Diary of Jaya Ballard, Taskmage

[PhoenixRivers]

@Kelp/Nonparticipants:Dude. Chill.

1st: Dominate, ordering to resist effects, and fight the party to the best of their ability.
2nd: Suggestion: BBEG is a friend, trust the BBEG's judgement.

The two effects can complement each other, easily.

Next, what one effect out of hundreds does it counter? I mean really. Small bonus to AC and saves, hedges out some summons. That's about it. What "one tactic out of hundreds" does it counter? Which one? Tell me that, if you're going to level accusations.

The only thing the modification did is prevent it from defeating the BBEG's own control effects. That's it. Otherwise, it's identical to any other magic circle spell out there. It's weakened, actually.

As for "it's a rule like rule 0 is a rule"??? No. The costs and times are laid out. There is an exact, in game, mechanical process for this.

Now, if she had explicitly forbidden PC's from using custom created spells, then yeah, you have a point.

But she didn't. You're ranting and raving at everyone for doing such a horrible job. They've all done more than you. Every one of them.

Complaining and verbal assault from someone who hasn't invested an ounce of time or energy, and you expect her to treat you like a buddy? Reason goes to the reasonable, friend. You're not being reasonable, so she's not reasoning with you.

Most people consider "acting against nature" to be things like: "violating a formal code" (paladin, vow of X). Gross aligmnent violations (barbarians being extremely lawful, monks being extremely chaotic). Violations of a core part of a character's identity (informal codes, such as an assassin who refuses to murder kids, a la Dexter, or betraying a close personal loved one), and the like.

Accepting a buff isn't usually considered a "major part of someone's nature". Going on things like that opens up all sorts of doors, as players can easily state that it's against their nature to be dominated, or attack something before noon, or some other arbitrary decision. If it's not solidly documented, and something that a player cannot imagine his character ever not doing, under any circumstances, for ideological reasons... Then it doesn't pass muster there.

[Kelpstrand]

@Kelp/Nonparticipants:Dude. Chill.

1st: Dominate, ordering to resist effects, and fight the party to the best of their ability.
2nd: Suggestion: BBEG is a friend, trust the BBEG's judgement.

The two effects can complement each other, easily.

Next, what one effect out of hundreds does it counter? I mean really. Small bonus to AC and saves, hedges out some summons. That's about it. What "one tactic out of hundreds" does it counter? Which one? Tell me that, if you're going to level accusations.

The only thing the modification did is prevent it from defeating the BBEG's own control effects. That's it. Otherwise, it's identical to any other magic circle spell out there. It's weakened, actually.

As for "it's a rule like rule 0 is a rule"??? No. The costs and times are laid out. There is an exact, in game, mechanical process for this.

Now, if she had explicitly forbidden PC's from using custom created spells, then yeah, you have a point.

But she didn't. You're ranting and raving at everyone for doing such a horrible job. They've all done more than you. Every one of them.

Complaining and verbal assault from someone who hasn't invested an ounce of time or energy, and you expect her to treat you like a buddy? Reason goes to the reasonable, friend. You're not being reasonable, so she's not reasoning with you.

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixRivers]

{scrubbed}

@Back atcha:Because I restrict my comments to fact, and rules.

1) Best friends? Adventuring partners often aren't. I haven't seen anything in the challenge to indicate that they are bosom buddies.

2) The rules are: compare to similar effects, and estimate level accordingly. The most similar effect to 11d6 negative levels is Energy Drain, which is a 9th level spell, and far less than half that. So, the rules steer you away from the path you're arguing. It's sensationalist, and it's an example of trying to take something to the point of absurdity. Except you start to run afoul of the guidelines for making spells when you do that.

3) The spells created are not core. However, the rules for making them are. Regardless of what else you wish to argue, that is true.

4) You are assuming some things would be "rightly" pointed out. You also use extreme examples. However, if a player wanted to create a spell that increased something 2 size categories, and you followed the guidelines, expansion would be the closest comparison, and is 4th level equivalent when doing so. These kind of things might have been approved. They might not have been. But nobody asked, and you're assuming the unknown.

5) Saph couldn't have assumed that summons might be a major factor? Really? Do you give her that little credit, when she's running an adventure including a character that spontaneously converts spells to summons? Would she not expect healing if a cleric was there?

6) Ranting and raving? No. You're very calm and measured when you practically tell Saph she's incompetent. If you told that to me, you'd be on my bad side too.

7) Your opinions include examples taken to the point of absurdity, comments about how everything everyone's done is now useless because of Saph, and generally are being a naysayer in general. While it's not wrong to be a naysayer, it certainly does suck the fun out of it. If a player brought your concerns to the table? Then they need to be addressed. But if random person 17 tells my 6 year old he's playing cops and robbers wrong? I'd ignore it too. It's one thing to question and ask. It's another to question her directly, and insult her playstyle. That's why I feel you're being unreasonable. Not because of your points, but because of the lack of tact with which they're brought to bear.

[Sir Giacomo]

I find Giacomo's Monkey King idea funny on that one thread.

Well, thanks! But it will not be used since it is based on a disputable interpretation of the awaken spell.

Saph/non-participants

The more recent posts I did not follow, so I may be repeating things.
Some remarks:
- Saph's interpretation of the term "against nature" of the dominate spell could be discussed lateron, but I think overall it is Ok to have decided it this way in order to see how a monk (joker monk style) performs against casters. The monk could well be an npc and the combat gives good inspiration for everyone.
- the story Lilian told Gladiator imo did not need any charms or suggestions. Also, he was not ordered to kill the group-just to knock them out - Lilian was too clever I guess to risk going against G's nature. Gladiator resists the control
and would attack Lilian the moment the dominate is off.
- having said that, the only way I see to free G from Lilian's spell is a Situation where Lilian DOES go against G's nature. But that is up to Saph to decide/interpret. For instance, the way Lilian let her fellow priests simply die without doing something or ordering G to help came very close imo.
- overall, I hope we'll soon get back to a unified group.


- Giacomo

[PhoenixRivers]

@Giacomo:The key to that is to discuss when you think it should. Saph seems willing to entertain ideas and thoughts which are reasonable.

That said, the order that's against your nature has to be an actual order, to do something. Her standing there and watching allies die, and not helping, wouldn't qualify. Now, if she ordered you to leave a companion to die? That might. However, if she's clever in phrasing it, it can be dealt with, even then. Rather than "leave that priest, he's useless to us..." it could be phrased "quickly, we must reach xxx before they do or everyone here is doomed! Follow me." Now she's ordering you to attempt to save lives, not leave one.

Bluff can mitigate a lot of "against nature". Remember when the theurge in OotS ordered the paladin to "Stop that thief"...

[Saph]

Phoenix:
Thanks for the earlier comments.

The level of attention this game's gotten has surprised me a bit, so I should expect a bit of criticism as part of that. I really don't mind if people tell me they think I should have run some of the encounters differently, as long as they're polite about it - frankly, I'm amazed I got as little flak as I did for the shadow attack, and I wouldn't have blamed the players for getting upset. (Killing half the party in their sleep is considerably worse than using a custom magical effect in my book.)

I would have put up with Kelp's attitude on some days, but I've spent most of today doing law tutorials and I'm exhausted as a result, so my patience is lower than usual. :)

[OracleofWuffing]

If we're really examining custom spells this closely, are we going to have to beat the "Masterwork Use Magic Device Tool" horse again?

[Roland St. Jude]

@ all posters
Sheriff of Moddingham: Even in spoilered text, we expect posters to avoid flaming. That term is broadly defined here and includes any attacks, insults, or belittling of other posters. Likewise, characterizing their comments in an extremely negative fashion or otherwise hostile comments that attack a person are not allowed. For the most part this seems like a civil thread, but I thought I'd mention this so that everyone's clear on our expectations.

[mostlyharmful]

I hate you all.

Surely not all of us?:smallfrown:

[Arakune]

@ all posters
Sheriff of Moddingham: Even in spoilered text, we expect posters to avoid flaming. That term is broadly defined here and includes any attacks, insults, or belittling of other posters. Likewise, characterizing their comments in an extremely negative fashion or otherwise hostile comments that attack a person are not allowed. For the most part this seems like a civil thread, but I thought I'd mention this so that everyone's clear on our expectations.

Now that was just weird :smallbiggrin:

[mostlyharmful]

Why? Why dammit? why is it weird?????:smallfurious:

[Arakune]

Why? Why dammit? why is it weird?????:smallfurious:

Everyone was talking in spoilers and then Roland comes and gives a warning ins spoilers. And that's weird in a funny way :smallwink:


Man, if I have to explain the joke that's a new low for me. :smallfrown:

[mostlyharmful]

Everyone was talking in spoilers and then Roland comes and gives a warning ins spoilers. And that's weird in a funny way :smallwink:

And the joke here is that I don't get to read the spoilers. yes, it really does suck the humour out of it doesn't it.:smalltongue: If Roland came along then dammit I really want to know what the hell's going on in this thread linked to a game that I'm in that's already been plenty interesting, I think Pharoah's Fist feels the same way people.....

[Starbuck_II]

Saph:

You shouldn't be too surprised at the attention this got. It is a fun story and interesting combat theory about G's Monk viability.
How many threads are there about a game going currently in the roleplaying thread?
Currently one. Usually we aren't able to follow along another's struggles. Some for the theory, some for the story, but in the end all following.


Yes, that Roland did that warning in the spoilers was funny. You can read Roland's warning as it was directed to all posters mostlyharmful.

[OracleofWuffing]

why do YOU HAVE no spoon mr bibblington, all your colour has worn out. I like the chance to fix my frount DOOR to a girls best cupckae.
D... Do you have a generator for this sort of thing, or did you just pull that out of thin air?

[Nohwl]

And the joke here is that I don't get to read the spoilers. yes, it really does suck the humour out of it doesn't it.:smalltongue: If Roland came along then dammit I really want to know what the hell's going on in this thread linked to a game that I'm in that's already been plenty interesting, I think Pharoah's Fist feels the same way people.....

mostlyharmful only
now there's one just for you.

some people think saph is doing a poor job of dming.

[Arakune]

mostlyharmful only
now there's one just for you.

some people think saph is doing a poor job of dming.

Only to Nohwl


Now that is cruelty XD

[Nohwl]

Only to Nohwl


Now that is cruelty XD


well, i guess it would be alright if pharaoh's fist read the one to mostly. it won't matter much. but only pharaoh's fist and mostlyharmful.

[Amiel]

D... Do you have a generator for this sort of thing, or did you just pull that out of thin air?

It's a quote from Salad Fingers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_fingers); specifically episode 6 IIRC. Having said that, if you wish to view it, you would need brain bleach and lots of it.

[mostlyharmful]

It's a quote from Salad Fingers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_fingers); specifically episode 6 IIRC. Having said that, if you wish to view it, you would need brain bleach and lots of it.

Eeeerrrr... No it isn't. it's just me free associating. If it happens to be close to something I've never seen or heard of then that's just plain weird.:smallconfused:




mostlyharmful only


now there's one just for you.


some people think saph is doing a poor job of dming.

Nowhl only
Strangely no.

And why do people think Saph's doing a bad job? i don't see anything wrong with how he's doing, is there a specific problem?

[The Glyphstone]

to absolutely nobody:

Hey - get out, you weren't invited to read this.

On-topic, I hope the game keeps going soon, instead of being derailed by these arguments. Diary updates are funny, but there's not enough of them.

[Sliver]

Sliver only
I don't think mostlyharmful or Pharaoh's Fist get a lot from people giving them personal spoilers just so they could feel more... involved.

[Kurald Galain]

And why do people think Saph's doing a bad job? i don't see anything wrong with how he's doing, is there a specific problem?
More to the point, one person (Kelpstrand) thought Saph was doing a bad job, and several people told him that he was being unreasonable. I think you should be able to read the spoiler boxes in this thread after your current combat is over, but frankly you're not missing much.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't think she was doing a bad job, but some of his (Kelpstrand) objections weren't bad. They were good points. I don't draw same conclusions, but good premises at least.
They do make me curious of why certain events/actions transpired.

Also, I totally looked at Sliver's spoiler even though it was only to him. :smallredface:

[mostlyharmful]

More to the point, one person (Kelpstrand) thought Saph was doing a bad job, and several people told him that he was being unreasonable. I think you should be able to read the spoiler boxes in this thread after your current combat is over, but frankly you're not missing much.

Then I sharn't worry about replying to his last snarky comment to me, cool. For what it's worth Saph's a DM, he's made certain calls I wouldn't've, he's made certain calls I would've, he's done his best to keep a bunch of self posssessed young people (read, herd of cats) moving in the same direction-ish. Anyone else think they could do better? I'd be surprised if they could.

[Kurald Galain]

For what it's worth Saph's a DM, he's made certain calls I wouldn't've, he's made certain calls I would've,

Also for what it's worth, SamusSaph is a girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SamusIsAGirl) :smallbiggrin:

(you'd think her avatar would give her away, no?)

[Roland St. Jude]

Also for what it's worth, SamusSaph is a girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SamusIsAGirl) :smallbiggrin:

(you'd think her avatar would give her away, no?)

On this internet? Less often than you'd think.

[mostlyharmful]

Also for what it's worth, SamusSaph is a girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SamusIsAGirl) :smallbiggrin:

(you'd think her avatar would give her away, no?)

Without a gender indicater I go with the traditional english convention of using the masculine pronoun until the specifics are established. And the Belldandy avatar is cool, I'd like it and I'm a boy. Just liking a nice picture enough to want to be represented by it's not a clear proof of anything much.:smalltongue:

[Kylarra]

I have to admit that mostlyharmful's confusion generated speeches are hilarious. :smallredface:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Day four is up.

[The Glyphstone]

Also for what it's worth, SamusSaph is a girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SamusIsAGirl) :smallbiggrin:

(you'd think her avatar would give her away, no?)

Remember the Rules of the Interwebs:
-All men are actually men.
-All women are actually men.
-All children are FBI agents.


Also: yay, update!:smallbiggrin:

[Claudius Maximus]

How does Jaya remember what happened when she was unconscious?

Also, she probably wouldn't know about turns and other such metagame constructs. Otherwise, great update. I especially like the concept of setting people on cold.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I find it interesting that Giacomo did not consider Fly a significant buff, despite the fact that it was the spell that allowed him to get over the Wall of Force.

He also said Deathward was not a significant buff because it had not been used yet. The fact that my Empowered Enervation would have been useless against it means that it potentially protected him from 3-4 negative levels, on average.

[PhoenixRivers]

Indeed. I believe there lies a significant difference between "useless" and "not used yet".

One implies that something has no value, the other, that the value has not yet been ascertained.

The latter is the more accurate.

[Eldariel]

Jaya's lack of Contingency in that fight was most confusing. Overall, it seems like things could've went MUCH better for our heroes over here, but at least you made it and that's what counts. The first Wall of Force was practically wasted and the Persistent Image+Sleet Storm was a tad redundant.

Overall, the party gave the opposition a fair headstart doing effectively nothing for the first round or two, but then things started happening. I personally found that Dispel-occurence hilarious though; the whole "HOW many spells again?!" was awesome - I only wish I could've seen your face at the "roll 40 more Dispel-checks"-part.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Wait, if Dispel Magic was used on Gladiator, were any of those checks made against either the permanency or enlarge person? I lost track of how many "buffs" were on him at the time.

[Arakune]

Wait, if Dispel Magic was used on Gladiator, were any of those checks made against either the permanency or enlarge person? I lost track of how many "buffs" were on him at the time.

The right answer is 'a lot'.

[PhoenixRivers]

Wait, if Dispel Magic was used on Gladiator, were any of those checks made against either the permanency or enlarge person? I lost track of how many "buffs" were on him at the time.

Yes. Saph included all applicable effects in the magic effects susceptible to dispel list.

[Sir Giacomo]

I find it interesting that Giacomo did not consider Fly a significant buff, despite the fact that it was the spell that allowed him to get over the Wall of Force.

He also said Deathward was not a significant buff because it had not been used yet. The fact that my Empowered Enervation would have been useless against it means that it potentially protected him from 3-4 negative levels, on average.

Fly provided +1 to hit (equating roughly that I forgot the bless bonus most of the time) and in the end allowed Gladiator to threaten Lilian more physically as well as avoid the unicorns. Considering the wall of force it would not have made a difference since the high movement of the monk meant he would have bypassed the wall with one move (squeezed through the open area rendered visible by the invisibility purge). Also, he could have simply dimension-doored through it.

Deathward played no role because of the action economy (Jaya was busy defending herself) and total concealment up. And even if Gladiator had been hit by it (Gladiator touch AC was around 20 and the true strike buff was gone after round 1), it would not have helped Jaya much, I daresay.

Fly and deathward are great buffs, but simply played no role in this combat.

- Giacomo

[Starbuck_II]

Fly provided +1 to hit (equating roughly that I forgot the bless bonus most of the time) and in the end allowed Gladiator to threaten Lilian more physically as well as avoid the unicorns. Considering the wall of force it would not have made a difference since the high movement of the monk meant he would have bypassed the wall with one move (squeezed through the open area rendered visible by the invisibility purge). Also, he could have simply dimension-doored through it.

Fly and deathward are great buffs, but simply played no role in this combat.

- Giacomo

5% chance to hit helps alot sometimes.
You can DD through a Wall of Force? Still that is one less action wasted as flying doesn't end your turn.

[Sir Giacomo]

On the record this is a reasonably well put together Monk with a strong focus on damage dealling and toughness to fit into the Tank role, it's not too bad at that and I here by state that I have changed my position on the basis of this test. Irrespective of the specific fight we are in the midst of at the moment.

Well, thank you!
But I'd also suggest to see what the upcoming encounters may bring.
The monk can definitely be improved (a cheap magic weapon would be a good start, better sense motive and higher unbuffed AC would also make sense).
Something where I am positively surprised so far is the druid. Indeed the druid is mighty ... :smallbiggrin: Although I do not think that to be unbalancing - since all in the group are fairly powerful. Add in some more group synergy and I predict the number of respawns will decline ...

- Giacomo

[PhoenixRivers]

Fly provided +1 to hit (equating roughly that I forgot the bless bonus most of the time) and in the end allowed Gladiator to threaten Lilian more physically as well as avoid the unicorns. Considering the wall of force it would not have made a difference since the high movement of the monk meant he would have bypassed the wall with one move (squeezed through the open area rendered visible by the invisibility purge). Also, he could have simply dimension-doored through it.

Deathward played no role because of the action economy (Jaya was busy defending herself) and total concealment up. And even if Gladiator had been hit by it (Gladiator touch AC was around 20 and the true strike buff was gone after round 1), it would not have helped Jaya much, I daresay.

Fly and deathward are great buffs, but simply played no role in this combat.

- Giacomo

The move action to squeeze through would have limited the locations the monk could be. Further, when flight is on the table, and high movement flight, it defines the movement of your opponent. Aerial mobility alters the battlefield in many hard to detect ways, but the impact it has cannot be understated.

I do believe that an empowered Enervation would have, had it hit and been effective, averaged -4 to hit, -20 hp, -4 to all future saves (that's the big one), -4 to skill checks, and more.

'Action economy' is not a valid defense. Stating that it played no role by action economy is the same as saying it played no role by player choice. Player choice is not a valid defense to a mechanical strength or weakness.

Because the ability didn't have a direct tangible impact in the fight, you assume is useless. But limiting opponent options is an impact.

For example: via flight, it was possible to go around the unicorns without AoO's. It was possible to do so with a beeline path to your targets. Whether or not you did this, your opponents had to react to that possiblity. So it has a tangible impact.

EDIT: As for DDing through the Wall, that prevents you from taking any action until your next turn. Which limits options. Flight gave you many options you didn't have before, and that is how it changed the fight.

[Saph]

So, a question for observers: What do you think a fair EL would be for the fight the party's just finished? I'm doing treasure generation and need a figure. :)

[PhoenixRivers]

Enemy had advance notice, and was thoroughly buffed.

A lot of low level mooks.

An ECL equivalent challenge.

A BBEG of sorts.

Assuming the BBEG type is Party ECL +1, I'd go for the total encounter being Party ECL +2-3, or 1 EL 11-12.

But that's an approximation. Mooks are hard to evaluate. If EL 9 is used, then a bonus allotment of XP for goal completion "Rescuing Gladiator" would likely be in order.

[Jayabalard]

How does Jaya remember what happened when she was unconscious?Generally I don't

[mostlyharmful]

Enemy had advance notice, and was thoroughly buffed.

A lot of low level mooks.

An ECL equivalent challenge.

A BBEG of sorts.

Assuming the BBEG type is Party ECL +1, I'd go for the total encounter being Party ECL +2-3, or 1 EL 11-12.

But that's an approximation. Mooks are hard to evaluate. If EL 9 is used, then a bonus allotment of XP for goal completion "Rescuing Gladiator" would likely be in order.

Probably about right, EL 12+ due to the perfect warning depending on if the cleric was of our level, higher isf she had levels on us.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

And Olo still won. Epic and awesome.

[Kurald Galain]

Indeed. I believe there lies a significant difference between "useless" and "not used yet".

If you put it like that... the monk's evasion, slow fall, and abundant step ability are completely useless by that definition, because indeed they haven't been used yet and everything not used yet is useless.

[PhoenixRivers]

If you put it like that... the monk's evasion, slow fall, and abundant step ability are completely useless by that definition, because indeed they haven't been used yet and everything not used yet is useless.

I believe I was stating that there's a difference between the two.

Abundant Step, I consider useful.
Evasion, also.

Slow Fall, not so much, given the scarcity of walls in the air, and that Flight is relatively common at these levels.

That they haven't been used yet doesn't change that they can be used to bypass other rather nasty abilities.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe I was stating that there's a difference between the two.
Sorry, forgot my smily.

If we go by the regular definition of "useful", then yes, abundant step and flight are both very useful.

If we go by the new definition of "useful" that was recently introduced in this thread, the one where flight isn't useful, then neither are abundant step, most other monk abilities, and the diplomacy skill.

Overall, when it comes to comparing abilities, this begs the question what the classes have been doing to show off their class abilities. The druid has been summoning a lot, has used his animal companion, and has used self-buffs through his alternative shape powers. The rogue has been sneak attacking all over the place. Has the monk done anything at all that requires monk abilities, or would a fighter have accomplished the same albeit with a higher BAB? Things like Slow Fall sound nice on paper, but do they come up in actual gameplay?

[PhoenixRivers]

How often has Flurry of blows been used?
How often has a monk's fast movement been used?
How often has the monk made use of class skills?
How often has the monk made use of feats explicitly granted by the class?

Those, I suspect, have been used more often.

[mostlyharmful]

How often has Flurry of blows been used?
How often has a monk's fast movement been used?
How often has the monk made use of class skills?
How often has the monk made use of feats explicitly granted by the class?

Those, I suspect, have been used more often.

And now we must compare them to the benefits that other classes supply, since these are apparently what the 'Monk' brings to the table then how do thses specific class features stack up against Rage and a bigger Hit Dice and full base attack for example... or Sneak Attack and way more Skill Points (hard in this since skills aren't used for the most part), or the ability to tell causality, time, space and common sense to sit down, shut up and buckle in....

[Olo Demonsbane]

Something where I am positively surprised so far is the druid. Indeed the druid is mighty ... :smallbiggrin: Although I do not think that to be unbalancing - since all in the group are fairly powerful. Add in some more group synergy and I predict the number of respawns will decline ...

- Giacomo

You aint seen nothing yet. Stoop wasnt playing the druid to his fullest potential...he had Stone Tell and Find the Path prepared as his 6th level spells, for crying out loud!

Now Dok has an AC of 32 all day long with 130 hp, or 36 AC with 156 hp and wings if we include aspects.

And he can deal 8d8+106 damage with one spell. Or just GDM. Or a lot of other things...

If you were positively surprised before, I wonder what you will think after a day or two of this...:smallbiggrin:

[sofawall]

So is this a diary thread or a more popular OOC thread, now?

[mostlyharmful]

So is this a diary thread or a more popular OOC thread, now?

Yes.:smallsmile:

[Sir Giacomo]

You aint seen nothing yet. Stoop wasnt playing the druid to his fullest potential...he had Stone Tell and Find the Path prepared as his 6th level spells, for crying out loud!

Now Dok has an AC of 32 all day long with 130 hp, or 36 AC with 156 hp and wings if we include aspects.

And he can deal 8d8+106 damage with one spell. Or just GDM. Or a lot of other things...

If you were positively surprised before, I wonder what you will think after a day or two of this...:smallbiggrin:

Well, I am eager to see the new druid's performance. Will you post the new character sheet in the playthread?
Some first question marks of mine:
- You do realise that small size also has disadvantages, do you?
- you alongside others have criticised the spell choices of find the path and stone tell. These two spells imo (that at any moment can be changed for a druid's most powerful offensive spells - summons which also won the last encounter) are highly useful in the situation that we are in: repeatedy dungeon-like caverns that we have no clue about. It might have been better to prepare another greater dispel magic against Gladiator's suspected dominate effect in the last encounter (or better yet, against a known spellcaster enemy, Lilian), but overall I thought Stoopidtallkid's spell choices were good.
- I hope that with your great damage-dealing spell you do not mean fire seeds which is ... rather difficult to employ in combat for that purpose. And I daresay a well-placed summon of the same level could do similar damage in a round (as can Gladiator's full attack if he ever would be buffed with a GMF or GMW :smallwink:).

- Giacomo

[sofawall]

- you alongside others have criticised the spell choices of find the path and stone tell. These two spells imo (that at any moment can be changed for a druid's most powerful offensive spells - summons which also won the last encounter) are highly useful in the situation that we are in: repeatedy dungeon-like caverns that we have no clue about. It might have been better to prepare another greater dispel magic against Gladiator's suspected dominate effect in the last encounter (or better yet, against a known spellcaster enemy, Lilian), but overall I thought Stoopidtallkid's spell choices were good.

Not bad spells, but far better ones can be chosen.

[Sir Giacomo]

Not bad spells, but far better ones can be chosen.

That depends on the situation. Druid spells are useful and at times powerful, but not more than we have already seen, I daresay.

- Giacomo

[sofawall]

Druid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagicGreater.htm) get (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antilifeShell.htm) better (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWinds.htm) than (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm) Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalGrowth.htm)Tell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomOfMovement.htm)and (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/callLightning.htm) Find (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFangGreater.htm) the (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm) Path. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm)
Oh dear, I'm out of words, but certainly not spells.

[PhoenixRivers]

Especially on the Anti Life Shell and Greater Dispel Magic. That's no Save, just stay away. It's pretty crippling for the vast majority of melee type enemies, and useful for defining movement options.

And they can still be swapped out for Summons on the chance that those are more useful. Heck, in a dungeon environment, AntiLife Shell and Wind Wall can effectively blockade an entire passage. Especially if the character in question has a solid AC, for the enemies with reach. Position a caster behind, and use your spells in relative safety.

There are many options that are more effective than Stone Tell/Find the Path. Not denying the possible applications, but this isn't a battle of "crap" and "good". It's a showdown between "good" and "better". And other spells are more generally useful in this situation than those spells.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

- you alongside others have criticised the spell choices of find the path and stone tell. These two spells imo (that at any moment can be changed for a druid's most powerful offensive spells - summons which also won the last encounter)

Placeholding is not powerful.


are highly useful in the situation that we are in: repeatedy dungeon-like caverns that we have no clue about.

Given that Find the Path has been shown to do bupkus on page 13, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

You are entitled to your opinion that Stonetell and Find the Path are highly useful, but considering that we all knew that we would be going in hot, devoting your highest level spell choices to non combat spells was a bad idea.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, so all of us except for one person can agree that Stone Tell and Find The Path are not particularly great spells when anticipating combat, and that Fly is a particularly great spell in combat. Unanimity minus one, that's a pretty good consensus, isn't it?

[Sir Giacomo]

Some comments ...


Placeholding is not powerful.

It is in this case, since the placeholding spell is a combat spell. So basically having a more versatile spell AND a combat spell prepared can at times be better than having TWO combat spells prepared.
Example: Monster Summoning VI can also be used to summon creatures around you to protect you from melee attacks (similar strategy as the antilife shell)


Given that Find the Path has been shown to do bupkus on page 13, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Well, I'm surprised since your character herself suggested the spell was used for finding a town. And by now the group has realised that there are other things to look for, I guess. :smallsmile:


You are entitled to your opinion that Stonetell and Find the Path are highly useful, but considering that we all knew that we would be going in hot, devoting your highest level spell choices to non combat spells was a bad idea.

Two situations out of my head to use these spells for the situation you described.
1) Stonetell.
Party arrives in a seemingly empty temple. Doc casts stonetell to find out about secret chambers, illusory walls, hidden ambushes, who is touching the stone where in the whole complex, where did everyone go etc.
2) Find the Path
Party frees Gladiator, but Lilian rushes to fetch superior reinforcements. "Quick - where is the next portal?" ...
Realistic scenarios and worthy imo to prepare two 6th level spells for that can easily dropped for strong combat spells.


Okay, so all of us except for one person can agree that Stone Tell and Find The Path are not particularly great spells when anticipating combat, and that Fly is a particularly great spell in combat. Unanimity minus one, that's a pretty good consensus, isn't it?

Not quite.
Again, I never said that I think Fly isn't great in combat. Only that in THIS particular combat it hardly made a difference. No flying was needed to reach the group, the summons were not really a combat threat to Gladiator, and the +1 for higher ground may have even been gained by jumping on the stone dome that Doc created.

A summary what actually happened:
1. Somehow, the 12th level monk, an allegedly useless class, mopped the floor with three other 12th level characters (of which two full casters) with full wbl (OK, deduct the class feature animal companion with its equipment here).
2. Need for explanation ensued. Obvious reason: Hey, Gladiator got 50+ buffs on him (forgot how many). No wonder!
3. Further investigation, however, revealed that
a. both sides of the combat, being well-prepared, had equally usefull buffs on and
b. the buffs on both sides hardly played any role at all (not counting the item enhancements like blink and haste activated with free actions). They MIGHT have in case the combat went differently, or in a different combat, but in this case they DID NOT.
It's that easy.

Now - I must say - I am as surprised as you are about how dominating (dominatED?:smallwink:) Gladiator performed there.

My explanations / ideas:
1. The iconic four-member group NEEDS a tank/melee protector. In this example, they did not even have the animal companion. Or did not put up enough defenses to make up for this vulnerability.
2. A huge mistake by the party imo was to put up total concealment, since a melee character with blind-fight and many attacks thrives in such a situation. Classes needing targeted spells, ray spells, summoned creatures unable to locate their enemy or sneaks then have problems.
3. The invisibility purge by Lilian was quite tough in the beginning (showcasing also how dangerous it is at those levels to rely on invisbility for protection), but ceased to matter once total concealment from other sources came up. And of course, Lilian was a huge potential threat throughout (still, she held back most of the time).
4. The spellcasters had few save-or-dies/knockouts to attack Gladiator directly. Now, a monk has good defenses against those - but several rounds of spells targeted at him would have been his undoing I daresay ...

- Giacomo

[PhoenixRivers]

It is in this case, since the placeholding spell is a combat spell. So basically having a more versatile spell AND a combat spell prepared can at times be better than having TWO combat spells prepared.
Example: Monster Summoning VI can also be used to summon creatures around you to protect you from melee attacks (similar strategy as the antilife shell)The Protection provided from Monster Summoning VI is flat out inferior to ALS. There isn't even a competition. ALS physically disallows, no save, any passage. Monster Summoning provides an inferior combat target, usable more for utility than anything.



Well, I'm surprised since your character herself suggested the spell was used for finding a town. And by now the group has realised that there are other things to look for, I guess. :smallsmile: As compared to an ability that would have rendered Gladiator nearly incapable of attacking the party? Not saying it's a useless spell. Just "not as useful".


Two situations out of my head to use these spells for the situation you described.
1) Stonetell.
Party arrives in a seemingly empty temple. Doc casts stonetell to find out about secret chambers, illusory walls, hidden ambushes, who is touching the stone where in the whole complex, where did everyone go etc.Useful. However, you overstate the use.
You gain the ability to speak with stones, which relate to you who or what has touched them as well as revealing what is covered or concealed behind or under them. The stones relate complete descriptions if asked. A stone’s perspective, perception, and knowledge may prevent the stone from providing the details you are looking for.
Stones cannot detect illusions. Stones cannot detect secret chambers, unless you ask the stones that are physically seperating. Stones are restricted to saying what they have personally seen. So you could get information about patrols, and, in the vicinity of the ambush, you could find out one was there. But it's a slow process, and much the same information could be garnered with the Track feat. Meanwhile, it takes TIME to discern this information. Enough time to talk to each wall, and ask it the questions. The floor. The ceiling. Useful, but time consuming.


2) Find the Path
Party frees Gladiator, but Lilian rushes to fetch superior reinforcements. "Quick - where is the next portal?" ...
Realistic scenarios and worthy imo to prepare two 6th level spells for that can easily dropped for strong combat spells.As opposed to ALS, which grants over an hour of solid protection against those reinforcements, during which time the party can find the portal.


Not quite.
Again, I never said that I think Fly isn't great in combat. Only that in THIS particular combat it hardly made a difference. No flying was needed to reach the group, the summons were not really a combat threat to Gladiator, and the +1 for higher ground may have even been gained by jumping on the stone dome that Doc created.Thank you for showing that Summon Monster 6 isn't nearly as good at protecting as you state above. That said, the Fly buff expanded movement options for Gladiator, which limited party options. This qualifies as "a meaningful impact".


A summary what actually happened:
1. Somehow, the 12th level monk, an allegedly useless class, mopped the floor with three other 12th level characters (of which two full casters) with full wbl (OK, deduct the class feature animal companion with its equipment here).
12th level monk, with enhanced mobility and 20 rounds worth of useful buffs, engaged a party geared more for exploration than combat.


2. Need for explanation ensued. Obvious reason: Hey, Gladiator got 50+ buffs on him (forgot how many). No wonder!
3. Further investigation, however, revealed that
a. both sides of the combat, being well-prepared, had equally usefull buffs on
Incorrect.


b. the buffs on both sides hardly played any role at all (not counting the item enhancements like blink and haste activated with free actions). They MIGHT have in case the combat went differently, or in a different combat, but in this case they DID NOT.Protective buffs have an impact. They limit effective options. Death Ward prevents energy drain. Your foe had such spells. You've now limited your foe's effective options. This is an impact.

Fly increased your mobility. Whether or not you chose to use that mobility, the party had to factor it in. This is an impact.


Now - I must say - I am as surprised as you are about how dominating (dominatED?:smallwink:) Gladiator performed there.You shouldn't. Give me 20 rounds of buffs, any melee class, and secondary caster targets, and with a bit of intelligence, and I'll mop the floor. Gladiator was not the only target that the party engaged. It was not Gladiator versus party.

Let me repeat that.

It was not Gladiator versus party.

It was Gladiator, several low level clerics, and one higher level cleric, versus party that prepared spells based on the idea that they'd have a physical combat guardian that was not there. Why was that guardian not there? Oh yeah, he was dominated.


My explanations / ideas:
1. The iconic four-member group NEEDS a tank/melee protector. In this example, they did not even have the animal companion. Or did not put up enough defenses to make up for this vulnerability.Agreed. The party does need one. And when the party needed one, he was wasting time batting for the other team in a BBEG encounter.


2. A huge mistake by the party imo was to put up total concealment, since a melee character with blind-fight and many attacks thrives in such a situation. Classes needing targeted spells, ray spells, summoned creatures unable to locate their enemy or sneaks then have problems.I'll buy that tactical errors were made.


3. The invisibility purge by Lilian was quite tough in the beginning (showcasing also how dangerous it is at those levels to rely on invisbility for protection), but ceased to matter once total concealment from other sources came up. And of course, Lilian was a huge potential threat throughout (still, she held back most of the time).Agreed. If it were JUST Gladiator versus party, the protection offered by invisibility would have been very effective. Pinpointing by listen is difficult, and that buff alone would have increased the lifespan of the arcanist.


4. The spellcasters had few save-or-dies/knockouts to attack Gladiator directly. Now, a monk has good defenses against those - but several rounds of spells targeted at him would have been his undoing I daresay ...Why? Because they had several buffs that were stripped away.

In short:
Casters meet enemy.
Casters spend time erecting defenses.
Enemy caster obliterates defenses.
Gladiator wades in.

Action economy. Multiple targets, and one negated several of the party's abilities, while strengthening Gladiator. Lilian did not play a backseat role. She played a batman role. She took care of the abilities that the others could not. She rendered Walls useless, concealment useless. She kept her side in the combat, despite spells placed to prevent that. This caused wasted party action, and when the party's casting ability is wasted, and it's reduced to a fistfight, fistfighters will have an advantage.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It is in this case, since the placeholding spell is a combat spell. So basically having a more versatile spell AND a combat spell prepared can at times be better than having TWO combat spells prepared.
Not when you're going into combat it isn't. In combat I would rather have two combat spells than an out of combat utility spell and a combat spell. Because I'm in combat.


Well, I'm surprised since your character herself suggested the spell was used for finding a town.
Due to my lack of ESP, I was unable to know that Saph would make Find the Path unuseful for our situation and only found that out after we had cast it.


Two situations out of my head to use these spells for the situation you described.
1) Stonetell.
Party arrives in a seemingly empty temple. Doc casts stonetell to find out about secret chambers, illusory walls, hidden ambushes, who is touching the stone where in the whole complex, where did everyone go etc.
1. Stone Tell does not work that way.
2. We could have gotten information on enemy movements from my familiar.


2) Find the Path
Party frees Gladiator, but Lilian rushes to fetch superior reinforcements. "Quick - where is the next portal?" ...
Wait... then why wouldn't the superior enemy not be ambushing us to begin with?


Somehow, the 12th level monk, an allegedly useless class, mopped the floor with three other 12th level characters (of which two full casters) with full wbl (OK, deduct the class feature animal companion with its equipment here).
When you are successful, the credit goes entirely to your build, not to the casters who buffed you (with a very large number of spells) and provided supporting spells (Lillian), or to the people you fought alongside (priests).

When you fail, it is because of bad luck, not due to the shortcomings of your build.

With such a lax standard any class can be "proven" to be strong.

Oh, and Giacomo? We went in under the assumption that we were going to snap you out of it and work together. Killing Gladiator was not plan A. Believe me, if it was, spell preparations would have been much different.

[PhoenixRivers]

Agreed. Party mentality was to capture alive, which affects spell selection.

Party had to consider supporting casters a threat, which limits offensive action.

Party had to consider enchanter a second primary target, which splits focus.

In short? Gladiator had to fight the party.

The party had an encounter, of which Gladiator was one part. Limiting factors eliminated "kill" spells.

Further, Giacomo, in an effort to discern the impact that monk had on this, how often did you use the following?

Increased movement?
Class Features (such as Abundant step)?
Class skills?
Feats and abilities granted as a result of class, not level? (Stunning fist, Imp Grapple, and the like)
Will of Reflex saves, wherein you failed by 4 or less?

I count Stunning Fist once, with no discernable impact. (targeted against a character with a strong fort save, who succeeded on the save)

How often did you miss an attack by 3 or less?

[mostlyharmful]

12th level monk, with enhanced mobility and 20 rounds worth of useful buffs, engaged a party geared more for exploration than combat.
Incorrect.
Protective buffs have an impact. They limit effective options. Death Ward prevents energy drain. Your foe had such spells. You've now limited your foe's effective options. This is an impact.

Fly increased your mobility. Whether or not you chose to use that mobility, the party had to factor it in. This is an impact.
You shouldn't. Give me 20 rounds of buffs, any melee class, and secondary caster targets, and with a bit of intelligence, and I'll mop the floor. Gladiator was not the only target that the party engaged. It was not Gladiator versus party.

Let me repeat that.

It was not Gladiator versus party.

It was Gladiator, several low level clerics, and one higher level cleric, versus party that prepared spells based on the idea that they'd have a physical combat guardian that was not there. Why was that guardian not there? Oh yeah, he was dominated.

I'll object to that actually. It wasn't Gladiator and anything versus the party, we were going out of our way not to just gank him, if it was us versus him I'd have SAed him half to death in the first round with vials of Acid SA flat-footed touch attacks.... or the casters would have focussed on blasting/SoXing the crap out of him. Instead we focussed on ignoring him and taking down the casters. It cost us and two of us got knocked unconcious because of it but the only thing I did was flick a dagger at him, hardly taking him on.

Oh... and for the record I was opperating under the understanding that Tina had a single first level Buff on her, hardly Gias vaguely equal level of buffing on both sides, in fact we were dropped into combat before we were finished buffing (Summoning Unicorns). meh.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

or the casters would have focussed on blasting/SoXing the crap out of him.

If it was just us vs Gladiator, I'd have just used Wall of Force to isolate him and move on to the next room.

[mostlyharmful]

If it was just us vs Gladiator, I'd have just used Wall of Force to isolate him and move on to the next room.

And it would have worked. And that's kind of sad...:smallfrown:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Oh no, you'd see he'd have DD's out of it.

Unable to do anything afterwards, it would have actually taken either a second Wall of Force or us taking advantage of the opportunity to unleash a volley of sneak attack and blasting to get him out of the way.

[mostlyharmful]

Oh no, you'd see he'd have DD's out of it.

Unable to do anything afterwards, it would have actually taken either a second Wall of Force or us taking advantage of the opportunity to unleash a volley of sneak attack and blasting to get him out of the way.

He'd have DDed out and then have had to just wait for a round... if that's not enough for a caster to just leave or do whatever... maybe they shouldn't have banned Conj hmmm?

[PhoenixRivers]

He'd have DDed out and then have had to just wait for a round... if that's not enough for a caster to just leave or do whatever... maybe they shouldn't have banned Conj hmmm?

It's not that he can't do anything. He just can't do actions. Nonactions, such as AoO's, are fine.

That said, a 2nd Wall of Force would have the potential to isolate.

[Saph]

Well, a Wall of Force cast by a 12th-level caster isn't enough to block off a 50 ft wide, 40 ft high room anyway. You'd need to be 20th-level to do it with a single casting.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Well, a Wall of Force cast by a 12th-level caster isn't enough to block off a 50 ft wide, 40 ft high room anyway. You'd need to be 20th-level to do it with a single casting.

It depends on where he is, come to think of it. A triangle would do it if he's close to a corner...

[Saph]

I love random treasure generators, by the way, especially for gems. There are so many bizarre varieties. Half the time I don't even know what the words mean (and I actually know quite a lot about gems). Without using a search or a book, how many of these would you know?

Beljuril
Kornerupine
Buergerite

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It's like playing Diablo 2 all over again.

[Sir Giacomo]

Thought that would not go down well ...:smallwink:

Anyhow, after the theory "Gladiator had decisive buffs that outshone his class abilities" and the theory "Gladiator appeared so strong only because the party is not really optimised/did not choose the right spells" it is now "The party did not want to kill Gladiator".
Well ... unicorns were ordered to attack him. Jaya attacked him with ice storm. And only towards the end was there even an attempt to attack Lilian.

And as Saph pointed out, sealing Gladiator away with a wall of force would not have worked.

But I admit that several low-level clerics were there alongside Gladiator to fight the party. Although I have a feeling that they did not influence the match much. And Lilian did what- like 3 spells in 11 rounds?

Overall, though, let me say that imo this combat of a monk vs three same level pcs of different classes is by no way representative of class power.
In different settings, the monk would have had no chance at all.
Also, Lilian's buffs would have mattered greatly if the combat had gone somewhat differently in the beginning, I admit that.
Still, what I certainly do not see is that this combat showcased how weak and useless monks are. He even finally shrugged of the domination by himself, something the typical tank character will not be able to do as easily.

- Giacomo

[OracleofWuffing]

I love random treasure generators, by the way, especially for gems. There are so many bizarre varieties. Half the time I don't even know what the words mean (and I actually know quite a lot about gems). Without using a search or a book, how many of these would you know?

Beljuril
Kornerupine
Buergerite

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone had a feline familiar/animal companion/wild cohort/WHATEVER, could it potentially has buergerite?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Anyhow, after the theory "Gladiator had decisive buffs that outshone his class abilities" and the theory "Gladiator appeared so strong only because the party is not really optimised/did not choose the right spells" it is now "The party did not want to kill Gladiator".

Would we have done this if we were going to try and kill you?


I don't suppose this portal's two way is it.:smallfrown:

Sense Motive [roll0]

crack smokestick and toss it into square E15 [roll1] while fighting defensively (taking AC to 24 with the prot from evil) then move action to fly upwards into the air above square H17 and quick draw bow.

In dwarvish (can speak due to belt)

Big guy.. this is a mistake! I don't know what the hell they've been telling you but it's clear you're thinking about trying to fight us. We're your friends and we need each other to get through this maze and out the exit at the end. They're using you mate!

Bluff or diplomacy check dependant on Saphs ruling to convince Gladiator that He's about to make a big mistake in siding with these priests against us. [roll2]

You insinuate that we are changing our positions to make ourselves look better. If you had been paying attention from the beginning while we were planning our course of action, you would have noticed that the entire point for Unicorns was stated to be suppressing the Dominate Person effect on you.

I still stand by the theory that your monk abilities made no difference in the fight and that our characters are not the most optimized ones possible. I stand by reality.



Well ... unicorns were ordered to attack him. Jaya attacked him with ice storm. And only towards the end was there even an attempt to attack Lilian.
Oh wow. Fear the 5d6 damage that was aimed at slowing you down not killing you! Fear the Unicorns that you specifically stated were no threat!

Giacomo, I'm disappointed in you. You know as well as I that the druid played by Sstoopidtallkid was the one who prepared spells, but the druid played by Olo was the one who asked the unicorns to attack you. Sstoop was here for the planning, Olo was not. They are two different people, Giacomo, and I am pretty sure you noticed the switch in players.

Sstoop did not prepare to attack you. Olo came in to the game with a different mindset.

So, now you tell me, how is Olo ordering unicorns to attack you proof that Sstoop did not plan on killing you?

I'm waiting.


Still, what I certainly do not see is that this combat showcased how weak and useless monks are. He even finally shrugged of the domination by himself, something the typical tank character will not be able to do as easily.

I do not read your spoilers. Please tell me how that happened.

[sofawall]

I do not read your spoilers. Please tell me how that happened.

He managed to not roll a one.

[Starbuck_II]

I still stand by the theory that your monk abilities made no difference in the fight and that our characters are not the most optimized ones possible. I stand by reality.


Oh, please, this is a Monk: when has reality been a issue?
I do wonder if you were trying to kill him with the same spell list prepared and his buffs (giving him those immunities), how he would have fared.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Oh, please, this is a Monk: when has reality been a issue?
I do wonder if you were trying to kill him with the same spell list prepared and his buffs (giving him those immunities), how he would have fared.

He would have fared well, considering they were all AoE Evocations and Ranged Touch spells, except for the Empowered Magic Missiles.

[Sir Giacomo]

You insinuate that we are changing our positions to make ourselves look better. If you had been paying attention from the beginning while we were planning our course of action, you would have noticed that the entire point for Unicorns was stated to be suppressing the Dominate Person effect on you.

I do not deny this.
Still, the few attacking actions you did were focused on Gladiator instead of Lilian until the end which surprised me.
Overall due to the powerful attack of Gladiator all in the group were forced to resort to defensive measures.


I still stand by the theory that your monk abilities made no difference in the fight and that our characters are not the most optimized ones possible. I stand by reality.

No, this is no reality. High movement? High Listen bonus for pinpointing? Improved trip? Flurry? High monk damage? All not having played a role? And this after Jaya got knocked out twice because of this?


Oh wow. Fear the 5d6 damage that was aimed at slowing you down not killing you! Fear the Unicorns that you specifically stated were no threat!

I said that unicorns in that situation were not a threat to Gladiator. And I said SNA VI can be used effectively to defend vs melee attacks.
These are two different things entirely
(note that with SNA VI you can also summon different creatures like dire apes with 10ft reach and unlike antillife shell thus also protect against melee from undead, outsiders, constructs and elementals - which tend to make up roughly a third of all CR 10-15 monsters).


Giacomo, I'm disappointed in you. You know as well as I that the druid played by Sstoopidtallkid was the one who prepared spells, but the druid played by Olo was the one who asked the unicorns to attack you. Sstoop was here for the planning, Olo was not. They are two different people, Giacomo, and I am pretty sure you noticed the switch in players.
Sstoop did not prepare to attack you. Olo came in to the game with a different mindset.
So, now you tell me, how is Olo ordering unicorns to attack you proof that Sstoop did not plan on killing you?
I'm waiting.

There is nothing to be disappointed about. I PMed to Olo about this unicorn plan that Dok would have known about, you told him about it and still he decided to order attacks on Gladiator instead of summoning flying creatures like an air elemental to attack Lilian in the second summoning row.
I did not criticise Stoop for anything here.

To summarise:
- Gladiator put enough pressure on the group that everyone was forced to resort to defensive measures to just survive - it did not appear as a special kind of favour to Gladiator, i.e. I did not have the impression you "held back". (If Tina would have sneak attacked instead of trying to fly up and get concealment, it would have meant knockout in round 2 already.)
- This became even clearer that as soon as the group had the possibility to attack, it did so - but not Lilian, but Gladiator. Which imo is not such a good idea if you wish to pull back someone out of the enemy's thrall.


I do not read your spoilers. Please tell me how that happened.

Lilian at long last went against the nature of Gladiator. This triggered another saving throw which thanks to his high will save was successful.

- Giacomo

[Pharaoh's Fist]

No, this is no reality. High movement?
Any melee character with Boots of Speed could have done the same.

High Listen bonus for pinpointing?
Not a monk specific ability. Barbarians get it too.

Improved trip?
Did not matter. Dok does not need to be standing, nor does Jaya, to dish out the spells.


Flurry? High monk damage? All not having played a role? And this after Jaya got knocked out twice because of this?
But another melee character, say a Barbarian, would have been able to do the same.



There is nothing to be disappointed about. I PMed to Olo about this unicorn plan that Dok would have known about, you told him about it and still he decided to order attacks on Gladiator instead of summoning flying creatures like an air elemental to attack Lilian in the second summoning row.
I did not criticise Stoop for anything here.
We needed the unicorns to have a Magic Circle to stop the Dominating Effect.

Perhaps Olo should speak on why he decided to attack you instead of us arguing about it. Did Olo try to kill you, or was it just to buy time? Let's ask him.



To summarise:
- Gladiator put enough pressure on the group that everyone was forced to resort to defensive measures to just survive - it did not appear as a special kind of favour to Gladiator, i.e. I did not have the impression you "held back".
Came in with True Strike in the first round. Would have targeted you if I was going to try and kill you.


- This became even clearer that as soon as the group had the possibility to attack, it did so - but not Lilian, but Gladiator. Which imo is not such a good idea if you wish to pull back someone out of the enemy's thrall.
Please explain how we were going to attack Lillian through a Wall of Force. I'm listening. SNA could be used for flying animals, but as explained, the plan was to get you to snap out of the Dominate effect. Plus, we had priests that needed killing on our side, a more immediate threat than an enemy on the other side of the wall.

[PhoenixRivers]

Still, the few attacking actions you did were focused on Gladiator instead of Lilian until the end which surprised me.
Overall due to the powerful attack of Gladiator all in the group were forced to resort to defensive measures.Incorrect. The level of attack that Gladiator was able to muster was effective AFTER he received numerous combat buffs... And after several party buffs and defensive spells were neutralized.



No, this is no reality. High movement? High Listen bonus for pinpointing? Improved trip? Flurry? High monk damage? All not having played a role? And this after Jaya got knocked out twice because of this?High movement? You had a fly spell. did you move more than 60 feet per move action that fight? Was there a tactical setup that 60 move could not have gotten, and 80 move could?

Flurry? How often was it used? I hear claims, but no numbers.
High monk damage? After which buff?


I said that unicorns in that situation were not a threat to Gladiator. And I said SNA VI can be used effectively to defend vs melee attacks.
These are two different things entirely
(note that with SNA VI you can also summon different creatures like dire apes with 10ft reach and unlike antillife shell thus also protect against melee from undead, outsiders, constructs and elementals - which tend to make up roughly a third of all CR 10-15 monsters).Exactly. The SNA choice was not effective in this instance. Might a different combat spell have been better? This is an instance where it likely would have.

You can't say "OMG SNA 6 is so uber" out of one side of your mouth, and then say "but it wasn't effective" out of the other.


There is nothing to be disappointed about. I PMed to Olo about this unicorn plan that Dok would have known about, you told him about it and still he decided to order attacks on Gladiator instead of summoning flying creatures like an air elemental to attack Lilian in the second summoning row.
I did not criticise Stoop for anything here.Indeed. The number one concern was "un-splitting" the party, so that it could effectively fight.

Gladiator, when buffed, did what a meatshield should. Distracted. That doesn't change the fact that his performance was due, at least in part, to outside buffs, compounded by the PC's most effective abilities were neutralized by casters.


- Gladiator, once buffed to the high heavens, put enough pressure on the group that everyone was forced to resort to defensive measures to just survive since it was more difficult to negate him without killing than originally anticipated - it did not appear as a special kind of favour to Gladiator, i.e. I did not have the impression you "held back". (If Tina would have sneak attacked instead of trying to fly up and get concealment, it would have meant knockout in round 2 already.)
Fixed that for ya. Gladiator had a fixed amount of HP. If the entire party had gone for the gold on those, then they would have run out. That was unacceptable, since Gladiator was forced to be a teamkiller, and they didn't want to reciprocate in kind.


- This became even clearer that as soon as the group had the possibility to attack, it did so - but not Lilian, but Gladiator. Which imo is not such a good idea if you wish to pull back someone out of the enemy's thrall.

Frankly? Had I been running this? The party would have had a vote for "no kid gloves". I.E. drop you to -10 quickly, and move on. They tried to distract and harry you until the magical influence could be magically combatted. In a game where there are respawns? I'd have been all for just killing you and sorting it out later.

Of course, your defensive buffs were geared for that approach. Had the party been "going for blood", death ward would have been much more useful.

So, in other words, any tactic that would have been effective was shut down through buffs, or through occasional ally action. And yet, these buffs were all worthless, by your measure.

As if.


Lilian at long last went against the nature of Gladiator. This triggered another saving throw which thanks to his high will save was successful.So, when he failed the first time, it was bad luck. When he succeeded this time, it's obviously due to his exceptional prowess?

If you're gonna own the good, own the bad.

[Starbuck_II]

SNA 6: multi-
1d3 Nixie would charm him of no dominate issue. He'd fail eventually (he had to to be dominate in first place)
1 Pixie Irreistible dance (no save rules) him, entangle him, etc.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Giacomo, did I forget to mention that one of the contributing factors to your performance was bad luck on the part of the party, such as the fact that Dok rolled a natural 3 on his concentration check for the first SNA6 when you attacked him?

You also rolled well against Tina and Jaya, which was most unlucky for them.

If bad luck is an excuse for you, I believe it is an excuse for us as well.

By the way, I talked with Olo. He says that you gave him some hints in your PM, but he does not remember you telling him what you claim to have said.

[Arakune]

This is going on forever!

Can't we make Gia fight with the party and then make another core meatshield to try to replicate his feats and see how well/bad they compare?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It would distract from the current game, though if you want to run a few Wizard vs Monk pvps with you being the monk, I'd be happy to oblige.

[Arakune]

Not so much as pvps, but actual dungeoncrawling.

Me, monk? No thanks, i'm cool.

[Kurald Galain]

I love random treasure generators, by the way, especially for gems. There are so many bizarre varieties. Half the time I don't even know what the words mean (and I actually know quite a lot about gems). Without using a search or a book, how many of these would you know?

Beljuril: a bright jewel that makes a tinkly noice when struck.

Kornerupine: part of a dais that is used to keep the edges of the room aloft.

Buergerite: a children's gift in Happy Meals.

Easy :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

So on the one hand we have the statement that "the monk wiped the floor with the rest of the party".

On the other hand, we have the facts that (a) said monk was accompanied by half a dozen others, most notably a high level caster; (b) said high level caster knew how to prepare specifically against the party; (c) said monk had over a dozen buff spells active; (d) said monk isn't actually using monk abilities, unless "being permanently enlarged and full attacking with a spiked chain" is a class feature that somehow got omitted from d20srd.org; (e) the party wasn't in fact trying to kill or damage the monk; (f) due to miscommunication, the party did not start out with the summoned creatures they were planning on; and most importantly (g) the side that the monk was fighting for, LOST. Did I miss anything?

Oh, and anyone who blames luck in fights such as these should read up on what high-ranking Poker or Magic players have to say about blaming luck.

[mostlyharmful]

So on the one hand we have the statement that "the monk wiped the floor with the rest of the party".

On the other hand, we have the facts that (a) said monk was accompanied by half a dozen others, most notably a high level caster; (b) said high level caster knew how to prepare specifically against the party; (c) said monk had over a dozen buff spells active; (d) said monk isn't actually using monk abilities, unless "being permanently enlarged and full attacking with a spiked chain" is a class feature that somehow got omitted from d20srd.org; (e) the party wasn't in fact trying to kill or damage the monk; (f) due to miscommunication, the party did not start out with the summoned creatures they were planning on; and most importantly (g) the side that the monk was fighting for, LOST. Did I miss anything?

Oh, and anyone who blames luck in fights such as these should read up on what high-ranking Poker or Magic players have to say about blaming luck.

- The high level caster didn't just know what to prepare but also when to cast their short duration buffs, since their duration is an important limiting factor being able to tell exactly when to nova in prep for a fight is also a big deal.

[PhoenixRivers]

So what can we tell from this fight?

Well, for one, it's an atypical fight, drastically so.

Between the massive amount of buffing, and the opponents faced?

Gladiator fought enemies that in no way represent the typical foes that he's expected to face.

The party, likewise.

So, rather than compare strong vs. weak, we take away the truths.

In situations of limited vision, those with good senses have an edge. In this instance, Gladiator's optimization towards fighting in the limited visibility conditions the party frequently generate worked in his favor, like it should. That means it worked against the party.

The very tactics that were supposed to strengthen the party, once the party is divided, severely hamper it.

So:

1) When engaging an enemy that you've trained with, don't use the usual tricks. Think up new ones.

2) The monk's listen skill did play a significant role. Ranger could have also done this, but that's beside the point. It played a role because the party had synergy when working together. It resonated when they didn't.

This isn't a whose dad can beat up whose. This is an example of how teamwork breaks down, and how it can be turned on itself.

Gladiator won? No. The party won? No. In this example, every PC lost. They squandered resources against each other that were best diverted to the enemy. That the enemy was driven off is irrelevant. When PC fights PC in a BBEG fight, the party is the worse for it.

Gladiator was dominated, and the party failed to end the effect fast enough. The very nature of the monk, with mostly defensive powers, made it that much worse in this situation, where the primary concern had to be overcoming the monk's defenses to break the enchantment hold on him.

In short? At this juncture? It would have been easier to just kill him, than to overcome saves. The dominate effect got through.

Of course, this is all hindsight. 20/20 and all.

But yes.
Wizard lost.
Druid lost.
Rogue lost.
Monk lost.

Everyone loses in these situations. Everyone.

[Freelance Henchman]

Everyone loses in these situations. Everyone.

Nah, I for one (as one of the spectators) enjoyed the whole thing. :smallsmile:

[PhoenixRivers]

Nah, I for one (as one of the spectators) enjoyed the whole thing. :smallsmile:

Well, spectators always win. We have popcorn.

[mostlyharmful]

Rogue lost.

Everyone loses in these situations. Everyone.

Nuh-uh! I got pretty clothes. I call that a win:smallbiggrin:

[sofawall]

Nuh-uh! I got pretty clothes. I call that a win:smallbiggrin:

And we got Confusion speeches. (teehee)

[mostlyharmful]

And we got Confusion speeches. (teehee)

You are now added to the mean list. When I'm world dictator you'll be sorry!

[OracleofWuffing]

Nuh-uh! I got pretty clothes. I call that a win:smallbiggrin:
We get to see Tina with "some more revealing stuff," so I think that's actually a double win. Bat-signal-wipe to the Dungeons and Dames topic! :smalltongue:

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi again,

PhoenixRivers made some good points.
Yes, the fight was atypical.
And yes, no-one really won in terms of what a group normally would want to achieve. (eventually, though, the group won in that Gladiator got free of the opponent's thrall, and said opponent withdrew. They even got the treasure...:smallbiggrin:).

Still, it is a play test / test of spite thread about seeing how well the monk performs technically. So, regardless of how this combat came about we need to ask ourselves how strong in combat the monk was.

It goes without question that the monk dominated this encounter.
So, naturally, questions arise:
1. was the monk only lucky?
2. were the other characters overall not really as optimised?
3. did the other characters not really put much effort into it/did they not just attack well enough (because they wanted not to harm Gladiator)?
4. Didn't the monk have an overwhelming advantage only because
a) he was buffed with dozens of spells (half of which were actually harmful, but still. ..)
b) he had decisive help without which he would have lost?

These questions have been answered differently, and from my posts so far here and answering to Kurald Galain's statement below in a spoilered PS it will become apparent what my answers are.

Now, I have been thinking for a couple of days.

I have moved from arguing and providing tests to now mostly tests only to show that, yes, a monk is not underpowered and yes, he makes a viable contribution to any party within a core rulesset (and likely beyond as well).

But I think I have approached it in a wrong way.

You see, I have been jumping to oppose parts of statements with either arguments or tests or numbers (e.g. "monk cannot grapple really well"; "monk has no chance alone vs a minotaur at the level this CR comes up", "monk cannot do 300 damage per round ever" etc.)
All to no avail it seems (although the number of people starting to see my points increase gradually).

So here is my suggestion to two of the most devoted monk-doubters around here: Pharao's Fist and Kurald Galain (of course, others could also join)
Please provide me with a challenge, duel, setting or whatever else that YOU think a monk SHOULD be able to do within the core environment and illustrate how this is achieved by a similar non-caster class that you suggest.

And then I'll try to achieve that with a build of mine.

Because, you see, I have the feeling even if the monk performs well in this setting and even if you ever abandon all of the four question marks above for the current test, even if all of this is settled, that you then simply maintain stuff like
"Yeah, but the barbarian (and every other class) could do it better."

Note that I'll whole-heartedly continue this particular monkening test since it is such great fun (also for other posters judging from this thread) and imo has moved on from a mere monk test to a fun game and lots of stuff to learn how core combat and game balance works.

Now let's move on to the next encounter!

- Giacomo

The PS spoiler response to Kurald Galain for those who still intend to read on about the last encounter.



On the other hand, we have the facts that (a) said monk was accompanied by half a dozen others, most notably a high level caster;

The high-level caster did something noticeable in 3 out of 11 rounds of combat and then left. This was: invisibility purge, confusion against Tina who already was knocked out before by Gladiator and something that made the wall of force vanish.
As for the rest, Dok's charmed animal companion did some healf-hearted attack in the beginning and then withdrew from combat when Dok arrived. And the 4 priests? With an attack bonus of +8 and 1d8+3 damage for each one attack they did per round? I do not think they mattered. Granted, one of the priests was lucky to dispel Tina's fly in the beginning ...:smallsmile:


(b) said high level caster knew how to prepare specifically against the party;

Yes, she knew, but hardly acted on it.


(c) said monk had over a dozen buff spells active;

And as was already said, only fly had any (and only small) relevance for the combat outcome that we have seen. Coming to think of it: the protection from good added no combat value to Gladiator, but prevented the summons from performing for a while.


(d) said monk isn't actually using monk abilities, unless "being permanently enlarged and full attacking with a spiked chain" is a class feature that somehow got omitted from d20srd.org;

When you check the class description of a monk, you'll notice exactly that being permanently enlarged and full attacking with a spiked chain is not part of the class abilities.
But this is not what was relevant in the game. Relevant was being able to do 5 attacks per round (no other class can do that at those kinds of base attack bonuses at that level), and the synergy of enlarge that works best of all classes with monk due to the damage scaling, and relevant was having imporoved trip as a bonus feat without needing INT 13 and listen as a class skill to pinpoint.
Of course a ranger and others also have listen as class skill - but this is tantamount to saying that greater dispel magic of Jaya was not really a class skill since other classes also have it in their spell lists.


(e) the party wasn't in fact trying to kill or damage the monk;

They were. Do you wish me to list the posts where they tried or in fact did? I have no clue why they did not put pressure on Lilian when they were able to (after all, killing Lilian would have ended the dominate person more efficiently than killing Gladiator). But coming here now to say they did not even try to fight Gladiator reasonably well and due to this he performed so well is not correct imo.


(f) due to miscommunication, the party did not start out with the summoned creatures they were planning on;

That was really unfortunate. But note that 1) summoned creatures might get lost when going through a portal like this one and 2) the unicorns entering the area might have been dispelled immediately by Lilian.


and most importantly (g) the side that the monk was fighting for, LOST. Did I miss anything?

Yes. A lot. First of all, the side the monk was "fighting for" only lost because said monk has such a sky-high will save to have succeeded at shaking off the dominate person in the end. Guess what would have happened in case a barbarian, fighter or different tank (even the multi-class one Pharao's Fist proposed) had been in his place? And being ordered to kill his friends after Lilian left?
Dok had been out of powerful spells, as admitted by Olo. Jaya had limited way to affect Gladiator at all, anyhow, as admitted by Pharao's fist. And the confused Tina ... well, no need to delve on that further.


Oh, and anyone who blames luck in fights such as these should read up on what high-ranking Poker or Magic players have to say about blaming luck.

Did you direct that remark to Pharao's fist who said that throughout ELEVEN rounds, Gladiator allegedly had great luck hitting his opponents?
There is a great difference between rolling a 3 when you need a 4 or more on a 1d20 (as in the case of Gladiator's first dominate person save) and being hit often enough when a melee build dishes out full attack after full attack throughout most of the eleven rounds that this combat took (even in line with statistics theory)

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Because, you see, I have the feeling even if the monk performs well in this setting and even if you ever abandon all of the four question marks above for the current test, even if all of this is settled, that you then simply maintain stuff like
"Yeah, but the barbarian (and every other class) could do it better."
It does. It totally does. (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=30547)

[Roland St. Jude]

So is this thread primarily just another monk argument at this point? Or does it have some other ongoing purpose? Does it belong here in Roleplaying Games, or should I move it to the OOC section?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I wasn't supposed to be a monk thread or an OOC thread (We already have an OOC thread, technically) but I can't control the way it goes...

I originally just wanted to post my campaign diary in the manner of other people.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Now, I have been thinking for a couple of days.

I have moved from arguing and providing tests to now mostly tests only to show that, yes, a monk is not underpowered and yes, he makes a viable contribution to any party within a core rulesset (and likely beyond as well).

But I think I have approached it in a wrong way.

You see, I have been jumping to oppose parts of statements with either arguments or tests or numbers (e.g. "monk cannot grapple really well"; "monk has no chance alone vs a minotaur at the level this CR comes up", "monk cannot do 300 damage per round ever" etc.)
All to no avail it seems (although the number of people starting to see my points increase gradually).

So here is my suggestion to two of the most devoted monk-doubters around here: Pharao's Fist and Kurald Galain (of course, others could also join)
Please provide me with a challenge, duel, setting or whatever else that YOU think a monk SHOULD be able to do within the core environment and illustrate how this is achieved by a similar non-caster class that you suggest.

And then I'll try to achieve that with a build of mine.

Because, you see, I have the feeling even if the monk performs well in this setting and even if you ever abandon all of the four question marks above for the current test, even if all of this is settled, that you then simply maintain stuff like
"Yeah, but the barbarian (and every other class) could do it better."


Now, here's what I think. To keep this thread from wandering off topic and being locked as just another monk thread, how about you keep these sorts of private challenges to PMs and talk about Gladiator and his performance in this thread?

I, having no ability to control this thread, cannot force us to keep on topic and prevent thread closure, but it would be in the best interest of the discussion if we were to continue to have a thread to discuss things on and a diary that can be updated.

[mostlyharmful]

Since we're going slightly more on topic, I was thinking of actually talking about tactics BEFORE we have to use them (whacky idea I know). Seeing as how the whole visual effects/impairment is the closest thing we've got to a running joke (except our general tendency to die a lot) I'm thinking we should keep it but maybe choose to use it more sparingly, give Saph a break and Tina can keep SAing things.

Battlefield control seems to be something we're putting a lot of effort into with a fairly confused output, we seem to get in each others way, so why don't we think about it and come up with some strategy and trust Saph not to adjust to meet it?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Did I hear someone order a Lightening Bolt with a side of Scorching Ray, and a nice refreshing Cone of Cold to top it off?

[mostlyharmful]

Blasterific.... but not me... that guy over there! Look, he's getting away! Run in that direction while I hide behind this smilie:smalleek:

Edit: So, to parse your incoherent blather into something interpretable... are you saying you'll be focussed on blasting from now on rather than dropping Illusionary darkness or whathaveyou? Or are you just threatening me again?:smallwink:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It is not inconceivable that I will do both; they are not mutually exclusive. I could, for example, Lightening Bolt someone and have it pass through your square.

[mostlyharmful]

It is not inconceivable that I will do both; they are not mutually exclusive. I could, for example, Lightening Bolt someone and have it pass through your square.

Actually I was talking about the action economy system forcing you to focus on one or the other of blasting or battlefield control rather than effective blasting or backstabbing blasting. You're playing the wizard, yes I know there's almost no end of things you could blast including your teammates. Now please remember the last time you attacked Tina and how rubbish you were at it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116095&page=42) and just admit it'd be a bad idea to attack someone so smokin' hot!

[PhoenixRivers]

PhoenixRivers made some good points.
Yes, the fight was atypical.
And yes, no-one really won in terms of what a group normally would want to achieve. (eventually, though, the group won in that Gladiator got free of the opponent's thrall, and said opponent withdrew. They even got the treasure...:smallbiggrin:).No. This is what's known as "mission shift". When defeating the enemy becomes not losing, and driving him/her off.


Still, it is a play test / test of spite thread about seeing how well the monk performs technically. So, regardless of how this combat came about we need to ask ourselves how strong in combat the monk was.That the monk is more difficult to defeat than a typical CR 12 encounter says little. Typical CR 12 Encounters have much less in the way of buffs. Typical CR12 encounters have much less in the way of immunities. Typical CR12 encounters have much less in the way of saves. So what the party was fighting was not a typical demonstration of the enemy a party would fight. What gladiator was fighting was not typical of his foes.


It goes without question that the monk dominated this encounter.

No. The monk WAS dominated in this encounter. What is the purpose of a PC in a party?

The purpose is to contribute to a party. We judge effectiveness by how WELL a character does that.

How well did Gladiator contribute to the party, the goals?

The single thing he did was make a second save versus a dominate.

Every other action he took... Every move... Every step... Took from the group's strength. Every punch he landed on a party member is a detraction from his effectiveness in the party. Every member he knocked out is another failing.


...I think I have approached it in a wrong way.
I agree.

D&D is, at its core, a party game. You are supposed to be in a party. You are supposed to work with a party. You are supposed to complement and synergize with a party.

This is what makes a batman wizard so effective. Why hit the enemy with a fireball and a magic missile? Haste on the entire party and Enlarge Person on the melee type work better, because they synergize with the party's abilities.

Actions which support the party (buffs/terrain shaping) are judged by what can be done with them. An extra attack. Extra movement. Extra accuracy. Extra damage.

Actions which lessen party threats (Ray of Enfeeblement, etc.) are judged by the same.

Actions which knock out other party members? Those are judged in the "bad" column.

Gladiator fought a car with 3 wheels. The party was originally designed around the concept of having a front line fighter, someone to harry and pressure the opponent. When that is taken away, significant gaps in the party's defenses open up.

That doesn't prove Gladiator's prowess. When his role was needed, he wasn't there. Whether or not he could hit a 3 wheeled car isn't relevant any longer. He couldn't be a contribution to his group. Regardless of anything else you could say, that is failure on the most fundamental level. You can say he got dominated and beat up the party well... Is that an argument that you would use to make people more inclined to adventure with this guy? That he can attack his allies well? That he can't be counted on to be there? No. This fight doesn't provide much argument for monk as a team player.

As I said. Every participant failed. There is no backtracking. There is no mitigation. Everyone, monk included, failed at the most basic level, on party synergy. And without a party, working together, it's individuals. And it's been shown, time and again, even the classes thought strongest are vulnerable when alone.

[Starbuck_II]

Just want to say Tina's picture is hot.

Yeah, the fight mostly showed that Monks are great at holding things at bay, but not whether they are good Party members.

[Tiki Snakes]

Just want to say Tina's picture is hot.

Yeah, the fight mostly showed that Monks are great at holding things at bay, but not whether they are good Party members.

Actually, it pretty much showed me that enlarged flying chain trippers are great at holding things at bay. ;)

[Sir Giacomo]

PhoenixRivers,

I think there are some misunderstandings that I'll try to clarify.


No. This is what's known as "mission shift". When defeating the enemy becomes not losing, and driving him/her off.
That the monk is more difficult to defeat than a typical CR 12 encounter says little. Typical CR 12 Encounters have much less in the way of buffs. Typical CR12 encounters have much less in the way of immunities. Typical CR12 encounters have much less in the way of saves. So what the party was fighting was not a typical demonstration of the enemy a party would fight. What gladiator was fighting was not typical of his foes.

Here I whole-heartedly agree. But note that a party can encounter an npc monk, although that monk would be less effective due to less equipment/items.


No. The monk WAS dominated in this encounter. What is the purpose of a PC in a party?

The purpose is to contribute to a party. We judge effectiveness by how WELL a character does that.

How well did Gladiator contribute to the party, the goals?

The single thing he did was make a second save versus a dominate.

Every other action he took... Every move... Every step... Took from the group's strength. Every punch he landed on a party member is a detraction from his effectiveness in the party. Every member he knocked out is another failing.

Here is the first misunderstanding.
Of course from the party perspective the failed dominate person almost led to its TPK. Almost, I say, because Gladiator due to his high will save and Dok's unicorns made the second save comfortably.
But since this whole playtest was to show how strong a monk performs in combat, we can have a look at this encounter on a more abstract level.
Saph ruled the dominate person in such a way to make such a pvp-like encounter happen in this setting as well. As a DM I'd have seen several instances of "going against nature" way before the inter-party combat even started, believe me :smallwink:
This would have meant either Gladiator had defeated Lilian alone and would have just been waiting for the others when they came in prepared for combat. Or he would have died and respawned with the others.
No big damage done to the group either way.
But this is the way Saph ruled it and while I think it was interesting to have such an encounter as well, I'm also glad that it is over.


I agree.

D&D is, at its core, a party game. You are supposed to be in a party. You are supposed to work with a party. You are supposed to complement and synergize with a party.

Another misunderstanding and I think you misquoted me. The way you wrote it, it makes appear as if I would be against group play. Of course I am not.
When I said "...I think I have approached it in a wrong way." I was referring to how I repeatedly jump through hoops and arguments of the monk-doubting side and they never really specify what THEY really think a monk should be able to do in a core environment. Once they specify that, I can put up builds for testing and/or arguments of my own.


This is what makes a batman wizard so effective. Why hit the enemy with a fireball and a magic missile? Haste on the entire party and Enlarge Person on the melee type work better, because they synergize with the party's abilities.

And yet so many disagreed with this approach, saying they would never consider buffing non-casters in general and monks in particular in their group ("leeching off caster power") that I came up with this whole UMD idea: to get more buffs on the non-casters.
But I always maintained and still do that the best way to get buffs is from the fellow pc casters in the group.
We can see though, that in the monkening test group this also is somewhat subdued so far. Gladiator brought up the issue again, but so far there was no reaction.
In case, for instance, Jaya would have buffed Gladiator in encounter 3 with a simple 2nd level heroism lasting 120 minutes or even 240 minutes with his rod of extend (instead of, for instance, lying to him and hedging him out with a resilient sphere to fend against shadows for himself), he would not have been dominated by Lilian (not counting his combat effectiveness would have been enhanced greatly).
I guess this is what you mean by synergy.


Actions which support the party (buffs/terrain shaping) are judged by what can be done with them. An extra attack. Extra movement. Extra accuracy. Extra damage.

Actions which lessen party threats (Ray of Enfeeblement, etc.) are judged by the same.

Actions which knock out other party members? Those are judged in the "bad" column.

I never doubted that. But as I said above, we approach this inter-party-combat encounter in different ways.
I never said that a monk is great because he can get dominated so easily and thus can kill the other party members due to his powers.
I said that A monk (generic term here) had been surprisingly powerful in this combat and took it as further evidence that the monk is not underpowered. To the other explanations I objected ("bad luck", "buffed too much", "pcs did not put much effort into it" etc).


Gladiator fought a car with 3 wheels. The party was originally designed around the concept of having a front line fighter, someone to harry and pressure the opponent. When that is taken away, significant gaps in the party's defenses open up.

Now that is something that I agree to. Because it showcases that the monk is needed, reinforcing the impression that the monk is not underpowered.


That doesn't prove Gladiator's prowess. When his role was needed, he wasn't there. Whether or not he could hit a 3 wheeled car isn't relevant any longer. He couldn't be a contribution to his group. Regardless of anything else you could say, that is failure on the most fundamental level. You can say he got dominated and beat up the party well... Is that an argument that you would use to make people more inclined to adventure with this guy? That he can attack his allies well? That he can't be counted on to be there? No. This fight doesn't provide much argument for monk as a team player.

But it does. Because, as you said yourself, the monk missing in the team meant he was important for the team before.
And again I say: you cannot pinpoint a failed save in the monk's best save (and best save of all classes) to be a disadvantage of that class. It's just bad luck - it would be tantamount to saying Pharao's Fist dragon disciple with Fort +18 is really weak in this regard in case he rolled a "1" against a monk's stunning fist DC of 19.:smallsmile:


As I said. Every participant failed. There is no backtracking. There is no mitigation. Everyone, monk included, failed at the most basic level, on party synergy. And without a party, working together, it's individuals. And it's been shown, time and again, even the classes thought strongest are vulnerable when alone.

Well, to give this thread a new spin: what kind of better party synergy and/or group tactics would you suggest?

- Giacomo

PS: another spoilered answer, this time to Pharao's Fist updated dragon disciple build that allegedly would be better than the Gladiator build in all regards

The update does not change the picture and my previous answer much.
Again, the multiclass build has more hp (but loses more due to the vicious chain, and has no healing capability of its own), does about similar damage per hit, with similar attack bonuses, but has less attacks. He has a lower AC than Gladiator, but better ways to get miss chances (I like the mirror image wand! I could kick myself for getting the slippers of spider climb and not such a wand to regularly fill the ring of spell storing with ...).
He has worse reflex and will saves, but a better fort save (though without poison and disease immunities).

For the 3 and half encounters so far, the performance would have been similar.
Encounter 1:
I guess the multiclass would have performed somewhat better. Difficult to tell, in particular if the multiclass had made similar tactical mistakes as Gladiator:smallsmile:.
Encounter 2:
The multiclass would have had a better CON mod and thus more likely survived the drowning attack (note that this is due to equipment choice only).
Encounter 3:
The multiclass has a lower will save and thus more easily been dominated by Lilian. Moreover, in the ensuing fight against the group, the multiclass would have suffered -4 to attacks trying to do non-lethal damage only. Also, succeeding at the second will save to avoid killing the group would have been more difficult.

Overall a well-made build, but I still prefer the Gladiator monk, likely because I do not like my characters looking like some dwarven lizard:smallbiggrin:.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Now here's what I think. Spoilered to shorten the post.


Encounter 2:
The multiclass would have had a better CON mod and thus more likely survived the drowning attack (note that this is due to equipment choice only).
I guess not having to spend money on wands gives you the ability to boost Con.

Note that this build can rage (a class feature!) and would have had more than just the equipment contributing to Con.


Encounter 3:
The multiclass has a lower will save and thus more easily been dominated by Lilian. Moreover, in the ensuing fight against the group, the multiclass would have suffered -4 to attacks trying to do non-lethal damage only.
The multiclass would have gone for lethal damage and "won" the encounter. Assuming he chose to take the penalty, the attack bonus would have still been higher than Gladiator's due to massive strength, a +1 weapon, and full BAB.


Also, succeeding at the second will save to avoid killing the group would have been more difficult.
No. He would have Raged, which gives +2 to will saves. That would mean that his will save exceeded that of Gladiator's normal will save and equaled Gladiators' will save vs enchantment.



Overall a well-made build, but I still prefer the Gladiator monk, likely because I do not like my characters looking like some dwarven lizard.
But here's the question: what does the monk bring to the table that another melee character does not? I post the Dragon Disciple as an example of another melee build, and so far the only difference between that and your monk that you have pointed out have been:

1. A worse reflex save. Reflex is arguably the least important of all saves.
2. A better fort save. Second most important save.
3. A will save that is weaker vs enchantments when not raging, but a higher will save when raging not limited to just enchantment. Each of the builds is situationally better than the other when it comes to will saves. I'll give it a tie.
4. Not looking like a lizard. Avoids xenophobia, I suppose, but Gladiator looks like a dwarf...
5. No healing. At which point I must point out that healing potions exist.

You didn't point this out, but there is no need for the Dragon Disciple to UMD arcane wands, which means he can cast from wands in combat instead of waiting three or four rounds to hit DC 20 on average, and risking being locked out of the wand on a natural 1.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

By the way, did Saph make you roll saves vs the magic circle effects?

[Kurald Galain]

ANow please remember the last time you attacked Tina and how rubbish you were at it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116095&page=42) and just admit it'd be a bad idea to attack someone so smokin' hot!

Wouldn't you be a lot more smokin' hot after being hit by a fireball? :smallbiggrin:

[mostlyharmful]

Wouldn't you be a lot more smokin' hot after being hit by a fireball? :smallbiggrin:

Blink and Evasion... Fireballs can kiss my hinnie!:smallcool:

[PhoenixRivers]

I think there are some misunderstandings that I'll try to clarify.

Here I whole-heartedly agree. But note that a party can encounter an npc monk, although that monk would be less effective due to less equipment/items.And the gimped 25 point buy that is the Elite array. That's big.


Here is the first misunderstanding.
Of course from the party perspective the failed dominate person almost led to its TPK. Almost, I say, because Gladiator due to his high will save and Dok's unicorns made the second save comfortably.From any objective perspective, the failed save nearly led to a TPK, and did cost valuable resources.

A core argument for monk strength is that he has better saving throws/magic defenses than other melee. How does this translate to a mechanical advantage, if he needs the same buffs as everyone else to protect from spell effects?


But since this whole playtest was to show how strong a monk performs in combat, we can have a look at this encounter on a more abstract level.
Saph ruled the dominate person in such a way to make such a pvp-like encounter happen in this setting as well. As a DM I'd have seen several instances of "going against nature" way before the inter-party combat even started, believe me :smallwink:The ultimate objective is party contribution. All other concerns are secondary. That includes damage output.

And I wouldn't see "going against nature". The way I interpret that is that it must go against a core tenet of the character. A samurai ordered to strike his lord. A paladin ordered to commit a clearly evil act. A cleric ordered to worship an opposed god. A pacifist ordered to kill.

My interpretation is that it must be a principal part of who you are to justify such a save. "opposing the party" isn't enough. Ordered to do something that would preclude doing something that is in your nature, without explicitly forbidding it, isn't enough. (For example, being ordered to defend Lilian's escape, when perceived allies are dying, allies that you could protect. The order is to cover an escape. That it stops you from doing something you'd normally do as a collateral effect is irrelevant. She didn't order you not to save someone. The order doesn't directly violate even a protector's code.

There are multiple interpretations, and Saph's was valid. There's no use in arguing "what if". The ruling was valid. In other words, most DM's are going to rule it has to be something that the character would fight with every fibre of his being. Waffles versus French Toast doesn't generally cut it.


Another misunderstanding and I think you misquoted me. The way you wrote it, it makes appear as if I would be against group play. Of course I am not.
When I said "...I think I have approached it in a wrong way." I was referring to how I repeatedly jump through hoops and arguments of the monk-doubting side and they never really specify what THEY really think a monk should be able to do in a core environment. Once they specify that, I can put up builds for testing and/or arguments of my own.I'm not saying such a thing. I'm saying that you're judging the monk's performance in a vacuum. The core principle every player wants in a comrade is "is this character going to help me accomplish what I set out to do". The core issue is group contribution.

It's like taking a train from missouri. You state how well the train can get you to Miami, because you think it's fast, and powerful...

And then neglect to see that the train is headed to Sacramento. No matter how fast it is, if you're headed in the wrong direction, you'll never fulfill the goal.


And yet so many disagreed with this approach, saying they would never consider buffing non-casters in general and monks in particular in their group ("leeching off caster power") that I came up with this whole UMD idea: to get more buffs on the non-casters.
But I always maintained and still do that the best way to get buffs is from the fellow pc casters in the group.
We can see though, that in the monkening test group this also is somewhat subdued so far. Gladiator brought up the issue again, but so far there was no reaction.Logicninja didn't disagree with this approach. Most players don't. What players dispute is that "Buff the monk" is the best use of round 1 of combat. Sometimes it's seperating the front couple enemies from reinforcements. Sometimes it's denying the enemy a dex bonus to AC. The point is, while a wizard is supporting the characters, it won't always be in the manner that benefits your personal combat the most. Doing everything else encompasses a lot. While he's supporting you, he's not your pocket buffer.

That's the point. Not that he shouldn't be a team player. Just that the focus isn't the monk. It's overcoming the foes. (above, examples were Wall of Force and Grease, for seperating and denying dex, both of which give the party a marked advantage... The first is less enemies to fight at once, which lowers damage, and allows the party to concentrate fire easier. The second renders an enemy easier to hit, and hinders its ability to move.)


In case, for instance, Jaya would have buffed Gladiator in encounter 3 with a simple 2nd level heroism lasting 120 minutes or even 240 minutes with his rod of extend (instead of, for instance, lying to him and hedging him out with a resilient sphere to fend against shadows for himself), he would not have been dominated by Lilian (not counting his combat effectiveness would have been enhanced greatly).Hindsight is a funny thing. Did he have a clue that Lilian was enchantment focused? It's not a common focus. If he did that in round 1, would Lilian have seen the action, and shifted to a different action? There are a lot of what if's. And let's not forget... Pharoah's not running Batman. He's running the WotC archetype... Which is blasty.


I never doubted that. But as I said above, we approach this inter-party-combat encounter in different ways.
I never said that a monk is great because he can get dominated so easily and thus can kill the other party members due to his powers.
I said that A monk (generic term here) had been surprisingly powerful in this combat and took it as further evidence that the monk is not underpowered.He's also headed to Sacramento, when the goal is Miami. Party contribution is the core tenet. Power can be a contributing factor, but, in this instance, the monk's defenses did not protect him from an effect, and it caused severe problems for the party. Why is this a valid point? Because the monk's saving throws have been championed by you as allowing him to resist these types of effects. And that is not foolproof.

The issue we need to look at in each encounter, is "how did each character contribute to victory? how well did they do that? how essential were they?" When the monk's damage contributes to victory, it needs to be counted. When it does not, it should not.


Now that is something that I agree to. Because it showcases that the monk is needed, reinforcing the impression that the monk is not underpowered.It shows that the monk's role was needed. It shows that the party was built under the impression that the monk would be there, defending from melee.

It does not show how effectively the monk would have supported his role. It merely shows that he was not there to even try. He failed before he even started. It reveals the expectations that were set for his performance, and the failure to meet them. It does not show that he was powerful. Why? Because it doesn't show how well he would have. Only that he was expected to protect the party from melee threat, and did not do so.


But it does. Because, as you said yourself, the monk missing in the team meant he was important for the team before.I mean that the party assigned him an important task. Which he failed to perform, due to domination. I do not imply that he would have performed that task sufficiently, nor do I imply that he would have failed. Both are assumptions that are not based on the information at hand.


And again I say: you cannot pinpoint a failed save in the monk's best save (and best save of all classes) to be a disadvantage of that class. It's just bad luck - it would be tantamount to saying Pharao's Fist dragon disciple with Fort +18 is really weak in this regard in case he rolled a "1" against a monk's stunning fist DC of 19.:smallsmile:Would you have failed on only a 1? Somehow I believe you exaggerate. "Bad Luck" is what such tests are designed to eliminate. Repeated testing will, in theory, show statistical strengths. What this has shown is that the monk is not immune to such effects. Resistance will be determined over time, against more CR appropriate foes. We're not blaming the monk's failure on poor saves. We're simply stating the monk's failure on the save. This is a fact, without emotional bias or implication. The reason for failure is left to the reader. To accurately determine odds of failure, more than "bad luck" is needed. Statistical odds would support this claim. Facts are what I'm supporting here. Facts and truths. I'm leaving opinions to others.


Well, to give this thread a new spin: what kind of better party synergy and/or group tactics would you suggest?Creative. Unorthodox. Tactically sound. Asymmetrical warfare. Doing the unexpected. It's based on what people don't expect. Which means that the best moves are always changing. Some basic tactics remain though.

Avoid splitting forces.
Hit where the enemy is weak, with where you are strong.
Conceal and protect your weaknesses.
Make it difficult for the enemy to predict you. This can be done either by being unpredictable, or by leaving multiple effective options available, forcing the opponent to guess what you're going to do.

That's why prepared casters have something of an advantage, in the last area. They can change their options daily, and it's nearly impossible to identify what the wizard has prepared. So more things need to be protected against. In other areas, they have multiple options for information denial, protection, and most of their abilities can hit anywhere on the battlefield at any time.

Some of these rules can be bent. Others, broken. But you need a good reason to do so. A very good reason.

[Sir Giacomo]

Well, I think, PhoenixRivers, that we agree only that the interparty combat just narrowly avoided TPK.
But whereas you just see that the monk took the wrong train, I see that the whole point of this test is to see how well a monk can travel in a train, so to speak.:smallsmile:

Some points remaining...



A core argument for monk strength is that he has better saving throws/magic defenses than other melee. How does this translate to a mechanical advantage, if he needs the same buffs as everyone else to protect from spell effects?

But he does not need the same magical defense buffs. If he IS buffed, he is then even stronger. I do not think that it can be doubted that a class with +8 to will saves is better than a class with +4 to saves and will remain so once both classes will receive a +2 to saves.


And I wouldn't see "going against nature". The way I interpret that is that it must go against a core tenet of the character. A samurai ordered to strike his lord. A paladin ordered to commit a clearly evil act. A cleric ordered to worship an opposed god. A pacifist ordered to kill.

My interpretation is that it must be a principal part of who you are to justify such a save. "opposing the party" isn't enough. Ordered to do something that would preclude doing something that is in your nature, without explicitly forbidding it, isn't enough. (For example, being ordered to defend Lilian's escape, when perceived allies are dying, allies that you could protect. The order is to cover an escape. That it stops you from doing something you'd normally do as a collateral effect is irrelevant. She didn't order you not to save someone. The order doesn't directly violate even a protector's code.

There are multiple interpretations, and Saph's was valid. There's no use in arguing "what if". The ruling was valid. In other words, most DM's are going to rule it has to be something that the character would fight with every fibre of his being. Waffles versus French Toast doesn't generally cut it.

It is a bit more than waffles versus French Toast, I'm afraid, and I am surprised that you do not see this since I guess you read all the spoilered text.
I count several instances where many DMs would have seen a "going against nature", even before combat:
1. Lilian ordered Gladiator to share the bed with her after having revealed her true nature (tentacles included).
Now, I do not fully know what a lawful good ascetic hero of a notoriously xenophobic race would normally do, but having some pleasure with an evil alien after said alien mind-controlled him and was responsible for the death of his comrades IS going against someone's nature in my book.
2. Whenever you order a dominated creature to lower its save, it is going against its nature. You may be tricked when charmed into believing a particular spell is of benefitting nature. You may even succumb to a suggestion to do so. But when you fight a mental control, it is quite difficult imo to be tricked by the controller that a spell cast on you is going to be beneficiary.

But, as I said already, I accepted Saph's ruling, also because I thought it was highly atmospherically DMed at the time and because I thought the interparty combat was a nice excercise.
In no way did I think that the monk-doubting section would count rolling a 3 on 1d20 in the strongest monk's save as evidence that the whole class is weak.


Logicninja didn't disagree with this approach. Most players don't. What players dispute is that "Buff the monk" is the best use of round 1 of combat. Sometimes it's seperating the front couple enemies from reinforcements. Sometimes it's denying the enemy a dex bonus to AC. The point is, while a wizard is supporting the characters, it won't always be in the manner that benefits your personal combat the most. Doing everything else encompasses a lot. While he's supporting you, he's not your pocket buffer.

And this is where our interpretations of the same thing differ widely.
I have never suggested that a caster is should ALWAYS EVERY FIRST ROUND in combat buff the MONK IN PARTICULAR.
But at the levels we are talking about here (i.e. 12th), I do not see any reason at all, why casters should not spare some long-lasting 1st-3rd level spells to the non-casters of the group when they know there is going to be combat ahead. Because the synergy from doing so is immense (or, like Stoopidtallkid has done prior to the last combat, knowing that there are shadows somewhere, he put deathward on everyone).
The non-casters (and not only the monk) also, during every encounter of the day, put their lives at stake to protect the casters long enough for them to cast - and also to protect them when they have cast all their combat spells for the day. Often a buffed full attack can do more damage PER ROUND than a full caster can do with any of his offensive spells, effectively economising a caster's repertoire for the day.
This is what imo a group is about. The more abstract strategic recommendations for group play that you provide above/below are good, but there also needs to be tactical ideas on how a group can work better together. And buffing is part of that.


Party contribution is the core tenet. Power can be a contributing factor, but, in this instance, the monk's defenses did not protect him from an effect, and it caused severe problems for the party. Why is this a valid point? Because the monk's saving throws have been championed by you as allowing him to resist these types of effects. And that is not foolproof.

Of course it is not foolproof - as are all spells by casters, for instance.
Interestingly, the monk's high will save allowed him to at least make that second save. Other tanks (Pharao's fist multiclass included) would have had less probabiltiy to avoid ending up to really kill the group.


Would you have failed on only a 1? Somehow I believe you exaggerate.

No. You can check the spoilers if you do not believe me.


Creative. Unorthodox. Tactically sound. Asymmetrical warfare. Doing the unexpected. It's based on what people don't expect. Which means that the best moves are always changing. Some basic tactics remain though.

Avoid splitting forces.
Hit where the enemy is weak, with where you are strong.
Conceal and protect your weaknesses.
Make it difficult for the enemy to predict you. This can be done either by being unpredictable, or by leaving multiple effective options available, forcing the opponent to guess what you're going to do.

That's why prepared casters have something of an advantage, in the last area. They can change their options daily, and it's nearly impossible to identify what the wizard has prepared. So more things need to be protected against. In other areas, they have multiple options for information denial, protection, and most of their abilities can hit anywhere on the battlefield at any time.

Some of these rules can be bent. Others, broken. But you need a good reason to do so. A very good reason.

There are some good ideas here.
Remarks of mine:
- splitting forces really is not good, in particular not in this setting.
- doing the unexpected is a bit difficult to do in this setting where those you fight are usually prepared for you or at least have carefully chosen the terrain to their advantage. But I'll try to think up something.
- Prepared casters actually are not always at an advantage. Once the enemy also does the unexpected, many of the spells prepared are not appropriate for the situation. Additionally, a lot of spells can be blocked either by simple common tactics (total concealment, for instance), or only a few spells.

- Giacomo

PS: and the spoilered exchange of ideas on Pharao's Fist alternative tank build continues...




I guess not having to spend money on wands gives you the ability to boost Con.

In part, yes. And leaving some huge holes in defenses elsewhere (like low reflex save, low AC and taking 1d6 damage every time he hits without own means to heal).


Note that this build can rage (a class feature!) and would have had more than just the equipment contributing to Con.

Your build can actually rage only 2/day, so it is not always up. And for the situation in question: you cannot rage when it is not your turn (which was the case when the water bubbles surprisingly attacked). So it is no use against surprise attacks.


The multiclass would have gone for lethal damage and "won" the encounter. Assuming he chose to take the penalty, the attack bonus would have still been higher than Gladiator's due to massive strength, a +1 weapon, and full BAB.

Several mistakes imo.
He would not have "won" the encounter, but caused a TPK, something Gladiator avoided with his combat technique.
At -4 for non-lethal damage as Gladiator did, the attack bonus even of a raging multiclass would have been +16, in line with Gladiator's attack bonus, since your build does not have "full BAB", but only +10/+5 BAB.


No. He would have Raged, which gives +2 to will saves. That would mean that his will save exceeded that of Gladiator's normal will save and equaled Gladiators' will save vs enchantment.

Again, you cannot rage on another's turn. And even with rage, the multiclass has +15 save vs enchantment, vs Gladiator's +17. That's a clear difference.


But here's the question: what does the monk bring to the table that another melee character does not? I post the Dragon Disciple as an example of another melee build, and so far the only difference between that and your monk that you have pointed out have been:

1. A worse reflex save. Reflex is arguably the least important of all saves.
2. A better fort save. Second most important save.
3. A will save that is weaker vs enchantments when not raging, but a higher will save when raging not limited to just enchantment. Each of the builds is situationally better than the other when it comes to will saves. I'll give it a tie.
4. Not looking like a lizard. Avoids xenophobia, I suppose, but Gladiator looks like a dwarf...
5. No healing. At which point I must point out that healing potions exist.

1. I do not agree with you here - reflex save is very important, since it is the single big weakness of all casters excepting the bard. And most melees also are weak against it. Many monsters have low DEX mods and thus relatively low reflex saves.
2. Your fort save is clearly a definite advantage, albeit muted somewhat particular since your build lacks poison and disease immunity.
3. Will save of the monk is clearly higher as pointed out above.
4. well...
5. Healing potions exist, but cost either your or party rescources. The party may in particular not like that since your combat technique relies heavily on party healing when you could, like, take 3d6 damage per combat round on top of other damage done by the enemy.

And you appear to have overlooked the areas were the monk is better:
- more attacks at higher attack bonus overall (greater flurry, no -5 BAB steps for those)
- special attack on top (stunning fist)
- higher movement.
- improved evasion


You didn't point this out, but there is no need for the Dragon Disciple to UMD arcane wands, which means he can cast from wands in combat instead of waiting three or four rounds to hit DC 20 on average, and risking being locked out of the wand on a natural 1.

This is indeed a good thing, but it is not entirely clear whether losing one or two levels of monk for access to all arcane spells for wands beats spending some points cross-class into UMD and getting a ring of spell storing (and thus also get divine spells), or get buffs through other means (items without needing UMD, npc casters, fellow pc casters).

[mostlyharmful]

1. Lilian ordered Gladiator to share the bed with her after having revealed her true nature (tentacles included).
Now, I do not fully know what a lawful good ascetic hero of a notoriously xenophobic race would normally do, but having some pleasure with an evil alien after said alien mind-controlled him and was responsible for the death of his comrades IS going against someone's nature in my book.

There are some of us who haven't read the damn spoilers Gia.:smallyuk:

[ZeroNumerous]

There are some of us who haven't read the damn spoilers Gia.:smallyuk:

Some of us didn't want to read them either.

[Claudius Maximus]

Honestly, I think it's the sort of thing Gladiator would mention to the party.

[imperialspectre]

What, "btw, I had nonconsensual sex with the demon who tried to kill us all"? That's kinda hard to just blurt out.

[Claudius Maximus]

More like "Lilian is actually a tentacled monster". They should probably know that before they fight her again.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

What part of that helps me understand how to kill her better?

[Arakune]

What part of that helps me understand how to kill her better?

It helps with not staying in grapple range of her because of the tentacles (you may suggest Tina to try, though).

Wait, spellcaster. Nevermind...

[Claudius Maximus]

What part of that helps me understand how to kill her better?

You have high ranks in Knowledge: The Planes, and other such Knowledges right? A check based on his description could give you her most likely resistances.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I know she's vulnerable to cold, and have packed quite a few cold spells. I'm happy. :smallamused:

[PhoenixRivers]

Well, I think, PhoenixRivers, that we agree only that the interparty combat just narrowly avoided TPK.
But whereas you just see that the monk took the wrong train, I see that the whole point of this test is to see how well a monk can travel in a train, so to speak.:smallsmile:Hardly. If that was the only intent, then all we'd need is mechanical testing. Putting it in the context of a roleplayed party is only needed if you're testing effectiveness in a party setting.

You seem to feel that effectiveness is "hitting a target" and "hurting a target".

I seem to feel that it emcompasses more. That it encompasses identifying the correct target, hitting the right target, and effectively dealing with it.

No matter how good the damage of the attack is, it's no good if you miss. However, it's better to miss entirely than to hit the wrong target. Precision is more than having a high bonus to hit. Being precise is reliably hitting the right thing. You did not.

This encounter is not an example that the monk is weak or strong. Just as it is not an example that any individual character is weak or strong. That's not what I'm getting at. I am pointing out the simple failures, as they stand. Reasons for those failures can be attributed, but in such cases, specific, precise information is needed. This means "bad luck" isn't good enough. "5% chance of failure" is, however, a good qualifier. It is precise.


But he does not need the same magical defense buffs. If he IS buffed, he is then even stronger. I do not think that it can be doubted that a class with +8 to will saves is better than a class with +4 to saves and will remain so once both classes will receive a +2 to saves. Inaccurate. A class with +8 to will saves has a better likelihood of passing a will save than a class with +4. Overall better and worse? Not enough information. That said, if they both receive Protection from X, making them immune to dominate, then immunity precludes the need for a save at all.


1. Lilian ordered Gladiator to share the bed with her after having revealed her true nature (tentacles included).
Now, I do not fully know what a lawful good ascetic hero of a notoriously xenophobic race would normally do, but having some pleasure with an evil alien after said alien mind-controlled him and was responsible for the death of his comrades IS going against someone's nature in my book.And you are entitled to that opinion. Still, it is an opinion, and entirely so. It does not invalidate the ruling.


2. Whenever you order a dominated creature to lower its save, it is going against its nature. You may be tricked when charmed into believing a particular spell is of benefitting nature. You may even succumb to a suggestion to do so. But when you fight a mental control, it is quite difficult imo to be tricked by the controller that a spell cast on you is going to be beneficiary.In the examples I gave, there is no situation where it's considered acceptable to the character. If there is even one situation where it would be considered acceptable to not resist a saving throw, it's debatable. Unless that specific example of his nature is detailed, and in his character history, then it's open to interpretation. For example, that may have been enough for someone who is on record as being distrustful of all magic.


In no way did I think that the monk-doubting section would count rolling a 3 on 1d20 in the strongest monk's save as evidence that the whole class is weak.And I'm not. I stated "the monk failed a save. I'm not stating that a 15% failure chance equates to a weakness. I'm not stating that it's a strength. I'm stating the effect, and the outcome, no more, no less.


I have never suggested that a caster is should ALWAYS EVERY FIRST ROUND in combat buff the MONK IN PARTICULAR.
But at the levels we are talking about here (i.e. 12th), I do not see any reason at all, why casters should not spare some long-lasting 1st-3rd level spells to the non-casters of the group when they know there is going to be combat ahead. Because the synergy from doing so is immense (or, like Stoopidtallkid has done prior to the last combat, knowing that there are shadows somewhere, he put deathward on everyone).
There is certainly room for that. However, that's something that is generally agreed upon. If the casters foresee the need at the beginning of the day, excellent. If not, then the proper spells may not be memorized. Spellcasting is one of those things. Sorcerors, even moreso, as their spells are even less flexible.


The non-casters (and not only the monk) also, during every encounter of the day, put their lives at stake to protect the casters long enough for them to cast - and also to protect them when they have cast all their combat spells for the day. Often a buffed full attack can do more damage PER ROUND than a full caster can do with any of his offensive spells, effectively economising a caster's repertoire for the day.Agreed. However, that is teamwork. That is not an example of what the monk was actually performing, which is precisely the opposite.


This is what imo a group is about. The more abstract strategic recommendations for group play that you provide above/below are good, but there also needs to be tactical ideas on how a group can work better together. And buffing is part of that.Again, agreed. I believe I said as much. However, it is not the only part, and it should not be expected all the time. Sometimes, there are better uses of a spell slot.

Buffing is a valid and useful strategy. It is not the only valid and useful strategy. As such, certain buffs are used when appropriate, ideally, but the class features of other characters should not be expected to the extent of naming the buffs. Yes, you should expect spellcaster support. You should not expect "Heroism, Bull's Strength, and Enlarge Person". Other people's characters are theirs.


Of course it is not foolproof - as are all spells by casters, for instance.
Interestingly, the monk's high will save allowed him to at least make that second save. Other tanks (Pharao's fist multiclass included) would have had less probabiltiy to avoid ending up to really kill the group.I am not going to the extent of comparing the two. Different classes are treated differently. If I am a cleric, for example, I will take care to make sure that the Barbarian with a +3 Will save gets Protection from X before someone with a +9. This creates different environments. Gameplay does what simple mechanical comparison does not.


No. You can check the spoilers if you do not believe me.Was the save due to rolling a 1? Would a 2 have succeeded? If the answer to either of those is "no", then the situation is exaggerated. The underlying point may or may not be accurate, but please try to be accurate when supporting your point. Earlier, you state that it's like rolling a 1. Then, in this post, you state that it was a 3. That is not like rolling a 1. In the latter, a +2 to saves could have helped. In the former, the only protection is flat out immunity.

- splitting forces really is not good, in particular not in this setting.There are exceptions, but yes. (for example, sending someone around to flank)


- Prepared casters actually are not always at an advantage. Once the enemy also does the unexpected, many of the spells prepared are not appropriate for the situation. Additionally, a lot of spells can be blocked either by simple common tactics (total concealment, for instance), or only a few spells.I didn't say that they are at an advantage compared to other classes. I stated that the nature of spellcasting makes it more difficult to predict the effects of each spell cast. That does benefit the goal of being unpredictable, moreso than most class features.

[mostlyharmful]

What, "btw, I had nonconsensual sex with the demon who tried to kill us all"? That's kinda hard to just blurt out.

It's not something I would want to hear details about for sure. Although now he has kissed and told could we get a Lore/Knowledge roll from our resident expert in character please? With specific focus on whether she's resistant to Acid or Fire damage? Just because you can choose which element you throw around doesn't mean we all can.

Edit: Just visited the thread, ignore me.:smallredface:


(you may suggest Tina to try, though).

:smallannoyed: Stab!:smallannoyed: Stabstabstabstabstab!!!!!:smallyuk:

[PhoenixRivers]

But at the levels we are talking about here (i.e. 12th), I do not see any reason at all, why casters should not spare some long-lasting 1st-3rd level spells to the non-casters of the group when they know there is going to be combat ahead. Because the synergy from doing so is immense (or, like Stoopidtallkid has done prior to the last combat, knowing that there are shadows somewhere, he put deathward on everyone).
The non-casters (and not only the monk) also, during every encounter of the day, put their lives at stake to protect the casters long enough for them to cast - and also to protect them when they have cast all their combat spells for the day. Often a buffed full attack can do more damage PER ROUND than a full caster can do with any of his offensive spells, effectively economising a caster's repertoire for the day.

The flip side to this is: When the melee person gets buffed, manages to get in a position to full attack through either translocation by the caster, or terrain shaping to get him into an advantageous position, and hits the enemy who is weakened by the caster's debuffs...

The following post will be "look how good the melee class is". All of your posts tend to the glorification of a specific element of the group. When you fail a save... Well, you wouldn't if that darn caster had put a couple buffs on you. (you did make a comment to that effect earlier)

When you pass a save with heroism, well, your strong saves let you pass.

That is stealing credit for the synergy when you succeed, and shifting blame for lack of synergy to others when you fail.

As I said before, if you're gonna own the good, own the bad.

When you hit the party with melee, why you're a good and effective class.
When a caster hits the party with AoE, it's a detraction and weakness of an attack that is too imprecise to hit the enemy without hitting allies.

There are double standards that you use, and it would make things much simpler if we used the same metrestick for everyone.

[Sir Giacomo]

well, suspecting the use of double standards appears to vary with perspectives ...

A scenario for you, PhoenixRivers:
Imagine the playtest were called "The wizarding", meant to show that wizards do not suck in combat. Same players and characters.
Then suppose Lilian had dominated Jaya. Who then in combat against the group would have beaten them as clearly as the monk.
Do you really believe ANYONE (including me) would have made strange objections to this clear evidence that wizards are not underpowered, such has
- her will save, the strongest of her class, showed how weak the class is
- she was just lucky (over 11! rounds)
- she was buffed so much by someone else (2 3rd level spells that had any impact)
- the other characters were not that optimised (without their players having no problem at all in the previous combats)
- that all powerful performance should be counted negative due to the dominate effect for the purpose of showing what the class can do theoretically

Do you really believe this?

With this let me close from my side the comments on the last encounter. As originally intended, I will provide a first comprehensive assessment after encounter 8.

- Giacomo

[Starbuck_II]

Do you really believe ANYONE (including me) would have made strange objections to this clear evidence that wizards are not underpowered, such has
- her will save, the strongest of her class, showed how weak the class is
- she was just lucky (over 11! rounds)
- she was buffed so much by someone else (2 3rd level spells that had any impact)
- the other characters were not that optimised (without their players having no problem at all in the previous combats)
- that all powerful performance should be counted negative due to the dominate effect for the purpose of showing what the class can do theoretically


- Giacomo

Wait, couldn't Jaya cast fly himself? So he doesn't really need that buff. Monk can't cast Fly so he needede that buff.

[Logalmier]

well, suspecting the use of double standards appears to vary with perspectives ...

A scenario for you, PhoenixRivers:
Imagine the playtest were called "The wizarding", meant to show that wizards do not suck in combat. Same players and characters.
Then suppose Lilian had dominated Jaya. Who then in combat against the group would have beaten them as clearly as the monk.
Do you really believe ANYONE (including me) would have made strange objections to this clear evidence that wizards are not underpowered, such has
- her will save, the strongest of her class, showed how weak the class is
- she was just lucky (over 11! rounds)
- she was buffed so much by someone else (2 3rd level spells that had any impact)
- the other characters were not that optimised (without their players having no problem at all in the previous combats)
- that all powerful performance should be counted negative due to the dominate effect for the purpose of showing what the class can do theoretically

Do you really believe this?

With this let me close from my side the comments on the last encounter. As originally intended, I will provide a first comprehensive assessment after encounter 8.

- Giacomo

I actually agree with Giacomo here. Just because the monk was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore the fact that he fought well. While I do not agree that monk is as good as he says it is, it's silly to say, "These accomplishments don't matter, because the monk was fighting against the party at the time. " The monk was effective, and that's what matters the most here.

[Arakune]

I actually agree with Giacomo here. Just because the monk was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore the fact that he fought well. While I do not agree that monk is as good as he says it is, it's silly to say, "These accomplishments don't matter, because the monk was fighting against the party at the time. " The monk was effective, and that's what matters the most here.

It was, however, a buffed monk against a debuffed party.

[Claudius Maximus]

I have to say that I can't really take the fact that Gladiator failed a will save he needed to roll a 4 on to be evidence that Monks can't make will saves. He only had a 20% chance of failure.

I think strong saves are definitely a strength of the Monk class, whatever other weaknesses it may have. Even the MAD doesn't hurt them too much in this respect, since the base saves are all strong.

[Kurald Galain]

Just because the monk was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore the fact that he fought well.
Ah, but I wonder if the monk really fought well, bearing in mind that (a) said monk was accompanied by half a dozen others, most notably a high level caster; (b) said high level caster knew how to prepare specifically against the party; (c) said monk had over a dozen buff spells active; (d) said monk isn't actually using monk abilities, unless "being permanently enlarged and full attacking with a spiked chain" is a class feature that somehow got omitted from d20srd.org; (e) the party wasn't in fact trying to kill or damage the monk; (f) due to miscommunication, the party did not start out with the summoned creatures they were planning on; and most importantly (g) the side that the monk was fighting for, LOST.

There's a lot of circumstances there to account for.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Still, what I certainly do not see is that this combat showcased how weak and useless monks are. He even finally shrugged of the domination by himself, something the typical tank character will not be able to do as easily.

I can't help but point out that the typical low will save tank would have also failed the save vs Magic Circle and been protected in short order.


well, suspecting the use of double standards appears to vary with perspectives ...

A scenario for you, PhoenixRivers:
Imagine the playtest were called "The wizarding", meant to show that wizards do not suck in combat. Same players and characters.
Then suppose Lilian had dominated Jaya. Who then in combat against the group would have beaten them as clearly as the monk.
Do you really believe ANYONE (including me) would have made strange objections to this clear evidence that wizards are not underpowered, such has
- her will save, the strongest of her class, showed how weak the class is
- she was just lucky (over 11! rounds)
- she was buffed so much by someone else (2 3rd level spells that had any impact)
- the other characters were not that optimised (without their players having no problem at all in the previous combats)
- that all powerful performance should be counted negative due to the dominate effect for the purpose of showing what the class can do theoretically

Do you really believe this?

So you're going to design a hypothetical situation, entirely under your control, in which the non-existent reaction of people, dictated by you who do not know them well enough to predict their reactions, to prove that we are not being fair to you.

Really? Is this what you have been reduced to? Using make believe to support your arguments?

[Olo Demonsbane]

How about we try this simple experiment?

There is a commoner, and there is a monk.

The commoner has an equivalent level cleric and an equivalent level wizard to buff him. They fight.

If it REALLY is the monk, then the monk should win hands down, because buffs don't matter that much, right? If the buffs do matter more than you think they do, the battle would be much fairer.

[Sir Giacomo]

How about we try this simple experiment?

There is a commoner, and there is a monk.

The commoner has an equivalent level cleric and an equivalent level wizard to buff him. They fight.

If it REALLY is the monk, then the monk should win hands down, because buffs don't matter that much, right? If the buffs do matter more than you think they do, the battle would be much fairer.

Great idea!
And to make things truly comparable, let the commoner have all the buffs that Gladiator the monk had.
Again: I never said that buffs do not matter (that would be absurd given my Joker monk build idea). Only that the buffs in THIS combat did not matter significantly.

- Giacomo

[PhoenixRivers]

I actually agree with Giacomo here. Just because the monk was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore the fact that he fought well. While I do not agree that monk is as good as he says it is, it's silly to say, "These accomplishments don't matter, because the monk was fighting against the party at the time. " The monk was effective, and that's what matters the most here.

The party environment for this "monkening" is here to put it in a realistic game environment.

In such an environment, it's a bad thing to hit your team mates.

The party was designed with a defensive melee role required, to protect against other melee threats.

Not only was this defender not performing the task he was built to do, he was also being a melee threat.

In short, he was attacking the very party gap that he was supposed to be covering.

If we had the same test with a wizard, and the wizard is supposed to keep protection spells on the party...

But he's controlled, and attacks against the very thing that he was supposed to protect from, it says to me that he's exploiting a momentary weakness. Good playing? Perhaps.

But it doesn't say much to the effectiveness of the party. None of the characters, save the monk, were designed on the assumption that they wouldn't have melee support. But they didn't.

It's not a supergoodawesomemonk hitting the crappybadparty.

It's a monk, buffed to the high heavens, attacking the weakness he was supposed to be covering.

[Logalmier]

It's not a supergoodawesomemonk hitting the crappybadparty.

It's a monk, buffed to the high heavens, attacking the weakness he was supposed to be covering.

I never said it was. The monk was buffed, and he was accompanied by a bunch of minions, including the priestess. I agree that this doesn't really show how the monk is a good class, but rather how he was buffed considerably before the fight. I'm just saying that the fact that he was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore his accomplishments.

[Tiki Snakes]

I never said it was. The monk was buffed, and he was accompanied by a bunch of minions, including the priestess. I agree that this doesn't really show how the monk is a good class, but rather how he was buffed considerably before the fight. I'm just saying that the fact that he was fighting against the party does not mean we should ignore his accomplishments.

Frankly, the only relevant stuff from that encounter to any analysis of performance was, at a stretch, the Monk's saving rolls.

Which really, isn't very educational. The rest of it was much more a case of interesting story-related conflict. It really has little to tell us about the monk as a class nor even really Giacomo as a player.

There's little point arguing about the encounter, either way. It shows us nothing. The encounters to follow and the encounters beforehand will and have shown us much more, so if we can just drop the issue and move on? :)

Heh, I know, I know. It's the internet, after all. Just my little joke.

[Logalmier]

There's little point arguing about the encounter, either way. It shows us nothing. The encounters to follow and the encounters beforehand will and have shown us much more, so if we can just drop the issue and move on? :)

Heh, I know, I know. It's the internet, after all. Just my little joke.

NEVER! Never I say!:smallfurious:
Heh, white text. :p

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It seems day three will be having a part 1 and a part 2.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Day 4, part 2 updated.

[Doc Roc]

We Who Serve remain pleased by your antics. You and yours shall continue to dance for our amusement.

[PhoenixRivers]

Indeed. I proclaim this good.

Seems like early CC and battlefield shaping by casters marginalized the offensive powers of the enemy, allowing for the brute squad to work under highly advantageous situations (multiple allies per enemy).

Meanwhile, the arcane caster didn't rest on his laurels, but maintained an active presence throughout the battle, performing spot control, AoE, and direct damage to problematic foes.

All in all, textbook for how a fight should go, by current practices and standards for party dynamics.

[Starbuck_II]

Not the best place for a nap anyway I think.
Good update on journal. Lots of Blasty goodness.

[Sir Giacomo]

Well, I'd not call this "Blasty goodness", but rather "Blasty recklessness".
The casters are so far burning their daily spells at about twice the speed they are supposed to (=roughly needing to rest after the second encounter of the day).

Whenever it is not absolutely necessary, the casters should leave combat to the rogue and the monk. Unfortunately, Jaya cast valuable spells in a situation that could have been handled by Tina (flying and wearing down the undead with arrows even without sneaks) and by Gladiator.

Let us hope there are no attacks before the party can rest again.

- Giacomo

[PhoenixRivers]

Well, Sir Giacomo, in the event that the caster actions of this fight mitigate his effectiveness in the coming fights, then that should come out in those fights.

If, however, the caster performs at an acceptable level for all fights, then the fears you evidence aren't fully founded.

Time shall tell this. No need to guess at the final score before halftime. :)

[Arakune]

Now's the best way to test the monk claims. The spellcasters are almost out of doom spells by now.

[GoC]

Just thought I'd give an unbiased outsider's opinion:
Giacomo has had some very bad luck, especially with the GM cheating (water elementites and 10 will saves per round). However it looks as though without that luck he could have contributed quite well just like Jaya and Dok with only Tina standing out as useless (too few traps!).

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I don't count the water elementites as cheating, though I frown on the number of will saves Saph put him through.

Granted, monks are supposed to have high saves (a selling point Giacomo has made multiple times iirc) but still.

[Saph]

Gladiator hasn't had to make 10 will saves a round from any enemy. The greatest number of will saves against a hostile attack he's had to make per round is 2 (plus an incidental third one).

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm all for a bit of theatric exaggeration, but 300-500% ??

[Kurald Galain]

I think he made ten reflex saves at one point, but that's the predictable result of his choice of tactics, i.e. doing a frontal charge against a hydra.

[PhoenixRivers]

I think he made ten reflex saves at one point, but that's the predictable result of his choice of tactics, i.e. doing a frontal charge against a hydra.

LOL. That would then be expected, yes.

[Sir Giacomo]

LOL. That would then be expected, yes.

Yes- if only he had charged...but he did not. :smallamused:
Edit: Kurald Galain, why do you keep doing this?

On that luck thing: so far my rolls were OK on average, but quite unlucky in decisive scenes.

- Giacomo

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Yes- if only he had charged...but he did not. :smallamused:
Edit: Kurald Galain, why do you keep doing this?

I believe Kurald is using the colloquial definition of the word "charged".

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Update: I hate water.

[Sir Giacomo]

You may wish to add some more kills of Gladiator:
a shadow (back in the 3rd encounter) and apart from the ice zombie (or whatever that was) also a gaze attack undead in the last (full combat) encounter. Jaya also killed one of each of these iirc.

- Giacomo

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I understand that Tina would be too weak to survive treachery in their middle. So I could go. But: I do not get along well with people that I do not know.


I think this drives home my point on how monks aren't free from the need for Int (and therefore MAD), since 4+Int Mod skill points per level aren't quite enough, especially when buying UMD cross class.

[mostlyharmful]

to be fair Gia was given the 'tank' role to build around not the face.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I have been recalculating the kills.

So far, Dok is in the lead with 6, Jaya* and Gladiator tied with 5, and Tina in last place with 2.

However, since Dok won't be participating in the ensuing kill fest, we'll see where this goes.

*Killed the two Moil zombies after they got back up. They were weak though, so I'm mentioning them in a footnote. Jaya takes the lead if they're counted as actual kills.

[mostlyharmful]

I have been recalculating the kills.

So far, Dok is in the lead with 6, Jaya* and Gladiator tied with 5, and Tina in last place with 2.

However, since Dok won't be participating in the ensuing kill fest, we'll see where this goes.

*Killed the two Moil zombies after they got back up. They were weak though, so I'm mentioning them in a footnote. Jaya takes the lead if they're counted as actual kills.

I'm really not sure about this ranking purely by kills. Given that the roll of the wizard is to blast in this and the role of the face/trap girl is in providing skillchecks (and recon information as at the moment).

Not saying we can't start to draw conclusions from this test but bare in mind we're not all shooting for the same thing.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I don't mean anything like that, I've just been keeping track of statistics and felt it worth mentioning.

[PhoenixRivers]

Well, when we have the following:

Divine/Healbot: Highest
Blaster/Melee DPS: Next
Skillmonkey: Last

Skillmonkey is to be expected. It's showing she's trying to contribute.
The others? Shows the strength of the Divine class.

As for monk/arcanist? Well, with in combat performance tied, move to deaths, and the monk's slightly behind.

Overall Combat:

Divine/healbot //\\ Blaster : Highest (blaster by virtue of less deaths)
Melee DPS: Next
Skillmonkey: Last

While it's close between the blaster/divine and the blaster/melee, that's where everything pretty much sits.

Out of combat contributions? Healing/Noncombat Skills/Beneficial out of combat spells?

[term1nally s1ck]

Hmm...What were the conditions for building the Monk? I might see what I can come up with under the same circumstances (Likelihood is that I'll at least have more than 5 ranks in UMD....making them useful in combat, and allowing you to use the TANK to control the battlefield better. That is, after all, the main purpose of the character.

Oh, and a way to get magic weapons.

IMO, to run a tank efficiently, you have to make the enemy either want to attack you more than the other PCs, or make it very hard for the enemy to attack them at all. Then you need to get the best defences you can, so you can take said attacks. I'll see what's available in core, as my usual build for that sort of thing would be a 'I may be Tiny but you're dead' build, focusing on the taunt and defences.

And some advice: IMO, if you're playing a Tank, going on the offence is the WORST thing you could do. What's wrong with Readied actions? You could disrupt spells, intercept charges, and thoroughly mess up most of the enemies' moves. Your job is to give the casters freedom to do as they wish, instead of burning valuable spell slots on stuff to avoid death. I mean, come on, your main damage dealer is having to use her Contingency as a defence to avoid dying, and has used it regularly. You're really not doing this job right if stuff like that is being used that often.

Anyway.

MM, PHB, DMG, Straight Monk 12, and Tank as the party role. I'll see what I can do. Tanking is my particular brand of expertise.


EDIT: And, to be completely fair, you are playing at a weak level for the Monk. 1 more level and it gets SR23, which would be very useful.

[mostlyharmful]

EDIT: And, to be completely fair, you are playing at a weak level for the Monk. 1 more level and it gets SR23, which would be very useful.

One more level and the rogue gets another special ability and the casters get 7th level spells....

[term1nally s1ck]

More of the same, however...and while good, it's hard to get good defences against spells that don't offer a save (or only offer a partial save) as a monk. This level offers a slight boost in UA damage (1.5 average per hit), and an extra 10' speed....(and the feat, but that's any class)
EDIT: And the saves go up, too...meh

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Hmm...What were the conditions for building the Monk?

Core only. Have fun.

[mostlyharmful]

Gia also insisted on the 1/4 WBL max per item houserule

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Also, no multiclassing.

[term1nally s1ck]

Ok. And is the odd descriptor in his char sheet an actual variant, or just hyperbole?

Be warned, since apart from spells there are no stuns/battlefield control apart from grappling/tripping, the main part of the Monk I'll be using is its defences. Flurry of Blows, while nice, is barely if ever going to be used, I'll be more likely to use a grapple, trip, or wand to gain a better effect, since I'm supposed to be playing a tank. If I were using it as a general frontline damage dealer, then you should use a quarterstaff with TWF, and get about 6 attacks on a full attack.

Your average tank should get almost no kills, but should make it very very easy for the rest of the party to do whatever they wish, so my offence will be limited to being a massive pain in the rear end for the enemies. I'll build it tonight.

[mostlyharmful]

So... if encountering CR appropriate critters counts how long do you need to sneak around them before it counts as a victory?