Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:49 pm

Or an Archaelogist Bard, Urban Ranger, Urban Barbarian with Trap Finder Trait and a Trait to Use Magic Device (hell, you even keep Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge!), or a Seeker Sage Sorcerer, or a Slayer, or...

Monks get a movement speed bonus that only applies to ground movement and doesn't stack with Boots of Striding and Springing, Expeditious Retreat or Haste effects. They're not even that fast, you know.

Oh right. If you give a Monk full BAB it qualifies for 3.5 Prestige classes too fast.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:17 pm

Gnorman wrote:I think the real problem here is that the monks he has seen over the years have gone up against piss-poorly optimized spellcasters. Yes, if you somehow don't make use of your vast array of spells that make melee threats negligible at best, the monk fulfills its promises. But then, if you bring up a counterpoint of "well a better-designed wizard wouldn't give two shits about a monk," the response is "yes but people don't build wizards like that," because Buhlman is incapable of comprehending the Stormwind Fallacy.

The argument is, has always been and will ever be "the monk is very good at defeating a wizard who doesn't cast any spell".

Each time someone asks "yes, but if the wizard casts [stuff], what does the monk do?", the answer is "maybe the wizard didn't prepare [stuff], lol Schrödinger caster". This answer is made for any value of [stuff]. So in the end, the argument reduce to "the monk is very good against wizards who don't cast spells", which is objectively true : monk are very good against commoners.

If you want an other niche than "commoners killer", don't play a monk.

ishy wrote:
[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ia9k?New-Monk-BandAid-on-Sucking-Chest-Wound#39 wrote:Jason Buhlman[/url]]So, I am thinking a lot about the monk as of late. 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.

Once again, I am trying not to come off antagonistic here, but I am not sure I undersand the beef. Help me see the point.

Yeah, that's how the Paizo board works.

If you create a thread "monks suck", the answer is "they are on par with rogues, and nobody's complaining about rogues". If you create a thread "rogues suck", the answer is "they are on par with monks, and nobody's complaining about monks".

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:25 pm

ishy wrote:
Monks are support and mobility combatants, generally speaking, useful in moving around the battlefield to assist with problems. In this regard, they gain a number of abilities that allow them to work without the aid of others, which many of the other, straight fighter classes, lack to one degree or another.

Telling me that this is just a band aid, without any playtesting, because they do not get a full BAB, is not very helpful to my development. They might not be perfect for the role that I see them in (at least not yet), but I am looking to work within the system as opposed to just demanding a redesign of some of their core statistics.

The sad thing is, the concept of a lightly armored highly mobile support character is something that should be totally viable. Like there is actually nothing wrong with what Buhlman is saying the goal is here. A Monk that simply has more mobility than anyone else on the battlefield and the ability to support his team through debuffing/control/positioning could actually be pretty awesome and a lot of fun.

That said I am sure in response to that post Buhlman got a bunch of posts, not about how the Monk fails to live up to the mobility and support roles it is supposed to have, but continuing to complain about Monks damage per hit being below average, making Buhlman go along feeling completely justified.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:50 pm

GâtFromKI wrote: Yeah, that's how the Paizo board works.

If you create a thread "monks suck", the answer is "they are on par with rogues, and nobody's complaining about rogues". If you create a thread "rogues suck", the answer is "they are on par with monks, and nobody's complaining about monks".

The thing that annoys me the most about that SPECIFIC thread is that immediately after Buhlman expresses his fundamental lack of understanding about monks vs. rogues, he's given an extensive and surprisingly nuanced comparison. That comparison breaks down exactly why the monk sucks more than the rogue, hits the nail on the head with the magekiller argument, and offers a few suggestions to solve the problem.

Buhlman's takeaway? Enchantable handwraps and gloves. Which is a monk fix so blatantly obvious and simple that CRPGs have been doing it for decades.

Buhlman isn't just reinventing the wheel. He's actively making a shittier wheel despite years of advancement in wheel science, and patting himself on the back for the novelty and efficacy of his obsolete invention.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:55 pm

Gnorman wrote:The thing that annoys me the most about that SPECIFIC thread is that immediately after Buhlman expresses his fundamental lack of understanding about monks vs. rogues, he's given an extensive and surprisingly nuanced comparison. That comparison breaks down exactly why the monk sucks more than the rogue, hits the nail on the head with the magekiller argument, and offers a few suggestions to solve the problem.

Buhlman's takeaway? Enchantable handwraps and gloves. Which is a monk fix so blatantly obvious and simple that CRPGs have been doing it for decades.

Buhlman isn't just reinventing the wheel. He's actively making a shittier wheel despite years of advancement in wheel science, and patting himself on the back for the novelty and efficacy of his obsolete invention.

And 7 years later, we still don't have enchantable handwraps and/or gloves that enchant all the attacks a monk can make with their increased unarmed damage.

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:08 pm

We got this awful thing instead, and it doesn't even work properly for monks.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:17 pm

That one is for Animal companions I think.
Wouldn't be fair, if you take the dinosaur with one stunning tail attack and still had to pay for an AoMF to enchant your single attack.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:23 pm

A fun thing I've done to see just how underpowered some classes are is I will take an entire classes features and write them into a feat then see if anyone in my home games takes that feat. If someone does I split the class into two feats and see if anyone still wants it. The Monk feat was being debated as a buy in higher level games because it came with spell resistance and improved evasion in one feat but after Monk was split into two feats it stopped being considered. My favorite so far is Soulknife who's entire class feature list has existed as a single feat in my home games for a decade without ever even being seriously considered.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:09 pm

Fighter Bonus Feat [Fighter]
Benefit: You gain a bonus [Fighter] feat.
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:33 pm

The Fighter Feat that gave you 11 fighter bonus feats would definitely have been selected and the split up version that gave you 5 fighter feats would still have had some value to martial types for getting prereqs and things. By comparison this means that the Fighter is probably considerably better than the Soulknife and a little better than the Monk.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:55 pm

Dean wrote:The Fighter Feat that gave you 11 fighter bonus feats would definitely have been selected and the split up version that gave you 5 fighter feats would still have had some value to martial types for getting prereqs and things. By comparison this means that the Fighter is probably considerably better than the Soulknife and a little better than the Monk.

A Fighter bonus feat that let you select two Fighter bonus feats would be taken a number of times equal to one less than the number of Fighter bonus feats available.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:14 pm

I'd love to hear about the established rate on other classes you've tested. How many feats to be a full paladin? Ranger? Warlock?

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:07 am

I hate to demean Dean by bringing up Sean K. Reynolds' "Feat Point System" but quantifying Dungeons and Dragons as a point buy game or an "equivalence" game has always been ripe for hysterical fuckery.

This juicy thing from the Wayback Machine really is a gas. Sure, this came out in 2003, but there really shouldn't be any excuse for being THIS off the mark, especially as a WOTC employee writing game material.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140202043 ... ystem.html

Did you know that +2 to 2 skills is worth 9 points, but Augment Summoning is only worth 7?

Did you know that Extend Spell and Empower Spell are both 5 point feats, but Great Fortitude is worth both of them put together?

What is a true benchmark feat like Improved Initiative valued at? Would you be surprised to learn that at 8 points, Improved Initiative is inferior to Deceitful or Acrobatic or Blind-Fighting and bested by a full 2 points by Skill Focus?

Here's the justification...

"Improved Initiative 8 Skill Focus (not quite as good as a +2/+2 skill feat because you normally can only use it once per combat)"

:/

Skill Focus, 10 points, Natural Spell and Extend Spell, 10 points total.

Sean K Reynolds Feat Point System: We're All Druids now.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:13 am

Precise Splash Weapons (Ex)

At 4th level, an underground chemist can deal sneak attack damage with splash weapons. The attack must be her first attack that round, qualify for dealing sneak attack damage (such as against a flat-footed target), and be directed at a creature rather than a square.

This ability replaces the rogue talent gained at 4th level.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-cl ... nd-chemist

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:49 am

Your first attack. Once per round.

"You can have it back, but it has to suck."

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:18 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:A Fighter bonus feat that let you select two Fighter bonus feats would be taken a number of times equal to one less than the number of Fighter bonus feats available.

But a feat called "Fighter" which was not a fighter bonus feat and gave you 5 Fighter Bonus Feats would not be. Its cuztomizability would be appealing to people but it's probably about the strength level of a good metamagic or tome feat.

To be clear I didn't have the "Fighter" feat in my games, I only did it with classes I thought were totally useless and Fighter never got my ire the way Monks did.

Eikre wrote:I'd love to hear about the established rate on other classes you've tested. How many feats to be a full paladin? Ranger? Warlock?

The classes I did it with were the ones I thought were the absolute worst. Soulknife, Monk, Swashbuckler, and Samurai were all selectable feats. I made one for Bard which gave you everything but their spellcasting. No one ever took any of them but Monk until I split it up once. It was basically just for me to prove a point about things I hated. That if they took up even a minute portion of your resources they would still not be worth selecting for good classes. A feat that gave you full Cleric casting would be selected by everyone no matter what their character concept, the Rogue feat would be selected by lots of people but maybe not full casters and Monk is selected by no one ever once it's a 2 feat chain.

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:20 am

Or you could turn into a Large creature with a bunch of natural attacks and Pounce 5 or 6 times for 5d6 sneak attack damage, Grab your foe and do it again or fly away with him and chuck him down to earth eventually for like 20d6 damage onto a hazard.

Your choice.

I don't know why a class as bizarre and niche as Alchemist is so pushed as an Uber-Rogue when the Pathfinder Rogue has been ass since 2008.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:51 am

I was really sad when they nerfed the Investigator class because it was an Uber-Rogue. A rogue with 6th level spellcasting and some cool class abilities was at the exact perfect power level. They almost pulled a Beguiler/Summoner/Psychic Warrior grade hole in one. One of those few classes that can play at all levels but never breaks the game. Pathfinder burnt the second class it almost made right at the stake to not overshadow the most overshadowed class in their ruleset.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:49 am

Dean wrote:The classes I did it with were the ones I thought were the absolute worst. Soulknife, Monk, Swashbuckler, and Samurai were all selectable feats. I made one for Bard which gave you everything but their spellcasting. No one ever took any of them but Monk until I split it up once.

In pathfinder I would definitely take the bard feat for some of my characters.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:05 am

I would totally consider taking Soulknife, Rogue and Monk feats on a cleric or something.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:53 pm

If you didn't take off the soulknife's bonus feat, then anyone who wanted either power attack or two weapon fighting should take it. Even if every single thing sucks, you get the feat you wanted plus a bunch of free shit. Otherwise, it's a free weapon and a bunch of truly uninspiring abilities that if you looked hard enough you might be able to combo with your class features to do something cool.

The monk is in a similar situation, except the feats aren't as likely to be ones you want and the class features are far less flexible because they're just a grab bag of mediocre defenses and being a little faster.

The samurai is... eugh. If you're a high enough level, it comes with some free feats. But god is it an awful package otherwise.

The bard is some very minor buffing and a bunch of out-of-combat suggestions per day, and eventually some other bullshit.

Rogue as a feat that included sneak attack would be awesome on almost any caster who liked to beat the shit out of things. It would be better on that caster than it would be on the rogue. But otherwise it's just a grab bag of mediocre defenses and bullshit, and I don't think Dean mentioned a rogue feat.

The best thing I can say about three of those feats is that sometimes they will pay for themselves with extra bullshit on the side so, hey, why the hell not? I can't really say anything good about the bard feat. And the best thing about a hypothetical rogue feat would be that because you weren't a rogue you'd actually be able to use the iconic sneak attack ability with non-shitty reliability.

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:06 pm

Axebird wrote:We got this awful thing instead, and it doesn't even work properly for monks.

It is a cheaper way at low levels to have enhanced stuff.
You get a Vicious Necklace Might Strikes and a Body Wrap +1 for cheaper than a +1 Vicious Necklace.

But sadly the trade off, you get the +1 to only one attack.

My Vitalist/Monk loves it since as a Master of Many styles I don't get flurry.

My steal health counteracts the vicious damage, heals me more than I take actually. So I can heal myself or nearby party members in the collective.

Remember you can punch touch attacks with normal AC to apply them and unarmed strike damage.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:07 pm

The monk feat seems like something fun for a druid to take, then they can morph into a tiger.

If Rogue sneak attacks were also a feat, then I pick it up with monk as a death and night domain cleric for invisibility in darkness and melee touch attacks. Which makes for a pretty cool unarmed combat ninja.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:17 pm

ScottS wrote: "Tumble around" rather than "Tumble through" isn't so bad though? (esp. since you can bail out of the move without provoking if you roll bad and/or discover that the DC is totally ridiculous)

First time I heard about this, does it really work that way? (which would be a good thing for a change).

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:34 pm

Bard stuff as a feat with equipment and spells to pump up the Barb bonus might be worth it. Especially if as in Pathfinder, you could use it as a Swift action. I think Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, Suggestion and Versatile Performer would make it worth it.