dex and Wis must be 15 to be a monk at all (and the dex explicitly doesn't help you survive). Good luck progressing to level 2 for a 9 AC and punches that do 1d4 damage rather than 1d3. (At low levels you obviously use monk allowed weapons)

The real kicker is the restriction on wealth and magic items: can keep little in the way of money (to support 'modest needs' and any henchmen) and a grand total of 2 magic weapons, and 3 other magic items, though the latter can only be weapons they can use, rings, or any item usable by a thief (unless incompatible due to class or alignment), but no others.

[rasmuswagner]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT SHOOTS BEARS

Dammit, I can't make a bear-firing gun. SNA/SM is not a targeted spell, so I can't use Conductive or a Spell Storing weapon.

[infected slut princess]

BEAR GUN (ex): At Level 1, the Bear Dude gets a Bear Gun that shoots fires shoots bears. This requires a successful ranged touch attack. On a hit, the bear makes a Full Attack action on the target. At level 1, the gun shoots black bears, and at level 3, the gun shoots polar bears. At level 5, the gun shoots dire bears.

[TiaC]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT SHOOTS BEARS

Dammit, I can't make a bear-firing gun. SNA/SM is not a targeted spell, so I can't use Conductive or a Spell Storing weapon.

Use Polymorph any object.

[hogarth]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT SHOOTS BEARS

Dammit, I can't make a bear-firing gun. SNA/SM is not a targeted spell, so I can't use Conductive or a Spell Storing weapon.

For what it's worth, the Words of Power effect word Servitor uses the Selected target word and thus is a targeted spell. Of course, that makes no sense whatsoever, and it makes even less sense when applied to Spell Storing.

[MisterDee]

Is there a prior edition of D&D where monks worked? Like AD&D or 2e or something. Though I feel that monk is really what a high level fighter is, leaping and resisting magic and feats of athleticism and secret techniques are all things legendary european warriors could do too.

There's a monk class in my Cyclopedia (well, it's called the Mystic, but it's a kung fu monk.)

At a glance it's playable, although you'd do better using a bow for the first few levels since your AC sucks for a while (you've got the proficiency, so that's no issue.) After a few levels you come into your own and get ManyPunchesToTheCrotch for EventuallyRidiculousDamage (and you do have the ability to punch ghosts and the like at appropriate levels, too.)

You don't have much in the way of mid-level or high-level nonpunching abilities, but this is OD&D so this translates to "better off than everyone but the wizard, cleric, and druid" and even those three aren't super gifted in that area. Your mundane movement goes from quite good at level 1 to near-superpowers at max, you have quite good saves and immunities, and a few cute tricks (like a Cureall effect once a day IIRC)

And at max level (which you hit while everybody else is still at mid-levels) your damage output with Haste up is "Kill Huge Red Dragons in One Turn." Unfortunately, that's the top end - more powerful monsters screw you with their better ACs.

(By screw you, I mean "require a couple of round" - you still hit the Ruler of All Dragonkind on a 17 or so, so you should still land a blow or two per round. And presumably, if you're going after the toughest monster in the game, you've elected to use the potion of growth you've been saving, so you deal double damage. )

[GâtFromKI]

Yeah, I like the 'monks are mage killers' shit particularly. First it means that one of the opponents has to actually be a mage (spellcaster with low AC and hp), and needs to be less than level 5, where it can cast 'fuckyou' (also spelled 'fly').

That's the conclusion I drew from many internet discussions: monks are great at killing wizards who don't cast spells. In other words, monks are great at killing commoners.

[Insomniac]

The Pathfinder Touch is realizing that consumers want "Customizability"
which means 9 trillion fiddling options for everything. This gives you the joy of dumpster diving for the most broken shit that Pathfinder ever let slip through the cracks and justify it as player characterization and flavor. Like the traits always being something like Reactionary or Birthmark. Evidently, every martial PC in Pathfinder is a militantly conservative fascist with quick reflexes and a port wine stain that looks like Iomedae on his left buttock.

After you dumpster dive the very best for the very best in fiddly bullshit ("customizability!") you get to brag how you have system mastery when you realize If You Ain't Castin' Magic, You Ain't Shit (Fighters, Rogues, non-Quigon monks LOLOLOLOLOL) and that Natural Spell is a better feat than Deceitful. You debonair system master, you! Why, I bet you're attractive and wealthy and smell like fresh-baked apple pies!

Meanwhile, true customizability that fixes class gaps in power has existed for decades in point buy but FUCK POINT BUY LOLOLOLOL Paizo releases 4 fun new dumpsters to dive into every month!

The shit is the broken house rules to 3.5 edition and its still better than 4E.

[codeGlaze]

Point Buy is broken as well. I've yet to see a point buy system talked about on here that wasn't broken in half by dennizens.

[virgil]

Point Buy is broken as well. I've yet to see a point buy system talked about on here that wasn't broken in half by dennizens.

Point buy is rarely talked about, and when it is, it's concerning the version that the majority of campaigns will use; which is what they suggested in the book.